Talk:Solar energy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Image caption

We have gotten some vandalism over the caption "The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 zettajoules (ZJ) per year (89,000 TW)." Anyone prefer a less technical caption? Such as "Available solar and wind power vs total global consumption of all types of energy." Or perhaps, "The amount of solar power available at the Earth in one minute exceeds global energy demand in a year." 199.125.109.38 01:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the precion is a bit excessive for a caption, and zettajoules are not very visitor friendly, so i altered the caption. --SmokeyJoe 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's curious that you say that you altered the caption when the image doesn't even appear in the article, due to the fact that someone has removed it. You will first have to revert the edits by User:Mrshaba before you can edit the caption. I don't see any difference between using 3850 and 4, both require an understanding of scientific notation. 4 is probably not a good idea since 3850 appears elsewhere in the article. Please refer to this version for this discussion. [1] 199.125.109.38 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about my edit, it there plain to see. Looking back at the lead section, I see that it is awful. The words "power" and "energy" are misused and confusing. Opening the article by asserting that Solar power is also known as solar energy is intellectually flawed. I see that the caption in question is no better, asserting than an energy is quanitified as a power. I had not been aware that substantial version flipping had been occuring. The images are the least of the problems. There's room for them all. The text needs a thorough beating. --SmokeyJoe 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well before you start flogging the lead section, please make a proposal above so that everyone can see it. Other than that, feel free to have at it. Any changes to the lead just get reverted until a consensus is reached. 199.125.109.38 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal based editing is unwiki. It is slow, wearying, and unfriendly to visitors. I suggest that better results come from following the advice at Wikipedia:Consensus. --SmokeyJoe 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We are following that, at least I am. We are at the "Take it to the talk page" box, and no one can agree on a compromise. 199.125.109.38 02:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SmokeyJoe for coming in on this. I've been going crazy waiting for some additional sense. Mrshaba 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Solar energy for the time being, per WP:NC(CN). Reorganization can be discussed independently. Duja► 07:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I formally requested the name change. Here are the reasons why I think we should change the name.

• Encarta Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, World Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica cover this subject as Solar Energy
• Solar energy is listed as the Category title here: [[2]]. As the main article in this category I think it should have the same name as the category and be an overview of the subtopics in the category. Seems reasonable.
• Energy can be stored. Solar energy can be stored as hot water, chemical energy etc. Starting out with the name Solar energy leads into using an energy convention which simplifies the discussion.
• The classification terminology used describes Solar energy. Terms such as direct/diffused or direct/indirect show that solar energy is both a type of energy and a technology for using that energy. The direct/diffused classifications refer to the type of energy. The direct/indirect classifications can refer to both the type and the technology. I can understand indirect energy but indirect power doesn't ring true to me.
• The third parties I contacted leaned toward agreement that Solar energy was a better way to cover the subject. Sklar was explicit in his support of using Solar energy as the best generic classification. Francis de Winter pointed out that no one is getting executed for mixing up the terms solar energy and solar power at ASES meetings but he ended up supporting Sklar when I asked him. A Professor Beckman supported the Solar energy convention citing the storage issue. Perlin, my great hope, thought Solar power was a justifiable convention and cited GWth as an additional method to rate power. i.e. The world capacity of solar water heaters is measured in GWth.
• Solar energy is a more widely used term. The societies are solar energy society and the institutes are normally solar energy institutes. The main journal at ISES is Solar Energy. There's a Solar Energy Hall of Fame but no Solar Power Hall of Fame. The Department of Energy is another example outside of the solar area. This is a rather anecdotal point but I think it has merit.
• The term power is generally associated with horsepower or electricity. Naming the article Solar power puts the average reader into the mindset of horsepower and electricity. The term energy is used to describe a diverse range of things. Fuels, power plants etc. so Solar energy has a better chance of being associated with the diverse range of things covered in the article.

I think I hit the high points. Mrshaba 04:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While it would have been fine to originally name the article solar energy, the terms solar power and solar energy are used pretty interchangeably and there is no need for two articles to cover the subject. Most of the applications that are of interest today are power related, which is why most of the articles in the category solar energy have power in the title, not energy, if either. It would be unnecessarily difficult to change all the links to solar power to solar energy. While it is important to redirect solar energy to solar power, and give both equal billing in bold in the lead, there is no need to arbitrarily choose solar energy instead of solar power. From a physics standpoint power and energy are integrally connected through time. Power is the rate of energy, energy is the summation of power over time. There isn't any way to separate the two. A count of the number of times that the words power and energy appeared in the article when this first came up indicated that they were about equal, about 100 each. A count today reveals the apparantly incidious removal of the word power, which now appears about 60 times versus energy which still appears about 100 times. Energy can be stored? Energy is stored power. I see no reason for changing the name. All of the topics within the subject will not change no matter what the article is titled, meaning that there is no need to change the name. The only thing that would change is instead of saying "Solar power (also known as solar energy) is a source of power that uses energy from the sun", it would say "Solar energy (also known as solar power), is energy from the sun." 199.125.109.87 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I believe that the term "solar power" is frequently encountered in all sorts of writing and that there is no problem in having the encyclopedia article so titled. I also feel that the article as it stands is not precisely about the energy from the Sun but about how it is used on earth by humans in order to provide for various needs. It is an article, therefore, about solar power as a technology or group of technologies. Itsmejudith 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• "...there is no need for two articles to cover the subject." - I'm not suggesting two articles. I'm suggesting this article be called Solar energy.
• "Most of the applications that are of interest today are power related, which is why most of the articles in the category solar energy have power in the title, not energy, if either." - Hot water is not as interesting as dye-sensitized solar cells but we use the former everyday while the later is moreorless just a hot topic. Solar hot water is at 90 GWth compared to 9 GWp for photovoltaics. And here's another point. A spectator might look at the two numbers and figure solar thermal applications are 10 times bigger than PV applications. But thermal applications have efficiencies above 45% while PV have efficiencies around 15%. When you compare the energy collected, solar thermal applications are closer to 30 times bigger. At current growth rates photovoltaics won't catch up to hot water for many decades. And what about windows. I've never seen any serious attempt to calculate the energy impact of windows but it's very large. Some windows provide nothing more than a fantastic view. I realize this but some windows are designed as a sort of passive solar energy device. The design attempts to control how heat and light come into a building and also how heat leaves. This is nothing new. Don't forget about the ancients that warmed their buildings by turning them towards the sun. The ancients were utilizing heat and light. They were using solar energy in it's raw form. This was the beginning of the technology this article is about. Most of the applications involving this technology have nothing to do with electricity. Heating, lighting and architecture are the big boys.
• "It would be unnecessarily difficult to change all the links to solar power to solar energy." - It doesn't appear to be that difficult.
• "While it is important to redirect solar energy to solar power, and give both equal billing in bold in the lead, there is no need to arbitrarily choose solar energy instead of solar power." - I agree the terms should both be put in bold and both be talked about in the lead. I don't think they should be given equal billing. I think Solar power should be described as a technology within the broader category of Solar energy.
• "A count of the number of times that the words power and energy appeared in the article when this first came up indicated that they were about equal, about 100 each. A count today reveals the apparantly incidious removal of the word power, which now appears about 60 times versus energy which still appears about 100 times." - A google search for "solar energy" comes up with 2,810,000 hits. A google search for "solar power" comes up with "1,600,000" hits. A google book search for "solar energy" comes up with 15,900 hits while "solar power" comes up with 2,790. Apparently insidious? Get real.
• "Energy is stored power." - There's something wrong with this statement. How much power is in a gallon of gas. How much power do you pay for at the end of the month on your electricity bill? The energy storage issue is not trivial. The language issue is not trivial. Writing in terms of energy is much more flexible and more importantly, thinking in terms of energy is much more flexible.
• "From a physics standpoint power and energy are integrally connected through time." - From a physics standpoint I agree with you. From a technology standpoint I do not see power and energy integrally connected. I don't split them up on the physics end. I split them up on the technology end. In relation to technology Power is generally associated with electricity or mechanical power. Power plants make electricity and horsepower makes speed and torque sotospeak. I think this is the common association. Do you think this is true? These general associations feed into the point of view of the term Solar power. This lead to my definition of Solar power as technologies that harness sunlight to produce electricity and mechanical power. I did not make this up. I used Perlin for historical reference. I made a choice between competing definitions. Most of the definitions I see define Solar power as I did. Again, there's a reasoning for this definition. The term energy is associated with a broader range of things than power. Gasoline, natural gas, food calories, potential energy, kinetic energy as well as electricty and horsepower. Energy is a broader term. So the definition of Solar energy describes a broader range of technologies. Solar power is type of technology within the category of Solar energy. Yes the terms are used synonymously. So are kilowatt and kilowatt hours. Has anyone out there been frustrated by the consistently wrong use of these terms?
• As Itsmejudith pointed out this article is about technology. I agree. It is not my intention to say that Solar energy coming from the sun should be discussed as much as the technologies. Mostly the article is about technology but it is useful to recongnize that solar energy is both a type of energy and a technology. That's all. Mrshaba 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but at the current growth rate, PV will go from 0.5% of total energy sources to 80% in 18 years, and exceed solar water heating in 7 years. You can add kilocalorie and calorie to your list of terms that are used synonymously. It is the context that keeps things sorted out. No need to be excessively pedantic.

As to changing links, I just changed the name of an obscure article, and it had an unbelievable number of links (almost 50), and it was a total nightmare fixing them. Solar power has over 1000. If you like fixing links you can start by fixing the 100 or so that link to solar energy, the half dozen that link to Solar Power, and the dozen that link to Solar powered. Hint: those last ones get written [[solar power]]ed. 199.125.109.124 06:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad we agree that the article is about the technologies. And I agree completely that it should be about the full range of technologies not just PV. When I first came to the article the problem with it was that it continually shifted from talking about just PV to talking about the whole range of solar technologies in a way that made it virtually unreadable. So I shifted a lot of stuff out to the Photovoltaics article. I'm based in the UK and I am most familiar with the usage here; it may be different in other English-speaking countries. Here, I do still hear people talking of "solar power" when they are referring specifically to solar hot water panels, so I don't think it is confusing to keep the article under this title. My vote is to keep this title but I will follow the consensus. I don't want to spend a lot of time changing links! Itsmejudith 07:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To put my two cents in, I believe that the article should be changed to Solar Energy, but it really is not a big deal to me, as long as both are mentioned in the lead and the redirect is in place. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Is no big deal, but use words correctly ("power" is not the same as "energy"). Move to Solar Energy. Mention both in the lead. Redirect from Solar power. --SmokeyJoe 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am mostly persuaded by Mrshaba's arguments about the name change. I am always amazed by the fabulous contributions people make to WP, including all the major participants at this page. I have skimmed the lengthy discussion above, but forgive me if i overlook points already made. Solar energy and solar power are conceptually distinct. While I favour a move, i think there might be a better way, along the following lines. i suggest it with some doubts, because i can see that Mrshaba has laready defended himself at one pt by saying he is not arguing for two articles when another party said two articles are unnecessary. Well, sorry, but here comes a suggestion that does advocate two articles (I hope I'm not re-traversing ground covered in some dusty discussion archive :-))

• • Have an article titled Solar energy that is about solar energy, which would include the existing intro, then have brief sections on each use of solar energy, including all of the material from the current article that is about uses of solar energy that are almost never described as uses of 'power', for example architecture and urban planning; and desalination and disinfection. At the start of each of these types of use have a main article link as is already the case, for example, with Passive solar design building.
  • Then have a page on Solar power, that contains a summary discussion of all the main solar power technologies, again with links out to other main articles.
  • The particularly unique thing about the Solar power page would then be outlining the debates about the relative merits, economics etc of solar power options (something that has been big in the news lately in Australia at least).
  • At the start of both solar energy and solar power have a lead sentence performing a disambiguation function, along the following lines: This page is about the flow of energy from the sun and its range of uses. For uses of solar energy that involve generating electrical or other power, see Solar power and This page is about the uses of solar energy for power. For a discussion of solar energy generally, see Solar energy
  • Obviously there are a lot of links that will need fixing. I think Mrshaba and others (including myself) would be happy to contribute to sorting that out, but as long as there are two articles along the lines described above no link would be dead and every link would get the user at most one click away from the info they want in any case.

I would be happy to help implement this option - I have worked on restructuring a couple of other lengthy articles before. If there is a consensus against splitting the info up, then i favour moving. I am persuaded by Mrshaba's facts regarding accepted nomenclature in this regard. It isn't the easy option, but the sooner these things are done the better WP will be in a generation's time from now.hamiltonstone 01:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've watched the page for a year and have never seen this suggestion. If the break were to occur you'd essentially pull out the Solar Power Plant and Photovoltaic sections as the base of the new page and fill out the unique deployment and classification info. It could work. It is a valid suggestion to be sure. The storage section would also need to be divided. If you could see me now I'm making a "I don't know... I'm not sure... Squinty face." I'm thinking about it but my thoughts fall on the side of not splitting out.

I've written close to a dozen letters off to agencies and individuals regarding this solar energy vs. solar power question. I'm sending these letters off into a dark void sometimes. A recent reply from the US Department of Energy Energy Information Agency (The DOE's information branch) was a polite explanation of the relationship between energy and power. My request for further information has not received a reply. From my point of view this conversation is not about physics or equations. This conversation is about what the terms solar power and solar energy mean from the technology point of view. Hamiltonstone pointed out the terms are "conceptually distinct". I have tried to explain this conceptual distinction. The suggestion that the page be split out is an implicit acknowledgment of this distinction; however, I personally think the page can remain whole. Mrshaba 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article focuses on using the sun's energy or power to perform some useful task. When referring to other forms or sources of energy or power, the word power seems to be used in common English: electric power, hydro power, motive power, horse power, gas powered fridge, etc. Therefore by analogy Solar Power would seem to be the better title. All the sections require energy to be supplied continuously, so again its energy/time not one-off.--Oldboltonian 21:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there are a couple of exceptions Oldboltonian. Storage of solar energy in indirect forms and solar technologies which control the absorption of energy/prevent absorption altogether. The storages of solar energy are not trivial and it is difficult to speak in concrete quantities when talking about power. Those are one offs as you say. As an example you will commonly hear that fossil fuels are indirect sources of solar energy. This a a far fetched description but this is the way you'll hear it. Because it's been stored people jump to thinking in terms of energy.

Photovoltaics on the other hand is very much a time-of-use technology so power is a better mindset. But then with hot water you have a simple storage system. Rating hot water systems in GWth seems inappropriate when the amount hot water is the relevant quantity. These systems should be measured by the amount of hot water they make and energy they offset. They should be classified similarly.

I also think the far more common usage is Solar energy. Solar energy isn't a fundamental class of energy like heat, nuclear or chemical but it is a special class of energy. Renewable energy is after all predominantly solar energy in one form or another. Why do the sub-categories of renewable energy have power in their title. Probably because we make electricity with them. If you google the definitions of "solar power" you see electricity mentioned 60% of the time. When you google definitions of "solar energy" you'll find two things. First, there are twice as many largely because you'll find definitions of solar energy as a class of energy. Second, you'll find heat and/or light mentioned in about 30% of the definitions vs. electricity mentioned in 15%. The term solar energy covers both the class of energy and the technology. Solar power covers the technology with a prejudice towards electricity. I'm throwin' pearls here. Mrshaba 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to hamiltonstone's suggestion about splitting this subject into two pages ties into the intro as well. Solar power is not used to describe the energy from the sun - solar energy is. The intro on both pages would have to make this explicit. The current versions of the intros all start of with Solar energy is energy from the sun or Solar power is the flow of energy from the sun. Solar power has an arguable claim on the class of technologies which utilize sunlight but solar energy definitely describes the class of energy from the sun. This is why I wrote a unified intro in terms of energy and explained the evolution of technology as I did. Mrshaba 00:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory got back to me:

Solar energy is broader, includes both solar heating and solar power. Solar power (electricity) comes either from photovoltaics (solar cells) or from concentrated solar heat (concentrating solar power). See this section of our Web site for more information:

http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_solar.html

Another good overview is the U.S. Department of Energy's "Solar Energy Technologies" program, which also includes solar lighting:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/

That's pretty good but the funny thing is the Energy Information Agency also got back to me with:

However, EIA does not view "solar energy" as a broad description of technologies that transfer energy into power. In order to stay within the scope of what EIA communicates on its website; the following statement provides a description of EIA's defintion of solar energy:

The sun has produced energy for billions of years. Solar energy is the solar radiation that reaches the earth. Solar energy can be converted directly or indirectly into other forms of energy, such as heat and electricity.

The EIA is very polite by the way. Mr. Smith was nice enough to refer me to an expert at EIA in Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Cells/Modules for further inquiry. I will inquire further. Mrshaba 22:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• You mention nuclear: I like the relationship between the nuclear power and nuclear energy pages. Mor or fits hamiltonstone's proposal
• Storage solutions are measured in both power and energy: the ability to store more energy and the ability to discharge and accumulate energy quickly are usually desirable.
• You compare solar thermal and grid tied PV. For off grid PV, PV and solar thermal would be equivalent: panels on the roof able generate a certain power and a hot water tank or battery able to store a certain energy. If there was a hot water grid (and some cities have municipal steam or superheated water networks) it would be possible to have grid tied hot water, so again solar thermal and PV would have an equivalent role: I don't get the difference.--Oldboltonian 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• hamiltonstone's proposal solves half the problem.
• As I've mentioned before Solar energy is not a fundamental type of energy like chemical, nuclear, thermal etc. But Solar energy is a sort of special class of energy. The definitions vary slightly but you'll generally see something like: Solar energy is heat, light or radiation from the sun. First definition: Solar energy is energy from the sun.
• The discharge and charge rates are relevant but those aspects have to do with the battery. Batteries are not a solar technology at all. They store solar energy in an indirect form. It's like wood. Wood is not an indirect solar technology. Wood, or the energy in wood, is an indirect form of solar energy. When you're talking about storage you're talking about the first definition. The chemical energy stored in batteries is indirect solar energy. Again, the first definition. Does that make sense?
• Solar energy as a technology is a conceptual term. Solar energy is a generic way to describe all solar technologies. It's like Mechanical Engineering. This degree spans from energy technologies to robotics under one generic name. Solar energy does the same thing. It's a category of technology. Sometimes you'll see just Solar used to generically describe all solar technologies. I think this term might be too generic because it is not only associated with technology. My opinion is, when people think of power in a technological sense they will specifically think of electricity and horsepower. In general, as a technology Solar power is associated with applications that make electricity: PV and the Concentrating plants. In general, as a technology Solar energy is associated with a broader group of applications. Sometimes it can go both ways. Obviously, NREL says one thing but the guy at EIA says another. Perlin says one thing and Sklar says another. Which leads me to my final point.
• One of the people I spoke with was a 4 time Chairman of ASES and a member of the Solar Energy Hall of Fame. He had this to say: "One of the characteristics of the English language is indeed that it is somewhat of a do-it-yourself language, with no Royal Academy (as they have in Spain) or Academy Francaise (as they have in France) to keep the language of the people under control, or at least to try to keep it under control."

The language is clearly not under control. The choices I made with the intro have a rationale which attempts to control the language. The definition of solar energy as a form/class/type of energy from the sun is not contentious. The issue is the definitions of Solar Energy and Solar Power as technologies. The argument is about using the physics relationship to define the relationships between the technologies but the relationship between the technologies doesn't strictly come from the physics relationship. It comes from what and how we think. It's conceptual. The physics relationship applies to Solar energy as a form/class/type of energy. A different relationship exist between the technologies. So I defined the technology of Solar energy broadly and the technology of Solar power specifically. They shouldn't be synonymous. Does that make sense? Mrshaba 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While the intent for Solar Power and Solar Energy education is roughly the same, I support the move to Solar Energy. --Skyemoor 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a final example. I think I've described this enough. Think of the word speed. Speed is distance per time. Just like Power is energy per time. But to speed is to go faster than the speed limit. To speed describes a relationship which is independent of the physics of the word speed. It's related to social laws as well as generally describing going fast. The term has evolved from the physical relationship. I know this isn't a perfect example but I hope it shows the point. Mrshaba 04:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This article looks like an overview of the categories of Solar Energy and Solar Design. I also support the move to Solar Energy. Soulfinger 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it agreed?

I don't see any opposition to the move. Are there any objections to deleting the target Solar energy and then moving Solar Power to Solar energy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No there are at least four people who don't support the move. A move of this magnitude needs to have a lot more discussion anyways. It's not a simple matter of clicking on "move", and everything magically gets moved. There are over a thousand links that would need to be fixed one at a time. 199.125.109.38 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are avoiding simple questions. Solar energy is heat (thermal energy) and light (electromagnetic enegy) from the sun. Do you agree with this definition. Why should "solar energy" which gets nearly twice as many hits on google and 6 times more books written about it than "solar power" be redirected to solar power? I deconstructed your argument completely. I gave you the time. Anon, you are the main opponent of everything I'm trying to do on the page. Absolutely everything. The pictures, the lead, the name. I've written most of the page and now you are blocking me. Answer the questions. Mrshaba 01:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please reread my original statement. Nothing has changed. I think that the earliest this move should be proposed is after the end of the year. 199.125.109.38 02:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can I suggest two co-existing articles? Material that is really about energy be moved to Solar energy, and material about Solar power gets left here. I see the two as similar but distinct subjects. Solar power stuff tends to be more about human energy needs and usage, more about the technology. Solar energy suits the more scientific stuff. I expect that the two articles can be managed to not conflict with each other. Each should provide an early link to the other, but there is no reason to insist of maintaining the redirect. --SmokeyJoe 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last version

{{editprotected}} Why should we put up with a nonsense version for a week. Please revert the last edit to this version.[3] 199.125.109.27 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I encourage other editors and visitors to look at the version that Anon has suggested. Is this version better than the one we currently have up? Mrshaba 23:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither version is particularly impressive. The older verios "Solar power (also known as solar energy) describes " is terrible, immediately confusing energy and power, and attempting to define the term too softly "describes". The protected curretn version "Solar energy (also knows as solar radiation or insolation) is energy from the sun. " is worse. It starts by attempting a definition of the wrong term. --SmokeyJoe 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro: I can handle that. The language aims for accuracy but ends up as blunt and needy of spice. I tried to make the solar energy definition looks like these definitions.[4]. There wasn't much to the intro so I threw out my ideas and started beating them into shape.[5] I hope the defense of my POV hasn't turned the regulars off.

Approach: I started out with a description of energy because that is a traditional approach. Schittich's Solar Architecture starts out with, "The energy potential, which the sun places at our disposal on a daily basis, seems inexhaustible. The incident radiation on the landmasses of the earth alone is 3000 times greater than the worldwide demands." Mazaria's The Passive Solar Energy Book covers the properties of solar radiation from pages 5-27. In Direct Use of the Sun's Energy, Daniels covers the properties of solar radiation on pages 14-34. Many books about solar energy follow this general format. i.e. Talk about the sun's energy early then follow with the technologies.[6] The main difficulty I've had is that the terms solar energy and solar power are synonymous as technologies. Maybe an encyclopedia shouldn't point this out. Maybe that's for a dictionary. Don't know.

Classification:Here's the additional problem I see. If you attempt to do a vin diagram on the basic classification terminology of solar energy you'll run into trouble. These classifications are often set up as opposites. i.e. Passive/active, direct/indirect, diffuse/direct but there are also generally unique classifications such at concentrating. These classifications cover the form of energy or the technology but sometimes both the form and the technology. You need two vin diagrams to get everything in.

Page Name: My gripe with the name of the page is that "solar energy" is a more common term than "solar power". I can offer google results as a sort of weak proof for this.[7][8][9][10] I've argued that solar power is a POV term. Not in the WP sense but in the social sense. Additionally, I see the definition of the word solar power becoming synonymous with PV but this argument has run up against a brick wall so I'm in a difficult position. It's poor form to compare myself to other editors but I've looked into this over many years with the US literature. Maybe it's different in Europe but my opinion is that if you look at the news you will see "Solar power" mostly associated with PV.[11][12]] Solar energy used to be the "conventional" source of energy but it isn't anymore. We've lost our ability to look at solar energy as heat and light. Years ago architects designed buildings to provide light from the sun. When you drive on the east end of the Bay Bridge there's an old saw toothed roof warehouse that was designed to be lit by sunlight. Warehouses aren't built that way anymore because architects generally don't think of using sunlight. Architects mostly design with cheap electricity in mind. This page should make the reader think about using sunlight and heat and electricity. Sunlight is an alternative form of energy. Alternative energy refers to a bunch of things. Renewable energy refers to a bunch of things. This page should be called Solar energy because energy refers to a bunch of things. Sunlight provides light, heat and electricity though PV so it competes with everything. The comparisons are complex but they all deserve discussion. I think discussing the forms of energy is easier rather than discussing forms of power. The name of this page is really a gripe for me.

Consensus?: The language is evolving. 30 years ago solar panels were called solar batteries. How confusing is that? I'm probably overly concerned with this because I see widespread misuse of the terminology. I want to explain it but the terminology is changing quickly and no one is in charge. I asked Sklar to write a piece about the whole solar energy vs solar power terminology debate and he indicated he would. I'm also going to suggest to de Winter that ASES/ISES take an active part in maintaining the solar pages in respect to content and consensus.. I'm not sure consensus always exists based on my many letters around the country but the content would be improved regardless of the consensus. Many communities follow the topics which they encompass so the solar community should be on the solar pages. Mrshaba 04:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this idea: Forget the page move. Couch everything here in terms of power, as far as possible. Write a new article at Solar energy, containing energy stuff, typically scientific, not technological, that doesn’t really fit here.

The energy/power confusion occurring here definitely reflects the confusion in the real world. But that doesn’t excuse perpetuating the confusion. Mention of the fact of the existence of confusion is OK.

What is PV?

I still see warehouses and other things built in the old way.

“This page should make the reader think about using sunlight and heat and electricity.” This sounds like an unacceptable POV. Is it based on a reliable source?

I suggest that you give up wanting to talk about alternative energies in favour of alternative power sources. “Solar energy as a power source” may be commonly understood, but it is ugly and should be avoided. --SmokeyJoe 05:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... Smokey Joe... As I said, I'm going to recommend this to the higher authorities that I've contacted as a result of my work on this page. I've stated my reflections on couching everything in terms of power. Bad idea. The confusion is not OK. The energy/power confusion is what I'm trying to correct with no luck so far. PV is photovoltaics. I'm sure you've seen warehouses built in the way I described but they used to be much more common. They used to be standard. POV is when you are excluding things and supporting one thing. I tried to make a general NPOV statement that this page should make the reader think about using solar energy in as many ways as possible. "ugly and should be avoided" Don't know what you mean there? I'm speaking the common tongue.[13][14] Goodnight. Mrshaba 06:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: "ugly and should be avoided". I'm talking about the mixing of similar but different term (namely “energy” & “power”) as if they are synonymous. In the common tongue, they are sometimes used imprecisely and interchangeably. Technically, they are different things, as different as “distance” and “speed”. The phrase “Solar energy as a power source” implies that energy can be used as power, and thus is confusing. It is possible to use the terms carefully to remain technically correct, but doing so is best avoided in case of confusing the lay reader. For example: “The faster runner covers a greater distance” is correct, but it is subtly complicated and contains unstated assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Smokeyjoe: I don't see the phrase “Solar energy as a power source” used anywhere. You'd have to show me a specific quote for me to recognized where these subtle/unstated assumptions appear. I agree this type of phrasing is confusing and I've tried to avoid it. For clarity I think the term solar power should be used almost exclusively to discuss technologies that deliver electricity. I think we should organize everything under the category of Solar Energy. Below that you have the types of technology that deliver diffent types of energy. i.e solar power (PV and CSP), solar thermal (hot water and space heating/cooling), solar lighting(daylighting and hybrid lighting), solar chemical(hydrogen and biofuels).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.89.192.111 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase was just an example, largely in response to some unhelpful statements about power and energy, by others, far above in this talk page. The subtle/unstate assumptions occur in the mixing of different terms (power/energy or speed/distance) in most cases, in my experience, when the terms are used correctly. Unfortuantely, this is all rather tangential to the actual articla that we are not allowed to edit. --SmokeyJoe 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To summarize, we have:

• 1 votes for A [15]
• 0 votes for B [16]

199.125.109.27 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Not done - please reach a consensus before replacing this template. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1 "vote" does not a consensus make. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Name Change

As part of the name change I've been looking at the links on this page:[17]

I've worked my way down to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Many of the redirects start off as [[solar power|solar energy]]. I've changed those to [[solar energy]]. A good chunk of the linked pages are linked because of the energy template so no change is required. Where the article talks about using solar power for electricity I've changed the link from [[solar power|solar energy]] to [[solar energy|solar power]]. Where the article talks concentrating technologies that are described as solar power I've changed the redirect from [[solar power]] to [[solar energy|solar power]]. I'm going to stop with the redirects for now. The process is time consuming but less difficult than formatting references and the pages are interesting as well. As expected, the use of the term solar energy is more common on the pages. The use of term solar power has been consistently associated with electricity and concentrating technologies.

It is clear to me the definition of solar power should be refined to cover PV and concentrating technologies. This qualitative difference between solar energy and solar power as technologies makes a good boundary. The Tesla and Barbeque pages are good examples of references to solar technologies that should probably be classified as solar power. A revised definition of solar power looks something like:

Solar power describes photovoltaic technologies that convert sunlight into electricity and concentrating technologies that convert sunlight into thermal, mechanical and electrical energy.

This seems to me like a good working definition that can be followed in the article. Thoughts? Mrshaba 22:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

The move has happened, it is now Solar energy, and the page is unprotected.

Mrshaba,

In the end, it is more productive to raise specific issues when you revert on them.

Stating “Light comes into the atmosphere as direct light and about 20% of the direct light becomes diffused light. Concentrating technologies cannot use diffused light.” You reverted to:

Atmospheric conditions not only reduce the quantity of insolation reaching the Earth's surface but also affect the quality of insolation by diffusing approximately 20% of the incoming light and altering its spectrum

This is an ugly sentence. “Insolation reaching the earth” is redundant because insolation is defined as solar radiation reaching the earth. “Quality of insolation” is undefined and I don’t believe appropriate. Quality is a value-laden term, and quality of insolation is not obviously meaningful. In the end, I don’t see what help it is to introduce the word “insolation”, and I suggest that we abandon it.

You re-introduced “heat” to the second sentence. I believe this is incorrect as solar energy doesn’t arrive as heat. Solar energy is almost entirely electromagnetic radiation. Heat can only travel with material. The total energy arriving as thermal energy in particles is very small, I believe. Thus, solar energy, while converted to heat, is not, as solar energy, heat.

You reintroduced the statement “insolation is absorbed by the oceans”. This is bad English/terminology. Insolation is a noun that describes a process, and you cannot state that “this process is absorbed”. It doesn’t make sense. Insolation is a weird word that is not helpful in conveying the ideas meant to be conveyed.

--SmokeyJoe 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe...

My edits were annotated as well as space provided... Here is additional explanation.

I put heat back into the definition of solar energy because solar energy is traditionally described as a combination of both heat and light. This is a strong majority definition and it is also easy to understand so we should keep it. Solar energy technologies and passive solar technologies specifically use both heat and light. Short selling the heat aspect of solar energy is POV. Heat should be included.

"Insolation reaching the earth is redundant"... I'll have to look at that edit again. I might have been hasty with an edit. Insolation is an important term in the context of this topic... INcoming SOLar radiATION = INSOLATION.

Quality is a hemhaw term but I believe it's the best term to use for the time being. The problem is this... Situation #1 Cloud cover in Phoenix with 500 W/square meter. Situation #2. Clear skies in Berlin with 500 W/square meter. The quantity of light delivered is the same in both situations however the quality of light is different. This is an important consideration because concentrating technologies depend on direct light. i.e. you can't use a magnifying glass or a parabolic dish under clouded skies. I'm trying to describe how one kind of light is different than another and how this quality of light translates to the solar technology which can be used. This is not an ugly sentence. The translation might need some work. Suggest away.

In regards to the spectrum: This is also a complex situation which I've attempted to distill. When light comes through the atmosphere its spectrum isn't shifted. What happens is that certain wavelengths of light are selectively absorbed by the ozone, CO2, NO2, O2, H20, N2 etc. It's not a shift in the classical sense. Look at solar radiation page and you'll see the breaks in the curve. The situation is more akin to having the favorite flavors on a plate picked at rather than part of the plate sliding on the floor.

There have been many nonconstructive edits made to the page by editors inexperienced with the topic. This is frustrating for me. I'm not editing the Thomas Edison page because I don't know much about Jefferson beyond him writing the Declaration of Independence and his red hair. I know this topic relatively well so I try to write about it. I don't go around editing stuff I don't have any experience with. If the readability of my writing is questioned that's one thing... The attempted corrections of specific technical specs that I've included references on is another. Please read up before striking down. 69.229.196.79 07:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the issues are of language and expression, not that you don’t understand something. I believe that I have a reasonable ability to understand all of this too. I don’t want to frustrate you or anyone else, but you cannot expect non-specialist to leave the page to you. The reason that non-specialists tinker with the page is that things about it grate awkwardly. I’ll think of other suggestions, but if you revert without compromise, it is as if you are telling me that my effort is completely without merit. If you actually do think I am completely wrong, please tell me why. --SmokeyJoe 09:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain. You replaced "Atmospheric conditions not only reduce the quantity of insolation reaching the Earth's surface but also affect the quality of insolation by diffusing approximately 20% of the incoming light and altering its spectrum.[5]" with "The atmosphere not only reduces the quantity of radiation reaching the Earth's surface, it also alters the spectrum of the radiation by a process described as diffuse insolation." The spectrum alterations by normal gases in the atmosphere are one thing. Diffusion of light by clouds is another. Confusing the two is wrong so I undid your edit. 69.229.196.79 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Insolation

Now I have seen the article relocated, I think that's good. Better than my proposal to split it in two... Re the 'insolation' question. I have read the WP entry on insolation, and SmokeyJoe's comments, and agree that the use of the term needs to be refined, and limited. It should be refined, because SmokeyJoe is right about it being a noun that describes a process. It should be limited because it is not an easily understood word for a lay reader who knows nothing about energy. I acknowledge the link to the WP article on that topic, which is why I am not advocating completely removing it. But can I suggest the following:

Atmospheric conditions not only reduce the quantity of insolation reaching the Earth's surface but also affect the quality of insolation by diffusing diffuse approximately 20% of the incoming light, and altering its spectrum. After passing through the Earth's atmosphere approximately half the insolation is in the visible electromagnetic spectrum with the other half mostly in the infrared spectrum, and a small part of ultraviolet radiation. Upon reaching the surface, insolation sunlight is absorbed by the oceans, earth and plants.

I might anticipate a comment from SmokeyJoe and say that I think that the use of insolation in the second sentence is probably correct because it is a valid use of noun that describes the rate of something. Yes, I admit that last sunlight is not the most precise technical word, but I think it may be the best word in this particular location. To use insolation here would not be correct: i suppose solar energy would be another alternative?!

I will implement this change in a couple of days if no-one strongly objects.hamiltonstone 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Insolation is a common term. Insolation is incoming solar radiation. It's sunlight at the earth's surface... Sunlight is not a process. The paragraph in question tries to describe how sunlight coming through clouds is diffused sunlight compared to sunlight coming through clear skies which is direct sunlight. Both diffused and direct sunlight are insolation. SEE above for specifics on the impact this has on concentrating technologies. 69.229.196.79 07:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that insolation is a common word. I have never encountered it in common usage. It strikes me as awkward and technical. On consulting dictionaries, I see that it is a very old word, and that it is not as precisely defined as you seem to suppose, or as defined at Insolation. But that’s OK. My objection is that the word occurs excessively, awkwardly, and that it is not a term in common usage. --SmokeyJoe 09:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Insolation is a common term in the context of solar energy. I'd rather use this word than solar radiation. Insolation was indeed overused but the section is more or less about how solar radiation changes in the atmosphere to become insolation. I took out some of the oversue. 69.229.196.79 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still insolation to the outer atmosphere. It doesn't "become insolation". And yes it is a very obscure term that should be used only rarely.

199.125.109.136 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the definitions. [18] Mrshaba 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did look it up in a dictionary. It is still incoming solar radiation no matter where you are, Mars, Earth, the ISS. 199.125.109.87 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heat and "all life on earth"

Hi Mrshaba, I believe that this conversation belongs here.

Hey... I wasn't trying to be too precise or clever but no worries. Do you like the pictures in the lead? That's what I'd like to know. Mrshaba 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you rounding up and joules are fine. I like the pictures too. I'm having some trouble getting support for them and they keep being reverted by one guy. Could you post your support on the discussion page? I'd appreciate it. Mrshaba 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Mrshaba 23:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Light and heat... If you want to get technical it would be visible radiation and infrared/UV radiation. http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B2DVFC_en__207US212&q=define%3A+solar+energy&btnG=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.196.79 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok... You've got me on geothermal vents. I figured someone might bring this up. I realized there is some funky sort of creature which derives more energy from geothermal vents than solar energy but I think there is are two good reasons why the "support all life" phrase can be used. #1 The Earth would become a frozen chunk of rock if the sun switched off. The geothermal gradient would be completely different in this case. Paleobotanists and statisticians would need to be called in to calculated the probability that these geothermal creatures could sustain themselves under these hypothetical conditions. #2 The word support does not mean completely responsible for. If solar inputs even partially provide support for geothermal life then solar energy can be said to support all life on earth. Do I care? Not a whole lot. Support all life sounds better to me and I think it's 100% true.

I do care about your exclusion of heat as a component of solar energy. The basic heat transfer mechanisms are conduction, convection and radiation. Solar radiation transfers heat as well as light. Heat is transfered due to the temperature difference between the earth and the sun. Radiation does not require a medium. The description of solar energy needs to include heat. Mrshaba 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mrshaba,

Sorry to upset the flow by getting technical about microorganisms at deep geothermal vents, etc. Unfortunately, simple sweeping statements tend to be erroneous.

RE: Heat and solar energy. Mostly what you say sounds fine. However, to imply that solar radiation is heat is not OK. The following statements are true: Solar radiation is a mechanism for the transfer of heat from the sun to the earth. Solar radiation produces heat on absorption. Radiation transfers heat.

Solar energy needs to include heat, agreed, but please do it carefully. --SmokeyJoe 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Smokey: The mention of solar energy's contribution to life on earth started out as "almost all life" but I changed it to "all life" based on a simple sweeping rationale. We can bring back almost, add 99.9% or keep it as it is. I'm not worried about it.

Heat is different. Heat is energy in transit due to a temperature difference. It's not a substance or a property of a substance. I have spoken to HVAC guys that think of heat as property of an object but this property is better described as internal energy. Are you thinking of heat in this way? I'm trying to say that solar energy is transferred in the form of light (generally thought of as visible light) and heat (energy in transit due to a temperature difference). The mechanism of heat transport in this case is radiation.

The sentence comes from a similar sentence on the sun page: "Energy from the Sun, in the form of sunlight, supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis, and drives the Earth's climate and weather."

If you look at the sunlight page you will find this sentence in the lead: "When the direct radiation is not blocked by clouds, it is experienced as sunshine, a combination of bright light and heat."

I also see heat mentioned in 30-50% of the solar energy definitions I've run across in the way I used it. I want to put heat back into the description of solar energy but I don't know how to do this carefully. I think it's being used correctly. Do you see a simple compromise? Mrshaba 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just tries something: "Solar energy is energy from the sun. This energy heats and lights the earth’s surface, drives the climate and supports virtually all life on Earth." Let's see what you and others think. Unfortunately, it is easier to criticise something than to fix it. --SmokeyJoe 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I put heat and light back in and the weather. I will probably end up breaking up the sentence today. Mrshaba 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Concepts Need Clarification

The two solar technologies are PV and thermal (not PV and concentrating). The term concentrating does not refer only to thermal, as there are also concentrating PV systems with fresnel lenses. I was trying to clarify the intro when I ran into an edit conflict. Also, I'd be careful about interchanging the terms sunlight (photons) and solar radiation. --NameThatWorks 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Concentrating PV is still a PV technology but I see what you mean so I changed concentrating solar technologies to concentrating solar thermal technologies. Going forward I'm sure the terms sunlight, solar radiation, solar energy, light, and insolation will require continued reconciliation.Mrshaba 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this new editor completely rewrite the introduction and see what they come up with. 199.125.109.124 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I give up. This is the second time I've tried to rewrite the intro, and the second time someone has created a conflict before I finished. --NameThatWorks 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mrshaba, quit it! See how you get blamed even when it wasn't you? However, to avoid an edit conflict, cut and paste your edit all at once from a notepad, click edit on any section, not the top of the article, change the URL at the top in the address window from section=x to section=0,[19] drop in your text, hit preview just to check and then save page. There are also tags that can be added to indicate that you are editing a page, but I prefer not using them. 199.125.109.124 22:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't seem to see an 'edit' to click to access only the introduction, other than the one at the top of the page. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NameThatWorks (talk • contribs) 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To edit only the introduction, edit any other section and change the resulting URL in your browser to section=0 instead of section=3 for example. You should also get there by clicking on this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_energy&action=edit&section=0 199.125.109.124 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I revised the intro to make it flow more logically (in my opinion) and to clarify some points. However, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, so feel free to put it back or massage it further. --NameThatWorks 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to fix redirects

It turns out that redirects only marginally slow down the Wikipedia servers. Making edits majorly slow them down, so only if a link is going to be accessed more than 10,000 times is it worthwhile fixing. If you are editing a page for any other reason, by all means fix the redirect from solar power to solar energy or solar energy|solar power, as appropriate, but don't just go editing the 600 pages that link to solar power, it isn't cost effective on the servers. See WP:REDIRECT#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. The links that needed to be fixed, such as double redirects and self redirects have already been fixed. 199.125.109.87 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Solar energy vs Solar power

Scott Sklar wrote a short piece explaining the difference here: [20] Mrshaba 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Article needs trimming

This article is now 64K, twice as long as it should be. Some major trimming is in order to get it down to an appropriate size. The lead has grown to six paragraphs, two need to be removed. Here is the TOC:

   * 1 Energy from the Sun
 way too many sections and subsections->    * 2 Types of technologies
         o 2.1 Architecture and urban planning
         o 2.2 Solar lighting
         o 2.3 Solar thermal
               + 2.3.1 Water heating
               + 2.3.2 Heating, cooling and ventilation
               + 2.3.3 Process heat
               + 2.3.4 Cooking
               + 2.3.5 Desalination and disinfection
         o 2.4 Solar electricity
               + 2.4.1 Photovoltaics
               + 2.4.2 Concentrating solar
               + 2.4.3 Updraft Tower
         o 2.5 Solar vehicles
         o 2.6 Solar chemical
         o 2.7 Solar mechanical
   * 3 Energy storage
 remove->    * 4 Solar power by country
 simplify->    * 5 Development, deployment and economics
 remove->    * 6 Solar energy associations
 remove->    * 7 Solar energy research institutes
   * 8 See also
   * 9 References
   * 10 External links

199.125.109.41 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just what I had been thinking. There is too much stuff here that properly belongs (or already is) elsewhere. Examples include Photovoltaics and Energy storage. I'd also like to remove the abbreviation PV for photovolatic. It is not a common use abbreviation, and if the term is used so often that the name needs abbreviating, then it is used too much. --SmokeyJoe 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the sun shines only in the day and only in the summer in the polar regions the article needs to have at least one sentence devoted to storage somewhere, but not in the lead of course. 199.125.109.56 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead changes

Your numbers on geothermal are way off. According to the US DOE, U.S. alone geothermal resources exceed solar, by almost 50%, 49,931 Quadrillion btu/year vs only 34,498 for solar. Of that, only 759 Quadrillion btu/year is "accessible", however that's still 0.80 ZJ/year, or 1.7 times current total global energy consumption. I recommend deleting. 199.125.109.38 19:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A geothermal flux of .8 ZJ/year is less than .1% of 3850 ZJ/year. The DOE numbers are developed solar vs. geothermal resources whereas the information I posted concerned the portion of the entire renewable energy flux which is derived from solar energy. I included a source which defines solar resources as well as a source which lists the specific renewable energy fluxes. An editing note includes this info: 122 PW for solar, 55-60 TW for biomass, 10 TW for wind, 5 TW for waves, 2 TW for hydro and less than 1 TW for geothermal, tidal and ocean currents. It's reasonable info presented in context and it's sourced. Mrshaba 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying your source is wrong and should not be mentioned. Yes Wikipedia allows wrong information as long as it is sourced, but for what? To make the article look foolish? 199.125.109.124 02:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article and is not intended to have any references in it, unless they are controversial and need to be explained ("material likely to be challenged and quotations"). The only item that could be controversial that I can see is the price of solar panels. The rest of the references should be moved into the body of the article. The lead is also supposed to be written at a more general level, so as to "ease into" the subject general readers. 199.125.109.124 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire lead has been controversial. Lot's of words and numbers I've used have been questioned. Now it's 99.9%. I'm confidant that Smil is correct. I find the 99.9% figure much easier to understand than the box diagram. If you have a link to contrary information please provide it. Mrshaba 15:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing about what it should say is not the type of controversy they are talking about. What they mean by controversial, is for example if you put in an article that 90% of men go bald before they reach 40, something that is likely to be questioned by the average reader. If it isn't important to the article it is better to leave it out instead of referencing it, and put it into the body of the article, where it is more appropriate to get into details. As to your numbers, read the article geothermal power. Also, according to the US DOE, geothermal is a bigger resource than solar in the US, but not as much is accessible. See [21] Table 1 Page 13. Your numbers are wrong. Besides this isn't a commercial for Ivory soap, 99.9% or 40% is not a significant difference when you are dealing with a number that is a thousand times current usage. There is no reason to calculate a percentage, which you didn't do accurately anyways. By your numbers the percentage would be "greater than 99.4%", not 99.9%. Please read WP:Lead. You need to quit reverting people who are making positive contributions to the article, just so you can have "your version". 199.125.109.124 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the average reader might question the fact that solar resources represents over 99.9% of the available renewable energy resource flows. That's great. The number should be questioned. The size of the solar energy resource relative to other renewable energy sources is a great hook for the article.

122 PW for solar + 55-60 TW for biomass + 10 TW for wind +5 TW for waves + 2 TW for hydro equals approximately 122,000 TW. This is well over 10,000 times larger than tidal and geothermal numbers which Smil quotes.

Here is a tidal page that lists tidal capacity as about 1 TW. "The aggregate total capacity of all potential tidal-power sites in the world is currently estimated at about one billion kilowatts." [22]

This source generously estimates geothermal capacity at 10 TWth or about 4.25 TWe which is in agreement with the DOE number.[[23]]

Even if you use 50 TW as a combined geothermal and tidal resource base and cut solar resource flow in half solar would still represent over 99.9% of the renewable energy flux.

The DOE document and page you point to lists 17 year old numbers and they are electricity generation numbers.

The boring box diagram in the lead compares solar energy to wind energy. Wind is a solar resource. The 99.9% number compares solar resources to non-solar renewable resources. Mrshaba 18:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Lead... "It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."

The lead contains 4 paragraphs (1 introducing solar energy as a form of energy, 1 introducing solar energy as a broad category of technology, 1 introducing solar power as a sub-category of solar energy technology with some historical highlights and 1 general paragraph about photovoltaics). The paragraphs are carefully sourced as appropriate. Mrshaba 18:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are back to assuming ownership again, and reverting everything else even when it is much worse. Tell me why you didn't revert when one editor wrote the lead and you did revert it when another improved it. Tell me one reason that you think that your erroneous and useless figure of 99.9% is an essential part of a summary when it appears no where else. The numbers that I am referring to are simply energy resource numbers, not specifically electricity. And there has been little change in 17 years, other than a lack of interest by the DOE. 199.125.109.124 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the WP:Lead guidelines and the source guidelines in the lead are being followed appropriately. Do not remove sources from the lead. I have verified the 99.9% figure with several sources which are mentioned above. I have discredited your source as both out of date and not appropriate to the figure under discussion. Solar energy is the only renewable energy flux which is several orders of magnitude larger than current energy usage. Solar resources also several order of magnitude larger than all non-solar renewable resources. 99.9% is a striking example of this truth. Mrshaba 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Page 14 of the source you cited has a table: Table 4. U.S. Electricity Generating Capacity and Net Generation, 1990, By Fuel Type. It's irrelevant if this information has changed in the last 17 years. This is information about electricity rather than the relative sizes of renewable energy resource flows. Mrshaba 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Table 4 is on page 22, not on page 14. You have to refer to the printed pagination, not on what page your browser says it is on. The table is actually on page 13, though, and it lists all energy resources. 199.125.109.124 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Table 1. Total U.S. Energy Resources, Accessible Resources, and Reserves comes with a disclaimer

Notes: The resource values shown in Table 1 are broad estimates that result from estimation procedures highly dependent upon critical assumptions. They should be considered useful mainly for approximating the broad boundaries placed on future energy choices.

Any idea what the critical assumptions are? Can you explain why the geology page has this quote in the lead? "The heat flow from the interior to the surface is only 1/20,000 as great as the energy received from the Sun." Mrshaba 22:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The earth's mantle is a good heat insulator. Geothermal wells tap through that insulation. Try the geothermal power article. 199.125.109.124 22:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Page 1-9 of the recent MIT report listed on the Geothermal Power page has the following quote: "Heat flows through the crust of the Earth at an average rate of almost 59 mW/m²" This compares to an average rate of insolation of 125-375 W/m². There are over three orders of magnitude difference between the solar and geothermal energy flows. Mrshaba 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant by it being a good insulator. Drill through it though and the numbers change. 199.125.109.31 18:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If all the power mankind uses were to come from geothermal power plants it would not significantly change the flow of geothermal energy. Regardless, what could happen does not overturn the current state of renewable energy flows. There are four sources above which validate the 99.9% figure. These sources come from the pro-tidal and pro-geothermal camp. Currently solar resources represent 99.9% of the available flow of renewable energy. Mrshaba 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here, one the number is false and two there is no reason to have a number, it isn't significant whether the number is 40%, which is closer to the truth, or 99.9% as you wish it to be. It is better to just say "most", or "much". As you mentioned just the existing flow exceeds current energy consumption, so worrying about whether solar amounts to 40% or 99.9% of available resources if you decide to get 100% of your energy from another source, geothermal, not likely other than in Iceland, where it is highly likely, would make it moot, which is how it has been treated by the folks who think that carbon and nuclear are our only choices. You are putting something in that doesn't need to be there. If it was that important it would be in the body of the article, and it isn't. 199.125.109.87 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Show a source which proves the number is false. Mrshaba 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same type of resource. One is a constant source, the other, geothermal, is a resource that you can tap into as fast as you wish. The earth's core and mantle store some 10^36 Joules of energy that you can tap into, in addition to what is currently received at the surface. The same thing with tidal, while tidal comes from the pull of the moon on the oceans, ultimately the source is the mechanical potential energy of the earth's rotation about its axis, which will continue for about 2 billion years, until the seas have boiled away from the sun. While tidal resources are much smaller than wind and solar, they also are sufficient to supply all our needs in some specific locations, if used. 199.125.109.129 04:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anon's comments above. Also, we don't want to get into the question of whether hydro, i.e. power from dammed rivers, is a) sustainable energy or b) solar energy, especially not in the lead. If the 99.9% figure is to go in anywhere, it needs to be sourced well. Itsmejudith 07:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The 99.9% figure seems to be surprising to people. If it is surprising that's a good thing. The 99.9 percent figure is sourced well both directly and indirectly by MIT, Smil, etc. If you look at all the flows of renewable energy the solar flows represent 99.9% of the total. This is a simple fact. The size of the geothermal resource base or the potential for its utilization does not change the fact that 99.9% of the flows of renewable energy are solar based. The first few lines of the page are about Solar energy as a form of energy. The 99.9% figure puts the size of this energy resource into immediate perspective. Mrshaba 19:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For me it has nothing to do with it being surprising. If it was surprising it would need to be referenced, which it is, however flawed. For me it is not significant. It's like a billionaire going into a bookstore and saying, I want a nice book, but only if it doesn't leave me with less than 99.9% of my assets (cost more than one million dollars). Since the average book costs more than ten thousand times less than this, the 99.9% is moot.

Taking out the extra two paragraphs is a big improvement. Now take out the references. References should only go in the body unless absolutely necessary. The lead is a summary. 199.125.109.41 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the Smil paper, and it is extremely interesting, but the author does say right at the beginning that he is writing in a deliberately unorthodox and iconoclastic way. He says of the figures for hydro, wind etc. that they are "uncertain maxima". I could not see that he gave a figure of 99.9% for solar "fluxes" and if it has been calculated from those maxima then that probably counts as original research. I also think that what he means by renewable energy, at least at that point, is rather narrower than what we mean in this article, especially in the lead where we talk of buildings being oriented for solar. Sure, today I made a lot of use of solar since the sun was shining through my house's south-facing windows, so the central heating did not come on. But also the wind helped to dry my clothes. I couldn't work out the percentage of solar vs wind power without making a lot of assumptions about opportunity cost. At the very least the 99.9% is spuriously accurate. Itsmejudith 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Two quotes from the Smil paper

"Insolation (at 122 PW) is the only renewable flux that is nearly 4 orders of magnitude greater than the world’s TPES of nearly 13 TW in the year 2005."

"Except for direct solar radiation and a cripplingly high harvest of planetary NPP, no other renewable energy resource can provide more than 10 TW: generous estimates of technically feasible maxima are less than 10 TW for wind, less than 5 TW for ocean waves, less than 2 TW for hydroelectricity and less than 1 TW for geothermal and tidal energy and for ocean currents. All of these estimates are maxima of uncertain import and actual economically and environmentally acceptable rates may be only small fractions of the technically feasible totals."

Simple calculations are not original research. I used multiple sources of information besides Smil but Smil had all the data in one place so I used Smil for the footnote. Smil gives generous maxima values which makes the case for 99.9% more difficult. The tidal number that Smil quotes is also supported with a reference above. Raw flux data from the MIT paper was considerably higher than the "technically feasible" data that Smil lists but even considering this raw data the 99.9% number holds easily. Several editors have pointed out we should list in text what the isomeric cube picture formerly in the lead did with a picture. That's what the 99.9% number does. The wind you used to dry your clothes is also a solar resource. The generally accepted non-solar renewable energy resources are geothermal (which you can make a case is actually partially solar when considering ground source heating) and tidal (which also has a significant solar input when considering viscosity effects). Spurious means plausible but false. I have demonstrated that the 99.9% figure is in fact true using multiple references. Mrshaba 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The point, however, is that the number 99.9% does not occur in the article. You calculated it. Since you used maxima numbers of 122,000, and less than 1 (a disputed figure), I don't get 99.9%, I get 99.999% from those figures. Why did you round it down to 99.9, and not 99% or 99.99%? Definitely original research. 199.125.109.134 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the phrase over 99.9% of the flow of renewable energy rather than 99.95% or 99.99% because the extra specificity would require more accurate numbers. The point of the phase is to highlight the magnitude of solar resource flows relative to other non-solar renewable resource flows. 99.9% does about the same job as 99.99%. As far as original research goes this source lists the number at 99.98% [24] 99.98% is greater than 99.9% so the phrase I used remains factual. Mrshaba 05:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Simple calculations emphatically are original research. I will check out the reference you give for 99.98%. The problem now seems to me to be how the concept of "resource flows" is used in the article, if at all. It cannot be simply dropped into the lead without a full conceptual development. There is a world of difference between calculating the energy resources that could in theory be available for human use on the one hand and on the other evaluating the sources of energy that are in practice available in market-ready technologies. I now have to go to work for the day. My practical choices are a) to walk, b) to take a bus running on re-used vegetable oil or c) to drive a car run on petrol (gasoline). Surprisingly, I don't happen to have the option of using a solar vehicle or one propelled by geothermal. What proportion of energy available to me comes from the sun is completely irrelevant to the decision. As someone with basic scientific literacy I know that the petrol ultimately derives from plants that relied on solar energy to grow. Similarly with the re-used vegetable oil - it counts as a renewable source only because it would otherwise have been thrown away. And if I walk I get my energy from the calories I just consumed, which came from plants that grew in the sun. This is all part of the ongoing tensions around this article. I think it is about a set of technologies and science comes into it only in so far as necessary to understand the technologies. Mrshaba, I think you see the article as being primarily about the science. I need to set off now to walk to work - happy editing everyone. Itsmejudith 08:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Judith, I disagree with several of your points. I think you should reconsider your view of the calculations I performed. I've converted several numbers on the page from one temperature system to another. Those were all simple calculations and a page like this would not be possible without calculations of this sort. The calculations I made in regards to the 99.9% figure follow the guidelines found here and listed below. The assumptions I made used the most conservative values and the 99.9% figure held easily. The context of the Smil article clearly points towards comparing the magnitude of solar insolation to other renewable and non-renewable resources but instead of comparing the fluxes by magnitude I compared the fluxes using a percentage. There was some question as to the validity of the Smil numbers so I provided additional sources which backed up the Smil data. Now I have an additional source which provides a precooked comparison. I've written to the author seeking additional information regarding his data but I'm not sure I'll get a reply because the page is rather old.

What is not original research? Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election by candidate, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand.

The first paragraph and the "resource flow concept" is expanded upon in the Energy from the sun section. This section contains resource flow data for solar resources such as biomass, wind etc. The 99.9% figure is not used specifically but the bulleted information follows a similar theme. i.e. comparison of resource flows (ZJ per year). A few snippets of information can easily be added which fully unify the comparisons.

• The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 (ZJ) per year.
• Oceans absorb approximately 285 ZJ of solar energy per year.
• Winds can theoretically supply 6 ZJ of energy per year.
• Biomass captures approximately 1.8 ZJ of solar energy per year.
• Insert tidal/geothermal fluxes
• Worldwide energy consumption was 0.471 ZJ in 2004.

I agree there is considerable difference between theoretical potential and technical potential. I would add that there is also a considerable difference between resource stocks and resource flows. The problem lies in asymmetric comparisons. Comparing resource flows to resource stocks is an example of an asymmetric comparison. This is why geothermal reserves shouldn't be compared to solar fluxes. If the geothermal stock is to be compared symmetrically to a solar stock it would need to be compared to the solar stock of the sun divided by the percentage of this stock which will be available to the earth over the next few billion years. This is a silly comparison but the comparison of the total geothermal resource base to the solar flux is equally silly. Comparing theoretical potential to technical potential is also asymmetric because of the assumptions buried in the technical potential data. I find the cleanest comparison comes from comparing the global resource flows. These comparisons allow you to compare measurements rather than points of view.

Judith, I've written or heavily edited close to 90% of the technology information on the page. Did you know this? Do you think my explanations of the technologies are too scientific? I'd say I have a decent technological standpoint of this topic although you might disagree. I would also say that if you can understand solar energy from the scientific standpoint you will gain a much greater appreciation for the technologies that are available to you. The scientific standpoint removes prejudice and allows you to recognize the areas we currently use solar energy without realizing it. Like the clothes drying example you used yesterday. Like daylight savings time which is coming up this weekend for the US. These uses of solar energy are completely overlooked when the energy statisticians do their calculations of solar energy use because the methodologies used are prejudiced to comparing conventional energy resources.

The tension around this article mainly stems from 199. You have agreed with several of 199's comments which I find disappointing but it's a free country. The truth is I'd like to get you to change your mind. That's why I sent the link regarding the Sklar article on solar energy vs solar power. That's why I've written this rather long explanation. Mrshaba 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to use the 99.98% figure, properly referenced, but in the body, and not in the lead. As I have said before the number is so many times what we need that it is not significant whether it is 40% or 99.98%. Since it has no significance, there is no reason to put it in the lead. 199.125.109.129 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Intermittency

I added a small bit on the challenge of intermittency and it impacts on the economics of dispatching solar power, and a link to source that discusses solar power in a larger context. Each of the sections that that deal with a form of solar power could be cut considerably--no need for that much detail here. Energyadonis 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything that gets trimmed and is not already in one of the subarticles can easily be moved there. 199.125.109.87 07:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Obvious work remains on a few sections but the page seems to be GA worthy. Much appreciation to NTW for his professional skills. Mrshaba 03:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PV

This section, for me, is one of the most important parts of this page. I've held off editing this section for a long time but have slowly started building on it. I'm trying to develop this section historically but there are gaps in the availability of information so I've run into difficulty. There are also conflicts between sources which I'm trying to resolve but have had limited success. My plan is to bring up Japanese development from 1994 onwards and segue way into parallel German development from 1999 until the present. One overall problem I'm seeing is that $$$ amount are widely quoted that disagree with each other. I think part of the problem is inflation had made numbers quoted during different time spans irrelevant to each other. This needs to be resolved. I'm working on it. Mrshaba 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review from Goodfriend100

A couple of points

• Expand Solar mechanical
• I think you can trim the "see also" section. Theres way too many wikilinks.
• when you link sections to "main articles" you only need to link one or two of the most relevant. All of them are not necessary.

I think this article needs a little more touchup. Other than that, I think its ready for GA status. Good friend100 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I trimmed the "see also" section.
• I took out the redundant links that I could find.
• The expansion of the solar mechanical section will take some time. The section was created to keep with the parallel structure which has the technologies grouped by their primary energy transformation. Many solar mechanical technologies overlap into the CST technologies so they are grouped there. It's a good suggestion though. I'll think about including solar mechanical louvres and whatnot. Mrshaba 04:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I added to the solar mechanical section. Hope the material helps to fill out the section and provide some perspective on solar mechanical stuff. Mrshaba 06:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read [[25]] for tips on "See also" sections. I cut the the section down. Good friend100 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for further improvement

I trimmed the See Also section a lot. Many of the links there are not needed. I think this article looks great! I think it has great information, nicely organized, and with sufficient refs. I suggest that you...

• Continue to update the article.
• expand short topics.

I suggest you keep working and nominate this for FA status. Good friend100 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hell yeah! Mrshaba 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. This is mainly down to your consistent effort Mrshaba and you should be proud. We may have differed over minor issues but the general trend of the article has been to steady improvement. Itsmejudith —Preceding comment was added at 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Judith. I plan to continue improving the article and others. Mrshaba 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding further improvement I have a few thoughts. Last night I stumbled upon an excellent method of improving the page. I started surfing around all the foreign language WP sites. When you get on a good page no understanding of the language is required to translate the quality of the page.[26] The colors of picture and page layout are enough to translate the page's quality. I found merger tags on some German solar energy/solar power pages so it seems they are having some of the same information border issues as we've had. I looked through many energy pages on the German WP using the google translation feature to help me. That was fun. I've been farming these pages for info and good pictures. It's a great tool and I recommend it to others. I might be stating a generally known fact but this technique was surprisingly effective. I have uploaded some of the pictures I found and will upload more in the future. I'm also going to start resizing pictures and moving things around. These is new territory for me so there may be some swapping back and forth. I'll farm FAs to find examples of good layout and try to incorporate them into the page. Others should as well. The thumbnail picture left hand justification layout can easily be improved.

Going forward I would also like to develop a price graph for PV that is well sourced and appealing. A good example of such a graph is the oil price graph. If there are suggestions on how to develop a graph I'd like to hear them. If you've got sources please post them here or on my talk page. I will contact the creator of the oil price graph to begin this process. This sort of a graph would be useful on many of the solar energy pages. I think a fair price history of PV would greatly improve the photovoltaics section of the page and the main PV page. I would like to work on the PV section but my sources of information on the price history of PV are conflicting so this issue needs to be resolved before the section can be finished. The PV section in general needs a lot of work.

I also think the Architecture section needs some work. I have a few books on this subject which I'll need to dig through. I've noticed that some of the thumb rules require further generalization. The issue is more than just an issue of which side of the equator you are on but more about what kind of climate you are in. Facing a home south might not be an appropriate choice for homes in extremely hot climates. The section touches on this but still uses some thumb rules that need improvement. I think this information can be resolved easily enough with some more research. Also, the sources used need to be recent. Solar architectural thought has apparently undergone significant refinement over the last decade.

The Solar vehicle section also needs work. Regarding planes, I think we should start with info on the Gossamer Penguin and move through several solar planes examples rather than just the Helios and Pathfinder. There was also a recent record breaking plane in the UK that should be mentioned. This would balance out the section. The same could be done for cars.

And sources... I would like to power up the quality of the sources to books and peer reviewed journals where ever possible. A longstanding member of ASES would be a real asset in this quest. I am attempting to buy back issues of Solar Energy but have had no success so far. I'll keep trying. And I'll write another letter to ASES asking for members to come onto the solar pages. I might even join. I noticed that AWEA members are on the Wind power page and the quality of the wind power page reflects this. I am but an avid outsider to this subject. Some longstanding members of the solar energy community would really help with polishing the page.

Some of these corrections will be easier than others. We'll see... Mrshaba 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gradually, I would like to pull apart the references into a notes list and a references list. In terms of books on solar building design, Susan Roaf is a good UK-based author. Do you have anything by her? Itsmejudith 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting large scale solar cooking device: [27]. I wrote the the web master asking for permission to use a picture of the Solar Kitchen. I think this picture is more interesting than our current picture. We'd lose an example of solar energy use in Africa but we'd gain an example of solar energy use in India. If anyone finds and open source picture of the Solar Kitchen it would be a nice addition. Mrshaba 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nicer if the photo was taken from a higher vantage point so that it showed the reflector better. Does anyone have a helicopter? 199.125.109.47 04:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK... I found this material on solar kitchens and this is the response I received:

Greetings from Auroville. We have no objection in you using in the Wikipedia the images available in our website on Solar Energy. Feel free to copy the text as well as the photos. Warm regards, Manoj How should I go about uploading these images permission wise? What tag should I use? Any thoughts? 69.229.196.79 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

You will have seen Mrshaba and I adding the main references to the list. I can't find the Whittaker and Likens reference in the UK academic library system, which is odd if it is Springer-Verlag? can anyone find it in the US academic libraries? thanks. Itsmejudith 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I pulled the reference off the biomass page. You might look three. Mrshaba 19:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Primary Productivity of the Biosphere was published in a few journals around 1975/1976. Mrshaba 04:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it at: http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/0387070834 But the authors are slighly different. Long term, a library trip would be required to verify the data we pulled from this book. Mrshaba 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I finished off the books... One thing Judith, you removed a reference with this comment: delete poor-quality ref (to an individual's webpage) when we have a good one for the same point). The webpage is indeed goofy but the reference covered specific technical info in the paragraph that I couldn't find anywhere else. At the time I was working over the material rapidly so wasn't super worried about fine tuning all the refs but rather finding a basis for the information that I wanted to compare. We should find a good ref for this technical data (347 kJ/kg and deliver heat at 64 °C. ) when we can. Mrshaba 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for finishing the books. I wonder whether we need all the detail on heat storage materials when it could be added to the substantive article on that issue (it is relevant to other kinds of energy than solar). "Deliver heat at 64deg" is, I'd say, just an assurance that the material can be used in domestic circumstances; it reads like it came from an advertising blurb. Having said that, it's a good idea to go looking for better sources throughout. I won't have much time to do that, though. Itsmejudith 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to keep the info for several reasons I mentioned in the storage conversation below. If it sounds like an advertisement that should be fixed. I'll take the lead on improving the sources shortly. I purchased 13 years worth of the Solar Energy journal yesterday that will be delivered in a few weeks. With these back issues and my current subscription to Solar Energy I'll be able to amp up the references. Can I get a whoop! whoop! Mrshaba 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Storage

I wonder if we have am easily accessible reference for simply storing energy in the form of hot water. For example, in an ordinary domestic context, water heated by solar water panels is invariably stored before use. It is very straightforward then to add further thermal water tanks as thermal stores. They can feed hot water central heating systems. I'm sure some of the architecture books mention this, and it is much more common than phase change materials. Itsmejudith 18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on storage and strategy. PCMs are mentioned because they have been an interesting part of solar energy's development. Water storage is more common and deserves more attention but PCMs are a notable storage material that has been repeatedly experimented with. The Energy storage section needs to include varied examples of storage (heat, chemical) to diffuse the intermittency argument which I foresee returning to this page again and again. Heat storage is solar energy's ace in the hole against the intermittency argument. This is the reason I'm including info about energy use by sector in the different technology sections. i.e. The 22% of energy used for lighting can be offset by daylighting. The 14% of energy use for heating hot water can be offset by solar hot water. I will add the percentage of energy used for Heating, cooling and ventilation because here again we can provide information which shows this energy can also be offset by practical solar heating/cooling technologies (SEE Hay below). I included some technical data for a couple of reasons. There are technophiles like me that dig this sort of info and energy density is a relatively easy property we can use to compare different storage methods. I also think temperature should be used to compare the technologies at a practical level that is also easy to understand.

I experimented with the grouping of sections quite a bit. Hot water is a cross-cutting section between Energy storage and Solar thermal but I decided to put it in the thermal section because there are other water technologies (disinfection/desal) that are grouped in this section. We can easily include specific information about water's storage characteristics to the Storage section and we probably should. There is a fellow by the name of Hay that developed another interesting solar water technology that I intend to add to the page. Here is news article with a video if you are interested:[28] I'm only a few miles from the Atascadero House so I'll get some pictures that could potentially be used on this page or others. I'll probably end up writing Hay for more info as well. Mrshaba 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Major terms

I noticed the HVAC page has a major terms section. I don't want to put a major terms section on this page but I think the solar energy topic could use a major terms page. Is this an appropriate page topic used on WP? Mrshaba 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Captions

The caption on the opening illustration needs strengthening. First, all photos are views. Second, it should be connected to the topic. Something like this might work better: "As seen from Earth, Venus, a planet of similar size, is dwarfed by the sun. The upper atmospheres of both planets receive XX of radiant energy daily." --NameThatWorks 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you add the rest of the suggested caption, or something similar that relates to the sun's energy, the photo and caption remain better suited to an article on astronomy or the solar system. --NameThatWorks 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. #1 I think using the picture without Venus removes the issue. #2 What should the caption be? I like "Heat and light from the sun fuel life on Earth. Simple, quick... I originally liked the idea of pointing out the magnitude of energy received from the sun but I think the captions should stay away from numbers that involve scientific notation as much as possible. This page will be read by a general audience so the captions should try to stay general. Mrshaba 01:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead changes

I would like to go back to the previous version of the lead but I'm not going to push it. The previous version was a hybrid of many contributors. There were parts of it that unsettled the purist in me but I left them alone for compromise sake. The lead has been quoted in at least one newpaper and it helped get the page to GA status. I'm not saying the lead should be untouchable. I'm saying the regular editors should leave it alone for now and return to it during the coming run up to FA. I imagine that will be a few months from now. We can give the lead a concerted collective effort then. For right now the former version of the lead was the most stable version we've had for months and this stability helped progress on the rest of the page. Mrshaba 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would like to go back to the previous stable version. The current phraseology and punctuation used in the second sentence are both incorrect. We've gone more backwards that forwards with the lead. I am not going to mess with it but crikey... Mrshaba 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PV price graph

I think a graph that looked like this will be good.

I think it will look good when put in the best and most relevant section. Other than that, people will get confused about a graph on oil prices. Good friend100 01:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a PV price history graph that looked similar to the oil price history graph. Mrshaba 02:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to figure out what graphing program to use but I have been digging into PV's price history. Does anyone know of a good graphing program that converts a table of info into a graph like the one on the right? Mrshaba (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Severe pruning needed

This article has continued to get bigger and is now at 74 kb, instead of the recommended maximum of 32 kb. Some serious trimming is needed to get it back down to proper size. 199.125.109.43 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think should go? The sections are all fairly short and frequently refer to main articles for more detail. Many articles are this length, including FAs. Itsmejudith 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well basically the purpose of edits is to improve the article, not just add information. At this point I would be happy to see about half of the content pushed out to other articles. For example, the TOC is way too complex. When you have five subsections of a subsection, that tells me that all of them should be removed, and the subsection become its own article with its own five subsections. 199.125.109.134 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree in relation to the subsections. These are the result of painstaking efforts to structure the article. I will try to do some pruning but I don't expect to be able to shave off more than about 10% without losing useful material. Itsmejudith 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a distraction. It is much more important to continue working on the content for now. No offense Judith but I think the few words that were shaved from the second paragraph are ill advised. This balanced phrasing came from NTW. It has been added/removed/added and now removed again. Was it removed as part of a pruning process? I don't know but it seems the sentence is now out of balance again. I won't change it back but I wish we could put a lock on the lead because jeez it's been a hassle. At this point I still have more content I'm waiting to fold into the Lighting, Cooking, HVAC and Vehicle sections. The architecture section needs better cohesion. The vehicle section needs more diversity. The second half of the PV section needs significant work. We've still got pictures to find and choose from. Most of the references need to be carefully worked again in the Harvard style. I think an optimization of references can save the page 5 percent all by itself but most of the areas of improvement will generally fatten up the page. I'm guessing between what is added, trimmed or optimized the page should come in at 75-85 kb. This length would put the page at about the same size as the Michael Jordan page by word count although considerably longer by page count thanks to all the wonderful pictures. The wind power page is a peer of this one and it sits at 104 kb. Where does it say that a topic of this breath needs to be covered in 32 kb? The sections seem to be well balanced and Goodfriend did advise lenthening short sections. Lumos3 pointed out that many visitors to the page will be children. Keeping this in mind we should have many striking images that will entice these younger readers into at least reading the captions. Now that I think of it, both Lumos3 and NameThatWorks have pointed out our picture captions need to better apply to the pictures. So there's another clear area for improvement. The page is clearly still being built. We'll cross the pruning bridge when we come to it. Mrshaba 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with those edits being reverted. I do like to rewrite in more condensed style, as I think it is usually clearer, but you're probably right that it can wait for now. Let's look at some FA lengths. Itsmejudith 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would generally agree with writing in a condensed style. I looked at some FAs. Islam-92, Michael Jordan-74, El Greco-88, Eagle Scout-38, Helium-46, Windows XP-54 (surprisingly), Renewable Energy in Scotland-73, Minnesota-90, Plymouth Colony-103. Seems like 75-85 kb would be fine considering the history, diversity, and technical nature of this subject. Mrshaba 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi All, while I use this site everyday, I am new a User/Contributor. And by mistake I added a link to a site on Solar Energy without discussing with you here. I should have done that just like in any business discussion. Now my question to you experienced Contributors: "If a site is producing useful information on solar energy and comparing the products in the market (without commercial involvement) - does that site have a place on this solar energy page?" This is my first question to people behind Wikipedia, so please bear with me. On a separate note, Mrshaba suggested I can bring pictures, and I will get a few good ones. And yes, I have just added a brief user page, so you know what my background is. Thanks. (Shankar AVSB (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Hi Avsb and a warm welcome to Wikipedia. The answer to your question is "Maybe". It depends if the site has information that is not available anywhere else, and also on the reliability of the information on that site. Since we are trying to take this article to Featured Article status, we are really looking for sources of the highest possible quality, such as refereed scientific papers, books written by acknowledged experts, or government reports. Can you say something about the standing of the website you wish to add? Or just give us the URL to check out. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Solar Architecture

I tried to condense this material but the short-cuts taken disrespect the topic and misinform the reader. My idea with this section was to remind the reader that we can build and arrange things in a ways that utilize sunlight and climate rather than allowing the sun to work against us. This is a base principle of solar energy in general but Vitruvius pointed out the beginning principles more eloquently 2000 years ago than I ever could. I think the quote is a wonderful introduction to the technologies. Perlin wins again. Mrshaba 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A Question on Improvement Methods

When I read through the page I highlight in my mind where it needs to be fixed. Normally I announce my broad intentions of fixing the page here and then follow through. For the most part I just talk to myself on this page but I don't really care because this topic drives me all by itself. That being said I appreciate positive feedback and constructive criticism. One thing I was just thinking was that a subpage could be listed and highlighted with areas of concern. The highlights could include a ref with a link to the specific concern. The concerns would be too long, uncited, POV etc. The specific tags could still be placed on the main page but a person like me who wants to see the areas of concern on a whole page could quickly see them highlighted all at once on a subpage... Just an idea. It could definitely be abused but it could also be controlled. One editor should not be allowed to have more than 3 concerns at a time for example... As I say... just a thought. Mrshaba 04:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The best way to improve this page is to recognize that Wikipedia is edited by over a million editors, and has over 2 million English articles alone. Focusing on one article is counterproductive. Focus only on other articles for at least six months. When you return you will have a better knowledge of how to improve this article. 199.125.109.129 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore the above, Mrshaba. The usual way to handle what you suggest above is a to-do list on the talk page. This article used to have one but then all the original to-dos were finished. The lead-up to FA is a good time to have such a list. Anon, your help would be much appreciated. Let's leave the editing spats to controversial articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Anon is not helping. The rudely tinted to do list is a reminder of Anons' contribution style. It's astonishing to me how patient wikipedia is with editors like this. This has been going on for months. I have constantly had to backtrack over and defend well written material because of this guy. The article is well organized and filled with quality sourced material.... nothing to write the Nobel committee about but it's good. I've tried to post to the admin boards but they are not responding. This guy needs to go away. Mrshaba (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting rated GA by someone who just got back from a block and was reversed on their very next review because the article clearly did not meet GA standards and going for FA status is a whole different ball game. If you review the FA requirements, you will see that the prose needs to be engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. 199.125.109.62 (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the style points. Disrespecting the GA qual is BS and I think you are completely full of it. Forward review of the page should work in a step-wise fashion from weak sections up. At this point the to do lists should point out specific weaknesses by section because we have sections which need obvious work, sections inbetween, and other sections that are relatively complete. The prose on the page as a whole is well done... magazine quality definitely.... engaging and even brilliant at times... We're clearly getting there. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff with our to do list and work up rather than over... I'm impressed by the recent work of Judith and Sillybilly and I happily recognize the quality of their contributions and the defense/explanation on this talk page. I have felt very alone editing this page for a long time because there's been a whole lot of watching and complaining about what I've written/edited. This is my impression only. On the opposite side, I'm very happy to watch and appreciate doing rather than doing and suffering complaint. To those that add I commend you. 66.122.77.148 (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Layout question

I want the Solar lighting section to align on the left side of the page. On small screens this occurs naturally but on large screens it does not. What coding should I use to force the Solar lighting section to fall below the Urban Heat Island picture using any screen size? It's a layout question... Mrshaba 05:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that about half of the section headings are being pushed to the side by the above picture. We need to space aligned these section headers to the left on all screen sizes. How is this this done? What is the coding? Mrshaba (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Position of Trombe wall material

I know it is a traditionally important factor in passive solar building design, but can we move it further down to the energy storage section where thermal mass is mentioned? Any views welcome, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it is well placed in the Heating, cooling and ventilation section because it both heats and ventilates. 131.89.192.111 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Captions

The issue of caption rework has been mentioned by Lumos3 and NameThatWorks. I did a partial overhaul of the captions today. 90% of the material I changed was forwarded to me by NameThatWorks so he deserves the credit for these changes. So far so good. Mrshaba (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Twere'nt nuthin'. --NameThatWorks (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we start a new section or group with Solar chemical

There's some information about crop growing practices that I'd like to put in the article. Solar energy obviously drives all plant growth and I'd like to touch on this with a sentence or two but not much more than that. My objective is to bring back some historical info concerning planting practices in Medieval Europe. This historical info can be balanced against current planting practices which use orientation to maximize crop yields. I also want to add in examples of greenhouses and how they use solar energy to grow stuff. I started to add this information to solar lighting but it probably doesn't belong there. Should we add a Solar biological section or should this information be put in the Solar chemical section. Or... hmmm... this just came to me... Should we rename the Solar chemical section Solar chemistry and biology or something along those lines. Thoughts... Opinions... Other ideas? Mrshaba (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really difficult. There already is mention of photosynthesis in "Energy from the Sun", where it seems to fit well. I was going to start a sub-section "horticulture" in the "solar thermal", where greenhouses would seem to belong. Could you add your material about Medieval Europe and contemporary practices here, and then we can see where it best fits? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for adding the stuff to the article. Having seen it, my view is now that I don't think the biology and chemistry mix well. I'd prefer to see a section "Agriculture and horticulture". I think we have enough useful well-sourced material for it. Our general structure for the article seems to be around the applications of the technology, dealing with the science behind the applications. Agriculture and horticulture would mirror the sections on solar construction. Much of this is about how "low-tech" ideas are actually pivotal to much of what we do, or should do. This is a perennial theme of the literature on solar that I have seen. Of course it relates to the point about the abundance of solar energy.

I'd also like to mention that I'm concerned about the Deichmann source (a patent application) for any statement relating to the history of agriculture in medieval Europe. This is really interesting stuff and I would like to see it in the article if possible. I wouldn't mind following up refs, but because of the layout of the patent application it was difficult to see if it had cited any papers on this topic.Itsmejudith (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perlin is the source for the Medieval farmer example. I'll get to the proper ref tonight or tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perlin is a good start as we should be able to follow the refs back. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)