Post #377159

2026-02-23 04:57 UTC

RE: https://vis.social/@infobeautiful/116109430224379547 Hi, it's me, from the "BloombergNEF" cited in that chart. While directionally accurate, 2024 was not over 600GW (2025 was about 655GW but this chart is older than that). There is uncertainty around solar build data but not that much. So it's a bad construction using incorrect data and I wish it would stop spreading around.

Replies (3)

@solar_chase@mastodon.green 2026-02-23 05:07

This one, from "Information is Beautiful", (infobeautiful@vis.social), btw.

Open ##2820775
@leadegroot@bne.social 2026-02-23 09:16

@solar_chase@mastodon.green @futzle@old.mermaid.town its about being attractively presented, not about the numbers (ive seen them blatantly wrong before. I wish they were right. Pretty isn’t enough :( )

Open ##2820785
@rachelplusplus@tech.lgbt 2026-02-23 14:12

@solar_chase@mastodon.green I remembered seeing a similar graph on Wikipedia a while ago, so went to have a quick look at what graphs their solar power article currently uses. Turns out their version of this graph only goes up to 2016: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reality_versus_IEA_predictions_-_annual_photovoltaic_additions_2002-2016.png They do also have a more up-to-date breakdown of installations, just without the comparison to earlier predictions. That one puts 2023 as just under 450GW (peak), citing BloombergNEF, which is even higher than the Information is Beautiful graph! Do you know what's going on with that? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-_New_solar_installations_-_annually_by_country_or_region.svg

Open ##2820786