The growth of solar energy has exploded in the past few years.
According to Our World in Data, solar’s share of global electricity production jumped
from 0.15% percent in 2010 to over 4.52% in 2022.
This has left even the most optimistic solar adoption predictions in the dust.
And everyone from skeptical naysayers to the loudest cheerleaders have been taken by surprise.
In a 2012 Harvard Business School paper, researchers referred to solar as “the most expensive
renewable energy.”
Compare that to about a decade later where we’re entering solar’s “terawatt age.”
The sun is now widely regarded as the _cheapest_ way to generate electricity.
If there were ever a time to get in on solar, it would be now.
So, how did we get here?
How on earth did the industry manage to pull this off?
And more importantly…why were everyone’s predictions, both for and against solar, so
wrong?
I’m Matt Ferrell … welcome to Undecided.
A portion of this video is brought to you by Larq, but more on that later.
Solar’s successful transformation into an accessible, clean source of energy is a big
jump from its previous reputation as a too expensive fossil fuel alternative.
In 2010, fossil fuel power plants represented about two-thirds of newly built electricity
in the U.S.
In 2022, solar now makes up half of all power capacity added to the grid, with another quarter
going to wind.
Only about 17% went to nonrenewables.
On top of that, last year solar deployment beat out new installations of every other
power source combined.
I could throw statistics about solar’s rocket-like ascension at you all day.
But maybe one of the most relevant figures to hit the latest headlines is that according
to the IEA, solar is on track to beat out fossil fuel investment this year.
Only five years ago, the ratio of money spent on fossil fuels to renewables was about one-to-one.
These days, though?
In the words of IEA’s executive director, Faith Birol:
“For every dollar invested in fossil fuels, about 1.7 dollars are now going into clean
energy.”
Considering solar’s extensive history of being sidelined for fossil fuels that were
cheaper in the short-term, this is amazing progress.
In the long run, however, the rate of solar adoption is just like any other form of technology
for two main reasons.
To fully understand why, we’ll have to take a step back into the past…and the cornfields
of Iowa.
The year is 1962, and it’s an exciting time for both science … and the science of science.
Thomas Kuhn publishes “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” which introduced
the concept that would evolve into what we now know as a “paradigm shift.”
The first use of the phrase “personal computer” appears in a New York Times article titled
“Pocket Computer May Replace Shopping List.”
And Everett Rogers popularizes the adoption curve model in his book “Diffusion of Innovations.”
You might have heard about adoption curves before, but in case you haven’t, here’s
a quick rundown.
The seminal investigation that led to the development of the Diffusion of Innovations
framework was about none other than trendy crops.
In the 1940s, Iowa State University sociologists Bryce Ryan and Neal C. Gross studied how long
it took for local communities to start planting hybrid seed corn.
Agricultural researchers released the product in 1927, and a bit over a decade later, virtually
every farmer in the state was shucking the stuff.
Ryan and Gross sought to determine how the practice spread, and in the pair’s 1943
study, they noted that what they called “the diffusion pattern” of the corn’s rate
of adoption had three stages.
First, there was a “long period of slow initial growth,” then a “rapid rise in
adoption,” and finally “a brief decline as the most resistant adopters accepted the
technique.”
If that sounds familiar, it’s because Rogers built upon these observations.
In fact, his own father was a “resistant adopter” who didn’t use the newfangled
corn.
Rogers collaborated on the diffusion research, and eventually he developed a mathematical
means of expressing rates of adoption, an S-shaped curve that looks like this...
The cumulative number of growers using hybrid seed corn followed this sigmoid curve, the
same way things have shaken out with pretty much any major technological upheaval you
can imagine.
And as time passes, these slopes have only ever been getting steeper and steeper.
Here’s a famous graph by designer Nicholas Felton, which was originally featured in a
2008 New York Times piece.
Even with the data ending in 2005, you can see how adoption curves have progressively
gravitated toward a practically vertical incline.
So, since the ‘60s, researchers from all fields…not just ones filled with corn…have
applied Diffusion of Innovation theory to everything from promoting healthy habits to
selling software.
And the popularity of using solar power to generate electricity, like many other ideas,
happens to be a _quintessential_ example of how adoption curves work.
There’s another very important aspect to adoption curves that we can’t forget.
But before getting to that there’s another technology you might be interested in adopting
… and that’s from today’s sponsor, Larq.
If you’ve been following my channel, you know I’ve been building a new home, which
I’m standing in right now … and it’s a good distance away from my old house.
There’s been a lot of back and forth trips, which I like to take an insulated bottle of
cold water with us on.
I’m trying to reduce how much one-time use plastic I use in my life.
But the best options I’ve used have twist tops, which make it really hard to drink and
use on the go.
LARQ’s Swig Top Bottle turned out to be the perfect solution for me.
It’s incredible at keeping the water ice cold all day.
On one trip, I left it in a hot car for an entire afternoon and there were still ice
chunks in the bottle at the end of the day.
It keeps water cold for up to 24 hours.
The wide-mouth opening is great for taking large swigs of water and the cap is magnetic
so stays open while you’re using it.
Really handy if you need to take a drink while driving.
I really love this thing when I’m traveling.
Use the link in the description below to order yourself a LARQ Swig Top Bottle to go plastic
free and enjoy ice cold water throughout the entire day.
Thanks to Larq and to all of you for supporting the channel.
So let’s get back to that other important aspect to adoption curves … brains.
No, we’re not talking about zombies.
Human psychology is the first reason why Rogers’ theory is so relevant to solar.
But if we wanted to start all the way to the left side of the curve and thoroughly discuss
solar innovators, we’d be traveling back thousands of years to the days of ancient
China and Greece, when the orientation of the sun was a crucial consideration in architecture.
The reason why is kind of funny.
Same as us — to save money on utility bills.
However, as fascinating as the history of solar energy is, we only need to look into
the recent past to get a sense of its rise.
As recently as the 2010s, interest in solar was waning.
Its economics were failing, and oil companies like Shell and BP — some of solar’s most
significant supporters — began to divest from the technology.
Shell’s chief executive put it this way in 2010:
“...We are prepared to invest in Research & Development, including in alternative energies.
But our activities need to give us profitability.
We’re a company like any other and we need to make a profit in order to exist.”
The next year, BP Solar shut down, with the company also declaring the division unprofitable.
Then, Suntech, one of the world’s largest solar manufacturers, went bankrupt in 2013.
In that 2012 paper I mentioned earlier, Harvard researchers wrote that “solar energy has
never lived up to the potential which its adherents claimed.”
That hurts.
Of course, not everyone lost faith in the technology.
In 2010, the environmentalist group Greenpeace estimated that the world would install about
335,000 MW of solar by 2020, which represented a 737.5% increase.
The organization, despite its high hopes, was very, very wrong…in the best possible
way.
By 2021, we broke into _terawatt_ territory in terms of installed capacity instead.
Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency assumed in the 2010 edition of its World Energy
Outlook report that photovoltaics would drop in cost from more than $350 per MWh to just
over $200 per MWh by 2020.
However, right now the global weighted average levelized cost of energy or LCOE is sitting
at about $120 per MWh … with energy storage … and about $50 per MWh without.
It’s kind of insane.
To put solar’s intense price drops into a consumer’s perspective, it would cost
you over a million dollars to install an average sized rooftop solar panel system on a home
back in 1975, with each PV module priced at about $115 per watt.
By 2010, the cost per watt effectively started to flatline.
And as of 2021, modules go for about $0.27 per watt, and the average U.S. homeowner spends
roughly $20,000 on a rooftop solar system.
Not to mention the prices of rooftop systems are way lower in countries like Australia
and Germany, and have been for a while now.
What does this have to do with adoption curves?
Well, the general public has known about the dangers of climate change as early as the
‘50s.
It’s also _been_ common knowledge that solar can provide an inexpensive means of producing
power since the late 19th century.
For example, in 1874, French inventor Augustin Mouchot finished his design of one of the
earliest solar devices, which could drive a steam engine.
Here’s where Rogers comes in.
His work can offer some clarity as to the psychological reasons behind solar’s popularity
(or lack thereof).
There’s five major attributes of innovations within Diffusion of Innovations theory, and
relative advantage seems to be the one that has knocked solar the most.
Innovations that are preventative in nature, like renewable energy tech, are inherently
less attractive because there’s no immediate, or sometimes even visible, payoff.
When an idea is introduced to people for the sake of reducing the chances of a bad thing
happening, rather than to produce a fortunate outcome, people tend to be less interested.
This is just as much a problem with climate change education as it is when advocating
for limited consumption of red meat or avoiding smoking — any public health official can
tell you that.
And several times throughout history, the feasibility of solar has been investigated
for the precise purpose of averting or mitigating fuel crises.
Mouchot’s motivation?
Finding an alternative to coal, which France had no choice but to import.
He was concerned about the supply one day running out.
Similar worries propelled Swedish-American inventor John Ericsson, who also built a solar
steam engine within a few years of Mouchot.
Now we’ve covered the sociological factors that influenced solar’s adoption curve,
but what else stopped solar from catching on earlier?
You probably don’t need me to tell you: money.
Solar worked — but it was an investment.
In the days of Ericsson and Mouchot, solar pumps cost anywhere from two to five times
more than a conventional power plant.
The eventual payback and elimination of fuel costs just wasn’t enough of an advantage
to edge out steam.
In an eerie prediction near his death, Ericsson wrote: “until the coal mines are exhausted,
the value of solar will not be fully acknowledged.”
Such is the curse of a low relative advantage.
And so, high upfront costs continued to scare off generations upon generations of would-be
solar adopters.
It played out the same way with solar power plants in the early 1900s and the solar water
heater industries of the ‘20s, ‘30s…and ‘60s.
Across borders and over multiple eras, whenever the price of coal, natural gas, or oil dropped,
sales in sun-powered tech plummeted, too.
Solar was firmly stuck.
How did it get unstuck?
As it turns out, Rogers also has an answer for that.
Another component of Diffusion of Innovations theory is the notion of “critical mass.”
When an innovation reaches critical mass, the struggle of selling to someone who isn’t
buying effectively disappears.
Its spread no longer needs to be helped along.
The snowball has rolled into an avalanche.
We’ve all experienced critical mass at some point in our lives, whether it was the transition
from landlines to cell phones, the evolution of cell phones into smartphones, or the proliferation
of social media.
It’s also worth noting that as an innovation approaches critical mass, each new person
that joins the wave adds to its value for future adopters.
This _can_ happen in reverse, though, and it’s evident in the boom-bust cycles of
past solar ventures.
When someone is under the impression that other people are abandoning an innovation,
you get a domino effect that threatens its survival.
No doubt this phenomenon had a role in the end of any previous solar heyday…and that’s
why you can find solar water heaters in the state of Florida that are a century old.
After World War II, the electricity prices that residents skirted with solar finally
went down, and obtaining hot water from the sun wasn’t practical … or hip.
What factors keep this from happening?
There are multiple paths that lead to critical mass, but one stands out for solar: incentives.
Rewarding early adopters allows innovations to inch up the curve until they pass the threshold
of critical mass.
We can see this clearly in the influence of feed-in tariffs implemented by China, Germany,
and Japan.
By encouraging the production of renewable energy over the course of the past few decades,
these countries are now…ahead of the curve.
As of 2022, China has emerged as the top photovoltaics market, Germany is in the top three in terms
of solar PV watts per capita, and Japan is fourth in the world in total amount of solar
capacity.
That's why defanging programs like net metering is so destructive to the renewable energy
transition.
Without incentives to encourage early adoption by those who can afford to take risks and
absorb high upfront costs, _any_ technology is susceptible to losing momentum.
I have an entire video about the consequences of the misconception that incentivizing solar
rooftops is unfair, so if you're interested in learning more about that, I'll put that
in the description.
With this understanding of history and science in mind, it should come as no surprise that
the United States’ passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has given solar’s credibility
a big boost.
You can take it straight from the industry side: In February, Aurora Solar conducted
a survey of 898 solar professionals in the U.S. Of the respondents, over 45% of solar
installers credit the IRA with increased interest in solar.
Another 40% expect this solar star power to increase in the future.
Meanwhile, when the Swiss solar module manufacturer, Meyer Burger, announced its new U.S.-based
factory last July, they cited the IRA and Colorado’s generous tax incentives as the
reason why.
So, the U.S. institutes a bunch of tax incentives and suddenly, solar’s one of the cool kids
again.
Funny how that’s the same way it’s worked everywhere else.
According to pv magazine, 69% of the world’s solar is currently concentrated in China,
the US, Japan, Germany, and India.
In the end, the solar’s advancement from fringe to fashionable is wonderful, but predictable.
It’s always been about money...and human psychology.
Scientists have also always struggled with the difference between what people know and
what people do.
There’s actually a term for it: the “value-action gap” or “knowledge-attitudes-practice
gap.”
And lack of movement toward protecting ourselves and the environment are classic conundrums.
Behavior change is a tough sell.
Quick and easy solutions — especially those backed by governments — are not.
Same as it ever was.
Did you always think solar was going to be the dominant technology?
Jump into the comments and let me know.
And be sure to check out my follow up podcast Still TBD where we'll be discussing some of
your feedback.
Thanks to all of my patrons, who get ad free versions of every video.
I’ll see you in the next one.