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)

---

In response to the request for a third opinion: Links to solar power calculator sites (for home installations) are not directly relevant to the topic of Photovoltaics, as the page is not about home installation of solar panels, and so fail WP:ELNO #13, should these sites also promote a particular product for sale, they would fail WP:ELNO #5. This particular article fails WP:DIRECTORY and would benefit from a general link to Template:Dmoz in order to replace a significant number of unnecessary links.—Teahot (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

While IP199's desire to use them is understandable, I concur with both MrOllie and Teahot, the link(s) are a fairly blatant violation of WP:EL and are not appropriate for inclusion in this article. Doc Tropics 15:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that the article is more than dominated by the most interesting of applications - large photovoltaic power stations, it is totally false to state that "the page is not about home installation of solar panels", as the page covers all applications of photovoltaics, from wrist watches to the International Space Station, and everything in between. So I would like to see a specific reason for not including links to the calculators.[4][5] You will note that language like "the link(s)" and "fairly blatant violation", though horribly wishy-washy in itself (is it fairly or is it blatant?), are not useful to the discussion without specifying specifically which links and what reason makes it a violation. As I see it there is clearly nothing wrong with the links, nor the map.[6] As I see it, user MrOllie is not concerned with the content of any of those three pages (he talks about lists of installers, yet there are no lists of installers on any of those three pages), but what links are on those pages, and where you can get to from those links. That we have no control over. If the Herald Tribune runs a story about something and we link to it, who knows or cares what adverts are on that page, and where you can get to if you click on them? Please be specific about what links you are talking about, and what your concern with them is, if any. The section below is another matter, and not what this section is addressing. But why anyone would want to link to a linkfest but not linkfest here is beyond me. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed my opinion, I cannot consider your criticism that it is "totally false" as reasonable. Should you wish to check the OED, you will find that photovoltaic is defined as "relating to the production of electric current at the junction of two substances exposed to light", while the current lead of the article defines it more widely as "the field of technology and research related to the application of solar cells for energy by converting solar energy". Neither of these definitions of "Photovoltaics" mention any financial aspect of installation of solar panels or any other photovoltaic product for that matter (noting that application is not the same thing as installation). The guidance of ELNO states the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. Consequently I will not be revising my opinion. Thank you for your feedback.—Teahot (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have long ago stopped trying to change anyone's opinion, electing instead to simply point out whether it was correct or not. Did you think that solar powered wrist watches, and homes with photovoltaics had the solar cells not there for the energy they needed? And how on earth does one apply something without installing it? Your logic is flawed, to say the least. The link is directly related to the subject matter, because it illustrates how much solar power can be obtained at any given location using photovoltaics. And thank you, as well. 199.125.109.81 (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I hadn't previously noticed, but Teahot makes a very good point in the section above: this article does not currently comply with WP:DIRECTORY; it contains a total of 56 external links. Since I'm not a regular contributor on this page I don't want to just jump in and start deleting things, but something should probably be done to trim the EL section. Doc Tropics 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)