> their deployment would have to accelerate to an __unprecedented__ level

Parent comments point is that the 5x growth is not unprecedentedly fast compared to the past 20 years, its unprecedentedly slow compared to the past 20 years. Contrary to what the quote claims, and in line with projections from the past, the solar business would have to seriously slow down to miss the 5x milestone.

And what I replied is that this is not the point of the article, and that ratios in themselves are not the relevant metric.

The article is clear and accurate. Deploying close to 3000 GW is an unprecedented effort.

You've picked the wrong number of years, the article says But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added.

The current linear growth trajectory is 2,000 GW over 20 years, and that is likely to be a hilarious underestimate.

Why is it likely to be a hilarious underestimate? That seems like a statement that needs some support. Graphs don't go up forever; growth curves level off; growth gets harder the bigger you get. Linear growth forever should not be the default assumption for any energy technology, even one that is growing fast now.

Or do I misunderstand what you're saying?

But why does the curve level off? Supply and demand. Assuming that renewable energy is superior to fossil fuel from both environmental and cost perspective (it is, or soon will be), then it can reasonably be expected to grow until all fossil-based sources have been displaced, and it is no longer profitable to build more capacity.

Because people want cheap, cleaner electricity and we haven't used up all that much space yet. Manufacturing capacity is still growing, the rest of the industry is still growing, it's not likely that there will be a year in the next 20 where global installations are smaller than this year.

Depends if you are looking at it as growing linearly or exponentially. You can make an argument solar is growing exponentially, doubling ever so often, at the moment.

The point remains.