Talk:Solar energy/Archive 1

message: This page needs some work.  There are some very unclear paragraphs that probably ought to be deleted, re-worked and/or checked for bias.
----
Yes, in particular:
"The basic cost advantage is that the home-owner does not pay income tax on electric power that is not purchased. " (2nd sent. of 2nd pp in Applying Solar Power)
I removed it for now. --Erauch 02:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: The generally accepted standard is for peak power of 1020 W/m² at sea level. The average power, which is an important quantity when one is considering using solar power, is lower. As an example, in North America average power lies somewhere between 125 and 375 W/m² 9 kWh/m².[1]
kWh/m^2 is not a unit of power, it is a unit of energy.  Something odd is going on here.  is that the energy gained over 1 day?
::Look at the [1] link, and the images on that site cite daily, latitude tilt numbers, so the variation is due to line-of-sight atmospheric thickness, weather, clouds and "albedo", averaged over a year. Fixed now, and this subsection can be removed from the talk page after a while. Sillybilly 18:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: minor edit needed

message: I think somebody ought to have another look at the section of this article dealing with cost-effectiveness.  In particular, there's the part that asserts that at $9/watt, a solar panel yields a 9% ROI assuming the power can be sold at 9cents/kwh.  That ROI figure seems wrong.  Let's say I build a 1 watt solar power plant for 9 bucks.  Every hour that it is sunny, I make a watt-hour worth of electricity that I can sell for .009 cents.  If it's sunny 12 hours a day, every day all year round, thats (12 x 365 x .009) = 39 cents worth of power, for a one year ROI of 4.3%.  This neglects costs of maintenance on the plant, which even at 1-2% per year will take the ROI down to what you could get from T-Bills (and with a lot less risk).  Nobody in their right mind would invest in such a project unless the government were showering them with subsidies, in which case the plant can hardly be said to be cost-effective.
Response:
What maintenance cost would you need? The panel would probably never require any maintenance for the entire life of its installation, especially a small 1 watt one (about the size of the palm of your hand). Its expected reliability means that the maintenance cost is usually included in the purchase price. Also, are you saying the sun is less dependable than the government?
Pi lambda 06:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't confuse peak generating power with average insolation. You can't get 12 watts a day out of a power plant like that. You can get maybe 4.4 watts a day out of it, assuming the thing is located in the sourthern US. linas 18:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics of Solar Power

message: Is solar power inexaustible, renewable, or nonrenewable?
:Yes.
:* Inexhaustible on practical terms, as long as the Sun shines and sunlight can reach the surface.
:** Exhaustible because there is a limit to how much can be gathered on the surface over any time period.
:* Renewable because there is always more the next day.
:* Nonrenewable because the Sun will eventually stop shining the way it now does.
:The above becomes slightly different in space, for example by being able to build much larger collection structures and the ability to be closer to the Sun. (SEWilco 18:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inexaustible 

message: :Solar power describes a number of methods of harnessing energy from the light of the Sun.
Shouldn't that be heat and light of the Sun (as received on Earth)...? --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 16:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all technically light.  There is visible light, and IR/ultraviolet/etc. but it's all photons.  In a strict sense, it isn't really heat until it strikes an object.  So a change really only makes sense if you take an expansive view of heat (as including radiation).  While it's common for students to be taught that way, it actually adds more complications to try to differentiate "heat" radiation from "visible" radiation. --Benjamindees 12:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about heat? 

message: What happened here?  the comment is rv vandal, but doesn't say to which old version, and I think we may have lost some good information. --D0li0 11:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I saw an odd edit, and did a simple revert. Somebody who knows the artcle well should be able to find a better revert point. Ronabop 15:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nov 14 reversion 

message: The solar one solar two link in the body of the text states that the link has been moved.  Can someone provide a new link?
*There is a Wikipedia article talking about Solar One and Solar Two, so I had the link direct to there. Pentawing 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: '''
I added a link to external links to www.solarfacts.net. Why was it removed? --Pippin88 21:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Removed?