Talk:Solar power

message: I have over 12 years of experience on this. https://iotmote.substack.com/p/remaking-the-nokia-6110-and-psion Request to cross Link Shortwave radio Wikipedia article, low power SDR-based microcontrollers with Solar power and mobile phones, as an example of Technological Convergence (also cross link). (similar to how camcorders were added to cell phones in the early 00s), under the "Political Issues" of the main Solar Power wikipedia article. Tetraxho (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit but be sure to cite and don’t be surprised if someone rejects substack as a cite Chidgk1 (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a category for the potential for solar power in mobile devices 

message: I think we should remove it from the article. It's a rounding error, less than 1% of the total. With current growth rates photovoltaics are adding twice that much, every single month, and that percentage is only going down over time, and dealing with it is taking up valuable space in the article out of all proportion.
If it's only producing 1% of the power, as a starting point for discussion, I think it should only take up 1% of the article, at most.
While I think it's a neat technology, I think we just need to be realistic and relegate it to a top note that directs us to concentrated solar power.  GliderMaven (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove concentrated solar power 

message: Solar power is not free.  Solar power has to be captured; capture has a cost.  Oil and gas power is not free.  Oil and gas power has to be captured; capture is the cost. 98.181.50.194 (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain further...  Costs can be tangible or intangible but not both. 98.181.50.194 (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don’t understand what you are saying needs changing in this article Chidgk1 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: The values for manufacturing carbon footprint taken from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9518632 are off by a factor of 1000. The source probably conflated "kg CO 2 /kWp" with "g CO 2 /kWp". I found more sensible figures in the supporting info of https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13728 on page 3. However that article is already eight years old and cites even older values from eleven years ago.
I suggest to remove
"A 2021 study estimated the carbon footprint of manufacturing monocrystalline panels at 515 g /kWp in the US and 740 g /kWp in China, "
and instead write
"In 2013 the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of multi-crystalline silicon PV systems was estimated as between 0.36 and 0.7 kg CO2-eq/Wp "
Although maybe I forgot something, but I am sure 700 g CO2 per kWp would be ridiculously low. 194.76.232.147 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a more up to date article:  reporting: "glass-backsheet (glass-glass) modules produced in China, Germany or the EU are linked to emissions of 810 (750), 580 (520) and 480 (420) kg CO2-eq/kWp, respectively" --Ita140188 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Effect: manufacturing carbon footprint