Talk:Photovoltaics

Worldwide installed Photovoltaic Totals

I would like to know who produced the table? I think there are some simple changes that can improve it.

1 - get rid of the colors.

2 - get rid of the first zero in the 0800-0950 notation.

3 - round all the numbers to the closest 100 kW. This would lose detail but improve comparison.

4 - To improve readability I added column widths and spacers to the table with these edits: [1][2] but they have been removed by a troublesome anon with this edit. Perhaps my method of aligning the data can be improved but the idea of aligning the data consistently should be pursued. Mrshaba (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1 - the colours are helpful and should stay.

2 - the first zero was added so that that column will sort properly.

3 - the numbers range from tiny to large so rounding all to one particular value doesn't make any sense - Germany could be rounded to 10 MW, Finland to 10 KW, for example.

4 - the table is way too wide already to make it wider by trying to line it up.

What does need to be done to the table, though is fix the ?'s in the ref column, add many additional countries, and check all the references. Who produced the table is not important, it has been in the article for a long time, though updating it each year is a major undertaking, and I thank everyone who has taken the time to do that. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What do the colors mean? There's no explanation for them that I can find. If they're just there for decoration then they need to go.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The colors separate the insolation ranges and make the table much easier to read. They are not there for decoration. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Then the table needs a legend explaining this at the very least, as it is not at all obvious, nor is it obvious which colors represent high insolation and which represent low insolation without a focused effort. And why color this column and not the others? Even knowing what the colors mean I find them distracting, and anything that distracts the viewer from the table's message makes it harder to read. Speaking of which, what is the table's message? It contains an awful lot of information that has nothing to do with the title.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also: I think that Insolation is measured in kWh/m²/year rather than kWh/kW peak/year. This value of kWh/kW peak/year does not include any area.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.64.35 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for ENF Link

Hello. I would like to request a link to the ENF website: ENF PV Industry Directory (www.enf.cn).

The focus of the website is a Photovoltaic Industry Directory. We have 9 full-time industry research staff and technical staff working on this directory, and a further 16 staff feeding improvements through to the PV directory team. The website now has over 5,000 PV companies listed and published in 7 languages.

I think the website is highly relevant to people looking into the subject of photovoltaics, and I would highly appreciate an appropriate link.

Kit Temple (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on the science?

I was wondering if there should be a section on the science behind the panels? I realize that not all types work the same way, but there could be a link to a new page or something that goes over the in-depth theory for all of the types? Pfhortipfhy (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it seems like this has come up before and the consensus has been that readers looking for information on the science should look at the solar cell, photovoltaic module, and/or photovoltaic system articles for that kind of information. The reasoning, as I recall, is that it is better to write the scientific information once and get all of the editors of that kind of information working in one place than to reproduce it in three or four different articles. There ought to be links to those other articles in this one. If you don't believe it is obvious enough that readers should look in those places then please edit this article as you see fit. That will at least get the ball rolling toward making it clearer.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide installed totals

I believe that this should remain in this article, similar to the table that is in the wind power article. I would point out that the link to history is not a link "to the article where it comes from", but instead is a link "to the article where it goes to". Since solar is much less well funded than wind, the data is greatly delayed - preliminary wind data comes out close to the end of the year and final data around March, whereas with photovoltaics, preliminary data is showing up in March and final data in August. That, however does not make it any less important, and I think it is essential to maintain at least a table of the top countries in the article. Hopefully each year the data will become available sooner than the year before. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The data in the table come from the IEA PVPS; their 2008 review, including quite a bit of country-specific data, has been available since April. You are correct that their "Trends" report, which it appears is where the data in the table come from, will not be out until later in the year. However, the country-specific data are collected only from the nations that participate in the PVPS. This means nations like the Czech Republic, which installed 51 MW last year alone, and Luxembourg, which leads the world in installed PV capacity per capita, do not appear in the table. China, India, Greece, Belgium, and Bulgaria, at a minimum, also have more installed capacity than many of the nations in the table. I think the data are worth having in the article, but should not be presented as a table of the "top countries" in PV installations, at least not as long as the table is based strictly upon the limited IEA PVPS data.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

At one time there were as many as a dozen sources for the data in the table, as I recall. It is possible that most of the current table comes from one source, but there is no reason for not adding the Czech Republic if you can find a reference for it, or for Luxembourg, etc. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Solar calculators

Whoever keeps taking out the solar calculators from the external links, citing WP:EL, please quit it. These are essential external links. 199.125.109.43 (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They are sites that exist to link consumers to vendors/installers/whatever, and accordingly are not to be linked per links to be avoided number 14. - MrOllie (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cry me a river that they have a link to installers. There is no reason anyone has to click on the link who does not want to. I never have. It is however the highest rated U.S. solar calculator. Some of the lower rated ones are ones like this one, which I would still use if there was nothing better, as it does provide information for the whole country.[3] 199.125.109.43 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's another dealer portal, so it won't be suitable either, I'm afraid. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific about what you are referring to. This, and that, are undefined. If you mean the kyocera calculator, it is a calculator, and yes they have links to a list of or to a way of finding dealers, I don't know because I have never clicked on it. All I care about is the calculator. 199.125.109.43 (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what is unsuitable is your narrowly defined prohibition on any links that include any links to anything that you see as advertising. There is nothing wrong with any of the links. You will notice that no one can complain about the links - what you are complaining about is the links on those links, which of course we have no control over. But if you can find better ones, please use them. The point is that you can not eliminate useful information because you don't like the fact that it includes a link to an advertisement - you have to judge the link by the information it provides, not by any additional links it may have. Those can be ignored. If everyone followed your narrow definition of EL, there would be no ISBN numbers, for example, because you can get to Amazon through them, or company websites, for that matter, even if the article is about the company. 199.125.109.43 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw man. - MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please confine your remarks to the content. 199.125.109.43 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)