Talk:Solar energy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Table proposals

See Talk:Solar energy/Sandbox#Table proposals

Despite the fact that a diagram would be much better than a table, until that is established in the minds of everyone working on this article, a section has been created in the sandbox for working on proposals for a table. In the mean time I would suggest we keep the diagram. Or the table from the RfM, with the exception of correcting the figure for wind to 870 TW and solar to surface solar as the amount at the edge of the atmosphere isn't going to help anyone. However, these should be in TW, instead of ZJ, because they are rates of energy. Apteva (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Table which states: "Do not, under any circumstances, use "float" to position a table. It will break page rendering at large font sizes." You make them "float" by using "align=left" or "align=right". See the example. I fixed the article, and corrected the values. Apteva (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, TW is a measure of power. The world energy use is defined in the source in BTUs, which is a measure of energy. Apples and oranges. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is defined in the source in BTUs per year, which is not energy but power. Apteva (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point there. See the sandbox for corrections to the value you proposed. --Skyemoor (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that the prohibited style="float: left;" in the table makes the decimal points line up, it does no such thing. It breaks the table. Use align="left" instead, per Help:Table. And take out TWhr, which isn't even a unit and replace it as shown in the sandbox - either ZJ or TW. The sandbox versions have been reviewed and are acceptable, the version in the article is not. Your "Technical potential" for wind is totally bogus, because it is outdated - it was based on 80 m turbines on land, and who knows what size turbines will be used in a year - 130 m have been proposed - already we use 100 m turbines, making the number completely false. Apteva (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to 'float' as in number, not formatting. The sandbox versions have been reviewed and are acceptable I'm sorry, who has reviewed and accepted the sandbox versions? We will have to arrive at an acceptable value for wind, though I would suggest that you avoid words such as "totally false" and "bogus" when negotiating edits, as those values are verifiable. If you have better ones, we'll talk. --Skyemoor (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No one has objected to the sandbox versions. If you object to them I haven't seen you create an alternate proposal there. As to wind, stick with the total energy in the wind, all wind, even the jet stream, which is 870 TW, according to the GCEP reference. I was looking for another ref, but haven't found one, though we have a calculation on this talk page that it is reasonable. Apteva (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume that no objections in a sandbox means that something is acceptable. I note that you moved comments of mine in the sandbox to here.--Skyemoor (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved from sandbox:

The terms need to be more explicit, as they could be confused with energy generated from those sources. So "Solar" should become something like "Solar energy received at the Earth's surface"; "Wind" as "Wind resources at x meters); "Biomass" as "Total Biomass of the Earth". --Skyemoor (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary in the table, though more information could added in a reference. Adding qualifiers in the table just makes it busy. The word total is clearly implied by using the word "Yearly" in the title of the table. No one is going to confuse 86,000 TW for what we get from solar power when just below it we see that all of our consumption of electricity adds up to only 1.8 TW. It would just be a bizarre misreading, and not very likely. Apteva (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of tips on formatting...

• CSS style="float:right" is to make block-level element (e.g. a <div>) around which other text will flow. This is added to images, infoboxes, tables etc (but not to cells!) when those blocks are to appear on the right of everything else.
  To merely right-justify text inside something else use style="text-align:right" (CSS) or align="right" (html 3).
• To add a descriptive note to the column header(s) add <ref group="n">additional description here</ref> wherever necessary.
  Then, immediately after the table add {{reflist|group="n"}} which will then emit the descriptive notes previously defined for group "n" (or whatever you call it) directly below the table.
  If the whole shebang is to be to the right of other text, then put both the table and the {{reflist|group="n"}} inside a <div style="float:right;border:solid gray 1px;"> ... </div> -- Fullstop (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that Help:Table says don't ever ever ever ever ever ever ever use float to position a table, and it shows how to get the same result by using align=left (or right). Apteva (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

float:right

Except that -- as I had just explained above -- align= is not equivalent to float.

align="right"

Can you spot the difference?

And ... I didn't suggest to float a table. I said float a div that contains a table.

And ... if floats on tables were as problematic as you seem to think, WP would have no infoboxes. Even this very page has an ".infobox" floating table: the archive box.

And ... no, Help:Table does not in fact show "how to get the same result by using align=left" because not only does Help:Table not even mention divs, as the example above demonstrates it is not possible to get the same results by using align=.

-- Fullstop (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved your (Skyemoor's) comments here because there is no reason to have any discussion on the sandbox page - it would mean that discussion was in two places and impossible to follow. What happens with a sandbox is if you don't like it change it, or add a new section with a new proposal. If you accept it leave it. I saw no indication either here or there that there was any objection to either the TW or ZJ versions. Your comment above dated 17:36, 21 October 2008 ("See the sandbox") is the sort of comment that I was looking for, although I fail to see any changes in values that you are alluding to - did you forget to make them? Or did you mean changes in the names of the values? See response above - I would suggest they be added only as part of the reference if at all. Play with them and see what you come up with. For me "Solar, Wind, Biomass, Electricity (2005), and Primary energy use (2005)" are fine. I know that Mrshaba has said they would like to see hydro added, but it is such a small resource that to me adding it is pointless. Apteva (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The following refers to proposal2 in the sandbox. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These numbers are all sourced and I have additional sources with similar values in most cases. Wind, Biomass and Hydro are all solar resources which is why they are listed. Adding the technical potential column levels the playing ground between current use and potential use. I'd like to add the potential of the oceans but I've never been able to find a solid number. Mrshaba (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You mind not using shades of gray though? I strongly object to a "potential use" column, which would be a third column, because current use is not the same as potential use. I see that one is lavender, but on my monitor it just comes through as another shade of gray. Also "Source and use" is not sufficient for a table heading - you would need to add the words energy resources in there somewhere. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Fullstop: I do see that your tables are overlapping each other, so yes using a div float is not the same as aligning the table, but I fail to see your point, as that makes the table that is covered up impossible to read. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just changed proposal 1, because since the units are in TW, there is no need to specify a time frame. Apteva (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See Proposal 3 in sandbox.

Ahh... I figured out how to set the widths and the block level coding seems to work (on my sandbox page at least) - cross fingers.

These numbers are all sourced and I have additional sources with similar values in most cases. Wind, Biomass and Hydro are all solar resources which is why they are listed. Adding the technical potential column levels the playing ground between current use and potential use. I'd like to add the potential of the oceans but I've never been able to find a solid number. Mrshaba (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a couple of things to improve readability/"niceness"?: a) Multiply all the figures by 1000 so that all numbers have at least one significant digit before the decimal point. b) make the numbers line up vertically. Altogether, perhaps like so:

(See Proposal 4)

Would that be helpful? -- Fullstop (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. Mrshaba (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. --Skyemoor (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, keep the proposals in one place so that they can be compared more easily. I added a column for current use (Proposal 5). The numbers (xx) should be easy to find. Apteva (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that for wind and solar, technical potential does not refer to EJ/year as you have calculated, but TWp, which has to be multiplied by the capacity factor, about 0.35 for wind and about 0.20 for solar to convert to EJ. I have done that for wind in Proposal 5, but can't determine where the number for solar came from (access forbidden). Apteva (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Table 4 so far, and Table 5 adds another dimension that can be helpful, though could we use an image for this particular set of metrics? i.e. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:World_energy_usage_width_chart.svg . A column that might be useful could be "% of Current Consumption" with regard to the total potential. -- Skyemoor (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Table 4 should list electricity and total use in the first column - the potential for each is the sum of the items in the technical potential column, plus any residual use of non-renewables, but that calls for speculation - makes an assumption on world population, for example, that really no one agrees with. Also the table uses EJ, but no where explains that that is EJ/year, which is why using TW is much better. I don't see any difference between 5 and 5.1 other than 5 is more attractive and takes up less space. By the way, feel free to edit it and put in values in place of all the xx's. I dislike gui editors like Frontpage that create humongous websites because they insist on defining the font for just about every character. I prefer simpler/better/easier, such as using wikitable. I would recommend not including a diagram showing total energy use, because that is the province of another article (world energy use). Apteva (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Does everyone think that using EJ gives the readers the best sense of energy, versus using TWh (or TW)? I personally favor the latter, but want to understand how others perceive energy scales from comparisons to how power plants are rated, the unit types people most normally come into contact with, etc. --Skyemoor (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that TW is much better, because it is an SI unit and it refers to a flow of energy (rate of use or supply). Having worked with energy units for a long time I don't think anyone has a "sense of energy". Also big numbers, like talking about 80 Billion dollar bailouts or 2 Trillion dollar loses are equally unfathomable. What it says on your electric bill is useful because you can multiply a 100 watt appliance times the number of hours you have it on to find out how much it is going to cost you, so for example when Australia decided to switch to Joules instead of kWh they simply confused people. For the purposes of the article, the Image:Available Energy-3.png diagram is best, in my opinion, although the captions could be made a little bigger, like in -4.png. Apteva (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not comparing power resources or power consumption. The table compares energy resources and energy consumption so I think the table should compare these terms using energy units (Quads, TWh, EJ). The sources I've used for the "technical potentials" measure things in terms of energy.

I support the EJ unit because it's a clean SI based energy unit. I think TWh is primarily used to measure electricity but only a few of the things being compared in the table are related to electricity. Can they be compared using this unit - sure, TWh breakdown into joules after all, but I prefer EJ.

Geothermal is not a solar resource and should not be included. The heading of the table can mention Annual energy resources if there is any confusion. Mrshaba (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have to say annual if you use EJ - otherwise it could mean EJ/second, EJ/century, etc. - that is why TW is much better than EJ. Nothing wrong with including geothermal - especially because it is a very similar resource to biomass except that it doesn't produce any CO2. Also it is helpful to include to see the relative choices we have in renewables - bear in mind that in the next 50 years (I know - most people don't look beyond the next month, or at most 5 years, but some people do, and one thing we can't stop is time) we have to replace what 85-95% of our current sources of energy, and while solar provides like 0.05% today (give or take), the obvious question, is what are we going to replace that 85% with, and geothermal should be included to provide an easy comparison with the other candidates, wind and solar (when you include hydro in the table it is easy to see that it is not a candidate). I am certainly not advocating anything when I say that it is easy to see that geothermal can provide a significant portion of our energy, wind all, and solar a virtually infinite supply; and I wouldn't know that without seeing it in the diagram in this article (which has now been removed). Saying geothermal is not a solar resource is not significant - very few people know that wind or biomass are forms of solar energy, and think of them only as yet another renewable energy option. Geothermal is also important to include because of the relative amount available vs. hydro - in other words, if you don't include hydro (7.2TW) you don't need to include geothermal (32TW), and can just have a diagram with only wind/solar and current energy consumption, which is what the original image included (Image:Available Energy-2.jpg). If you use a table it doesn't get too busy to have five items instead of four, like a diagram would. I still wasn't able to verify from the reference how the potential for solar was obtained and whether it included a capacity factor and efficiency in the calculation - in either case though it should be included in the notes as shown in table 5 so that 5 years from now if someone comes out with say penny per watt solar panels that are 3% efficient they can convert the number by just multiplying by the efficiency ratio. Apteva (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow... Mrshaba (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Geothermal heat pumps are tapping solar power. Hot dry rock geothermal energy isn't renewable, though the resource is large.

—WWoods (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether hot dry rock is renewable is not relevant to this article, but if it isn't then solar isn't either, as the sun has a finite supply of hydrogen and will burn up in about the same time that we will run out of geothermal energy. Geothermal and biomass are however the only two renewables which must be managed carefully to avoid local depletion. Apteva (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a connection but it's a stretch... I don't think the Geothermal heat pump page mentions solar at all. I was curious about this indirect connection between solar and geothermal so I wrote to the Idaho National Laboratory.

"The effect of the sun is to reduce the rate at which the earth cools. Heat is continually moving from deep within in the earth to the surface. During summer the near surface warms slighty from the sun but the net annual flow of energy is from the earth to the atmosphere. Joel Renner - Idaho National Laboratory"

Mrshaba (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about Renner's words and I think he's right. Geothermal is not a solar resource and it should not be considered on this page. The minor solar gain during summer months does not overlap with the time period during which heat pumps operate for heating. Solar influences the top meter of ground temperatures on a daily basis but there is no seasonal influence. If there's a source out there that says otherwise please present it. Mrshaba (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The earths surface receives 43,000 TW from the sun and 32 TW from the earths core and mantle, so I don't see how you can ignore the influence of the sun on geothermal. We use 15 TW. To not include geothermal but include other sources that are smaller such as hydro doesn't make any sense. Like I said, if you leave out hydro from the table you can also leave out geothermal, but if you include hydro, you are skipping over a resource that is four times as big and a huge omission. Unless you don't want anyone to know about it. An article on solar is not complete unless it compares itself to what other renewable resources are available and what we use, as is done in the diagram Image:Available Energy-3.png, which should be included instead of the table. Apteva (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason much of the Arctic is underlain by permafrost — it's not because of a lack of magma underneath. :-)

"Hence, ... [the Earth's heat flux is] = 0.03 W/m². ... Thus, if the geothermal heat flow rising through an acre of granite terrain could be efficiently captured, it would light two 60 watt light bulbs." (Geothermal gradient)

—WWoods (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WWoods - Are you arguing that geothermal is a solar resource and should be included in the table? There's no doubt that solar energy shifts the geothermal gradient but that doesn't make geothermal energy a solar resource. If you have a source that calls geothermal energy a solar resource please provide it. Mrshaba (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Hmmm... I like the improvements to the second paragraph. Just an idea here for the last part of the list: ... low to medium temperature thermal energy for solar cooking, crop drying and salt production; and high temperature thermal energy for a diverse range of industrial purposes. Mrshaba (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see transportation included (I don't even need to look to know that it isn't). Last years or was it the year before's solar challenge was modified to require cars that with little adaptation could be used on the street. And believe me, they really are just about there. Also some of the more common uses of solar energy should be mentioned such as clothes drying. "Diverse" is kind of a peacock word, by the way; you say the same thing with "for a range". Apteva (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with Mrshaba's input. For transportation, cars propelled by the electricity generated by PV panels is an area that I find quite absorbing (I already power my house with PV). However, the aforesaid cars use the electricity generated, so transportation becomes an area that benefits from solar energy indirectly, but not directly. Electricity can be used for any number of applications, such as lighting, HVAC, communications, etc, and there's even an ISP that is solar powered, but we wouldn't list those in such a list. I'm open to rationale to the opposite, however. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about indirect vs direct uses. I think there are a few PV uses like water pumping or communications equipment that are notable with respect to PV/Solar thermal's history but I don't think these applications need to go into the intro.

I rethought the intro idea: thermal energy for solar cooking, and low, medium, and high temperature process heat for crop drying, salt production and industrial processes. Mrshaba (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that industrial processes is far too vague. I think what you may be referring to are the solar concentrators that use very high temperatures? As to indirect and direct uses, a solar car is a direct use, because the solar panels are on the car and are what makes the car go. Using solar panels on your roof to charge an electric car is an indirect use twice removed, because you are actually using net metering so that you can charge the car at night. Even electric cars, though, need to be included in the body, but not the lead, because they lead to an increased use of electricity in an all solar world. I don't see that "low, medium, and high temperature process heat" needs to be added as a qualifier for crop drying. This isn't a brochure and doesn't need to make solar power sound special - it just needs to document how it is used. Apteva (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In terms of indirect uses, we should mention them in the PV section, such as is done with a reference to walkway lighting. I see lighted traffic signs, communications switches, call boxes, etc powered by PV. --Skyemoor (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Stirling Solar

I came to this page and did a word search for "Stirling" and nothing came up. So I added a section on stirling solar after the section on dishes where I thought it most appropriate. Stirling solar is the emerging technology that will take over and dominate the solar power industry. Get up with the times people. If any experts on stirling energy want to add to it, please do. --User:Aidan_oz —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

It's already covered in the Concentrating solar power section Aidan. Mrshaba (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba ; I wrote that section somebody has moved it under Concentrating solar power.see history. By the way folks there is an error in that section where its stated "In all these systems a working fluid is heated by the concentrated sunlight, and is then used for power generation or energy storage.[87]" This information is WRONG ! If you look at the very next reference a greenpeace article, it states that concentrating solar power can be converted to electricity in two ways, one by heating a fluid such as oil which is then used to heat steam for a turbine and the other option is a Stirling engine. So under the section concentrating solar power there should be subsections describing which technology is used to couple with dish. There are options !(124.187.32.53 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)) (Aidan oz (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Stirling engines use a working fluid. Mrshaba (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Golden Thread notes there were large scale solar troughs in Egypt in 1900.--82.12.222.230 (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep... At one point this page included some info about Shuman, Tellier, Mouchot etc. but most of these snippets have been parred out. The information about the Shuman project in Egypt should probably be added to the Parabolic trough page. 24.85.246.143 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

News article: New nano coating boosts solar efficiency

• New nano coating boosts solar efficiency Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

solar power is a mean of clea and sustainable power —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.145.217 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) This place is the best right now im doing a report on this thanks

Blog reference

The section on overhead wires and solar panels over carpool lanes needs to be rewritten and find a non-blog reference:

There is a new concept that may be developed by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler in a Manhattan Project approach in return for their Bail Out Money. In this approach Overhead Solar Panels and wires are installed above Diamond Lanes on the nation's freeways. Concurrently, new electric cars are produced that do not require batteries, but are recharged as they run down the Electrified Freeway. This system could also control the navigation of all electric vehicles allowing the driver and passengers to be connected to the Internet getting work done or being entertained.

Also lose the words "Manhattan Project" and "Bail Out Money", and don't capitalize "Overhead Solar Panels" or "Diamond Lanes" and "Electrified Freeway". Also, this is not a "new concept", having been proposed many years before. And you don't do something "in return for bail out money" (such as paying off the Senators voting for it). You keep the company in business in return for bail out money. And it would not involve electric cars that don't have batteries, it would just mean the batteries would not be used during that portion of the trip. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Error?

Is it just me, or are the "primary energy use" and "electricity use" numbers completely wrong. I know for a fact that we consume a lot more than 45 TWh in a year. The real number is about 20,000 TWh, and that's of actual electricity off the grid. If you calculate it based on heat content of the fuel that goes into producing that electricity, it's more than twice that.165.123.122.14 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The numbers are sourced so you can check them out for yourself. Here are some handy Conversion Factors that help. 462.798 Quads x 293 TWh/Quad = 135,600 TWh. Hmmm... That should be total primary energy use so it appears someone made a conversion error. Good catch. Mrshaba (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The sun's hydrogen supply is finite!

This is true. But only if the concept of finite / infinite is discarded.

This concept is flexible. It is quite normal, for example in botanical studies to say, the "number of petals in this flower is infinite", if the number crosses 25 or 30.

Similarly, the number of celestial bodies is normally considered infinite, though it can definitely be counted given enough time and resources. In the latter sense, hydrogen supply in the sun is infinite. Even technically we do not know enough to say that it is non-renewable.

Please edit out this claim as it only distracts the reader.

In any case, if it merits space under this subject it definitely needs to be a. relocated and b. argued and referenced.

A M Spock 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The entire introductory paragraph is crying to be re-written. It does not even begin to address the core of the subject. It does, however, rake up a number of distractions with information of a trivial nature.

How can I have a go at it? I will be happy to submit a re-write for peer or expert review!

A M Spock 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amspock (talk • contribs)

If you'd like to have a go at rewriting the intro go right ahead. Be aware that this first paragraph is the most over-edited part of the page and whatever you write will not last long. Mrshaba (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That simply depends on how good a writer they are. A good intro can easily last a year or more. There are a few fundamentals, however. For example, the sentence "Solar energy is the light and radiant heat from the Sun that influences Earth's climate and weather and sustains life" fails to understand the concept of perspective adequately. This article is not about the energy that influences the climate and weather and sustains life. This article is about practical human uses of solar energy. From another perspective, solar energy is all of the energy from the sun. Once again, wrong article. That subject is covered in the article Sun, not this one. It would probably be better to move that entire sentence to the overview section, not the intro, because it is not an important part of the article. If you prefer, there is a sandbox, Talk:Solar energy/Sandbox that you can use to play with, but editing the article directly is also acceptable, unless any intractable conflicts between editors arise, of course. Writing cohesively, professionally, even brilliantly, is not easy, but anyone who can do so is always welcome. 199.125.109.31 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Been a while since i last visited, see some changes, not so much on the summary style, so what's happening with the FAC process? Jagra (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Application of concentrated solar power (e.g. with a parabolic mirror) for to drive a sterling engine

Concentrated solar power (e.g. with a parabolic mirror) for to drive a Sterling engine should be mentioned as an application somewhere in the article, maybe as an extra point after " ... ventilation ...". A good and short (21 sec) video that shows an example of such a system is seen here: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nq6iCO9KLKA&feature=related --77.184.142.94 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we used to have a photo of one in the article. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Move navblocks to proper location

{{editsemiprotected}} Please move the three navblocks

• {{Solar energy}}
• {{Renewable energy by country}}
• {{Electricity generation|state=autocollapse}}

to their proper location at the end of the article, just before the list of categories. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done By the way, when you complete the request, you mind putting tlx in front of the template? Thanks Leujohn ^(talk) 10:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages of some pictures, examples, explanations about greenhouse effect in buildings in regions with a winter period

There are some examples of using greenhouse effect in buildings. In principle very good to mention it, because more than 50%, even more than 80% of all energy (for lightning, warming and cooling) used in buildings is wasting energy - until today - because greenhouse effects are not calculated in the architecture as it could be.

But for this aim, using this chance, it is nearly always bad to have glas, resp. windows at the roof, namely because this causes too much heat in the summer, and in winter it is also not the best way, because then the sun is much more near to the horizon, so windows on the roof normally do not let in the light in an optimal way. (Exceptions are some kins of real greenhouses for plants, or buildings in cold regions (e.g. on high mountains) near the equator).

In regions where there is a winter periode, the most effective way for using greenhouse effect is a highly glassed front on the equator side (north hemisphere: on the south side; south hemisphere vice versa) and highly insolating materials, with nearly no windows, on all other sides of the building, including the roof! Additional it is very effective to have highly insolating jalousins (venetian blinds) for the nights (except in summer, when they may be used partly at noon for to give shaddow - another way for shaddow in hot days are plants, which can be positionend in some ways in front to the windows in summer). --77.184.138.252 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look for a photo of a "zero-energy building"? Apteva (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

The new User:Amspock is welcome to this page. Your bold new edits are welcome too, but it's time to discuss them here now, and there are several problems with them. There is of course no problem with including sourced statements about the limitations of solar energy for human use. In the first instance these should be added to the sections on "Energy storage methods" (which should be renamed "Energy storage") and "Development, deployment and economics". When we're sure that those sections are a balanced reflection of current thinking about the possibilities and limitations, then we should make sure that they are summarised in the lead para. In the present wording, "perishable" and "nascent" simply aren't appropriate for a science/engineering article. So, Amspock, I suggest you think about the sources that you want to use, and add material based on them to the appropriate sections. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:Amspock is now A M Spock. Apteva (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend deleting the last paragraph from the lead -

"The biggest limitation of solar energy is that it is perishable in the extreme and neither in its nascent form nor as electricity can it be stored efficiently and economically for use when needed."

as solar energy is neither perishable, nor can electricity not be stored efficiently and economically - we do it already in the form of pumped hydro-storage, and solar power is stored in nature in the form of biomass.

I would recommend changing the third word in the lead "is" to "utilizes", bearing in mind that the article is not about the energy from the sun, it is about how we use the energy from the sun. Also I would like to see the words "solar power" in the lead section somewhere. For that I would suggest in the second paragraph changing "Solar energy technologies" to "Solar power", making it bold. That also has the advantage of not duplicating the word "technologies", which appears in the third paragraph. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think, at least they are reasonable suggetions to discuss, but ...User:Apteva ... please use your account. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

99% of my edits are as an IP user, at least they were until recently, and I'm trying to get my percentage back up. It had slipped to 92%... Apteva (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried out some alternative wording that is intended as a compromise between Apteva's approach (the article's about solar power) and the view of various others (the article's about solar energy in general and its technological applications in particular). Since I was last actively involved with the page, some statements seem to have crept in that open up issues about the viability of renewable energy in general, not just solar. For example there is a complaint about biomass overuse. It seems to me that the unavoidable points about solar energy qua renewable energy are as follows. 1) Solar energy is regarded as a form of renewable energy. 2) Some other renewable energies, notably wind, hydro and biomass ultimately derive from solar energy, but are separately classified. 3) Solar energy is intermittent energy because it is reduced in cloudy weather and unavailable at night. 4) Therefore storage is important. 5) The amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface from the Sun is in principle vastly larger than human energy needs. 6) at present only a tiny proportion of the energy available through insolation is used by solar energy technologies, although every single thing we do depends on it (having water to drink, food to eat and an ambient temperature that's usually between -40 and +40 C).

Is the above the basis for a short para somewhere near the beginning on solar energy as a renewable energy? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would separate point 2) out as an aside somewhere, and not an essential element of the article - it is a truism, but it does not affect the subject of the article, which is how we use solar energy. I would leave out the portion of 6 in parentheses - the article certainly does not need to outline conditions for life. Apteva (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I am glad we have a discussion going now. The idea of bold edits was to start one and I had made my intention very clear before I started. I think there are some really basic issues at stake here. To start with I agree that references to life support role of solar energy probably belong elsewhere. (Having said that it is rather more than support, it is the driving force.)

1.While the subject is scientific the medium is for the lay person. It should use simple language. Scientific journals do a pretty good job of using turgid and obfuscatory prose. The tests in this medium should be accuracy, simplicity, comprehensibility etc. While linguistic frivolity is to be avoided, let us not have arbitrary standards of appropriateness. So Solar energy apart from being intermittent is also perishable. Perishable: meaning whatever is not used is gone forever. Perishable in the extreme means gone instantly. Nascent: As it comes into existence. It is renewable only in the sense that a fresh lot is born every day.

2.If this page is limited to solar power/energy technologies only why not say so up front? First there is the Sun, then there is the Solar energy radiated by it. Then there are technologies deployed to harness the energy. Then there are the technologies deployed to store the energy not immediately consumed. We can not title the page Solar energy and then limit everything to incomplete discussions/ descriptions of some but not all technologies.

3. Any discussion on any technology is incomplete and misleading if it lists the benefits without pointing out obvious limitations. In the case of solar energy these pertain to spatial and temporal mismatches between availability and usage and hence the need for storage. At this point in time there genuinely appear to be few, if any, storage systems for heat or electricity that make sense in economic or efficacy terms except in remote locations or under extreme or special circumstances. If there are any commercially viable systems, why are they not cited here with appropriate links? Surely it is impossible to cite a source which will confirm the absence of a universally viable heat or electricity storage technology!! There can only be a positive or affirmative citation. There is so much universal interest in this topic that readers want to know when and how they can use the various technologies they keep hearing or reading about.

4. Those who write about solar and other forms of alternatives are often seen as evangelists unwilling to look at limitations and determined to proceed regardless of cost or convenience. This leads to some loss of credibility.

5. Biomass is an excellent natural store of solar energy: I had said so in my edit. But someone took it out. Many of the problems or issues pertaining to biomass use/overuse of biomass could have been avoided if the downside had had a fair number column inches.

5. I think we do need to state upfront that while there is a lot of talk about solar energy, in fact a very tiny fraction of our needs is currently met from this source. I had done so but again someone has taken it out. added by A M Spock (talk • contribs) 06:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I see you are quickly getting the hang of having your contributions mercilessly edited.
2. Biomass is a secondary result of solar energy and is a separate form of renewable energy from solar energy. As I said before, while it is a truism that almost all other forms of energy come from the sun, that is not the subject of this article. The subject of this article is how we use solar energy.
3. We passed the idea of solar power becoming a credible energy source at least 20 years ago. It is a billion dollar/year business today, soon to become a trillion dollar/year business.
4. If you poke around at some of the other related articles, such as intermittent power sources you will see how electricity can be efficiently stored in pumped hydro-storage. Not sure why you keep bringing up that it can not be stored. If you look at deployment of solar power to energy grids you will see that Al Gore's idea was to bring power over from Europe using a transcontinental grid - the sun is always shining somewhere. You might be interested to learn from that article just how little contribution solar power makes today - and how quickly it could become dominant. I don't think Barack Obama had a clue what he was talking about when he said that we were going to get 10% of our electricity from renewable resources by 2012 (the US already got 10% of all energy from renewable sources back in 2007) or when he said we are going to double our use of renewable energy in three years - what go from 12% to 24%? Katie bar the door if that is going to happen. I'll need more than a slide rule to figure out how to do that miracle.
5. The main point about making "solar power" appear bold in the lead somewhere is that there is no solar power article, this is the article on solar power, and was named "solar power" for the first several years of its existence. There are literally hundreds of links to solar power and there is no guarantee that the person clicking on them knows that there is any relationship between power and energy whatsoever, so by making solar power bold in the lead it just lets them know that they have arrived at the correct article they clicked on and didn't get totally diverted to some totally incorrect location. It does not make any difference where or how it appears in the lead, it just has to be there and has to be bold. From a "brilliantly written" point of view, it obviously makes a great deal of difference where and how it appears. Apteva (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement on almost every stated thing. 1. I have no problem with bold 'solar power'. The current edit deals with this fairly well. 2. I do not say that bio-mass belongs in this article. It was there when I came in. It is only tangentially solar based. By that standard everything almost is. I only said that it was distinct because it was a natural store. 3. It is a truism that anything can be stored. And transported. And yes I am aware of what is happening in this area. But also of what is not happening. At what cost and what efficiency is the question. 4. Or maybe there is some reason all the light and heat incident on the Sahara is not being converted/ stored/ transported to northern Europe where it would support a life of comfort or Bangladesh where it is sorely needed to support life. 5. Credibility of solar power technologies is beyond question. Their time will come is also beyond question. Viability for them is what concerns the vast majority of readers, and indeed the citizens who are literally dying for power. In Bangalore the tech capital of India and probably the richest city in the country, Government hospitals have been known to carry out surgeries under candle light or torch light. This in 2009. If there is a reasonable way to get the power let us do it pronto! Or let them eat cake! A M Spock 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The main ways solar energy is stored in current technologies are:

1. thermal mass of buildings
2. hot water in tanks
3. batteries.

If this isn't already clear, then we can look up one of the main sources and clarify it from there.

OK, we have to write for lay as well as expert audiences (but compare some maths and stats articles to see how accessible they are). "Perishable" is a nonsense in physics terms and reads very oddly for a lay audience. Fresh tomatoes are perishable, canned ones less perishable. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The above are the ways solar energy is stored on a local scale. On a utility scale the three technologies that are used are 1) pumped hydro-storage 2) compressed air and 3) batteries (usually "flow batteries"). Other technologies that have been proposed are centrifuges and V2G. Pumped hydro is by far the biggest scale form of storage, and is used quite a lot today. Typical pumped hydro facilities can provide upwards of 1,000 Megawatts for up to about 19 hours.

The IEA has a Task 8, very large solar,[1] which is investigating projects such as covering the Sahara, and India has set aside 35,000 km^2 of the Thar Desert, the only place in the world that plans of that scale have been codified, as far as I have been able to determine. 35,000 km^2 is a lot of solar power. Apteva (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. Nonsense is a very strong word. I don't think it belongs in a civilised discussion. But perishable is a concept straight from physics so is decay. Tomatoes are perishable because they decay over time. That is why they are canned. At a cost. In India and other less affluent societies tomatoes, as also other fruits and vegetables, perish every year by the millions of tonnes because the grower has no means to can / otherwise preserve them and no cold chain to deliver them to a canning facility while at the same time ensuring that the end product would have a customer at a price that makes all this worthwhile. A lot of stuff is actually 'sun dried' in these economies. This is true current, and from time immemorial, use of solar energy and finds no mention any where but 'daylighting' does.

Sure at some point of time in the future solar energy captured, stored and transported to the user will be a saviour. I look forward to that day as much as the next woman. But I am also pragmatic about what is happening right now and I don't want the reader to think that salvation is around the corner or indeed here. For those who need power now, investigating, setting aside and quite a lot have no significance. Where is the beef?

As I said earlier, the fact that storage technologies exist is not in question. So there is no point in harping on the same thing again and again. What is very much at question is the cost and efficiency associated with them at present. This will surely improve as we go along but we are a long way from there. There is no harm in acknowledging that. Ideally one should be able to point to a broad time frame or conditions precedent to such technologies producing power at costs comparable to fossil fuels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A M Spock (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for "nonsense". I'm happy with "intermittent power source" in the lead, and if others aren't we could go to the Physics Wikiproject again for some further opinions. I would also be very happy to see sun-drying of food in (with the washing-line if it is still around), and a mention of sea salt pans might also be appropriate. What this article shouldn't do is to cover the whole debate around renewable energy; we shouldn't hide the fact that there is such a debate, but link to the articles that cover it in the right depth. It seems to me that this an engineering article essentially, which is why it's OK to begin with the basic science and then move on to the technological issues, finishing with the deployment. The temptation to turn it into "solar power: for and against" has bedevilled it for ages, and we need to move on. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside any inflammatory language, does anyone see any edits that should be made to the current article? The main issue that I see is the question above, about moving the article toward feature article status, by using summary style. Also, when one adds something to a talk page, any talk page, please "autosign" your comments by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~. There is also a button at the top of the edit window you can use, the one with the squiggle in it which is supposed to look like a "signature", just to the right of the red circle saying "no W" (nowiki) and just to the left of the bold dash (horizontal line). And once again, everyone's comments and edits are very welcome. It truly takes a village to build an encyclopedia.

With regard to "point to a broad time frame or conditions precedent to such technologies producing power at costs comparable to fossil fuels", I would look to see if the buzz words "grid parity" exist in the article somewhere. Guess not. There is a good graphic that BP created showing the drop in solar prices and the rise in electricity prices to show this cross over, and there is a link to it in the references of the photovoltaics article - search for "(Graphic)". I would keep the reference to cost rather subtle. Complicated factors have prevented reality from being as smooth as the graphic would indicate, though it shows a band for pricing that is well within reality. The proper place for more detail on PV pricing is in the photovoltaics article. I think that solar hot water projects are highly cost effective, and I have been told that they are universal in Israel (though perhaps not in the Palestinian occupied regions). Apteva (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We have come a long way. I agree this is not the place for a for and against debate. But do let us by all means provide very brief references to cost and time frames and links wherever available. As long as it does not look like we have our heads collectively buried in sand on this aspect. I would prefer if someone else had a go at it to ensure that it remains moderate and modest.

Yes the washing lines and salt pans are very much alive. Something like 99% of India, China, Bangladesh and Pakistan's laundry is sun dried. Even Hongkong has laundry lines protruding 20 feet or so from many hi-rise apartment blocks in the less affluent parts. These are countries I know intimately. Most of the salt in these parts comes from salt pans. So is such food preservation as exists - fruits, vegetables, fish, pickles, potato wafers, extruded wheat, rice and gram flour snacks. The fabled Bombay Duck is in fact invariably sun-dried by the road-side.

Yes solar water heating is economically and operationally a viable options in many parts of the world. In these very parts photovoltaic power is a joke, except in locations which are at least five km away from a grid, and in some cases that I have personal knowledge of, a fraud. And battery storage of electricity with lead acid batteries is fraught with all kinds of issues on pollution, while other kinds have cost issues. In the photovoltaics article there is a link to lead acid issues.

p.s. i sign my comments normally with the 4tildes else they get auto signed because I login first before I write anything.. A M Spock 05:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow your four-tilde signature isn't working. Yes, I knew the washing line exists in real life - I wasn't sure if it was still mentioned in the article. Greece is another country with very widespread use of solar water heating. It's great to have a world-wide view in the article, which at one time was rather US-centric. I don't think we will be able to say much about fraud. I'm sure it exists because in the UK there are many companies marketing solar water and/or PV to individuals, the regulation is loose and they are regarded with about as much confidence as double-glazing salesmen (i.e. very little confidence). You seem to be saying that PV is over-sold in parts of Asia, and I can believe that, however, 1) one-off PV items are coming on the market, e.g. lamps, radios - they are likely to improve to the level of the calculator, which everyone accepts as useful 2) eventually grid-connected PV and net metering will come into the cities. In the meantime, are there not quite a lot of locations more than 5 km from the grid? I know that in the mountains of Spain and Portugal households may use PV, perhaps in combination with a wind turbine or a small hydro generator.

Apteva, yes I was thinking of local storage, which will continue to be important. Of course you're right that utility-scale options are coming into use quickly. Can you ensure that the pumped hydro etc. is dealt with adequately using good sources? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Clotheslines are such a ubiquitous and simple use of solar energy that it would be ok to include in the lead. They are mentioned in the article body. Added a bit about the need for backup, and a sentence about the combined power plant that was tested in Germany about a year ago. I think what happened is someone told Merkel that all electricity could be obtained from renewable sources and then set out to back up the statement - successfully. Amspock: Your new username is A M Spock. Try logging in as that instead. Apteva (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

section break

I think we are way past the stage of either debating the credibility of solar energy technologies discussed in the section or quibbling about which specific passive tech uses to mention in the lead. I would like to say in the lead that "Solar energy technologies currently in use or under development have the potential to progressively release us from the tyranny of fossil fuels and the accompanying global warming and pollution consequences as they achieve a. critical quantitative mass, b. improved capture, conversion, storage and transmission efficiency and c. greater commercial viability." A M Spock (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would call that far too, how do I say this, promotional, for an encyclopedia. Think of what an encyclopedia is. Think of those volumes of seldom used books in every library that people use for a reference. The purpose of the encyclopedia is not telling what could be as much as to show what it is at the moment. Potential gets into trying to be a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. I have no problem with showing the potential, but telling the potential is different. One of the tenets of WP is to show not tell, and to not editorialize. This is not a white paper, but an encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is so gung ho about solar energy, the first time I read it I thought it was a paid promo for some interested parties. The reason I want to say what I suggested is to point to the fact that while we will get there one day we are far far away from being able to compete with fossil fuels unaided by tax dollars of Tom and Jerry, except in some extreme situations. This is INFORMATION, not editorialising. The funding by the poorest of the poor for the whims and fancies of the richest of the rich finds mention. The fact that much of it is essentially experimental stuff does not. Letting subsidised capital feed the grid at twice the rate of leeching the grid to appease those who would like to see some action that looks green is the dumbest economic policy ever.

When we say that xyz is growing at 100% per annum, and that costs are coming down as volumes grow, surely it will get somewhere to a point where it crosses something for which availability is shrinking and costs rising. That is not crystal ball gazing that is basic stats.

A M Spock 07:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also to reply to someone who said that there must be users more than five km from the grid, yes there are. basically remote communication and research setups, bot civilian and defence. The common man who is more than f km away is normally one who can't afford the product.A M Spock 07:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well as you will see above the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject, although there is an inherent cross pollination - the question always being, is the article complete and accurate? So, Cuba and India come to mind as locations with many people more than 5 km away from the grid who are now quickly being supplied with solar power. India in the form of many solar lighting projects, Cuba, because that is the official government policy. I do not see the need to go overboard in mentioning either in the article, but they should also not be avoided. It is particularly important to make the article represent a worldwide view, and not be U.S. centric, for example. As to the article reading like a brochure, that is useful criticism, and needs to be addressed. My own opinion is that the article tended to downplay solar energy. "Far far away from being able to compete with fossil fuels" is inherently an opinion, but can easily be quantified with reliable sources and makes a useful contribution to the article. It is trivial to do a rough calculation of the investment required, and I am sure that there are many RS's that are available. Solar is fundamentally different from a non-renewable resource in that you pay for all you ever get up front and it lasts forever, vs. you pay as you retrieve it until it runs dry, so the economics are very different. For example, were the central bank of a country to lend a bazillion dollars to build solar panels, the result would be that they would be paid back with interest. On the other hand no central bank needs to lend any money for development of oil, because all the oil that will ever be produced is already being produced, and is already providing an income stream, an income stream that is non-existent for solar power today. However we also live in a very dynamically changing world, so the article needs to be updated to reflect whatever is the current status, and provide a history of the development of solar power. By the way, the "common man" in India typically pays in one month the same for Kerosene for lighting that it costs to purchase a solar lamp that then provides lighting for free for the next twenty years. One of the worlds economic principles is to keep people poor so that they will have to keep buying stuff from you. Not a very well thought out principle, though. Apteva (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed links due to change of username. Apteva (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic or not, we seem to live in different universes. 1. India's current solar output is 5MW and total solar power generation target upto 2012 is 50 MW. http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/jan/03power.htm. At this rate taking 100% growth per annum the all India deficit will get covered by the year 3009. 2. The power deficit in the city of Delhi in summer is 800MW in fall 300 MW http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/power-shortfall-of-300-mw-delhi-overdraws-despite-warning/368506/ Solar power generation cost for localised consumption (based on quote from a Bangalore maker using Bangalore produced BP Solar panels with capital cost converted to annual costs based on 20 year life for panels, 10 years for inverter and five years for battery + minor maintenance costs) is Rs. 15 per kwh for solar and Rs. 4 for grid. It costs Rs. 60 per month to run a kerosene lamp for one month @ 4 hours per day. Assuming a 15W CFL lamp will do instead, the capital cost currently would be around Rs. 15,000/- for a four hour system. That is 250 months worth of kerosene. and very roughly Rs. 250 or so per month amortised as above assuming a 10% interest rate for capital. And yes I want him to use solar power. But he can get it only if someone else pays for it. Finally any reference to where we are headed is only a nod to the fact that we do live in a dynamic world. A M Spock 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ps. this discussion is still about making the article more informative. and many thanks for fixing the name change hasslesA M Spock 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Under "my preferences" I think you may have checked the box "Raw Signature". Please note that it warns that "If checked, the contents should be formatted with Wiki markup, including all links". I would suggest unchecking it. Otherwise you should format your signature with links to your user page and user talk page. A couple of quick points about your math. First, as you point out, going from 5 MW to 50 MW in 3 years is close to 100% growth, 115%. However, going from 5 MW to 800 MW at 115% growth rate only takes 6.6 years (but add a couple more because that is 800 MW at 100% duty cycle vs. 800 MW at 20%). Einstein called compound interest the eighth wonder of the world. Also, the solar lamps are LEDs, which use 1/4th the power of CFL - typically 2 watts or so. I think they were selling the lamps (which include a solar panel) for Rs 600, but that is just a wild guess, I would have to check. They were selling them at an unsubsidized price, but also selling at cost I believe, which is about 1/2 to 1/4th typical retail price. Check the Solar power in India article. Nope, needs to be updated. I believe that tens of thousands of lamps have already been delivered. Apteva (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

800 mw is the shortfall in Delhi the capital city alone!! India is slightly larger. just as the u.s. is slightly bigger than wash d.c. also, i am aware of the l.e.d option, but have not looked at the costs. i am in the process of getting actual current quotes. will update the figures in a day or so. also just unchecked the offending box. many thanks for your help and guidance on the admin stuff. A M Spock (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you have sorted out your username. The data should go into the SP in India article. With compounding, even a 41% annual change doubles every two years. There is Chinese have a saying for change, "we live in interesting times", implying that change is not good. However, the change came a hundred years ago, we are just cleaning up the mess it created. I think that SP in India already indicates there is more than enough potential for solar power. The Solar power in Alameda County article indicates that Berkeley has come up with an innovative way of paying for solar panels - add them to your tax assessment, so they can float a bond to pay for them, and you get them installed for free at no cost to the city. That is what I was referring to above about loaning a bazillion dollars. LEDs are so much more efficient than CFLs that they are a necessity, not an option, considering the cost of the panel would increase by a factor of four for the same amount of light. White LEDs have recently come down a lot in price. Apteva (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

May you live in interesting times says it's probably not an actual Chinese saying.

—WWoods (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry for the long absence. thanks but yes i do know something about compounding. a post grad degree in maths and stats helps a bit. and yes the earlier target date for india of 3009 still stands. i will put the data in appropriate places but in brief, the cheapest non-toy sold in india is a 4 l.e.d., 12 volt system (equivalent to 25 w incandescent bulb) costs around rs. 9,000 or u.s.d. 180 or so. the cheapest household set to provide three such units with an autonomy of two days costs rs. 36,000 or u.s.d. 720. cheers. A M Spock (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My calculator could be giving me odd results, but a 100% annual growth means a doubling every year. In 100 years, from 2009 to 3009, that means a 2^100 growth, 1.268x10^30 which is more than a Billion times the entire output of the Sun, even starting with only 10 MW today. Or 5 MW. Or even 1 MW. So I do not believe we are talking about the same things. You may believe that India will not be able to produce 4,000 W/person times a Billion people from solar power for 100 years, but that is only a 13.8% growth rate. At 48% it drops to 33 years, and at 75% it is only 23 years. The lamps they are making do not have a 48 hour autonomy. They provide 4 to 6 hours. That however, is a function of the battery capacity. A 2 watt LED provides plenty of reading light. This article, written about a year ago, states that about 90,000 home LED lighting units had been distributed at that time by the Renewable Energy Corporation of Rajasthan:[2] Signet Solar India plans to produce 300 MWp of solar panels/year by 2012. I believe change will come faster than 100 years. I tried to look up REC of Rajasthan, and it looks like they are focusing on a new 37 Watt CFL unit for about Rs 15,000. More light, but horribly inefficient. LEDs are much more practical. A 2 watt LED is less than $10 today, plus $50 for a 2 watt solar panel, plus $2 for a battery, in small quantities. If your solar panel is 80% of your cost, that is the driving factor for choosing LEDs instead of CFLs. When you are comparing pricing you have to look at industrial quantities of 100,000 or so, not retail pricing, though. Things get very cheap in those quantities. Apteva (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

According to their website[3], the Grameen Surya Bijlee Foundation is supplying home LED units in a variety of configurations for from $50 to $85 from several suppliers and is expecting to be shipping 10,000 units per month by the end of this year. Apteva (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Artificial photosynthesis

In solar chemical section, or in a new section just below it, Artificial photosynthesis needs to be described.

Also, the first picture of the article is a mere CSP array picture, swap this by a schematic showing CSP, PV, thermodynamic, solar tower,.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.168.20 (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ethanol distillation by solar energy

The editors of this article might like to put the following link on use of solar energy to distill ethanol [4]

Also another article on the use of solar energy to detoxify distillery effluent. [5]

59.95.14.50 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Split Solar power/Solar energy

Now that solar power has become such a hot topic, there are many links to this article which would be better served going only to an article about the generation of electricity from solar energy, or Solar power. This article has long been too long anyway. Comments? Apteva (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ecology: Solar energy versus Weather missing

If this was the fossil

---

---

---

fuel section we would see all sort of environmental impact paragraphs. So I am pretty disappointed that the effects of severe weather on solar generation capacity and the effect of metropolitan scale solar generation on weather have not been added. Claiming that it is outdoorsy and therefore can be assumed to be "free lunch" seems like wishful thinking. If there are no sources then it is worth mentioning that such research is apparently politically taboo. Maybe someone will respond be generating some research.

Its pretty obvious that lightning, hail and tornadoes are on a few of the common severe weather effects that can out right destroy solar generators. Doesn't it cost money to replace these? Aren't hazardous chemicals involved in construction and disposal of photvoltaic cells? Sure the metropolitan array may only get hit once every 10-30 years...but aren't tens of square miles of array going to be destroyed when that high winds and hail thunderstorm or tornado hits? What will the customer impact be? So what is the maintenance plan and cost for these multiple square mile generation arrays? Surely it differs by type of soalr generation. Is solar furnace mirrors and steam the way to go due to industrial wastes?

On the flip side these arrays pull 5-20% of the solar radiation out of the local environment. Now if the arrays grow to metropolitan size hundreds of square kilometers...isn't there going to a permanent local cool or high pressure zone? Hmmm...speaking of ecology...what happens to all that desert land that now receives no sunlight?

Ok I know there are those who say a residential or office building should limit its average usage to what its rooftop and outer wall solar arrays can handle. But that sort of seems to say that urban areas with large and multi-story businesses are a thing of the past. Even though such large buildings have more volume for the amount of materials used in construction. So isn't that a negative resource consequence to building as well as dramatic social impact? 69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar pond

Should'nt solar pond be moved to solar power. Seems ou of place. ALso, the section doesnt explain where it can be used for—Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 07:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The solar pond article says they are mostly used to heat water, as the maximum temperature is 90 °C, not sufficient to make steam, but it can be used in a sterling engine to generate electricity. 199.125.109.62 (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tidal by solar energy???

I think some if not all tidal energy comes from the moon, which moves in a bit from puling the waves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.173.18 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wind 2,250 EJ[7] should be changed to "Ground Based Wind"

This paper by Dr. Archer is on wind availability at an 80m hub height. High altitude wind contains 1-2 orders of magnitude more energy. Please change from "wind" to "Ground Based Wind". Joeben44 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Too technical. All atmosphere is "ground based", and extends about 100 miles, with most of it in the first 100,000 feet above the surface. Any estimate, however should explain the assumptions made. Wind at 100 m is much greater than what you can get at 80 m. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

'Main article' thingy

I think the 'main article' thing about agriculture and horticulture is unecessary. After all you can just throw up the links in the prose. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Done. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

solar energy & hydro electric

hi y'all how do? i wanted to know how solar energy gets light and makes electricity. If your are going to answer also give me info about Hydro electric plse y'alli dodo yippee ka yeyoye! and your raring t'go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.120.66 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.79.148.128, 9 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} the quote from source 16 is clearly an opinion. there are no general facts to support this logic.it is definitely the opinion of a left wing magazine reporter. 216.79.148.128 (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: It appears that this is indeed a controversial issue as shown here:Food_vs._fuel, Issues_relating_to_biofuels. However, there needs to be discussion for this to be changed, sources must be provided, as well a specific description of what needs to be changed. Discuss this first and then ask for a specific change that is neutral according to WP:NPOV and supported by sources. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

History

I think an article on the history about the development of solar energy would be good. There are multiple different sources for this topic, and they usually don't list the same events, so some standardization on wikipedia would be welcome in my opinion.--68.193.135.139 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thermal Electric Generation

I think this section should be changed to state that there are many ways to produce electricity from thermal gradiants. Currently it sounds like you have a comprehensive list here, which you don't. It would take pages to explain all the gadgets that people have developed throughout the years to get electricity or work our of heat differences, so please present the examples as examples. Also if you wish to keep the somewhat random example of the three satellites as thermal electric generators, you should mention that the satellites used nuclear power as a heat source and not the sun. Otherwise it implies that the sun was the heat source (considering this is an article on SOLAR energy). Thanks!! P.s. I would change this myself and the only reason I am mentioning it here is because the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosegill13 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Insolation, unit is meaningless!

"The earth receives xx petawatts". It really must be stated per how often (per day? Per year"?) or else it is meaningless information. It is like me telling you that I make 50 dollars (per hour: good, per month: not so good). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.62.245 (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is the correct unit. Watts are defined as joules per second, so they represent a flow-rate of energy, not an actual amount. In power generation, amounts of energy (consumed or generated) are sometimes given in kWh, so then flow-rates are sometimes given like kWh/day. 1 kWh/day = 41.67 watts, both referring to flow-rates. --Nigelj (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

In section [6], there is the following text:

Solar thermoelectric plants orientatively uses an space of 110 Has (for plants without storage) and of 200 Has (with storage in salt tanks) to generate 50 MW. The inversion for this model 50 MW plant is 300 M euros. Companies with these plants are, between others, Acciona, ACS-Cobra, Abengoa, Elecnor, Iberdrola Renovables, Ibereolica and Renovables SAMCA.

I have trouble understanding what it is trying to say. This is my best guess:

For example, solar thermoelectric plants capable of generating 50 MW require 110 Has (for plants without storage) or 200 Has (with storage in salt tanks). The cost for such a plant is 300 M euros. Companies producing these plants are, among others: Acciona, ACS-Cobra, Abengoa, Elecnor, Iberdrola Renovables, Ibereolica and Renovables SAMCA.

In addition, it is unsourced and questionably out of context in that section anyway, maybe it should move or just be deleted.

Anyone care to comment / correct? Thanks, David Hollman (Talk) 10:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.110.122.107, 27 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

216.110.122.107 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC) A Famous 19th century scientist lord kevin, thought that the sun was 20 million years old and would soon burn itself out. Scientist at the time thought the sun must be made out of some sort of conbustible materials like coal. Today,scientist believe that the sun is much older and has a long future .It drives it energy not from combustible material, but from matter, which is changed into energy by a process as nuclear fusion.

WHAT IS SOLAR ENERGY???

Solar energy means the heating effect of the sun evaporates seawater,giving clouds rain. Rain water causes rivers so that the water can be collected into dams for generality hydr-electric power. An end to low cost power and much attention has been tured to the direct use of solar energy. Solar energy is also more trouble free and dependable than other types of heating.

HOW SOLAR ENERGY WORKS????

The solar energy in the form of heat can be used to produce pure water from tapot sea water in a solar still are used to produce distilled water in school. A simple still consists of box containing water under a clear glass top so that the sun light can get in.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Surimar, 30 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello, I propose to add a link to the section "External links" as follows:

Solar data, maps and software for Europe, Africa and Middle East http://solargis.info

Thank you. Marcel

Surimar (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see our guidelines on the addition of external links. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Cost of solar energy

This discussion was moved here.--E8 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Probable Arithmetic Error in Caption Associated with Figure "Solar land area.png"

The caption states, "Insolation for most people is from 150 to 300 W/m² or 3.5 to 7.0 kWh/m²/day." If so, 3.5KWh to 7KWh per day would mean that the Sun is shining for 23.33 hours. Given that insolation is typically averaged over a full Solar day, wouldn't the daily totals actually be 3.6KWh to 7.2KWh? While I'm perhaps being pedantic, I see no reason for the error (rounding doesn't make sense since the correct numbers are quite reasonable to present). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.71.226 (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of precision — 150 and 300 differ by a factor of two! — I don't think the conversion should claim an apparent two significant figures. "3.5" is on the bubble; I suppose it looks at least as good as "3" or "4".

—WWoods (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Solar energy harvester orientation

See

File:Solar energy harvester orientation.png

Solar energy harvester orientation

Add in article, or otherwise linked article

91.182.236.221 (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Solar Pond

Under 'Experimental solar power' is mentioned that Dr. Rudolph Bloch came across reports of a lake in Hungary but the actual lake is in Romania, it's called 'Lacul Ursu' (Bear Lake) and it's a heliothermal (if such a word exists in English) lake. It cannot be any other lake in Hungary since this is the only lake of it's kind in Europe. Sadly the only reference I found about it is written in Romanian but the pages can be translated with Google Translate. [7], [8], [9], [10]. The only time when this lake was outside Romanian territory was during the German occupation of WWII, which may have let to the conflicting location of the lake in the report Bloch came across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.82.24 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

I believe that a disambiguation page leading to the solar power page would be beneficial. As a multitude of people who use wikipedia attend high school, and the terms "solar power" and "solar energy" are used interchangeably, people accessing the aricles can get confused as to the seeming lack of information on solar power, and having no obious link only excarbarates the problem. Willbat (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Have changed a section heading, for clarity, and think this helps. See [11]. Johnfos (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly helps a lot, but would it be possible to have a disambiguation page to solar power? That would make a lot easier. And by the way, thankyou for your help. Willbat (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the need for a disambiguation page. Things are just fine the way they are. There is no confusion. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. As I am very new at this, I presume you know best. Thanks for your help, and for putting up with such an inexperienced user. Willbat (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Joules per year

Joules per year is not an appropriate unit. The SI unit is Watt = Joules per second, so the numbers should be divided by 31.536.000, the number of seconds in a (non-lap) year. I can understand that occasionally "kWh" is used, because people relate that (inappropriate) unit e.g. to electricity prices, but the Joule is a unit which has no intuitive appeal anyway. Rbakels (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:7 Meter Sheet Metal Dishes (Flipped).png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:7 Meter Sheet Metal Dishes (Flipped).png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Double... triple... wow... Wonderful picture taken down after a day of zero debate. And here I spent a year trying to get one bad picture removed from the page. Congrats Wiki... A1 job. Can't wait to see you guys stripe down the other wonderful pictures I've uploaded with permission. These bots should not have free rein. Meh... Speaking into the ether of complainatude is enough for me. I'm uploading beauty in other places. But you guys and your naughty bots are still goofs for taking beautiful pictures down here. Shame shame on you goofs and your lawyertudeness. Mrshaba (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Dish Stirling Systems of SBP in Spain.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dish Stirling Systems of SBP in Spain.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Moody Sunburst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moody Sunburst.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Coincidence to come here after years and see this bot report. Wow... I uploaded this image many years ago. This Moody Sunburst image has worked its way all over the world media. Pretty cool I think. Hey, I got permission to upload the image from Sandia then I double verified permission for the uploaded image after the fact. Pity that these bot reports don't know what they are doing. The image is beautiful. I knew it when I saw it and that is why I put it here. People shared my view and copy pasted the image all over the place. Isn't this exactly what Wiki is all about? Mrshaba (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

link dead

The reference pdf ^ a b Philibert, Cédric. "The Present and Future use of Solar Thermal Energy as a Primary Source of Energy" (PDF). International Energy Agency. Retrieved 2008-05-05. is a dead link.

Is there a better way to report this kind of stuff than posting it here? Maybe that's an idea for Wikipedia to consider implementing in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.40.26 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The best solution is to replace the link with a working link (which I have done). Better yet is to Webcite it (see http://www.webcitation.org/index). Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

potential NYT resource

Storehouses for Solar Energy Can Step In When the Sun Goes Down by MATTHEW L. WALD published New York Times January 2, 2012 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Improving article

As this article is one of the more developed on wikipedia i was wondering why there isn't a section for environmental issues with solar like wind or coal. Perhaps something tetrachloride production and disposal, cadmium usage etc. Not to sure about non PV problems (though vaguely remember about some conflicts with conservationists) but I sure someone with more knowledge in the sector could give some contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.189.20 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A better place to put this is either in the Photovoltaics article or the Solar power article. This article deals with the general uses of solar energy, not the specific uses - either for the generation of electricity, in the case of solar power, or in a specific technology, in the case of the photovoltaics article. One of the biggest differences between coal and photovoltaics is polluting the planet while you are making energy vs while you are building the power plant. Building the power plant causes pollution in both cases, but there is no on-going pollution with photovoltaics. Apteva (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Idiot mistakes detected

The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere.[2]
=1.74*10^17 W

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7]
=3.85*10^24 W even if we won't count comma as a decimal delimeter it is completely idiotic anywaysVetMax (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A Joule is a watt-second. There are approximately 31.536 million seconds per year. The first number is in watts, and the second is in Joules, and the diagram shows that out of the 174 PW only 122 PW is absorbed. Multiply 122*10^15 times 31,536,000 seconds and you get 3.847393*10^24 J which is where the 3,850,000*10^18 comes from. You can only get solar energy from the 89 PW that reaches the surface, but the reason 122 was used was to emphasize the percentage of energy that leads to wind energy. EJ was used as a common factor so that it is easier to compare the energy received vs the energy used. There should be more recent figures than 2005, though. Apteva (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

pvt

There should be some mention of PVT - photovoltaic thermal hybrid systems in this main article. --Garthbb (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013

Resolved

 – see next section

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/29913.pdf is a dead link it is cited twice. I think it should be http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/24499.pdf I have a wiki account but can't get you to email the password to me. 75.81.252.77 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013

75.81.252.77 (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I contacted NREL and they fixed the broken link I reported.

Sort of like holding the light bulb stationary and turning the whole lamp, huh? Thanks! Closing both requests now. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Daylighting vs. solar energy

The section on "Daylighting" is moved here for discussion as it seems to have little direct relevance to the article. I would suggest creating its own article or adding it to natural light, lighting, etc. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Daylighting

[[:File:PantheonOculus.01.jpg|thumb|Daylighting features such as this oculus at the top of the Pantheon, in Rome, Italy have been in use since antiquity.]]

The history of lighting is dominated by the use of natural light. The Romans recognized a right to light as early as the 6th century and English law echoed these judgments with the Prescription Act of 1832. In the 20th century artificial lighting became the main source of interior illumination but daylighting techniques and hybrid solar lighting solutions are ways to reduce energy consumption.

Daylighting systems collect and distribute sunlight to provide interior illumination. This passive technology directly offsets energy use by replacing artificial lighting, and indirectly offsets non-solar energy use by reducing the need for air-conditioning. Although difficult to quantify, the use of natural lighting also offers physiological and psychological benefits compared to artificial lighting. Daylighting design implies careful selection of window types, sizes and orientation; exterior shading devices may be considered as well. Deciduous trees at the east and west ends of buildings offer shade in the summer and do not block the sun in the winter. Individual features include sawtooth roofs, clerestory windows, light shelves, skylights and light tubes. They may be incorporated into existing structures, but are most effective when integrated into a solar design package that accounts for factors such as glare, heat flux and time-of-use. When daylighting features are properly implemented they can reduce lighting-related energy requirements by 25%.

Hybrid solar lighting (HSL) is an active solar method of providing interior illumination. HSL systems collect sunlight using focusing mirrors that track the Sun and use optical fibers to transmit it inside the building to supplement conventional lighting. In single-story applications these systems are able to transmit 50% of the direct sunlight received.

Solar lights that charge during the day and light up at dusk are a common sight along walkways. Solar-charged lanterns have become popular in developing countries where they provide a safer and cheaper alternative to kerosene lamps.

Although daylight saving time is promoted as a way to use sunlight to save energy, recent research reports contradictory results: several studies report savings, but just as many suggest no effect or even a net loss, particularly when gasoline consumption is taken into account. Electricity use is greatly affected by geography, climate and economics, making it hard to generalize from single studies. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012

Please link "Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems" (see following paragraph form section Development, deployment and economics) to the corresponding Wiki-Article Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE:

The 1973 oil embargo and 1979 energy crisis caused a reorganization of energy policies around the world and brought renewed attention to developing solar technologies.[103][104] Deployment strategies focused on incentive programs such as the Federal Photovoltaic Utilization Program in the US and the Sunshine Program in Japan. Other efforts included the formation of research facilities in the US (SERI, now NREL), Japan (NEDO), and Germany (Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE).[105] 153.96.32.62 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Is there a reason you can't create an account and edit the article yourself? It also may seem like a COI request to some editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, please include how it stores the energy, not just what stores the energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.121.218 (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this pretty much the exact same article as Solar Power?

50.137.201.131 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No. The Solar Power article concerns only the generation of electricity using solar energy. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Photovoltaic thermal hybrid solar collector

Photovoltaic thermal hybrid solar collector should be added to this page - as an example in the first paragraph and as a 'see also' --Blobbybi (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a small section that says something like:

Photovoltaic thermal hybrid solar collectors, sometimes known as hybrid PV/T systems or PVT, are systems that convert solar radiation into thermal and electrical energy and thus are solar thermal collectors that have photovoltaics. The main article is at: Photovoltaic thermal hybrid solar collector

--Blobbybi (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

External Link to updating calendar of Solar Energy events and expos on SolarEnergy.com

I find the calendar of events on SolarEnergy.com to be a useful resource for wiki users interested in Solar Energy. I have no affiliation with the site and this edit is not "link spam" as accused nor does it have commercial intent. The page is a simple calender of large international solar conferences and includes US and European events. ChristianJorn (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a US site: I count one non-US event and six in the US (for which it doesn't even give the country, it assumes the reader is in the US). Apart from that it's a commercial site: their phone number is given twice (again with no country code) in large print, multiple links to 'find an installer' (which is also their front page), a link to their shop, and other adverts which alone take up more space than the small list of events. Finally you've been adding links to this site to multiple articles, articles you've shown no interest in before, which suggests you're not interested in them or improving them but just on promoting this site.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So what if most of the largest events are in the US, and so what if they have a phone number on the website? I don't know what "shop" you're talking about and there are several articles in wikipedia that are on nearly this exact same topic. I added no off-topic links to any articles, only to this calendar which I consider a good resource. You assume a lot. I did find the installer that installed my home pv system via this site and had a good experience. I also am interested in the solar industry and occasionally frequent these events. If you have a better source for an updating calender then please link to it, otherwise please revert this edit. ChristianJorn (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'so what' is WP isn't a US-centric site, but a global one, with only a minority of readers in the US. Your own experience of it was as a commercial service, not an information resource – it's a commercial site. A better source for solar events? I I wanted to find one I'd use Google, which usually returns up to date results ranked by relevance, including geographic relevance. WP is not a 'directory of everything'. There is though one which I've added, DMOZ; you might add your link to that site which as a collection of links is a far better place for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

DMOZ is not a calendar, and I like the site and the calendar. I can't agree with you that US and European Wikipedia users should be deprived of a useful resource just because it's on a site that provides some utility for people that have an interest in installing solar systems. If Google provided a calendar of solar events I'd link to it, but they don't. ChristianJorn (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I like it is not a reason for keeping something in Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is our one on external links, in particular WP:ELNO 5 and 7. But I'll not remove it straight away. Perhaps another editor could look at it and see if it belongs.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have re-removed the link. There needs to be consensus for the link before restoring. The site is spammy, and the material in the events directory is of questionable encyclopedic value. The link appears to fail inclusion material of both WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an internet directory; just because a link exists is not a reason to add it. There needs to be consensus that addition the link benefits the encyclopedic understanding of the article subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The link does not fail either of the first two clauses of WP:ELYES and the linked page contains neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to the amount of detail and that fact that it updates. To me, it isn't a stretch that readers of this article would consider the modern technology, understandings and information provided at these events to be relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. It is a clear Yes as I see it. ChristianJorn (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Knowing the dates and times of events is most certainly not going to expand an understanding of the subject. At best its advertising for external events. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

solar shadow less structures

                                                   solar shadow less structures
   1.Reference
   2.Abstract
   3.Background                                                       

                                                           References

our facebook page https://www.facebook.com/solardesigning?fref=ts

youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cMXfVS8G_0

Reducing your cost of investment in solar with more returns......

now my panel efficiency highest 17.5 percent when current panel kept to south.

and have designed with no steal for plant which reduces 70 lakhs cost per megawatt and reduces land cost of 20 lakhs if 1 Acer cost is 5 lakh so totally reduces 80 lakhs to 90 lakhs per megawatt

if total project is 7.8 crores

it reduces to 6.9 crores....a new way in solar......

                                                               ABSTRACT

A shadow less structures implemented in solar. Design is used in individual structures and panels with shadow less structures and panels with rotating structure design

1.these designs increases efficiency

2. requires lesser area for installation hence increasing the land utilization

3.minimizing area consumption 2:1 ratio.

3. There will be no shadow, so the there will be better focusing and absorption of light resulting in increased energy generation.

                                                                BACKGROUND

[0002] Presently, solar panels are placed one after the other intervening space to

            prevent the shadow from falling on the panels thus requiring a lot of area for the
            placement of solar panels.

[0003] Conventionally, most of solar plants are designed with a provision to tilt them to a particular angle based on the direction of the sun there by requiring a lot of space specifically for solar energy generation. With the shadow less solar panel design. There is no need to rotate the panels hence all the panels can be placed side by side and can be placed horizontally. It can double as a roof and hence an efficient design.

[0004] Further conventionally, panels placed on roof came into existence, with shadow less structures we can place present structure panels to the shadow less structure, and efficiency for this structure will be more and reusing of land is done after installation. Rotating structure can also be developed with shadow less structure, top position will rotate towards the sun without producing shadow can be used for special designs in construction purpose.


[0005]In order to address the issue of an efficient model which occupies less space and is more efficient, we propose the current shadow less non rotating model of solar panels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gali saivikram (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

Hi, I would like to edit a dead link on the NOTES section (No.43) with a new , quality, well based resource. The dead link doesn't provide any value to the reader, nor to wikipedia. the url of the new resource is http://alternativepowerstation.org/ Thanks Teddymamo (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please do not request to add Spam. Note: The reference provided does not support the statement in the article.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015

i want to update it Getrekt666 (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

Footnote 18 is incomplete: Please change " Smil (2006), p. 12" to "Smil, Vaclav (2006) Energy at the Crossroads. oecd.org. Retrieved on 3 June 2012., p. 12" Page number "12" is correct! The document is available via the following pdf-link: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/pdf_pubs/oecd.pdf

Sorry but I have no rights to edit the article myself. Thanks!

Rene Macon (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Rene Macon

The Smil (2006) is a rather cumbersome reference note to the actual reference which is listed below in the alphabetical reference section as Smil, Vaclav (2006-05-17). Energy at the Crossroads... with a link to the PDF. So it is there, although the month/day bit is rather unneeded. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

PV

What does PV stand for like PV converts light. (Daniel Brenemuehl)

Photovoltaic.--Earlgrey T (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no issue here. The acronym is perfectly explained in (quote):
"Solar power is the conversion of sunlight into electricity, either directly using photovoltaics (PV), or indirectly using concentrated solar power (CSP). CSP systems use lenses or mirrors and tracking systems to focus a large area of sunlight into a small beam. PV converts light into electric current using the photoelectric effect."
By the way, Q&As are not helpful. Check the article to find out whether or not the abbreviation in not sufficiently explained (as I did). In this case, I would have identified the question as vandalism (trolling). -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Units in figure?

The top figure refers to this source The source states that the incoming energy from the sun is 16 TWy/y. I.e. Every year we receive 16TWy of energy. The current illustration states that every year we receive 16TW or 16 TJ/s/y. The article discusses energy, not power. The source refers to energy per year. The illustration refers to energy per second, normally refered to as power. Why is the unit chanced from TWy/y (or TWh/y) used in the source? I find this confusing. KjellG (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced content

Just removed section "Earth's Mass Conversion", which not only seems to be irrelevant, but also completely insignificant (to say the least). It stayed (unsourced) for eight months (since January 2015). Rfassbind – talk 10:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)