Why everyone missed solar's exponential growth

Working in an investment bank that's build around 800 solar plants over the world in the previous decade with steep competition from a lot of other investors I'd argue that not everyone missed it. The next big boom is in battery storage, but the projects and investments took off a year or two ago with production factories nearing completion. Part of what shot it up was when various EU countries raised their green energy targets from 60-80%. In Germany alone that will require a 800% growth for battery storage financials before 2030.

I'm not sure which semi-professional to professional investors missed that here in Europe though. In fact we've seen so many companies shoot up around these things that the recent economic downturns is causing quite a lot of bankruptcies. Which are then bought up by larger investment funds.

From a tech perspective... There is going to be a lot of potential in building the technical layer between a plant and the "internet". None of the current systems, including market leaders that I'm not going to name drop, aren't very good. Part of the reason is because things like inverters and other solar plant tech has absolutely no standardization. They are ridiculously different, meaning you need actual programmers to onboard each plant unless someone builds some form of engineering standard. Currently it seems like each piece of tech basically has it's software designed by the individual engineer who made it. What is even more hilarious is that the systems made for solar, wind, batteries and so on don't work together.

I'm working in the "plant" to "internet" space you mentioned and seeing this first-hand. Would be very keen to have a chat if you have the time please. Email in bio.

So, you are the guy exposing us to adverse foreign actors? How would you feel about being charged with treason in a few years?

And I am only half-joking, see https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/the-gigantic-unregulated-p... for the explanation.

> Currently it seems like each piece of tech basically has it's software designed by the individual engineer [...].

> ... There is going to be a lot of potential in building the technical layer between a plant and the "internet"

These two statements are contradictive. What you need here is exactly the opposite of one-more tech-layer.

What you need is not one more bullshit startup that try to bring one-more of its proprietary tech stac to unify them all.

What you need is international standardization and protocols. Exactly like that the IUT is doing in the Telecom domain.

> In Germany alone that will require a 800% growth for battery storage financials before 2030.

Great to see additional public money to be spend to enrich private investors due to the German nuclear phase out. The 400 billions from the Energiewende are indeed not enough when we see the current carbon intensity of the country. #irony

"Everyone missed" and "no one is talking about" are just click baits.

The linked article actually raises a very interesting point about how solar panel manufacturers' management apps, which mostly operate through server backends they control, have enabled them to acquire very significant, yet currently unregulated (in the Netherlands) control over many gigawatts of electricity, without anyone really noticing. It argues that this should be much more heavily regulated.

But I almost didn't read it, because of the insane accusation of treason in the parent post.

> Great to see additional public money to be spend to enrich private investors due to the German nuclear phase out. The 400 billions from the Energiewende are indeed not enough when we see the current carbon intensity of the country. #irony

As the nuclear plants were also owned and operated by private investors, I don't see why the German people shouldn't be allowed to say that they don't want nuclear power in their backyard. This certainly set back the climate goals of the country as did Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine.

400 bn EUR is indeed not a lot if you consider that it was spent to be part of an effort to kickstart solar and wind industries. Which worked and delivered a downward trajectory for LCOE which put solar, wind and soon batteries on the map.

> I don't see why the German people shouldn't be allowed to say that they don't want nuclear power in their backyard.

Did they ? https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/two-thirds-germans-agai...

> 400 bn EUR [...] Which worked and delivered a downward trajectory for LCOE which put solar, wind and soon batteries on the map.

400bn€ represents 26 European pressured nuclear at the current Olkiluoto cost . With 1.6GW per reactor, so around 42.6GW of raw stable power for Germany. Almost 70% of the entire freaking German consumption.

Considering the installed Hydro and solar capacity, the entire electricity production would be de-carbonated at ~80% in Germany if this amount would have been spent on Nuclear instead of masturbation.

> it was spent to be part of an effort to kickstart solar and wind industries

Sorry. You meant spent on importing Chinese produced solar panels and a bankrupting Siemens wind power ?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/siemens-energy-revie...

jQuery proved that it can be a fully reasonable way to achieve standardization.

Then of course there's the classic xckd about standards. There's no one true way.

> Working in an investment bank that's build around 800 solar plants over the world i

How long does it take a new vertical to reach bankability?

For example, imagine floating ESS giga packs for shipping ports. 80% of the capex are tier 1 battery packs. And a 10 year PPA from the port. And after 1 or 2 FoaKs.

How long before NoaK projects can get 80-20 debt financing with PV-level interest rates?

> What you need is international standardization and protocols

A: Some form of top-down waterfall-model of standards?

B: Some survival-of-the-fittest standard like WHATWG vs W3C?

C: Standardisation is a fantasy word where government policy is effective at design of engineering systems/APIs?

D: Other solutions (ideally with recent examples in modern industries)

The difficulty with standards is aligning the incentives of producers (countries, companies) with consumers. That's the problem we already have, standardisation just adds extra complexity to that problem.

This comes two days after, so not sure if you might ever read it.

> "Did they?"

The April 2023 poll reflects a divided opinion under energy cost pressures from Russia’s aggression. One-third opposed extensions, one-third supported them, and one-third favored temporary extensions—hardly a consensus against prior nuclear phase-out decisions made democratically in 2011 post-Fukushima.

> "400bn€ represents 26 European pressured nuclear..."

400bn€ decarbonized over 50% of the grid. This can’t be directly compared to reactor construction alone since nuclear entails significant long-term costs for running, decommissioning and waste disposal. Germany’s nuclear operators already allocated billions for waste storage and disposal (34bn EUR for 17 plants), and it’s unclear if this will suffice as one failed attempt to store nuclear waste temporarily at Asse failed and is projected to cost at lesat 4bn EUR to clean up. Meanwhile, renewables scaled rapidly, avoiding the delays plaguing nuclear projects like Olkiluoto.

My opinion is that Nuclear is already so far behind the cost trajectory of today's solar and wind that it will never recover. Solar will expand by another magnitude and Nuclear will become even more costly.

> "Spent on importing Chinese panels and bankrupting Siemens wind power?"

Chinese dominance in solar manufacturing is relatively new and Europe/Germany squandered their leading role, because they failed their industrial policy in the mid 2010s. China drove cost reductions so steep that over two-thirds of solar costs are now domestic: land, installation, and grid connection. Unlike fossil fuels, solar ensures local economic gains, with China unlikely to profit from solar as the Middle East did from oil. Siemens’ wind issues are a corporate misstep, not a referendum on wind's viability, as it remains crucial for global decarbonization.

Germany’s investment wasn’t a waste — it built a renewable infrastructure capable of rapidly scaling to meet climate goals. Nuclear might offer stability, but it’s slow, costly, and less suited to the urgency of today’s energy transition.