Talk:Solar energy/Archive 3

message: The image Solar land area.jpg has a very propogandist message. It would be less POV if it just  showed the solar energy potential across the globe. It is not Wikipedias purpose to try to sell solar energy to anyone however comendible that is. I suggest removing the stars and just showing global solar enrgy input.
It is also unlcear whether the stated available w/sqm   are
#peak (ie hours around noon) ,
#average of all daylight hours ,
#average over a 24 hour period.
#exclude or include hours of cloud cover
Lumos3 13:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a propaganda image because its so unclear. What area supplies the 18twe energy you state , the area underneath the little stars or are these the centre of much larger areas of high solar input, what are they?
Is it peak time or is it the average over 24 hours , see my questions above ) any news on this?  The link you give suppports none of your assertions. Lumos3 01:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The area of the six little stars is enough to supply the 18TWe (when covered entirely with solar panels at 8% efficiency). I used stars for the shape of these areas because this image was sent initially as a Season's greetings card. The shape is admittedly not perfect and I will try to switch to rectangles or circles with the same area, but I need to redo the calculation which will take a while. To Lumos3: The incident solar power is the average over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites. You can find more information and sources for this data at . Please let me know if this helped and/or if you have suggestions about how the image and its description can be improved. --Mlino76 10:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes this helps but the link you give is " error 404 ". I am adding this to the images description page. Lumos3 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, now the link is correct. --Mlino76 18:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar land area Image Objection 

message: In the Artical, the picture at the top says that "At the equator, the Sun provides approximately 1000 watts per square meter on Earth's surface.". Is that Daily/Weekly/Monthly/Annualy? I didn't see it later in the artical either (but I just looked over it quickly, and didnt read in Depth). Can someone clarify this for me? Thanks --Passerby25 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watts are a measure of power. Watt-hrs are a measure of energy, which seems to be what you are asking about. 1 hour of 1000 watts is 1000 watt-hrs.  Skyemoor 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A watt is a measure of power, which is not the same as a watt-hour which is a measure of energy.  These are not the same thing at all, just like a mile is a measure of distance and a mile per hour is a measure of speed.  So, the Sun provides approximately 1000 watts per square meter of Earth's surface at any given moment in time (when facing the sun I suppose).  Although I can see how this could perhaps use some clarification, as the Sun can not provide 1kW on the dark side of the earth, so is this a daily average of 1000 watts per m^2, or an average of 1000 watts at noon from pole to pole?  Humm, per Earth's energy budget, solar radiation (99.978%, or nearly 174 petawatts; or about 340 W m-2) This is equal to the product of the solar constant, about 1366 watts per square metre, and the area of the Earth's disc as seen from the Sun, about 1.28 × 1014 square metres, averaged over the Earth's surface, which is four times larger. The solar flux averaged over just the sunlit half of the earth's surface is about 680 W m-2'.  Anyway, if you read on, the article goes into some great detail about the delivered and available power at the Earth's surface...  Read on... --D0li0 03:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about how much Energy is produced 

message: I put all the solar energy stores (ocean/wind/biomass) into a worldwide perspective instead of a US perspective.  I converted all the units to zettajoules per year which I think makes for easy comparison.  I diversified the references a bit.  I used Vaclav Smil for the Solar Energy number which I converted from an average solar flux of 122 PW.  I also used Smil for the Biomass number which was derived from a flux of 55-60 TW. I cross referenced the biomass number with another source from the Biomass article which lists biomass accumulation per year of ~170 billion tonnes.  If you multiply the biomass accumulation by 10.5 MJ/kg you come up with the number I derived from Smil.  10.5 MJ/kg is a reasonable average biomass energy content but it would be good to find a source that actually says this. The wind number comes from the DOE via an AWEA article. The Ocean number came from a wikepedia article.  It needs an independent source. The paragraph on the efficiency of biomass was removed.Mrshaba 12:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability of Solar Energy 

message: I have placed this GA on hold because I think that the lead needs to be expanded.  It should be a summary of the article's contents, and it doesn't quite cover the whole article.  The only other thing is that I think that the "Types of technologies" section under Energy from the Sun should be incorporated into the lead of Energy from the Sun.  If you have any questions, or when you have finished, please contact me at my talk page. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 19:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on Hold 

message: When I think of power I think of a flow of energy.  I think this because power is a flow of energy by definition. Wind power is a moving flow of air.  Water power is a falling flow of water.  Nuclear power is a flow of particles from a reactor.  Solar power is a flow of light/radiation.  The point is: Power is an action, Energy is a product and this article is mostly about products.
A fundamental problem with this article and with the topic of solar power in general is that power is not energy but we are using the terms synonymously. For Clarity's sake we shouldn't.  I think this article should be called Solar Energy or Solar Power/Energy. The first few lines should go something like: "Solar power is the flow of energy from the sun.  All forms of solar energy come from this flow of energy."  This would allow for a more consistent presentation of the information.
Do other contributors think we need to make a distinction?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs)  03:57, 3 August 2007
:How do I put this politely. No. Power is not the flow of energy, it is the rate of energy per unit of time. Historically solar power and solar energy are synonomous, as they should be.  Put a solar panel out in the sun and it generates say 1000 Watts, which is solar power.  Leave it in the sun for an hour and it generates 1 kWh (1000 Watt-hours), which is solar energy.  Technically you are generating solar power, instantaneously, which is why the article is named solar power, but solar energy is given equal billing, because over time that is what you get. 199.125.109.31 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think about a gasoline powered car then. The engine produces power to make it move from the energy stored in the gas tank.  Solar cells receive power and store energy in a battery.  Energy is the summation of power over time. Go to the Google website to see how much power is generated at any specific time (none at night, a peak of up to 1.6 MW), and see the amount of energy produced over the last 24 hrs and 7 days. That graph going up and down is solar power, the area under the curve is solar energy. By the way you will notice that all the energy producing related articles are named something power not something energy, hydropower, wave power, wind power, etc. 199.125.109.31 15:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When you say you make 2400 MW, that is a measure of power, not energy. kWh is a measure of energy. And if you work at a nuclear plant you are not including all the costs, as the waste produced has to be contained and monitored just about forever.  Solar has the capacity to generate in one year more than will ever be used in any form from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear, forever. The way I see it the world has a well engineered nuclear reactor located a safe distance from major population centers - 93 million miles away. 199.125.109.129 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Anyone that is not an IP address?"  I am a regular contributor to the energy articles, and simply choose to not register a username.  Please respect the fact that I have just as much weight as anyone else. An annual average is defacto energy, because you have integrated power generation over time. Energy from the sun is a more meaningful heading because when you are toasting marshmallows it is energy you are looking for and power you use. Try to think in terms of speed and distance. Distance is speed integrated over time, just like energy is power integrated over time. There are many locations in the article where the word energy is used appropriately, and many where power is equally appropriately used (coincidently about 100 of each).  It would definitely not improve the article to rename it inappropriately.  However, adding a couple of paragraphs to the lead paragraph might get us the coveted Good Article stamp of approval. It is unfortunate that we did not write them during the requested time period, as that is the only reason the review was closed. 199.125.109.4 23:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A subset? How is that? They are both the same, one is a quantity, the other is a measure. 199.125.109.134 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure. We need to think about our whole audience. Readers might expect an article on "solar energy" to describe the physics of the sun's production of energy. Solar power is a common term for the technologies that harness solar energy for human needs. Itsmejudith 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a name change to "Solar Energy," but I really think it could go either way, so long as the other is redirected to the article, as it is now. I don't know that I had any expectations regarding the coverage of the article, but I would think that the physics of the sun's production of energy should go in the Sun article. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - it does not matter whether it is called solar power or solar energy as long as both are given equal billing in the lead and the one not used is redirected to the other. It would be like trying to have an article on the flow of a river in gallons per minute vs an article on the total volume of a river that flowed in a minute, the first is a measure of the power of the river, the second a measure of the energy of the river, demonstrating how inseparable the concept of power is from the concept of energy. 199.125.109.134 06:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Power Renamed 

message: I regret to say that I have failed this GA because seven days have passed and nothing has been done to change the lead, which was the main problem.  I encourage you to fix the lead when you have time, and then re-nominate the article for GA Status. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failed 

message: I have long wanted to add this picture.  I got it from the World energy resources and consumption article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
Looking through the article shows that some of the numbers I used in the "Availabilty of Solar Energy" section could need revision.  I think we might as well incorporate the Availability of Solar Energy into the "Energy from the Sun" section.Mrshaba 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that the diagram of energy flow from the sun is already quite wide, at 300 or 350px. Some of us are still using 640x480, and that leaves little skinny columns of text next to the image. 199.125.109.129 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What? I complain the image is too big and you make two more of them the same size? This is not an improvement. 199.125.109.134 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy from the Sun 

message: Here is some youtube video of the Helios solar powered plane. Can we link to this in the article? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NCOPLEJOl0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.28.30 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicles 

message: Solar power is used by the mars rover, by spacecraft going to Jupiter, etc. Please do not include a photo of the earth from space anywhere in this article. 199.125.109.134 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about the name of the article, which is "solar power". It's about having a photo of the earth to describe solar power, which is just absurd. Coal/Oil/Natural Gas etc. are used all over the world, why don't you put a photo of the earth from space at the top of the Coal article?  That would make just as much sense as having it here.  Look, this is Wikipedia, which gets edited by the consensus of all editors. If you want to write a book about solar energy, have at it, and feel free to use this article on solar power as a source, and put a photo of the earth on the cover too.  Do you honestly think that an article about what powers the mars rover needs a photo of the earth as the lead photo?  You may think the photo is boring, but I happen to think that it is a very good illustration of where solar power comes from, the sun.  If in fact you are just experimenting I would suggest that you use the sandbox instead. Something you may not be aware of is that in a few hundred years or so there will be more people living off of the planet in space colonies than on the planet, using guess what, solar power in the form of guess again, photovoltaics.  No one has agreed to change the name of the article and even if it was changed solar power and solar energy both need to be in bold as close to the beginning of the article as practical. Your distinction between power and energy is highly questionable. I would suggest that someone with a physics background sort the two out. 199.125.109.104 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The first thing that you will need to learn is to get consensus before you make any controversial changes.  So far there has been very little support or discussion for changing the name of the article. If there was support, anyone could change the name, and the article would not have more than 2 words changed.  All that you would do is rephrase the first sentence to say "Solar energy, also known as solar power... and nothing else in the article would need to change. However, a bazillion links to the article would need to change, and it just isn't worth even thinking about doing that. So please stop trying to "change the emphasis" of the article from solar power to solar energy. I emphasize again, even if the title of the article was solar energy, absolutely nothing in the article would change. 199.125.109.43 07:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the sun 

message: I wrote to several energy experts and agencies regarding the solar energy vs. solar power terminology question.  Here is Scott Sklar's response.
'Solar energy' would include ALL forms of solar : passive solar architecture, solar daylighting, solar cooking, solar water heating, solar space heating and cooling, concentrated solar for heat or steam or electric production, and photovoltaics, direct solar electric conversion.
Solar 'power' means solar - to - electricity --- that means photovoltaics (direct conversion) , solar mechanical-to-electric (primarily through heat engines), and concentrated solar power (steam-to-electricity).
Scott
Scott Sklar coauthored A Consumer Guide to Solar Energy and ‘The Forbidden Fuel: Power Alcohol in the Twentieth Century. Scott Sklar is Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves on the (non-profit) Boards of Directors of the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, and the Renewable Energy Policy Project.Mrshaba 16:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do follow your reasoning and greatly appreciate the efforts that you have put into improving this article. I am still not 100% convinced the move is worth it. Could we consult a little more widely in the WP community before actually moving the article? Perhaps we could leave a note at appropriate WikiProjects and Portals (Energy, Physics...)? Itsmejudith 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for putting them back. 199.125.109.87 07:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps by bias you mean advocate? Solar power is being developed whether anyone wants it or not, mostly because it is so plentiful, and because it solves a huge problem with using carbon or nuclear for energy. When I look at the article I do not see any bias toward photovoltaics at all. I happen to believe that in 50 years 80% of our energy of all forms is going come from photovoltaics, but there is nothing that the article can do to change that no matter how it is written. The fact that 99% of solar power today is used to create wind and grow biomass has nothing to do with what we call the name of the article. 199.125.109.87 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Now we are making progress. Please allow at least a week for anyone to comment before making such a drastic change to the lead. Here is what it is missing.
#Solar power is not given equal billing. Bear in mind that there is no article named solar energy. Why would the lead have solar energy in bold and not solar power? You are still putting the cart before the horse, by assuming that you can rename the article to solar energy, which I disagree with, and are proposing a lead for the renamed article. As such your proposed lead above is moot.
#No mention that solar power is renewable. That needs to be in the first few sentences.
#It would be confusing to have two articles, solar power and solar energy. Since there is only one article, it needs to cover all aspects of solar power/solar energy. Which is why I emphasized that if the name of the article was changed, none of the content would change.
#Primary and secondary is a fine distinction that does not need to be anywhere in the lead.
#The word broadly is unnecessary.
#You appear to have broken up the first paragraph of the lead into three tiny paragraphs. Wikipedia guidelines for the lead for an article call for an article to have three or four paragraphs, and should summarize the article. Look at the article sun, which is a featured article. Although the lead has five paragraphs, they mostly look like real paragraphs even though two of them only have two sentences each, and the article is 67 kB (which since I am on dial-up is way too long).
#Creating the concept of "class" for solar power is extraneous. This isn't biology.
Perhaps that is enough for now. Suffice to say that I don't like it. 199.125.109.87 07:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: When I first came to this page it was a terribly confusing mix of electricity-related and non-electricity-related topics, with no order at all. I took some chunks out into Photovoltaics and other editors, especially Mrshaba, have helped to clean up the article and get it into order. The consensus has been that this article should provide the overview of all the ways solar energy (or power?!?) is used in technologies for human benefit, with more detailed articles on PV, solar water heating etc. It's quite a straightforward approach and aside from the title question - "solar power" or "solar energy" - I don't see a great deal of disagreement. Itsmejudith 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good. Perhaps we can come up with some words that everyone agrees with. From a physics standpoint (yes I have a degree in physics) I use power where it applies and energy where it applies. I had no intention of highlighting one application of solar power radiation over any other. 199.125.109.87 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Power Renamed 2.0 

message: Can someone explain what "Move external links to "external links" section or use footnotes" means?Mrshaba 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to the few places in the text where instead of a reference with a <ref> tag is used, a link to a website is used instead. I will sort it when I have a minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I have mixed feelings about this section. I don't have a problem with comparing the economics of solar energy with fossil energy. There are a ton of incentives out there that go both ways.  The problem I have is that I think this is mostly about photovoltaics.  Solar water heaters are growing in China at double the rate of photovoltaics worldwide.  Solar heating is at fossil parity, so to speak.
A good Solarnomics section should talk about where solar energy is effective and competitive compared to where it needs incentives.Mrshaba 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However let's stick to using real words like solar economics and not made up ones like solarnomics. 199.125.109.87 00:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solarnomics 

message: I've been in touch with John Perlin. Much of my writing on the page has been structured around his treatment of the subject. I don't think there is any greater work on solar energy than The Golden Thread. His initial communication indicated he thought solar power was a reasonable way to present the info.  He ask what I was up to and what I thought.  I've written back and think I will get a response.  I hope for him to visit the page.  I consider the edits made by 199.125.109.134 to be odd and confusing. Please keep the page steady for the day without any major revisions to the intro.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.28.30 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing odd about my edits, and if you are confused you can certainly ask for a clarification. For example, when numbers are less than one, they are always preceded by a zero, as in 0.471, not .471. 199.125.109.104 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The article has come on a lot and your efforts are greatly appreciated. Perhaps we should resubmit it for GA. Itsmejudith 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, although the first paragraph needs to be resolved first. All that is needed is for everyone to look at the section above, indicate which one you prefer or propose a new one if you don't like any of the above. I am adding the recent edits as proposal #4. 199.125.109.104 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: Is the convention to use °C or degrees Celsius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs)  23:22, 15 September 2007
:This is Wikipedia, we get to make our own conventions. Which one do you prefer? A better answer, is use whichever makes sense given the context. A search for each on Wikipedia reveals that "°C" is used 270270 times while "degrees Celsius" is used 1591 times. 199.125.109.134 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convention 

message: That formulation didn't seem quite right. If you think about hydroelectricity, which is still perhaps the most important renewable electricity source in megawatt terms, it does not come directly from solar power. Of course it does indirectly - through evaporation, rain and all that, but it seems better to keep such complication out of the lead. Any other solutions? Itsmejudith 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your solution, "Solar energy, which is a renewable energy," instead of "It is the source of almost all forms of renewable energy" looks reasonable. 199.125.109.134 02:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of forms of renewable energy 

message: The following items were removed from the todo list:
*Add more images, especially of various solar energy collection methods
::Already done.199.125.109.87 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be kept in the PV article, unless it can be very brief. I think what they were referring to was a graph, not a table. The wind article has a nice graph showing the exponential increase in wind power. 199.125.109.87 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot now as caption of first image now shows annual power. 199.125.109.87 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Too detailed for this article. Add this level of detail to the photovoltaic array article. 199.125.109.87
* Add and use more solid sources
* The Deployment, Development and Economics section needs improvement. Might be beyond the scope of this article.
199.125.109.31 11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from todo list 

message: Is there merit in describing solar energy as both a form of energy and a technology?  Should this duality be made explicit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs)  19:24, 23 September 2007
== Phase change ==
Good edits on he salt ponds... That's exactly what was required...
As far as the phase change stuff goes.  I would like to salvage some of that.  It's a matter of grouping.  It could go into the solar storage possibly.  When I did my research I contemplated where the info should go. Phase changes are technically described under thermochemical.  So I put them in chemical.  The info could also be placed under a heat section or a storage section. The info was concise so I would like to keep some of it.  What do you think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not delete content from talk pages. If you wish to retract your information, use strikeout instead. 199.125.109.31 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nominee 

message: this seems interesting, but is not here:
http://www.pvresources.com/en/helios.php
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.74.11 (talk)  02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  solar airplane 

message: It is clear that much work has gone into this article, but it must be quick-failed, because the article is not stable: there is too much editing going on on a daily basis.
I would also make the comment that the reference list does not comply with Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style as many sources do not have author, title and other basic information included.  Also, the lead section is quite confused; after three paragraphs there is still discussion as to what the term "solar power" actually means.  And it seems that there is little effort to summarise the main points of the article in the lead (please see WP:LEAD for guidance).
The other comment I would make from briefly looking over the article is that much of what is here already appears in articles such as Renewable energy and Photovoltaics.  My humble suggestion would be to think about content which could make this article unique and emphasise that.
Please consider re-submitting at a later date, for a full review... regards, Johnfos 06:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment Just as a clarification, a helpful maxim for issues such as the lack of a basic definition in lead is "state the obvious". Never assume that readers already know things such as what solar power means, and remember that this stating of obvious facts is part of a strong encyclopedic tone. Without a very basic definition, the article lacks proper scope, thus often leading to repetitive or unnecessary content such as that mentioned above. VanTucky Talk 07:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Quick fail" GA nomination 

message: The image :Image:Sunspot_TRACE.jpeg is not readily identifiable as being the sun. The :Image:Sun920607.jpg image is much better. The image :Image:ISS_on_20_August_2001.jpg is a nice image, but it needs to be moved to the section on solar in outerspace. Putting it at the beginning of the article makes the false premise that the only way to get solar power from the sun is to get it from a satellite. The :Image:Available_Energy-2.jpg is important because it puts into perspective just how important solar power is. Any other views on this subject? 199.125.109.31 10:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the picture that Lumos3 said makes the subject seem boring, not the "old yellow Sun" (:Image:Sun920607.jpg), which has been our sun for 4 billion years, and has been used to illustrate this article for as far back as I can see, at least a year. I'm sure you can see from the beginning of this section that my opinion of your images is that they are very poor, and this version needs to be reverted, as all it accomplishes is to remove content from the article. 199.125.109.129 10:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Archiving has been slowed down to two weeks now. 199.125.109.41 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your pictures have very little to do with the article. Can you honestly say from seeing the first one, oh that must be the sun? The second one shows only one minuscule application of solar power, to spacecraft. A thousand years from now it might be appropriate, when more people are living on space stations, but not now.  I have no problem with replacing the first of my two images with something else, but it has to be something that is readily identifiable with solar power. The second of my images is vital to include because it is a graphic representation of just how much solar energy is actually available, as is often stated, there is more solar energy available in a minute than the earth uses in a year, and as you can see from the image, four times as much. 199.125.109.41 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And your basis for saying that "people seem to like it" is based on what? The roaring large number of zero who have commented? The numbers in the article are energy, you have to divide by the number of seconds in a year to do the conversion. The diagram in the same section uses the same number, 89 PW as in the diagram above (1 PW = 1000 TW). 3850 ZJ/year = 122 PW, not a significantly different number. 0.471 ZJ/year = 14.9 TW, also not a significant difference. There is no conflict, and the diagram has never been challenged. No one cares whether the photos are featured photos if they are inappropriate to the article. Until you get consent for anything other than the original sun photo you need to remove it. Saying that you like something because it is blue is odd. Shade the text blue on your browser if you like blue. Don't impose it on the rest of us. No one is questioning that solar power is used on satellites and has been since 1958. Currently there are over 5 GW of PV installed, and only a tiny fraction of that is on space vehicles. Feel free to use your image in a thousand years when the fraction in space far exceeds the fraction on the planet, but not until then. I agree this shouldn't be hard. Don't use images that are not appropriate. 199.125.109.41 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, so use it. What are you waiting for? 199.125.109.43 05:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: All featured photos get support votes. That is how they become featured photos. That doesn't make them appropriate to use in random articles.  Go find a better image. Until then we need to use the one that has been used. That's the consensus process, and it is important to follow. 199.125.109.43 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image selection 

message: I think I managed to hit all the references. I tried to use a consistent convention. I found the WP:CITE page short on examples so I chose the examples on the sun page as guidance. I tried to stay consistent and it looks like all the references compiled. If I strayed from Hoyle I apologize. If I made errors in my formatting technique the errors should be consistent. Mrshaba 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers. Please split each of the multiple references to the same book and include page numbers for each. No one should have to read the entire book to verify the reference. 199.125.109.87 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but the burden doesn't have to fall on one person. Any of us with access to the book can do it. Itsmejudith 08:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format references