Talk:Solar panel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Portuguese article[edit]

I do not see any thing additive in pt. article--Oldboltonian 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Business-side info[edit]

I had previously added some business information on solar module manufacturers, as well as a link to a global directory of solar module manufacturers, solar module manufacturing equipment suppliers, and solar module installation companies. The information was taken down by someone who hadn't actually reviewed the validity of the information but was deleting based on the fact that I posted up several links to ENF.

On the suggestion of one of the people that removed the information, I am submitting suggested comments/links here in the hope that other editors will evaluate the relevance and resubmit it to the main page:

Photovoltaic Panel (Module) Brands[edit]

There are hundreds of photovoltaic panel (module) brands in the world, and numbers are increasing fast due to the low entry barriers. The bare minimum a company needs to become a manufacturers is a laminating machine and some soldering irons (for a manual production line). This has lead to a particularly strong explosion in new panel manufacturers in China, although the majority of Chinese companies do not have the certification most western companies require (in April 2007, only 19 Chinese panel manufacturers held IEC, TUV or UL certification).

A 2007 global survey of photovoltaic installation companies [1] identified the best panel manufacturers to be:

  1. - SunPower Corporation (USA)
  2. - Schott Solar (Germany)
  3. - SolarWorld (Germany)

The company with the best quality panels was identified as Sanyo (Japan) and the best value for money panels was from Suntech Power (China).

Environmental Impact[edit]

I was surprised to see no information in this article about the environmental impact of manufacturing and destroying solar panels. Does anyone have any information they could add? There is mention of different certifications, I'll look into those as a start. Basho (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

IBM using waste from computer chip manufacturing in solar panel creation[edit]

Here's an example of using the waste from computer chip manufacturing in the manufacturing of solar panels: ( search for IBM-Burlingon , and yes, I work for IBM, but certainly don't speak for them ) Basho (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

exactly how are solar cells created i mean there has to be a way of manufacturing them whith common materials —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Sure would be super if we could get the history of solar panels ie. when they where invented, first applications, etc.-- (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Kit Temple 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Photovtaic Arrays mounts and tracking systems should match Sun movement, while the electrical parameters to match the array electrical connection so as to be compatable with Maximum power point tracking by Inveter. The Photovoltaic Array should be with Photovoltaic System for better integration. Karamchetti 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

Propose merge[edit]

  • Just throwing out an idea here but what if both 'photovoltaic module' and 'photovoltaic array' were covered inside of 'photovoltaic system'. I'd have to read all these pages but this seems logical. I agree that solar panel needs a disambiguation page. Mrshaba (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is some logic to your suggestion but I am not sure that "photovoltaic system" is sufficiently used that potential readers would think to look for information under that title.Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW the Portuguese FA page seems to cover everything on PV. They do not seem to have another page on PV, just the one referenced and one on solar cell. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that this page should be a section in Photovoltaics; it seems not to be a stand alone piece and I concur that "photovoltaic system" is not sufficiently used. Revr J (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I ended up having to read the photovoltaic system, module, and array pages to get a clear picture. I would suggest these be merged into one page. Cirmette (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge[edit]

  • Solar power systems encompass a whole range of issues separate to the science and engineering of photovoltaics. Photovoltaic Systems, Photovoltaic Arrays, Photovoltaic Modules are an application of Photovoltaics. Something needs to be done about this and I think this discussion should be left open until several more people have an opportunity to comment. I would like to see a merger of these three topics and some clever redirection (and disambig) employed. Photovoltaics and Solar cell should also be merged but I would like to see them remain separate to the systems side of the issue. GG (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I like to see application-practice, being separate from theory sections.solarMD —Preceding comment was added at 05:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The article on photovoltaic modules is not that long, but the articles on solar cells and photovoltaics are both quite long. Sure there is a bit of overlap between them, but I think a merged article might be so long as to be unwieldy. I think it might be better to more tightly define what each article is meant to cover, clean the articles up, and provide cross-links where applicable.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Photovoltatics encompass a BROADER spectrum of scientific activity than just solar cells. A CCD is a photovoltaic device and allows the use of video cameras - but is not designed to make electricity as such. - SMarks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Both the pro-merge and the oppose arguments are mostly correct. However, given the present length and detail of the articles I oppose the merge at the present time. I also agree with that Solar cell is mostly about physics and technology of the cells per se, whereas Photovoltaics has a broader scope such as production and business aspects. --Theosch (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Photovoltaics or PV is the best word for the field. But solar PV will be so big that it deserves many articles, and having only one would be totally unwieldy. So the question is how to organize solar PV articles, not how to merge them. Delbmarcs (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Photovoltatics encompass a BROADER spectrum of scientific activity than just solar cells". I agree to this. There are also infrared cells. And cells are only a part of the modules, panels and installations.--Mac (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think all of these technologies relate to each other, but each article about a specific technology should not be merged..--Photoguy439 (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think photovoltaic modules deserve a separate page: there many types of modules, and many aspects of their usage (such as shading, performance, failure modes, etc) that will only clutter the more general pv system page.Xenonice (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Photovoltaic modules are the individual solar panels. Photovoltaic systems encompass everything from panel to inverter to breakers to disconnects and the whole shebang. They should NOT be merged. Systems should be expanded, or perhaps split into Grid Tied Photovoltaic Systems and Off Grid Photovoltaic Systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairstephens (talkcontribs) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with all the oppose merge comments above, including the previous comment by Blairstephens. It is well established in the industry that the term "module" refers to a single solar panel. More specifically, I think it is just a PV laminate with wires soldered onto the tabs, and enclosed inside of a protective housing. There is no voltage regulation, voltage conversion, or blocking diode. I can't imagine any practical system that includes just the module alone. In the simplest system, one could connect a small 12 volt PV module to a blocking diode and then to a large 12 volt battery. But even here, the term "system" includes everything, while the term "module" does not include the additional electronics, battery, battery charger, etc, that are needed on even the simplest practical system.
    Mikiemike (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, propose restructure: Because this topic is both popular and technical, I propose we structure it around a portal with two main areas, technology and applications, with careful cross linkage. The portal could provide navigational aides for the different audiences: consumer, installer, manufacturer, developer, etc. This would likely involve both merging and separating of material in the existing articles. Jojalozzo 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice the dates in this discussion? It's not a live proposal any more. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a little embarrassing! I was following the links from Photovoltaic system. Jojalozzo 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I of course have never been caught by this... not more than a dozen times, anyway. Sometimes it's worth adding to a stale discussion, but it's always a good idea to read the dates on a discussion first. Large talk pages get archived, which helps keep them current. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Types of modules/panels[edit]

Some types of modules/panels/cells are not well described. Eg the Luminescent solar concentrator —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Info that's actually useful[edit]

Nice. A bunch of highly technical info that nobody understands except for the people who already know it, and they don't need a Wikipedia page to tell it to them. I came trying to find out the answer to the very basic question of what year the first solar panels came out in. I am now leaving disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to join and put in an effort and help to clean the article up and make it more lucid at any time.Casimirpo (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PV solar panel applications[edit]

A short section should describe the applications of these solar panels. Also, aldough production of power for domestic use may be described, it should be noted that PV panels are mostly actually suitable for space exploration purposes. This, as these types of solar panels have actually been designed to transform higly concentrated solar power, which translates into efficiency losses when used in areas where there is less concentration of the solar rays (eg on earth, under the Earth's atmosphere). Luminescent solar concentrators are more suited to this task

Agreed that applications should be described -- feel free to add something. However, I would say that "mostlly actually suitable for space exploration purposes" is debatable at best. Literally 99.98% of the PV panels that were produced last year are being used here on Earth (and that's a conservative estimate) and would be unsuitable for use in space because of a lack of radiation hardness. By far the largest application for PV panels nowadays is grid-connected power generation. Sunlight is not actually that concentrated in space -- only about 1.3X that on Earth, provided you're in Earth's orbit, and it diminishes quickly the farther you go from the Sun. Luminescent concentrators have yet to make it out of the lab in any significant form, so to say they are more suited to the task is premature, IMO.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Global warming is probably just a lie, to increase the military's lab funding, but if not it could increase the efficiency of PV panels But it is most likely a bunch of sh*t —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to "Solar panel"[edit]

Should this be redirect to "Solar panel" not a "Photvoltaic module". Nobody knows what a photvoltaice module is. I never heard of that name. Everyone know solar panel. (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Photovoltaic moduleSolar panel — Should this be redirect to "Solar panel" not a "Photvoltaic module". Nobody knows what a photvoltaice module is. I never heard of that name. Everyone know solar panel. Trueshow111 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support- This move makes sense according to WP:COMMONNAME. Also, I think what happened is that "Solar panel" was merged into this article, but the current name was kept because this article had more information. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Testing Standards[edit]

This article contains a section about the standards for PV modules and I am trying to add an external link to a white paper about testing standards. I am not sure why my link has been removed because it is not an advertisement for the company that wrote it. It contains useful information and expanded details about the standards. Solar Panel Testing White Paper Makt25 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Some people seem to have the weird idea that a link to an external website is a substitute for writing an encyclopedia article. If this was true, all we'd need to do is add (See:Google) for every article. Read the "white paper", summarize it and put the contribution in here. Marketing material on web sites doesn't usually stand up to much of this before it vanishes away...once you knock the foam out of the beer glass, there's nothing left. If the paper you're summarizing doesn't have any bibliography attached, it's probably not worth adding. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Solar reader[edit]

I suggest a link and an article to solar reader.--Hamiltha (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Uses in space applications vs. recentism[edit]

The recent revert of the edit mentioning space applications was unwarranted. No one says every application has to be listed, but solar cells have been notably used in space for a long time, including today (what do you think powers the International Space Station?) This is a notable application that needs to be added, and doesn't have anything to do with "yachts and ships and aircraft and cars and garden sheds...". The article shouldn't be biased 100% toward "green energy" Earthbound uses. Try to maintain an historical perspective. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered a wiki-link to space applications, buried in the last line of the intro. This keeps it from being recentist, but needs to be made a bit more prominent in the article, perhaps with a "See also" or Main template. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Solar panel trees[edit]

Perhaps that the "trees" made by Solar Botanic Renewable Energy Systems can be mentioned here too ? It's intresting as the technique seems a bit different (it uses antenna's), and also: some people find regular PV-panels unesthetically pleasing, this avoids this, with perhaps the danger that they may be logged by people that don't see the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Has that information been covered in reliable sources? We need some evidence that people outside of the company have looked at the technique, found it interesting, discussed it, etc. The company's website is insufficient to show that this is an important enough addition to the Solar panel topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Some "solar-tree" articles:
  • Celine Ruben-Salama (December 18, 2006). "Google's Solar Trees Due To Bloom This Spring". Retrieved September 19, 2011. Yes, that's right, groves of pole-mounted solar panels, so-called "solar trees" are the newest addition to Google's ambitious solar project for their Mountain View, California, headquarters. 
  • Erin Ailworth, Globe staff (May 21, 2009). "Logan to grow `solar trees' on garage". Retrieved September 19, 2011. The trees atop a revamped Terminal B garage at Logan International Airport won't be the typical leaf and bark variety. The Massachusetts Port Authority is instead installing "solar trees "-- panels mounted on air ventilation units that will harvest sunlight to help power the garage. 

--Pawyilee (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Solar Panel Rooftop Ballasted Footing.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Solar Panel Rooftop Ballasted Footing.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Solar panel manufacturing controversies[edit]

Solar panel manufacturing controversies has been proposed as a new article to include the just-removed topics on government financing and water pollution. For balance, articles such as this should be included:

  • Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues gathered air pollution emissions data from 13 solar cell manufacturers in Europe and the United States from 2004-2006 for four major commercial types: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. They report that producing electricity from solar cells reduces air pollutants by about 90 percent in comparison to using conventional fossil fuel technologies.

"Easing Concerns About Pollution From Manufacture Of Solar Cells" Check |url= value (help). ScienceDaily. February 26, 2008. Retrieved September 19, 2011. Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles scheduled for the March 15, 2008 issue of the ACS' Environmental Science & Technology. doi./10.1021/es071763q  soft hyphen character in |url= at position 28 (help)

  • A 2008 analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

David Biello (February 21, 2008). "Dark Side of Solar Cells Brightens". Scientific American. Retrieved September 19, 2011. A life cycle analysis proves that solar cells are cleaner than conventional fossil fuel power generation 

You pay your money and you take your choice. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why that is a "controversy"? That seems like a clear benefit of solar power. Not sure that it belongs in this article, but before we figure out what to put it, some clarification would help. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Frequency of use of various names[edit]

This query of books on Google shows the usage frequency of various names. Jojalozzo 01:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Efficiency numbers are not matching linked sources.[edit]

Please note that the efficiency section states that "Single p-n junction crystalline silicon devices" are nearing 37.7% efficiency as is in-line with the Shockley Queisser limit but the Shockley Queisser limit page (linked below) states a maximum of 33.7% (which is the only reference of the claim).

Either one of the numbers on one of the pages are wrong or the Shockley Queisser limit is incorrect, which I strongly doubt. The link in the Shockley Quesser page directs the user to the below linked source which says 30%. Since I don't know which number is right, I'll leave it to others to make the appropriate correction. (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Gavin 2.3.2012

You should consider this reference and update the [3] reference on maximum efficiency. This IEEE article is a respected 3rd party and does not rely on self-promotion of individual company products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Charles Greeley Abbot's solar panels[edit]

Hi everyone. I recently uploaded an images of Charles Greeley Abbot's solar panel on Commons. Just an FYi, it might make a cool addition regarding the history of solar panels:

Sarah (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quantum dot solar panels[edit]

Quantum dot solar panels should be mentioned aswell as the difference in effiency (regular PV panels being 25% efficient, quantum dot PV panels being 44% efficient. Ref= Arjan Houtepen, TU Delft

BTW: the issue on that solar panels aren't restricted to PV is still not resolved, solar panel can also refer to:

  • thermal solar systems (hot water collectors)
  • Dye-sensitized_solar_cells
  • Luminescent solar concentrators
  • Concentrating solar power systems
  • Photon Enhanced Thermionic Emission systems (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

New section on PV module recycling?[edit]

--PALinBRU (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Hey! The article is missing some information about PV panel recycling. There is a growing general interest in the subject and I think visitors would find this useful but was afraid to edit the article directly as I have many years of experience working for the PV industry. Any suggestions? Thank you for your consideration.

Hi, I have drafted the paragraph on recycling using these two presentations found on Brookhaven National Laboratory’s website:
Both presentations contain private brands. Can I include these links as references for the paragraph?

--PALinBRU (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Solar Panel Photo[edit]

It would be very helpful if the article titled "Solar Panel" included atleast one photo with a caption underneath which read 'solar panel(s).' For example if the photo captioned "An installation of 24 solar modules in rural Mongolia" is one giant solar panel, then it could also say so. If the photo is a group of 6 panels or 24 panels then it would be helpful for the caption beneath the photo to specify how many solar panels it is.Gidiver (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I might add that I initially came to this page hoping to find out how many watts a typical solar panel puts out; not only was I unable to find an answer to that question; I am also now confused about what a solar panel actually is (typical or otherwise). It might be helpful if the experts, editors, contributors, authors, etc... consider this simple question: If I were to approach a 'Solar Panel Company,' and request them to ship me a solar panel (or solar panels); What would the manufacturer then package and ship to me as a consumer desiring to purchase a solar panel(s)? I pose this question because I suspect that many of the contributors/authors must be engineers, and therefore reluctant to embrace common terminology. I did come here to get more educated; but the apparent reluctance by authors to utilize/embrace common terminologies (or lay terminologies) has left me unexpectedly bewildered...Gidiver (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


Calling PV enthusiasts and interested eds, please expand SolaRoad! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge Rooftop photovoltaic power station here[edit]

Rooftop photovoltaic power station contains much very similar text to this article and what little difference there is could easily be accommodated here. The title "Rooftop photovoltaic power station" is also misleading as much of the domestic and small commercial installations are not on roofs but may be in fields, against walls or other suitable locations.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I agree. I think the article on rooftop PV is not very well-defined and the information should better be included in the main text of this article. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course not. Why should the most common and important type of a photovoltaic system be merged into solar panel? Modules and systems are on two different levels. That doesn't make any sense. You could as well propose to merge solar cells and modules. Your statement about the article's title being misleading, doesn't make any sense either. With all due respect, you're confusing things: just because both, Rooftop PV system and solar module are currently incomplete and need a lot of work, doesn't mean they should be mingled up. Instead, I'd like to have a discussion about the content that needs to be added. For starters, solar panel needs an entire section about the components of a module. -- Rfassbind -talk 14:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Velella: I don't want to be a grumpy, impatient fellow editor, but maybe you should consider either the removal of the templates you added, or state your thoughts in a more detailed manner, as to why the merger of Rooftop PV system and solar module still make sense to you. Thank you, -- Rfassbind -talk 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I am content to wait for a range of views from the wider Wikipedia community. I have set out my case, and you have set out yours. Now let others contribute.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask, that off-topic editors first pose questions about the subject on the talk page, before adding hatnotes proposing mergers? To me, this is obvious. Maybe this section is worth a read? By the way, you telling me "to let others contribute"' is in a broader sense quite offending. If you have questions, please feel free to ask, otherwise there is nothing else for me to say. -- Cheers & I'm looking forward to useful contributions from you on the subject, Rfassbind -talk 12:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose PV solar panels are a big topic, they can (and should) support many separate articles. Rooftop photovoltaic power station is a notable topic, but not the same thing as the small domestic installations with a few panels, nor even the huge installations as PV solar farms. We have space for all of these, as separate and distinct articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Solar panel is an energy systems component & is the appropriate topic for development on its own merits. Rooftop photovoltaic power station is just one of the many manifestations of solar energy production which use solar panels. AshLin (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the hatnote with the merger-proposal. I also started to revise the article. Your support and contributions are very much appreciated. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 01:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Fully split and convert to disambig?[edit]

Would it be clearer here if we stripped the page at this title right back to a simple disambig, and placed the content separately for PV and thermal panels? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The term solar panel seems to be often used as synonym for both,
I've seen several edits in this article contradicting previous ones because of this unresolved ambiguity. All terms and variations containing "module" or "PV" such as solar module or PV panel should redirect to "PV module". I see two possibilities for the article to be changed. First, the article's content has to be moved to PV module (currently a redirect to solar panel), and then, either:
  1. make solar panel a disambiguation page, and refer to the articles listed above, or
  2. make solar panel a redirecting page to PV module, and add a hatnote in PV module about solar thermal collectors
Since I always avoided renaming/moving pages, maybe I'm being too cautious, but wouldn't your suggestion (i.e. option #1) result in hundreds of disambiguation links, or would it be handled by bots automatically? Also, there are two distinct articles, namely Solar thermal collector and Solar water heating. So should solar panel refer to both or only the latter? What do you think? -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 15:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Creating disambig links (and then having to disambiguate them) is fine, if they were already linking to a page that was equally unclear. If any of them already link to sections, then that can trigger a 'bot to fix them. Many of them (from a brief look) are actually solar panels (PV) on satellites, which should be a different target again. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Although the term "solar panel" is unclear and disambiguous, I'm pretty convinced that in >95% of the cases it is used/understood to refer to photovoltaics (be it modules, the array or the entire PV system). I therefore suggest not to use a disambiguation page, but to use a hatnote for solar thermal collector instead. The lead section then thoroughly explains the terms module, panel, collector, as well as solar PV vs. solar thermal (similar to the distinction made in photovoltaic system > lead section > end of first paragraph). Does this rationale make sense to you? -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 14:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that's the case in Germany today, but that's far from an international viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Care to explain? Why Germany? What is the international viewpoint then? -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 03:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing Subjective Language[edit]

In the section of this article "Production" I saw this line:

"These silicon cells are not efficient enough in their current state and can only convert solar energy into usable power at a rate of roughly 10-20%"

By who's authority are we deeming solar cells to be "not efficient enough?" As someone with ongoing experience working in the industry, this is an obviously false statement. Solar panels bring vast amounts of power to the energy market using sub-20% efficient panels. This efficiency rating may sound low, but you have to realize that the 'fuel' is freely collected from the sunlight. By comparison, plants are only 3-6% efficient at collecting solar energy, but nobody would argue that "plants are not efficient enough in their current state." I would welcome discussion, but I do not think that subjective statements like this have a place on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AscendingNode (talkcontribs) 16:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree, this statement is quite ridiculous and need to be removed. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)