Pour une approche plus mathématisée, il faut voir du côté de https://t.co/3BRIjaPYr4 . 17/x
@robbieorvis @HMcJeon @EmilDimanchev @drvolts @HakonNordhagen Agreed that correlation does not imply causation. Causation aside, the relationship between cost/price and cumulative production has been observed for a range of technologies, see, e.g., https:
@AlgeMartin Empfehle ⬇️https://t.co/T5Ej9VPD0h
@Ramosen26 @BenPHeard https://t.co/0prOoVLNJ1 https://t.co/gJksVzZtel Yes, predicting the future is incredibly difficult, but assuming the status quo is also predicting the future. It is also far easier to make incremental decisiond for batteries and sol
@Wizard_of_Ouzo @florianaigner @BillRoth21 Wrights Law wurde zuerst für Flugzeuge beschrieben. Empfehle die entsprechende Literatur dazu. (zb ⬇️) Wrights-Law/Moores Law ist bei bei Flugzeugen Batterien, Windkraft, Solar , Bierproduktion und anderem zu beob
@Ben_Reinhardt Nagy and collaborators, e.g. https://t.co/ARJDWXodH7 and of course Wright https://t.co/udOxtUppOG
@BoToBeAl1 @synth_ethics Que pensez vous de ces articles scientifiques ? Sont-ils le fait d'astrologues ? https://t.co/FONvFrWXIt https://t.co/iPAn5vKLKh https://t.co/1ZKi0ktmjf Je vous conseille de lire le dernier, particulièrement intéressant, car ayant
RT @AukeHoekstra: This MIT study makes clear that Wright's law (and it's less precise but famous and easy cousin Moore's law) are among the…
@JGraabak @LinchZhang When Wrightean learning curves are combined with more usage because of lower price you get Sahal's and Moore's law. This shows up for many chemicals. https://t.co/WZaiz2LOSb
RT @AukeHoekstra: This MIT study makes clear that Wright's law (and it's less precise but famous and easy cousin Moore's law) are among the…
@jasoncrawford Exponential progress tends to require exponential demand for a given product, vide semiconductors. That's why Wright's law is a better proxy than Moore's law: https://t.co/M13pNLqv1k The issue then is to create enough demand in the early pa
@curryja I'm sure if he took the time to look into "Wright's Law" (https://t.co/mUPFS3Bvd4) he'd get it a lot better. It takes DEPLOYMENT to bring down costs.
RT @anderssandberg: Would expect a Sahal's law effect too, as cheap batteries get used far more widely pushing the Wrightean learning along…
Would expect a Sahal's law effect too, as cheap batteries get used far more widely pushing the Wrightean learning along. https://t.co/WZaiz2LOSb
@CathieDWood Just for those who don't think that Wrights law is a thing. https://t.co/WjaKrTc2vx This Technical Paper Should explain. or this Forbes article for something a bit easier to chew on. https://t.co/K7hh5qbixu
@kyleschutter @J_Lovering @jamesonmcb Learning rates should be denominated in units produced, not time. See Nagy et al 2013 https://t.co/ARJDWXodH7 Regulation should just increase cost/unit. There may also be a forgetting curve that works in units of time
@EdPheil @J_Lovering @jamesonmcb Sorry, it's a power law in the number of units. Often exponential in time when it's working https://t.co/ARJDWX6CPz
@ramez @JustinHGillis @ElephantEating @robbieorvis @JesseJenkins @vsiv @cleantechsonia @jgkoomey @leahstokes @solar_chase @Ericdwilliams0 On a related note, here's a plot from Nagy 2013 showing rather large and growing forecast errors for PV LCOE (using Mo
@ramez @ElephantEating @jgkoomey @PauliJllo @JustinHGillis @JesseJenkins @robbieorvis @vsiv @cleantechsonia @leahstokes for your reference, statistical basis for predicting technological progress https://t.co/3Ad6gyiba9
@venkvis @skorusARK @ARKInvest @Ford @Tesla @TataMotors @Mahindra_Auto @OliSchmidtICL and for people interested in the maths behind: "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress" by Prof. Trancik & colleagues, comparing Moore, Wright, Godda
@SiegelScribe @RitaB66 @NRCgov The "problem" with the "economics of nuclear power" is due to ignorance of Wright's "Law" (https://t.co/mUPFS3jUlw) which allows rough prediction of cost declines with deployment. Of course, while nuclear costs can be expect
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress https://t.co/qV8l3El0i9
@BaldingsWorld @Noahpinion @damienics Yup. It's just Wright's Law https://t.co/PUqkucSZMw
@alannogee @DrChrisClack @drvox @NatureClimate For those interested in learning curves who haven't seen it, this paper is scintillating reading: https://t.co/9yKu9iDo2V
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress https://t.co/qV8l3El0i9
This MIT study makes clear that Wright's law (and it's less precise but famous and easy cousin Moore's law) are among the best predictors for price reductions in technology. https://t.co/ODqZO0RqQN
@drvox @curryja Then let Wright's "Law" bring down the cost until it beats fossil carbon. Which it almost certainly will. https://t.co/AeJ3Y5lUsF 2/2
@Hakasays @ratman720 @JunkScience @ScottAdamsSays Problem is, cost, and therefore "cost-competitiveness" changes with deployment. https://t.co/mUPFS3jUlw
@Hakasays @ratman720 @JunkScience @ScottAdamsSays Don't forget Wright's "Law"... https://t.co/mUPFS3jUlw
@ratman720 @JunkScience @ScottAdamsSays Science says you're wrong (https://t.co/mUPFS3jUlw). I guess we could call this attitude of yours "magical nay-saying". Certainly 'anti-science".
@ratman720 @JunkScience @ScottAdamsSays Since you CLAIM to back your claims with science, here: https://t.co/mUPFS3jUlw
@luisbaram Are you familiar with Wright's "Law"? https://t.co/mUPFS3jUlw
@Vercovicium @SpringerWrites @bitcoinbroad @ScottAdamsSays @PeterSmartpower @nypost Nope! Any hallucinations are on your part. Batteries are declining exponentially in cost, deployment is growing exponentially, and there's every reason to expect them to c
@PietervanderMe2 @charlamanesbane @Eigencat @ScottAdamsSays @nypost Silicon PV prices are continuing to experience exponential cost reductions at a ROUGH rate of 1/2 every 5-6 years. Deployment is roughly doubling every two years. There's a relationship t
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress https://t.co/qV8l3El0i9
RT @vsualst: The economy-of-scale model underpinning Wright's Law rivals Moore's Law for accuracy (paper here: https://t.co/9HQbRzbLUm), im…
The economy-of-scale model underpinning Wright's Law rivals Moore's Law for accuracy (paper here: https://t.co/9HQbRzbLUm), implying that capital infusions can rival big scientific advances in driving costs down - so today's overabundant liquidity could be
@BjornLomborg @ScottAdamsSays Actually, solar PV is well on its way. (Lumping all "renewables" together is a false categorization.) As an economist you should certainly see how Wright's "Law" impacts real economic growth. But the models (AFAIK) don't acc
@SolarCoin_SLR Posted... https://t.co/3kRQ5DweZG
RT @SolarCoin_SLR: #PLOSONE: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress https://t.co/hVXFguKZHO
#PLOSONE: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress https://t.co/hVXFguKZHO
RT @SolarCoin_SLR: One of the most under-rated economic papers ever. #PLOSONE: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress http…
@SolarCoin_SLR Posted... https://t.co/7trRdQwrfe
One of the most under-rated economic papers ever. #PLOSONE: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress https://t.co/hVXFgv2B6o
[2] There are many laws that can describe scientific and technological progress today: Moore's Law, Wright's Law, Kurzweil's Law, etc. Here's a study that defines a couple and tries to test accuracy: https://t.co/V9vV2dqEby
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress https://t.co/qV8l3El0i9
RT @kncukier: Yo geeks; data nerds! This: http://t.co/WvenmfNMIz "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress" http://t.co/paow…
@ScottAdamsSays You mention how technology gets cheaper as it gets used more. There's actually scientific support for that point of view. My goto reference: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress (https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM) Just in case yo
@DankeDeath Actually, they're assuming constant or linear growth. Assuming exponential growth, I'd say more like 2-3 decades. https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@alan_seals @ScottAdamsSays I don't! The uncertainties in "Climate Science" are only the tip of the iceberg. The REAL uncertainties lie in the effects of unpredicted new technology. And, AFAIK, most economists don't even understand the basics of the grow
@mar7k @ScottAdamsSays Bringing down the cost is a matter of volume deployment. https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@UE @economist We HAVE ways to "suck CO2 out of the air". (https://t.co/3b9ghKHsvI) They're not cost-competitive YET, but with deployment costs will come down. (https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM) How to incent deployment of a currently non-competitive technology:
@AlexSteffen All but one (ambient CO2 capture) of the solutions we need have already been deployed. Of course, they're not cost-effective, but the only way to bring the cost down is to deploy more. https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM https://t.co/6WMs8sK6nY https:/
@andykessler The downside of Wright's "Law". There's a REASON that cost curve is exponential in the beginning: learning curve. https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@TKavulla My thoughts below. Links (1-3 of 4): [link-1]: https://t.co/xpxgMB5tSU [link-2]: https://t.co/6WMs8sK6nY [link-3]: https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM https://t.co/HelHSnIBQy
@cody_a_hill China understands Wright's "Law". Not just to predict, but to engineer outcomes. https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@laurimyllyvirta @IEA They listened. China didn't. That's why their costs are so low vs. US. Wright's "Law". https://t.co/xpxgMB5tSU https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM https://t.co/V4FCBE1rnk
@AukeHoekstra You may have to be careful, but I don't: it's TOTAL BS! 66% by 2021 (maybe 2020), by 2030 95% (at least). https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@S_HastingsSimon @BloombergNEF @MLiebreich That's WRONG! By 2040 (excl. black swans) solar will produce >200% of power used. (Excess will be P2G losses.) https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@NinjaEconomics Once you start trying to understand systems economics of technical progress/growth (especially feedbacks): https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@RRMeyer2 @cody_a_hill @ShellenbergerMD @JvDorp @OskaArcher Managed by muppets. The Chinese understand Wright's Law (https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM) but AFAIK everybody else in the world can still compete.
@M_Steinbuch @Coast2Coast_EV @AukeHoekstra @tonyseba @vincente @ramez @singularityu @carlovdweijer @TUE_SmartMob @RuudvanTendris @marjanminnesma China understands Wright's "Law" https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@NinjaEconomics I've been looking at it a while, thoughts in right panel below. I generally take a different perspective: (https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM) https://t.co/mNC2081D1G
@SecretaryPerry Please make sure they look at this: (https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM) Also: (https://t.co/wLEg6xnGdp)
@william_sw @BioWouter @AukeHoekstra Batteries seem to be on the Wright's "Law" exponential curve. https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM https://t.co/NW54hf8mih @ramez https://t.co/8eRVlovHsr https://t.co/T1HE30Npya
@TobiasAHuber @ramez @paolobacigalupi @AlexSteffen This one's my go-to: https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@RRMeyer2 @AukeHoekstra @Sustainable2050 @sven_giegold @marjanminnesma @janrotmans @GeorgeMonbiot @HansLak @elonmusk @transenv @nuclearreport Miniaturization just happens to be the easiest/biggest factor in "Moore's Law". Speed also. But it applies widely.
@DKeithClimate If you want to be ABLE to do it ECONOMICALLY, you have to do it. A LOT. See Wright's "Law": https://t.co/oBl5ua1ZmM
@dt99jay I would not be surprised if whiskey production did not follows Moore's law. Humans are always looking for continuous improvement https://t.co/5mZ4BEJQMn
Apparently progress in beer production follows Moore's law https://t.co/EmDdUsGPH1 https://t.co/Vtzgpl8FX5
RT @solar_chase: Thanks @WesHerche, what I was looking for. Moore's law is just a special case of the experience curve; nothing fundamental…
RT @solar_chase: Thanks @WesHerche, what I was looking for. Moore's law is just a special case of the experience curve; nothing fundamental…
Thanks @WesHerche, what I was looking for. Moore's law is just a special case of the experience curve; nothing fundamental about 2 years. https://t.co/ySTJBZ3Sip
@vsiv @solar_chase @CFR_org of relevance: https://t.co/Z0Vx6WPOIA
Moore's law probably special case of Wright learning when production increases exp in time. Units matter, not time. https://t.co/AbBJKCkW8c
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress https://t.co/emUTnzUugR cc @asymco https://t.co/djnEGzDXTl
RT @tor: If there is a degree of predictability in tech innovation, understanding it could have profound implications https://t.co/huBb7nYr…
RT @tor: If there is a degree of predictability in tech innovation, understanding it could have profound implications https://t.co/huBb7nYr…
If there is a degree of predictability in tech innovation, understanding it could have profound implications https://t.co/huBb7nYrTc
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress #blockchain https://t.co/kIM2FFg5WU
@roybahat @cdixon one alternative formulation is that Moore's Law is just a standard "learning curve": https://t.co/immUcdL53m
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress http://t.co/5Yjn1DVEQe
RT @chak100: Interesante// PLOS ONE: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress http://t.co/VxbEnt96d2
RT @chak100: Interesante// PLOS ONE: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress http://t.co/VxbEnt96d2
Interesante// PLOS ONE: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress http://t.co/VxbEnt96d2
Older but interesting: "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress" (http://t.co/48gVNzljR5)
PLOS ONE: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress http://t.co/VX4IITmtI1 – Moore's law doesn't seem to be very wrong!
RT @robinhanson: Data on history of 62 techs is fit to 6 models. Best is cost as power of cumulative production, though others close. http:…
RT @robinhanson: Data on history of 62 techs is fit to 6 models. Best is cost as power of cumulative production, though others close. http:…
RT @kncukier: Yo geeks; data nerds! This: http://t.co/WvenmfNMIz "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress" http://t.co/paow…
RT @kncukier: Yo geeks; data nerds! This: http://t.co/WvenmfNMIz "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress" http://t.co/paow…
RT @kncukier: Yo geeks; data nerds! This: http://t.co/WvenmfNMIz "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress" http://t.co/paow…