Talk:Solar energy

RFC pictures

Fixed RFCxxx template, set template section param to match discussion page section heading for section template is included in. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:RFCsci This is a request for input on the pictures to be used at the top of the page.

Current and former pictures

Solar power from a parabolic reflector.

Image:SolarStirlingEngine.jpg

Nice "collection of solar energy" picture. --SmokeyJoe 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a decent example of a solar power technology. Mrshaba 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The amount of solar energy available to the Earth in one minute exceeds global energy demand for a year.

Image:Available Energy-2.jpg

Boring graphic, requires too much study to work it out. Not worth its space. The point would be better simply made in a sentence. --SmokeyJoe 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Poor use of space. Mrshaba 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true. There is no way that saying something has as much impact as a graphical illustration. 199.125.109.124 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The information conveyed by this graphic is already text-based. The graphic elements rely too much on data that is mostly hidden from view (the implied volumes). With so few items that represent such truly large differences it would be better to elegantly state the contrast in text rather than using a graphic. --Cheng Houston 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone with graphics skills could take the boring full-sun picture from below (or download a similar one) and superimpose a pie chart on the solar disc to illustrate these data. These isometric cubes are primitive, hard to decipher, and take up too much space. --NameThatWorks 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A pie chart would be useless as each section would only be a very thin line. The existing illustration is a brilliant way to show a very large ratio by making the ratio into a cube, which shows the ratio to the third power of the dimension - a cube with dimensions ten times as big has a thousand times the volume, as such the huge ratios are very succinctly shown. Since the images are thumbnails they also don't take up much space but can be clicked on if anyone wants to see closer. I didn't create the image, but I do see how brilliant it is, especially making the larger cube the same color as the sun. 199.125.109.87 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A pie chart could show the same ratios in its three sections, as long as it was clear that the intent is simply to show the relationship among the proportions and not to add up to 100% of anything. Jeez, at least use perspective cubes and not those isometric jobs that only an engineer could love. --NameThatWorks 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The average viewer will glance at the cubes and get an impression that there is a difference, but not the huge difference intended by the volumes. They will grasp the 2D differences not the implied 3D differences. The average reader is not likely to spend time performing mental gymnastics to work it out. Unfortunately the use of a pie chart is also forced. Due to the vast differences in quantities being contrasted either the pie would have to "lie" to accommodate incorrectly large sections just so they can be seen. Try creating a quick graphic in Calc, Excel, etc with the values presented. It will be obvious that a pie chart isn't a good choice. A simple table would present the contrast better than a graphic.Cheng Houston —Preceding comment was added at 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All that the graphic needs to do is give the reader the impression that there is a difference, and it does that loud and clear. Added ref for those non-engineers about the significance of the volume of the cubes. 199.125.109.129 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking this graphic down based upon the consensus viewpoint expressed above. Mrshaba 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for removing it. I still like it, and I'm putting it back. 199.125.109.41 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else has disagreed, with a reason. Graphical illustrations are good, yes, but that doesn't mean that ANY graphical illustration is good. The cubes are not a good illustration. Understanding it requires conceptualisation. Energy doesn't come in cubes. The point it tries to make is not a difficult point to understand. The graphic does not deserve to be in the article. --SmokeyJoe 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Most people are visual. So having the ratio expressed in an image is much more valuable than expressing it as a number. I added a footnote to explain what the cubes represented. 199.125.109.136 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that helps much. The coneptualisation required is still too much for someone who doesn't already understand. If you already understand, it is too boring. Maybe if it was a flea on a mouse on an elephant, it might help with recognition. --SmokeyJoe 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While that might be the right ratio it would be a weird diversion and it would be very hard to relate back to energy. 199.125.109.136 04:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cubes are a diversion unrelated to energy. --SmokeyJoe 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You know it's funny that you even mention cubes - all I see is an 800 pound gorilla on one side and a pebble on the other. 199.125.109.56 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Is there a subtle point? Can you find anyone, even a non-wikipedian, who agrees with you that the image is should be used? --SmokeyJoe 05:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In order to find out, I printed out the article and the diagram and asked random people if they thought the image was a good illustration for the article. Almost everyone said it was good to excellent. The only people who didn't like it were also people who thought we should develop nuclear power. The question they were asked was, "In order to meet our energy needs for the next 50 years should we develop nuclear power or solar power." No one chose only nuclear, and only a few chose both. Almost everyone chose only solar. 199.125.109.56 03:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The people who responded to the Rfc have responded negatively to the cube diagram. The count seems to be 4 out of 5. Cheng Houston, SmokeyJoe, NameThatWorks and myself all have a poor opinion of the image. 80% is a strong and clear consensus. I am going to remove this picture. Mrshaba 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, your question was unrelated to the matter at hand. Anybody would chose solar, simply because the cube is bigger. However, the image is deceiving, because it is three-dimensional. Not only that, but it as a boring graphic that could be easily explained in a sentence or two in the actual article. -Rycr (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means either that everyone likes it or no one likes it. Since there is no consensus to remove it, it stays until something better comes along. 199.125.109.56 06:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is from the intro of the How to Lie with Statistics page. I think it's relevant here.

• By representing one-dimensional quantities on a pictogram by two- or three-dimensional objects to compare their sizes, one makes the reader forget that the images don't scale the same way the quantities do. Two rows of small images would give a better idea than one small and one big one. Mrshaba 03:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What that refers to is that one row would be say 89 m long and the other only 1.5 cm long to accurately show the difference between solar and consumption. Obviously the page isn't large enough. Log scales are also used to compare large ratios, using a semilog chart. The log of 89,000 is 4.95, 370 is 2.57 and 15 becomes 1.18. The problem with logs is there is no way to visualize the actual quantities. When we hear of an earthquake being 6.8 and another being 6.5 they sound about the same, but one is twice as powerful. Log graphs are best used in data analysis where you are looking for trends, to see if the trend is linear or exponential. So if you made a semilog graph of solar wind and consumption the average reader would probably look at it and say, hmm they are all about the same, wind is about twice consumption, and solar is about twice what wind is, both being totally false conclusions. So far the cubes seem to be the best proposal. Visually it lies by making it look like solar is, what 18 or 20 times bigger than consumption, instead of 5,900 times bigger, but that doesn't matter, it still conveys the concept that solar is a lot bigger. 199.125.109.27 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Heat and light from the sun fuel life on earth.

Image:Sunspot TRACE.jpeg

Exciting solar surface illustration, but relevence is unclear. --SmokeyJoe 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is my favorite of the sun pictures. The caption was adapted from the heat article and I'd like to keep something like this caption. The caption on the ISS image can also be moved into this picture. Mrshaba 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not relevant to article. 199.125.109.124 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 4 x 10²⁴ joules per year.

Image:ISS on 20 August 2001.jpg

Nice illustration of solar energy collection by a satelite. Not a very good connection between image and caption though. --SmokeyJoe 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this technology picture because it is crisp and also international which is good. The caption could be changed to something like: The use of solar panels on the International Space Station highlights the advantages which solar power has in remote applications. Most solar energy applications are more down to Earth. Mrshaba 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture is great, but spacecraft and the ISS are not what comes to mind via the term "remote applications" (need a photo of a project in the desert or jungle for that). The caption for this photo should mention the importance of PV to the space program and the efficiency of PV arrays above the atmosphere. --NameThatWorks 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not relevant to lead. Put it in the solar in space article. 199.125.109.124 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of a picture of the sun!

Now that the sunspot and solar flare images are gone, there is no picture of the sun. I think an image/figure showing the sun belongs at the start of the article.

I tried Image:The sun1.jpg (shown right?), but someone pretty quickly didn’t like it. Images of the sun showing stuff in the foreground are pretty difficult to photograph, but I think some figure showing the sun, but not as a closeup, is needed. --SmokeyJoe 05:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sun

Image:Sun920607.jpg

Fairly boring sun image except for its illustration of sunspots. Are sunspots relevent here? --SmokeyJoe 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the image that long held the lead on this page but I found it rather sleepy so I changed it out. Vantucky pointed out this image is already used in the lead on the Sun page which makes its use here inappropriate. Mrshaba 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heat and light from the sun fuel life on earth.

Image:171879main LimbFlareJan12 lg.jpg

Exciting solar surface illustration, but relevence is unclear. Caption doesn't explain figure. --SmokeyJoe 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also like this image although not as much as the sunspot TRACE image. This image is used as the lead on the heat page with the caption "Heat from the sun is the driving force of life." Mrshaba 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not relevant to article. 199.125.109.124 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The sun radiates the earth at approximately 4 x 10²⁴ joules per year

Image:171879main LimbFlareJan12 lg.jpg

Actually, this might be a good candidate. Because we are talking about solar energy, which is captured and used on Earth (or around it, if you take satellites into account), it is good to show a view of it from the Earth itself. Plus, the caption fits the article perfectly. -Rycr (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sun in X-Ray.png lg.png

This is a very popular picture on the international WP sun pages. Mrshaba 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ImageImage:Sun in Celestia without words.PNG| lg.PNG

Is this really an image that can be used on Wikipedia? It says it's a screenshot but doesn't say where it is from. Isn't this an obvious copyright violation? 199.125.109.27 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sun minus Venus.PNG| lg.jpg

If you are going to use this photo, use the original not one that has been modified. 199.125.109.27 23:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Image:SolarStirlingEngine.jpg? The article now begins with three awful pictures/figures. --SmokeyJoe 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rfc regarding pictures

The choice of pictures has been a distraction to the forward movement of the page. I initiated the Rfc to gather information which could be used to consensually choose the pictures in the lead and control this distraction but somehow the issue of picture choice in the lead has expanded to the picture choice on the entire page. Sizing of pictures in particular has become an issue and all of the pictures on the page have been reverted to thumbs. In my opinion this is a step backwards which has subtracted from the quality of the page but I foresee polishing editors moving pictures around and resizing pictures for maximum effect so I'm not too worried.

In regards to the picture choice there is room for two pictures in the lead. It seems clear that one picture should be of the sun and one picture should be of a solar technology. I personally think the solar technology picture should be a PV technology because the majority of visitors to the page will be interested in PV.

Another consideration is that the pictures should be chosen in tandem to some degree because of color considerations. Technology pictures which incorporate strong green or blue colors would in general work well with the red or yellow colors of the final sun picture. The only other consideration is that the sun picture should express both heat and light. Solar energy technologies predominantly use both heat and light so choosing a sun picture that expressed both heat and light would help understanding. Mrshaba 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, the pictures in the lead should succinctly express the the main uses of solar energy. These uses are heat, light and electricity. A picture of the sun can be used to cover heat an light and a PV picture can be used to cover electricity. Mrshaba 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What works for me is one photo that is representative of solar technology and one image that demonstrates the availability of solar energy, which is what we currently have. The photo should probably be rotated occasionally, because no one image can cover all of the different implementations of solar energy. 199.125.109.56 05:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RE picture sizes. Mrshaba, What setting do you have for viewing thumbs? Why do you think the images should be bigger on this page than for other pages on wikipedia?

Also, why are all the pictures aligned right? --SmokeyJoe 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the pictures are different sizes on the Sun page for example. The pictures are all on the right because working on the content of the page has been more important than moving pictures around. I also stopped experimenting with the pictures because Anon got in the way so I moved back to working through the material for the most part. 69.229.196.79 01:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the pictures but there is nothing wrong with that pictures looks in this page. But seems it needs to revised the pictures for the demonstration or presentation of the solar energy source.--Ellainecondes 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the Sun pictures on all the WP language sites. The Italian sun page tried to hypnotize me and I found out the sun is called Howl in Kernewek and Nap in Magyar. Here are some of the pictures I found notable: [1], [2], [3], This one could go in the storage section to explain the intermittent nature of solar energy [4], [5], there are a million sunset pictures but one like these could be used eloquently at the bottom of the page [6] or [7], simple [8], another way to show energy flow [9]. Mrshaba 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this might be an open source picture jackpot. [10] Mrshaba 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I verified with the contact at Sandia that all the pictures in the search engine are indeed open source. The only expectation is that Sandia National Laboratories be acknoledged. Mrshaba 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pic-1-SF salt pond

Salt pond in Spain

Red hot sun

Mrshaba 00:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

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

PV

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

GA review from Goodfriend100

A couple of points

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

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

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

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

I suggest you read [[11]] for tips on "See also" sections. I cut the the section down. Good friend100 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for further improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding further improvement I have a few thoughts. Last night I stumbled upon an excellent method of improving the page. I started surfing around all the foreign language WP sites. When you get on a good page no understanding of the language is required to translate the quality of the page.[12] The colors of picture and page layout are enough to translate the page's quality. I found merger tags on some German solar energy/solar power pages so it seems they are having some of the same information border issues as we've had. I looked through many energy pages on the German WP using the google translation feature to help me. That was fun. I've been farming these pages for info and good pictures. It's a great tool and I recommend it to others. I might be stating a generally known fact but this technique was surprisingly effective. I have uploaded some of the pictures I found and will upload more in the future. I'm also going to start resizing pictures and moving things around. These is new territory for me so there may be some swapping back and forth. I'll farm FAs to find examples of good layout and try to incorporate them into the page. Others should as well. The thumbnail picture left hand justification layout can easily be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an interesting large scale solar cooking device: [13]. I wrote the the web master asking for permission to use a picture of the Solar Kitchen. I think this picture is more interesting than our current picture. We'd lose an example of solar energy use in Africa but we'd gain an example of solar energy use in India. If anyone finds and open source picture of the Solar Kitchen it would be a nice addition. Mrshaba 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

PV price graph

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

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

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

Referencing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Severe pruning needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Storage

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

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

I experimented with the grouping of sections quite a bit. Hot water is a cross-cutting section between Energy storage and Solar thermal but I decided to put it in the thermal section because there are other water technologies (disinfection/desal) that are grouped in this section. We can easily include specific information about water's storage characteristics to the Storage section and we probably should. There is a fellow by the name of Hay that developed another interesting solar water technology that I intend to add to the page. Here is news article with a video if you are interested:[14] I'm only a few miles from the Atascadero House so I'll get some pictures that could potentially be used on this page or others. I'll probably end up writing Hay for more info as well. Mrshaba 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Major terms

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

Captions

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

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

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

Lead changes

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

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

Picture changes

Pictures in the lead and throughout the page should remain an active topic. I like experimenting with pictures because it's a quick edit. Bing bang... I've thrown a bunch of sun pictures above for consideration. I found a treasure trove of open source solar technology pictures at Sandia so I'll be throwing those in for consideration too. I might finally figure out how to upload images seamlessly. Well see... I'd like the picture debate to be active. We should express our impressions of the pictures honestly: I like, I don't like, Clear, Confusing, Striking, Makes the point, etc. We should include caption ideas where possible. We should figure out which pictures on the page need improving and find pictures that can easily be alternates for existing pics? We should line all the pictures up on a sub-page and work out the plan there.

The box saga. 80% are in favor of removing the boxes due to several issues so I took the boxes out again. If Anon brings the boxes back I'll take it to WP:I like it for further resolution. Mrshaba 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, the only people who don't like it are the few people who like nuclear power. They apparently don't like being shown that nuclear power isn't needed. Almost everyone I showed it to said they did like it. Try it yourself. 199.125.109.129 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a third opinion might be helpful in this case. Also, I'd like to see some Physics project members contribute to these discussions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Solar Architecture

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

A Question on Improvement Methods

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

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

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

Layout question

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