Jump to content

Talk:Solar energy/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

sustainable energy template

Any reason this template, {{sustainable energy}}, is not included in this article? I think it should be included. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to include an "overview" template. However, I replaced {{sustainable energy}} with the more specific, and therefore better suited {{Renewable energy sources}}. -- Rfassbind – talk 11:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2015

I want to request a change in the spelling of what is wrote as favorable and should be favourable. I feel that the spelling is wrong from what I have looked up and I would like to request to change it to its correct spelling 92.12.30.169 (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - This article is written in American English (AM-E or US-Eng) where favorable is correct, whereas favourable is correct in British English (BR-E or UK-Eng) - Arjayay (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

Dear Wikipedia volunteers,

I just recognized, that the number 49,387 exajoulse in the articel is wrong.

The United Nations Development Programme in its 2000 World Energy Assessment found that the annual potential of solar energy was 1,575–49,387 exajoules (EJ).

According to your ressource it should be 49,837.


This is most probably a typo. I just wanted to let you know.

Best Regards,

Johannes johannes.lang@protonmail.ch

188.23.71.64 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Greenman (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Generic term when taking about stars other than Sol?

Since Solar energy comes from Sol, is there a more generic term for this kind of energy that would apply to any star? This came up on another website during a discussion of Tabby's Star, and it seemed like a reasonable question. Maybe it would be as simple as stellar energy? -- Kendrick7talk 01:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Solar energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

The line "Most of the world's population live in areas with insolation levels of 150-300 watts/m², or 3.5-7.0 kWh/m² per day." requires a source as source 6 does not have the same figures. Suomen Socrates (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: For the time being, I have tagged the sentence "Citation needed". This doesn't solve the problem, I realize, but edit requests are usually "change x to y" affairs and you didn't suggest a source to add. I guess you didn't have any luck finding one? RivertorchFIREWATER 21:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Solar energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Solar energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

University of New South Wales engineers set solar energy world record

Where we should put this ? University of New South Wales engineers set solar energy world record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.156.83 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, however, the reference might not be the best. Since it is a news source and not the actual article from the University of New South Wales, it could be biased. Hlc9898 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
If the university published a scientific paper on this, that might be a better reference/resource that could be used. Hlc9898 (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

More on ISO standards

Maybe more information about the ISO standard about solar energy can be said since there are a few paragraphs about everything else on this page, but only 2 sentences about the standards. Hlc9898 (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add information on Global Solar Atlas

I tried to make some changes and improvements to this article, in part to update the information but also to include a reference to the Global Solar Atlas (http://globalsolaratlas.info), which is relatively new so therefore not yet well known. These edits were rolled back by another editor because they believed them to be spam, which they are not. However, I do have a potential Conflict of Interest in adding the reference because I was involved in creating the Global Solar Atlas. So I won't attempt to re-add these edits. However, I do think they are relevant, and would encourage someone else to view what I was trying to edit and add and see which of this they feel like adding themselves. Much of the idnformation on this article could do with improving, and I'd be happy to get involved, but I'm wary now after having content deleted. Thanks. --O-Jay (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing your potential conflict of interest. Doing so is key to following Wikipedia's COI guideline; have you read that yet? It's a bit convoluted and confusing, but we work with what we've got.
Technically, your edits were reverted or undone, not "rolled back". (The distinction is meaningful.) I believe the editor who reverted them was entirely correct in doing so. They looked like spam to me, too, and in one instance you added an external link inline, which is always verboten (and always looks like spam). I appreciate that you added the link in good faith, but given your apparent COI it's better to just propose it here on the talk page and let others decide. My take on that question is that it's much too early; googling "Global Solar Atlas" returns a mere handful of results, none of them apparently on the site of a disinterested third party that could help us determine whether it's a reasonably objective and reliable resource worthy of recommending to Wikipedia readers. Given the resources available to the Atlas's owners, I expect that could change fairly rapidly if it's a priority, but I'm speculating now. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, it's not yet well indexed because it's so new. So perhaps somebody comes back to this in a couple of months. The intention is for the resource to be equivalent in terms of standing to the IRENA Global Atlas and the Global Wind Atlas. And I take the point on the original edits, although I don't like the way the person that reverted them dealt with it.I did re-read the COI material - hence this talk suggestion - I just didn't remember that this applied to topics you have an association with (I thought it only applied to individuals or organizations). Thanks! --O-Jay (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, check back in a couple of months. I wouldn't worry about way the other editor handled it. I've read the history and checked your contributions and talk page, and they acted well within community norms. Now, one could argue that these norms are a problem, but consider: there is a relatively tiny core of active Wikipedians, volunteers all, patrolling an unimaginably vast number of articles. Vandalism and other unwholesome edits, including spam, constitute a huge ongoing problem. If each of us took the time to give personalized treatment to every well-meaning, bumbling newbie, the encyclopedia would soon fall apart. So there is an element of "sink or swim". Anyway, don't worry; I've been here over a decade and I still don't know what I'm doing half the time. RivertorchFIREWATER 01:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Global Solar Atlas was launched on Tuesday, 17 January, 2017. See this press release. As a result of this I believe it would now be appropriate to make reference to it on this page. --O-Jay (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't source things to press releases as a general rule. We should wait for independent press coverage. - MrOllie (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Search and you will find the coverage you are looking for. But I'm not going to continue pushing this - just trying to improve the rather old information listed here seeing as I know a thing or two about this topic, but I leave in your hands. --O-Jay (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE 2: Could someone review this request, seeing as it has been over six months since I posted it? I feel somewhat frustrated here because the Global Solar Atlas is now a well-used and respected resource, and yet it does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. And yes plenty of much older, and less useful mapping websites are still listed. I would usually update this myself seeing as I probably know more about this topic than most other editors, but as I've already noted I have a CoI that prevents me from doing so. If someone else could add a reference to the GSA, then I'd be happy to update the other information to bring it up to scratch. Thanks. O-Jay (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

O-Jay: If you'd be kind enough to provide several links—here on the talk page—to reliable sources that are independent of the GSA and the World Bank and discuss it in some detail, that should be helpful. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

/=== Generalise natural and artificial use? ===

Should this page describe solar energy generally (as used both by technology and nature). The opening statement refers only to technological uses. Doesn't "solar energy" also drive plants, weather. Fmadd (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this page is focused on the sustainability part of solar energy, which is why it's so focused on the technological parts. They're trying to show how solar energy can be used as a sustainable resource. Hlc9898 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hlc9898 The graph shows that some days are sunny and some not so much, do you think that is noteworthy for inclusion in the article? If it is not helpful to the encyclopedia then it's very likely to be reverted on sight, which would be a waste of your time and the editor who reverted you. And welcome to Wikipedia! Dougmcdonell (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions in the article

Suggestion one: daily curve

Suggestion for addition in the article:

photoelectric production daily curve
Source: RTE La Réunion [1]
Source: RTE Guyane [2]


This graph might not be the best because it focuses on two small regions in the world, instead of the entire country, which might be a better source since it's bigger. However, if I were to add it in the article, I would put it under the electricity production title. Hlc9898 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hlc9898 Nice graph, it shows that some days are sunny and some not so much, do you think that is noteworthy for inclusion in the article? If it is not helpful to the encyclopedia then it's very likely to be reverted on sight, which would be a waste of your time and the editor who reverted you. And welcome to Wikipedia! Dougmcdonell (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion 2: Efficiency of PV panels compared to other type of sources

Can anyone add the below content paraphrased and with verified sources about the editorial content below:

"And 20% isn’t that bad actually. Car engines only turn about 20% of the energy in gas into movement, with the rest being waste heat. Coal plants achieve from 33% to 40% efficiency in the best cases, with the rest being just wasted heat. Combined cycle gas plants, where the heat is used in addition to the mechanical energy to generate electricity manage to make it up to about 54% efficiency."[3]

Consider these too: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531841/why-solar-is-much-more-costly-than-wind-or-hydro/, https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5

Regards!

References

  1. ^ https://opendata-reunion.edf.fr/explore/dataset/courbe-de-charge-de-la-production-delectricite-par-filiere
  2. ^ https://opendata-guyane.edf.fr/explore/dataset/courbe-de-charge-de-la-production-delectricite-par-filiere/
  3. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/08/is-solar-energy-less-efficient-than-non-renewables/#a93bdf04d4a7

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

46.32.111.37 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2017 (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. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Solar energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2018

Renewable energy sources are things such as bio fuels and bio diesels, these do produce carbon dioxide when combusted into energy, however; the plants that are used to create these fuels use carbon dioxide to do aerobic cellular respiration to create glucose for growth. I wan to change the pages so it shows that bio fuels etc, are renewable energy sources and wind, solar, etc are alternative energies which create no greenhouse gases to create electricity. You really need to re-educate yourself on what alternative and renewable energy sources are. Pepe reeeee (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems you want the renewable energy page. This article is about solar (the title might be a clue :). Vsmith (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2018

In addition to solar heating and ..., add solar cooking ARaman3223 (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want made; please make a more precise request. (There already is a section on solar cookers, so I can't tell what you want here). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2018

It is not updated. It contains 2012 census of energy consumption. It should be of at least 2013 census. AmrendrBahubali (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

add image

maybe we can add this section to the page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_energy_icon.png --Tommaso.sansone91 (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sun vs Humans

The large magnitude of solar energy available makes it a highly appealing source of electricity. The United Nations Development Programme in its 2000 World Energy Assessment found that the annual potential of solar energy was 1,575–49,837 exajoules (EJ). This is several times larger than the total world energy consumption, which was 559.8 EJ in 2012.[3][4]

I thought the Sun's energy hitting the Earth surface was about 6,000 times human energy usage, not just several times larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.179.68 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019

Solar energy company 

Twikon (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

solar energy uses light to produce heat. HOW BOUTTA TRUTH (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Not actually an edit request. El_C 18:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

History of solar energy

In 1839 Alexandre Edmond Becquerel discovered the photovoltaic effect which explains how electricity can be generated from sunlight. He claimed that “shining light on an electrode submerged in a conductive solution would create an electric current.” However, even after much research and development subsequent to the  discovery, photovoltaic power continued to be very inefficient and solar cells were used mainly for the purposes of measuring light.

Over 100 years later, in 1941, Russell Ohl invented the solar cell, shortly after the invention of the transistor.

Light (photons) striking certain compounds, in particular metals, causes the surface of the material to emit electrons. Light striking other compounds causes the material to accept electrons. It is the combination of these two compounds that can be made use of to cause electrons to flow through a conductor, and thereby create electricity. This phenomenon is called the photo-electric effect. Photovoltaic (or PV) means sunlight converted into a flow of electrons (electricity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WNIGEL1922 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The solar energy has been used 400 years ago 1893 in India as heating up water and salt to generate electricity in "tamb" or copper.

Reference - mandakini upanishad Localrame (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

World's largest plants - very outdated

Update this sentence in Electricity production section: "The 250 MW Agua Caliente Solar Project, in the United States, and the 221 MW Charanka Solar Park in India, are the world's largest photovoltaic plants. " with current Bhadla Solar Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6296:66D4:3518:A263:790D:21B0 (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

someone answer the question what is solar energy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.59.39 (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Solar energy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
  • The article is severely out of date. Not only the data is out of date (which should be relatively easy to fix), the relative importance of topics also reflects the industry ten years ago. Solar PV is now the dominant form of solar energy, and this deserves a larger share of the article compared to heat and transport applications.
  • The article contains uncited material
  • See also is too long; are there duplicate sources or is the article missing significant topics?
  • Sourcing doesn't comply to the weak GA criteria, with ' "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-05-05. Retrieved 2011-03-29.' as an example (need more than bare url).

FemkeMilene (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of references in the Reference list that simply have author(s) surname(s) and year of publication, but do not have a link or a bibliography. Readers are left with no ability to go to or find the actual source documents and read them. For example, references 4 and 10 are to a Smil (1991) and a Smil (2006). In this example, one wonders whether this is referring to Vaclav Smil. If it is, then the 1991 reference becomes more apparent from his publications list. However, the 2006 reference is problematic, considering he published two books and two articles in 2006. And this is just for the Smil references. It appears that this article needs a bibliography. ( Leeirons (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022

Change Reference 138. "NREL Efficiency Chart (PDF) https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/pdfs/best-research-cell-efficiencies-rev211117.pdf to url= https://www.sunlineenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/best-research-cell-efficiencies-rev211117.pdf; Brendabarrio (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: 1. The section you mentioned is an excerpt from Perovskite solar cell, and edit request should be filed there. 2. The replacement you have suggested is outdated and unofficial. The correct link is here. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

Request change for References 147. Batrawy, Aya (9 March 2015). "Solar-powered plane takes off for flight around the world". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 6 March 2016. Retrieved 14 March 2015. Current dead url:https://news.yahoo.com/solar-powered-plane-takes-off-flight-around-world-041503078.html to url:https://www.sunlineenergy.com/blog/solar-powered-plane-takes-off-flight-around-world/ Brendabarrio (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is already a link to an archive of the AP story. Also, stop trying to get links to the blog on sunlinenergy.com added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your solar company. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the "Proposal of a solar thermal power plant at low temperature using solar thermal collectors"

My contribution has been banned today because the EPE journal is supposed to be a predatory journal!

I added this contribution because it could be of interest for readers to present an alternative way to generate electricity and, in the same time, desalinated water, mainly for desert areas. Now this contribution is banned and I will not reverted it. Censors have won.

Now, who decides to blacklist the EPE journal? After some investigation, I found that the EPE journal pertains to SCIRP and that a certain Jefferey Beall posted a predatory list in 2012 and 2014, where SCIRP appears. Now it's just the opinion of this person. Another person would have posted another list. But in any cases, this list is now considered by several persons (let's be optimistic, a very small minority I hope) as the "truth". This list appears to be equivalent to the "List of Prohibited Books" ("Index Librorum Prohibitorum") with several self-appointed censors in charge to remove all the contributions refering to an editor present on the list. No lawyer to defend the editors and no possibility given for the editors to improve their methods (supposing that they were reprehensible). The editors of this list are condemned for eternity. This is really sad. I'm just an engineer and I had an high consideration for science and its tolerance. Today, I lose my illusions and I'm afraid for the future, if this minority imposes its rules by a form a violence (as to directly ban contributions). Moreover, I don't understand how intelligent people can lose their time controlling if a journal pertains or not to a condemned editor, rather than reading what the contribution says. F6CTE (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of solar energy for project work

Solar energy 117.206.251.165 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ruizhouruizhou (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ruizhouruizhou (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_energy/Archive_9&oldid=1248602849"