Talk:Solar energy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Classification section
Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App undo
 
Line 1:
{{skip to talk}}
{{environment}}--[[User:Vortexrealm|Alex]] 18:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
{{talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=11 September 2006
|action1link=Talk:Solar energy/Archive2#Good Article Suggestions
|action1result=failed
|action1oldid=75141152
 
|action2=GAN
Old discussions:
|action2date=29 July 2007
* [[Talk:Solar power/Archive1]] - 2004-2005
|action2link=Talk:Solar energy/Archive3#"Quick fail" GA nomination
|action2result=failed
{{Energy development}}
|action2oldid=161067929
{{todo}}
 
|action3=GAN
== Solar land area Image Objection ==
|action3date=2 August 2007
|action3link=Talk:Solar energy/Archive3#GA Failed
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=148932877
 
|action4=GAN
The image Solar land area.jpg has a very propogandist message. It would be less POV if it just showed the solar energy potential across the globe. It is not Wikipedias purpose to try to sell solar energy to anyone however comendible that is. I suggest removing the stars and just showing global solar enrgy input.
|action4date=5 November 2007
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=169444108
 
|action5=PR
It is also unlcear whether the stated available w/sqm are
|action5date=21:47, 22 May 2008
#peak (ie hours around noon) ,
|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Solar energy/archive1
#average of all daylight hours ,
|action5result=reviewed
#average over a 24 hour period.
|action5oldid=214279967
#exclude or include hours of cloud cover
 
|action6=FAC
[[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 13:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
|action6date=19:13, 4 July 2008
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar energy/archive1
|action6result=not promoted
|action6oldid=223563920
 
|action7=PR
Hi Lumos3,
|action7date=16:47, 18 October 2009
I have moved the image to appear in the first section "Energy from the Sun" and added a more thorough description in the text and the image caption. I am sorry about the propaganda you see in this image, however I believe it is very important to visualize that the energy we actually consume is only a very small fraction of the incident energy from the sun. This fact should not be missing in a good encyclopedia. If you look at the discussions above, e.g. under "Potential Energy Generated" you can see that other people were not aware that a very small fraction of the globe's surface is enough to supply the current energy demand. --[[User:Mlino76|Mlino76]] 12:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
|action7link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Solar energy/archive2
|action7result=reviewed
|action7oldid=319615794
 
|action8=GAR
:It looks like a propaganda image because its so unclear. What area supplies the 18twe energy you state , the area underneath the little stars or are these the centre of much larger areas of high solar input, what are they?
|action8date=19:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
|action8link=Talk:Solar energy/GA1
|action8result=delisted
|action8oldid=1016091148
 
|currentstatus=DGA
Is it peak time or is it the average over 24 hours , see my questions above ) any news on this? The link you give suppports none of your assertions. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 01:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
|topic=Engtech
 
}}
:The area of the six little stars is enough to supply the 18TWe (when covered entirely with solar panels at 8% efficiency). I used stars for the shape of these areas because this image was sent initially as a Season's greetings card. The shape is admittedly not perfect and I will try to switch to rectangles or circles with the same area, but I need to redo the calculation which will take a while. <b>To Lumos3:</b> The incident solar power is the average over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites. You can find more information and sources for this data at [http://www.loster.com/ml/xmas/xmas05.html]. Please let me know if this helped and/or if you have suggestions about how the image and its description can be improved. --[[User:Mlino76|Mlino76]] 10:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Physics |importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Environment |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Climate change |importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|counter = 9
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Solar energy/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
 
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
:Yes this helps but the link you give is " error 404 ". I am adding this to the images description page. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Arizona_State_University/Environment_and_Justice_(Spring) | assignments = [[User:00BlueSky00|00BlueSky00]], [[User:Redsoxs33|Redsoxs33]] | reviewers = [[User:Hla19|Hla19]], [[User:Springfrog32|Springfrog32]], [[User:Louistheyounger|Louistheyounger]] | start_date = 2022-01-11 | end_date = 2022-04-28 }}
 
== Efficiency ==
::Sorry, now the link is correct. --[[User:Mlino76|Mlino76]] 18:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 
Efficiency of a machine is defined as the percentage of retio of our put (i.e work done by the machine) to the input work (i.e work done on the machine)
I updated some of the reflection/absoption numbers and added a reference. There is a diagram on the linked page which visually explains the reflection/absorption flows. Something like this diagram would be a helpful addition to this page. I changed the peak power at sea level back to 1,020 W/m². I also blended the reflection/absorption data with the peak power data in a way that hopefully explains where the peak power number comes from. I think the blending also provides a good transition to the average power information and eliminates some redundancy in the previous version. [[User:Mrshaba]]
Efficiency = output work /input work × 100%
' [[Special:Contributions/2400:F0C0:1:B648:7856:7458:3A1F:F6C8|2400:F0C0:1:B648:7856:7458:3A1F:F6C8]] ([[User talk:2400:F0C0:1:B648:7856:7458:3A1F:F6C8|talk]]) 15:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Remove Molten Salt Section? ==
I think the last three paragraphs in the Energy From the Sun section can be mostly eliminated or moved to more appropriate areas. The black disc reference doesn't work in it's current version because there are no numbers involved. I agree that the relative power delivered by the sun over a given area should be compared to the power used by people but the current version is confusing. Using hard numbers like xxx square kilometers or referencing a city size on each of the continents might be a better approach. I think the global dimming/warming references should also be removed. It would be interesting to replace these paragraphs with more specifics that apply to the energy flows discussed in the first paragraph. e.g. Reference to biomass absorbing light and atmospherically absorbed sunlight driving wind and hydrologic cycles. [[User:Mrshaba]]
 
I'm not sure the section on molten salt belongs here, and if it does it should be much shorter and concise. Currently it's a very out-of-place, long-winded description of the tech plus a detailed list of a few experimental concentrated solar power projects that use it. I think this information would be better suited on [[Concentrated_solar_power]] and [[Thermal_energy_storage]]. Also note that while these two technologies were promising several decades ago they are obsolete now for commercial power production thanks to the massive cost decreases of photovoltaic and electric batteries, making the prominence of molten salt on this article seem even less appropriate on a general article about solar energy. [[User:Lifterus|Lifterus]] ([[User talk:Lifterus|talk]]) 23:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
== Classification ==
 
==Wiki Education assignment: Engineering in the 21st Century - Section 002==
Reworking this section. Each category of classification needs to be better defined with a short list of examples. [[User:Mrshaba]]
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/North_Carolina_State_University/Engineering_in_the_21st_Century_-_Section_002_(Fall_2024) | assignments = [[User:E102G13|E102G13]] | reviewers = [[User:Jabakah|Jabakah]] | start_date = 2024-08-19 | end_date = 2024-12-03 }}
 
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Jabakah|Jabakah]] ([[User talk:Jabakah|talk]]) 02:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
Removed the light mill from the direct solar list. Light mills move because sunlight heats the gas around the vanes rather than being driven directly by photons (as with the solar sail example) thus the effect is indirect. I did not transfer the light mill into the indirect section because it seemed like a miscellaneous case covered under the atmospheric phenomena umbrella. [[User:Mrshaba]]
 
:Thanks for working on the important [[solar panel]] article as well as this one. As you are looking at both articles might you be able to sort out some of the duplication? [[User:Chidgk1|Chidgk1]] ([[User talk:Chidgk1|talk]]) 13:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Reworked the Active and Passive solar explanations. I bulleted and expanded the examples of passive solar. [[User:Mrshaba]]
 
==Wiki Education assignment: Engineering in the 21st Century - Section 003==
== UV or IR transmittance for warming through windows? ==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/NC_State_University/Engineering_in_the_21st_Century_-_Section_003_(Fall_2024) | assignments = [[User:AdGilJam|AdGilJam]] | start_date = 2024-08-19 | end_date = 2024-12-03 }}
 
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:AdGilJam|AdGilJam]] ([[User talk:AdGilJam|talk]]) 20:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
This sounds unlikely to me:-
 
"South-facing (for the Northern Hemisphere) or north-facing (for the Southern Hemisphere) windows with insulated glazing that has high ultraviolet transmittance."
 
Is there a reference or detailed reason? [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 17:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 
== Price of non-focusing water heaters ==
 
I removed the following sentence by [[User:68.126.200.157]] "Costs about 8-12,000 dollars for a solar system to bre installed" Ignoring obvious grammar issues, I felt like this comment was not specific enough so it might be a little misleading. A solar water heater was installed recently in my home of the non-focusing type (passive collection type) and it cost much less than that. While we might not be talking about the same system at all, I think the sentence should identify what specific kind of non-focusing water heater system it quotes the price for. Second and more importantly, I think this type of information would be extremely useful to the article, especially if it were referenced with a price quote. If [[User:68.126.200.157]] or someone else would like to look up the info for the various types of water heaters, this would enhance the article significantly. [[User:Sifaka|Sifaka]] 04:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 
== Environmental Costs ==
 
At this time, solar power is described as having "some" environmental costs. Unless these can be quantified, the word will be changed to "minor".
:Actually, the other way would be more logical. Minor, compared to what? That needs quantification, unlike 'some', which is the proper neutral description .[[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen]] 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:: "Some" can be interpreted as a little or a lot, which is far too broad. Minor is more NPOV, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Effective Uses ==
 
Solar is cost effective even in grid areas, such as is exemplified by their inclusion in illuminated roadside signs around the US and Europe.
:Fair enough, but the sentence starts with 'In situations where connection to the electricity grid is' (problematic). The road signs don't bear on that situation, so put it somewhere else please. It's a very minor market (cf. rooftop panels), so I don't see much need to include it on its own here I must say.[[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen]] 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Cons ==
 
For backup power, there is a tremendous difference in bringing a coal plant online versus a natural gas generator, the latter being considered dispatchable. Trying to lump them together is misleading and suggests POV.
:Can you suggest a source for this please?[[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen]] 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Certainly. [http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/turbines/Day-DOE_Galveston_0202.pdf] --[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Solar panels at high latitudes actually benefit from lower temperatures and therefore tend to produce slightly more power.
:That's highly misleading at best. Insolation is much lower at high latitudes, and it's no coincidence that you see little PV in Norway or Greenland, even in off-grid areas. It's not even close to compensated by lower temperatures.[[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen]] 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:: My mistake, I was thinking high altitudes.--[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Converting to another form of power is exactly what coal and nuclear must do through the steam cycle, rejecting about 70% of the original energy. Since electric vehicles are making a resurgence, there is no reason to attempt to hide the disadvantages of traditional energy sources while only portraying those of solar; it makes for a POV comparison.
:True, but I wonder if it is not taking it too far to discuss the limitations of other technologies here. The fact remains that solar power is of limited use for transport purposes. It happens to share that limitation with coal and nuclear, but not with oil or liquid biofuels. The section is meant to be a brief overview, not an exhaustive discussion of all contingencies.[[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen]] 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Since energy for transportation is being discussed, and solar is listed as having a disadvantage in this area, it only makes sense to provide context about what is being compared.--[[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 
I cleaned up the last disadvantage. DC to AC inverter losses of 5-10% is the relevant disadvantage here. [[User:Mrshaba]]
 
I cleaned up the last disadvantage again. There is some contention here. Disadvantages and advantages should be separated. I am the editor that inserted the transmission/distribution losses avoidance point under advantages so I recognize that advantages and disadvantages can cancel each other out but that's not the point here. If we used DC appliances and lighting systems we wouldn't need inverters but we don't use DC yet so we need inverters. The disadvantage should stand without being watered down. [[User:Mrshaba]]
 
==World solar power production==
Something is seriously wrong in this section: compare the numbers in the first sentence to those in the table. Probably one of them is off by a factor of 1000. [[User:DonSiano|DonSiano]] 04:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 
:Adding up the numbers in the table, I came up with a total installed capacity of roughly 2600 GW for those countries in the list. Assuming the rest of the world has about half of the installed capacity, this is consistent with the units for the table being mislabeled as MW instead of kW. Perhaps when someone finds a citation for the table they can confirm this. [[User:Iamlucky13|Iamlucky13]] 21:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 
::The table probably comes from http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/isr/22.htm http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/isr/index.htm My reconstruction of where it came from is 13:18, 25 March 2006 [[User:Messedrocker|Messedrocker]] ("World solar power production" section moved from Solar panel) Going back to [[Solar panel]] leads to a refernce to the above mentioned site. Which is .nl, which means that they adhere to continental conventions, which means that they put comma's where Americans put periods, and periods where Americans have comma's. Problem solved. :-) [[User:JdH|JdH]] 21:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 
==Indirect solar power section==
Doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article. Most people don't mean any of the power sources listed in this section when talking about solar power. A more approative article for this section would be renewable energy sources. [[User:Joncnunn|Joncnunn]] 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is not paper [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper]. It can afford to give a full encyclopedic description of all energy sources that originate from the sun not just the narrow definition used by some.[[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 09:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 
==question moved from the article==
 
the system in the Mojave desert is said to be the world largest below, which one is bigger? -- 69.203.102.77 (moved by [[User:CyrilB|CyrilB]] 09:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC))
 
== Global solar energy resources Map is not clear ==
 
This image commentry says the map has "taken into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites." Does this mean:-
 
* values have been marked down to levels which would be recieved taking into account the average cloud cover,
 
*or does it mean values have been marked up to levels they would attain if cloud cover had not been present?
 
[[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 19:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 
It says "'''also''' taking into account the cloud coverage reported from weather satellites" meaning the amount of solar energy minus the amount of cloud cover. So, values have been marked down to levels which would be recieved taking into account the average cloud cover, you can tell if you read the sentence more closely.--[[User:Lf2planet|LF2]] 17:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:"take into account" could mean marking up or down. Ichanged the text to ''applying''. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 09:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 
== Commercialism? ==
One thing became clear after I put those external references in a list: there are quite a few references that may be viewed as commercialism. E.g. what I noted is several references to Stirling Energy Systems, in what appears to be blatant commercialism, but there are links to several other companies as well. I guess that's OK if those links it provide unbiased information, but it is not OK as it talks about "the largest" in apparent commercialism. Can somebody plow through all of this and clean it up? [[User:JdH|JdH]] 12:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 
== Solar hot water ==
 
There are a number of references in this article, from several sections, to [[Solar hot water]]. I suggest that the information on [[Solar hot water]] be moved to that article, with a brief description and link from here. That will also help cut down this article and improve layout and clarity.
 
Any objections? --[[User:Singkong2005|Singkong2005]] 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
==Payback period?==
What is the energy payback period for solar power installations -- how long does it take to generate an amount of energy equal to that used to make/install the equipment? And what is the typical life of such installations -- what is the total ratio of energy to create to total energy produced? [[User:69.87.202.5|69.87.202.5]] 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 
I remember seeing data about this in the World Energy Assessment. I think it is between five and fifteen years at the moment, and declining.
[[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen]] 15:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Bull. Depends on your local electricity prices. In Austin TX, its currently about 50 years, and that's if you do the installation labour yourself. See [http://www.linas.org/theory/solar-electric.html calculations]. If you think you've found an error in these calcs, let me know on my talk page. [[User:Linas|linas]] 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:: Don't confuse energy payback with economic payback. Energy payback for PV depends upon the type of panel under consideration and the ___location. [http://homepower.com/files/pvpayback.pdf Home Power] did an analysis a few years back and determined the average time was 1.8 to 3.3 years.
 
== does make one wonder.. ==
 
If DC was indeed the right choice for power distribution. Everything I CAN USE around me works on DC. Ofcourse the things I cannot use. like the govt grid which goes off and on every 2 days works on AC :-)
 
== Photoelectrolysis of water ==
 
Photoelectrolysis of water has been researched off and on starting with Honda and his coworkers, and work continues today with Graetzel and many, many more. I have added some information under solar chemical in an attempt to fill this hole in the article. Perhaps others would like to add more along this line? [[User:Rhelmich|Rhelmich]] 06:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:I think you are the expert here, so it is up to you to research the subject and put in some more information. [[User:JdH|JdH]] 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 
== missing category ==
I remember that, in the early 70s, there was an engineering feasibility study of satellite solar collection with microwave broadcast to antenna arrays on the Earth's surface (see [[Soplar power satellite]]). This was a formal study which found that there were no engineering blocks to such a system (eg, microwave beams so intense as to kill birds or crash planes that wandered through the beam, or sterilize the flora and fauna in and around the antenna array, and that economically feasible antenna elements could be made such that expected rates of failure would not reduce performance sufficiently to make the system desing impracticable. The question of funding, and adverse interest pressure, was not a part of the engineering study. I note that this article not only doesn't mention this as a possibility, concentrating on earth based collection, but doesn't note this serious study of the problem. I suggest that someone who is familiar with this contribute some coverage of it to this article. [[User:Ww|ww]] 00:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know about technical feasibility, but I have the feeling that this is economically way out in the middle of nowhere. Let's start with putting solar panels on all rooftops, and Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Plants in the deserts here on earth. And build wind turbines on all windy places we can find down here, including offshore. And if all of those resources have been utilized we can always expand into the oceans; even that will be a lot cheaper than putting things out in space. [[User:JdH|JdH]] 03:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::That may be sensible, but is skew to my comment. This is a serious study and, I think, required for a full appreciation of the topic of solar power. The economic feasiblity (or not) is a point which should probably be referenced in any account of it, as indeed it is in the SPS article. The significance of this proposal is that it has been carefully study from the perspective of engineering easilibity. That's considerably different than many proposals. Very different. [[User:Ww|ww]] 19:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 
== Moved material to relevant articles ==
 
I moved a lot of material to the relevant articles, e.g. [[Solar hot water]], and linked to there from here with a ''Main article: [[Solar hot water]]'' etc. If there's disagreement about where the material should be, I'm open to discuss it, but the important thing was to collect the material on each topic in one place, and create proper links.
 
Re the '''Photovoltaic cells''' section - I wanted to move most of this to the [[Solar cell]] article, but that article is quite long, and technical about the electronic aspect; [[Solar panel]] doesn't seem suitable either, as it's not just about photovoltaic systems. How should we handle this? I suggest we split [[Solar cell]], so that [[Solar cell (physics)]] focuses on the underlying physics, going into technical details. The [[Solar cell]] article would just give a basic explanation, with more focus on applications, and achievements to date (e.g. highest % conversions achieved, leaving extended technical explanations to [[Solar cell (physics)]]). I'll post this suggestion at [[Talk:Solar cell]]. Comments? --[[User:Singkong2005|Singkong2005]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Singkong2005|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/Singkong2005|c]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject International development|WPID]])</small></sup> 11:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 
I'd like to help with the process of restructing and moving. I'm not a scientist but a domestic PV user and would like to see the article more accessible to people who know nothing about the topic. My first impression is that the classification of solar power early in the article may be scientifically accurate, but for many users it would be more helpful to adopt one dimension of classification and use that for the sub-headings in the article. Any comments? [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 12:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Having read more, a suggestion about how we could proceed. I don't think we can sort this article without careful consideration of how it relates to other articles. Singkong's suggestion was a good one. How about if we end up with this:
:*Solar power – very holistic, should mention the purpose and relevance to the environment, list all the technologies under headings "direct" and "indirect", and the advantages and disadvantages
:*Solar cell – title of the article should be photovoltaic cell and “solar cell” should redirect to it – just science of the PV cell
:*Solar panel –classified as “good article” but use for thermal only. Apart from a brief mention for clarification purposes, take out all PV stuff that would then go into the new PV applications article (see below).
:*Active solar – short but helpful article, no need to revise
:*Photovoltaic applications - a new article that would carry everything about PV that is too detailed for the solar power article but not directly related to the science of the PV cell. Including building integration, on-off grid distinction, PV power stations, price drops, statistics.
:Any comments, because I have drafted a "photovoltaic applications" article on this basis and could create it and remove redundant material from other articles, but don't want to upset those who have already put in a lot of work. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 23:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 
::I have copied some chunks into [[Photovoltaics]]. It would be very nice if people could check that article out and see if the material makes sense in there. Also there are things to do there like making the style of referencing consistent. If there are no major objections, then I will delete the copied material from this article and move some more bits over.[[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Sample worldwide electric costs ==
 
I'd be curious to compare my electric costs with the rest of the world's. FWIW, I'm in Austin TX and am paying 9.5 US cents per KWh. At this price, I cannot amortize a photovoltaic system in less than 50 years (see [http://www.linas.org/theory/solar-electric.html here]), and so am curious to see what the rest of the world is payig for grid electricity. [[User:Linas|linas]] 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:In the UK 11.9 pence (22.34 US cents) per KwH decreasing to 8.24 pence (15.35 US cents) after the first 168 KwHs in each quarter-year. But our insolation is much less than yours. And with no [[net metering]] it is worth trying to use all the self-generated power in the house rather than exporting it to the grid. And considering how to use the heat absorbed into the panels. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 22:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 
:Have you included subsidies (also tax breaks and the like) in those costs? If so, that makes it hard to compare at any rate.[[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen]] 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Cleanup tag ==
 
I would on balance prefer the cleanup tag to remain in place until all the items on the to-do list have been addressed. There is rewriting currently in progress. Thanks.[[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 
== Disadvantages ==
 
No mention of limited lifetime of solar panels or effect on the local environment of large installations? — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 
:Do you want to add these points, with sources for them? Thanks.[[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 07:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 
== Classification section ==
 
I don't feel that this is an accessible section at the beginning of the article. The list of different technologies is in fact a de facto classification. So I propose moving the text currently in Classification to different sections. A section on Concentration would be appropriate, but Concentrating PV belongs in the [[Photovoltaics]] article. Any dissensions?[[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 11:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)