The US government underestimated solar energy installation in the US by 4,813%

[Dexter]

Interesting.

https://qz.com/1103874/the-us-government-underestimated-solar-energy-installation-in-the-us-by-4813-along-with-renewable-wind-and-solar-generation/

The only thing certain in this life are death, taxes and the US department of energy’s massive underestimate of renewable energy capacity.

Every two years, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), America’s official source for energy statistics, issues scenarios about how much solar, wind and conventional energy the future holds for the US. Every two years, since the mid-1990s, the EIA is wrong. Last year, it was spectacularly wrong.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Statista recently teamed up to analyze the EIA’s predictions for energy usage and production. It found that the EIA’s ten-year estimates between 2006 to 2016 systematically understated the share of wind, solar and gas. Solar capacity, in particular, was a whopping 4,813% more in 2016 than the EIA had predicted it would be.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Another spectacularly gross misrepresentation in this article.

The underestimation of solar is related to capacity, which may not have any correlation of how much that capacity is utilized. 

On the other hand, the overestimation of fossil fuels is related to consumption, which is what is actually used.

This distortion is not done by accident.

It is to deliberately done to deceive in order to advance an agenda.

[Dexter]

Another spectacularly gross misrepresentation in this article.

The underestimation of solar is related to capacity, which may not have any correlation of how much that capacity is utilized. 

On the other hand, the overestimation of fossil fuels is related to consumption, which is what is actually used.

This distortion is not done by accident.

It is to deliberately done to deceive in order to advance an agenda.

So do you feel that after accounting for your observations the findings in the article are a complete non-story, or is a nearly 5000% underestimation of solar capacity still somewhat significant?

[Joe Wooten]

So do you feel that after accounting for your observations the findings in the article are a complete non-story, or is a nearly 5000% underestimation of solar capacity still somewhat significant?

It is significant. A significant LIE! Solar will always be a niche power producer, an expensive niche producer.

[Bigun]

It is significant. A significant LIE! Solar will always be a niche power producer, an expensive niche producer.

Even if you get the equipment installed for free the costs of upkeep will break you!  Kind of like an inkjet printer!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So do you feel that after accounting for your observations the findings in the article are a complete non-story, or is a nearly 5000% underestimation of solar capacity still somewhat significant?

One is comparing different things, capacity and consumption.

Let's try to find a real comparison in order to see where the truth lies rather than just guessing.