Talk:Solar power

For older archives see Talk:Solar energy.

No Criticism?

Why is there no criticism section at all for solar power? In case you people weren't aware, there are plenty of drawbacks to solar. -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.116.30 (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Selling a point of view.

The opening paragraph sounds like an advocacy piece for solar power. This is an encyclopedia. We need to first describe what solar power is . We can then go on to say how good it is if we attribute those opinions to reliable sources. Lumos3 (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This is much better. Thank you Hamiltonstone. Lumos3 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

stupid claim

"If it continues to double in use every two to three years, or less, it would become the dominant energy source this century."

The above appears twice in the article. It's asinine to point out that if something maintains an exponential growth rate, it will become very large. The article offers no evidence to suggest solar power adoption will continue to be exponential. In fact, common sense dictates that it's foolish to believe anything can maintain an exponential growth rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.130.59 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article under semi-protection?

Just wondering...I would like to clarify the bit about RESOP in Ontario which was actually replaced by a new program in the Green Energy Act, which is not quite what the article says. --Julian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.236.136 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was targeted for vandalism frequently prior to the most recent semi-protect, though you have to ask the vandals to figure out why (I suspect a combination of high visibility and political relevance). If you'd like to propose an edit, please provide the exact change you would like to make, as well as a reference for it (if it is a factual change, as opposed to a stylistic, grammatical or spelling fix). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For help on editing protected (and semi-protected) pages you can also review WP:SILVERLOCK, which refers to using the template {{editsemiprotected}}. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

The text:

"In Canada the RESOP (Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program), introduced in 2006,[62] and updated in 2009 with the passage of the Green Energy Act, allows residential homeowners in Ontario with solar panel installations to sell the energy they produce back to the grid (i.e., the government) at 42¢/kWh, while drawing power from the grid at an average rate of 6¢/kWh (see feed-in tariff).[63]"

Could be changed to this:

"In Ontario, Canada, the Green Energy Act passed in 2009 created a feed-in-tariff program that pays up to 80.2¢/kWh to solar PV energy producers, guaranteed for 20 years.[r1] The amount scales up based on the size of the project, with projects under 10KW receiving the highest rate. (People participating in a previous Ontario program called RESOP (Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program), introduced in 2006, and paying a maximum of only 42¢/kWh, were allowed to transfer the balance of their contracts to the new FIT program.[r2])"

References: 1: http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca 2: http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=10600

--Julian

Y Done. Added relevant link too. BejinhanTalk 12:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. The last sentence appearing after this text now in the article, is redundant, or at least confusing, since the March increase it refers to is the introduction of the FIT that is part of the Green Energy Act.

--Julian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.236.136 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The potential of Solar Power

It is misleading to say that solar power has the potential to provide 1000 times the world's energy needs, as it is not possible to intercept all of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface.

To provide the world's energy needs, we would need to cover approximately 0.1% of the Earth's surface. (Terrestrial solar flux is around 120000TW, energy demand = 17TW, so with 15% efficiency solar cells, 17/(120000*0.15) comes out at 0.999%. So yes, if we covered all of our land area we could provide 1000 times our energy needs, but this would kill off all life on earth and there would consequently be no energy demand...

Surely it would be more appropriate to assert that solar power can meet our energy requirements with only a 0.1% land coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliemontague (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

too speculative

The third and fourth sentences are too speculative and should not belong in an encyclopedia article, in my opinion.--68.193.135.139 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)