[epistasis]

Solar and batteries got cheaper when we scaled up and built a lot. You have to pay current prices to get the next price drop, because it's all learning by doing.

If we had pushed harder in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, solar might have gotten cheaper sooner. Solar fit in at the edges of the market as it grew: remote locations for power, or small scale settings where running a wire is inconvenient or impractical. The really big push that put solar over the edge was Germany's energiwende public policy that encouraged deploying a ton of solar in a country with exceptionally poor solar resources; but even with that promise of a market, massive scale up was guaranteed.

It's in many ways a collective action problem. Even in this thread, in 2025 you will see people wondering when we will have effective battery technology, because they have been misinformed for so long that batteries are ineffective that they don't see the evidence even in the linked article.

Also, most people do not understand technology learning curves, and how exponential growth changes things. Even in Silicon Valley, where the religion of the singularity is prevalent and where everyone is familiar with Moore's law, the propaganda against solar and batteries has been so strong that many do not realize the tech curves that solar and batteries enjoy.

A lot of this comes down to who has the money to spend on public influence too, which is largely the fossil fuel industry, who spends massive amounts on both politicians and in setting up a favorable information environment in the media. Solar and batteries are finally getting significant revenues, but they have been focused more on execution than on buying politics and buying media. They have benefited from environmental advocates that want to decarbonize, without a doubt, but that doesn't have the same effect as a very targeted media propaganda campaign that results in zealots that, whenever they see an article about climate change, call up their local paper and chew out the management with screaming. Much of the media is very afraid of right wing nuts on the matter and it puts a huge tilt on the coverage in the mass media in favor of fossil fuels and against climate science.

[angleofrepose]

Indeed. You widen the conversation here, and remind me of the idea that moneyed influence is underrepresented in analysis and understanding of the world. Maybe the most appropriate way to understand big questions is who is funding the various players.

I like to think about "learn by doing". While I have of course lived it, I try to think of counterpoints. It seems clear that solar owes it's growth to Germany and California policies which subsidized the global solar industry with taxes on their economies, most disproportionately placed on individual ratepayers. But why couldn't solar research have been long-term funded based on it's fundamental value? Talk about national security, or geopolitical stability -- especially post 1970s! Skip the intermediate and expensive buildouts of the 2000s, failed companies heavily subsidized and fund research instead to hopefully bring the late 2010s forward in time?

What's a good model here, or concrete example? We see the same side of the history in electric vehicles. I think Tesla and Rivian, to pick two, both lost money on every sale in early years. Why not skip that expensive step in company history, and develop better products to sell at a profit from the beginning of mass manufacturing? Are there industries or technologies where this expensive/slow process went the other way?

[epistasis]

> It seems clear that solar owes it's growth to Germany and California policies which subsidized the global solar industry with taxes on their economies, most disproportionately placed on individual ratepayers. But why couldn't solar research have been long-term funded based on it's fundamental value

I think this is a really important distinction, that between research in the lab versus research on the factory floor. Tesla in particular has talked about how much they value engineers that get down in to the production process versus those that are working in the lab. That's the "doing" that needs to happen. As well as shaking out parts of the upstream supply chains and making all that cheaper.

We can theorize about what's going to work in practice, but the price drops are the combination of 1% savings here, 0.75% savings there, 0.5% there, and until you have the full factory going you won't be able to fully estimate your actual numbers, much less come up with all the sequential small improvements that build on each other. And all that comes together in the design of the next factory that's the next magnitude up in size.

[angleofrepose]

I hear that, it seems a common observation. Maybe a fundamental truth of enterprise.

> until you have the full factory going you won't be able to fully estimate your actual numbers, much less come up with all the sequential small improvements that build on each other.

Why not? Is there a theory or school of management or industry that establishes this foundational principle that seems so commonly invoked? It feels true, but I don't really know why it might be true. There must also be great examples of counterpoints in this too!

Maybe it goes back to learn by doing: it's a common refrain in outdoor recreation that safety rules are written in blood; that many of our guidelines directly follow from bad things that happened. But certainly we can also design safety rules by thinking critically about our activities. Learn by doing vs theory.

[dgacmu]

It's literally studied as "learning" in the management science literature.

For example: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2015.235...

> We find that productivity improves when multiple generations of the firm’s primary product family are produced concurrently, reflecting the firm’s ability to augment and transfer knowledge from older to newer product generations.