Talk:Solar energy/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Solar land area Image Objection

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)

Hi Lumos3, I have moved the image to appear in the first section "Energy from the Sun" and added a more thorough description in the text and the image caption. I am sorry about the propaganda you see in this image, however I believe it is very important to visualize that the energy we actually consume is only a very small fraction of the incident energy from the sun. This fact should not be missing in a good encyclopedia. If you look at the discussions above, e.g. under "Potential Energy Generated" you can see that other people were not aware that a very small fraction of the globe's surface is enough to supply the current energy demand. --Mlino76 12:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 [1]. 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)

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)

Sorry, now the link is correct. --Mlino76 18:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I updated some of the reflection/absoption numbers and added a reference. There is a diagram on the linked page which visually explains the reflection/absorption flows. Something like this diagram would be a helpful addition to this page. I changed the peak power at sea level back to 1,020 W/m². I also blended the reflection/absorption data with the peak power data in a way that hopefully explains where the peak power number comes from. I think the blending also provides a good transition to the average power information and eliminates some redundancy in the previous version. User:Mrshaba

I think the last three paragraphs in the Energy From the Sun section can be mostly eliminated or moved to more appropriate areas. The black disc reference doesn't work in it's current version because there are no numbers involved. I agree that the relative power delivered by the sun over a given area should be compared to the power used by people but the current version is confusing. Using hard numbers like xxx square kilometers or referencing a city size on each of the continents might be a better approach. I think the global dimming/warming references should also be removed. It would be interesting to replace these paragraphs with more specifics that apply to the energy flows discussed in the first paragraph. e.g. Reference to biomass absorbing light and atmospherically absorbed sunlight driving wind and hydrologic cycles. User:Mrshaba

Question about how much Energy is produced

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)

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)

I know what a Watt is, but Im just curious to how much time it takes to get 1000 Watts. Is it an Hour, like you say, or are you just using that as an example?

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)

Maybe this will help. Watts (power) are like having a 200 horsepower engine. Watt-hours (energy) are like having a 10 gallon tank of gasoline. If you use up the tank in an hour you are using twice as much power as if you use it in two hours, however the tank still contains the same amount of energy. Since solar power just goes on forever (for about 5 billion years), it is more common to measure power than energy. With coal and oil it is the opposite - both are finite supplies so resources are measured as reserves of energy. It is somewhat amusing to note that total fossil fuel reserves (forever) are less than about 1/8th the amount of solar energy available per year. 199.125.109.134 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Availability of Solar Energy

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)

GA on Hold

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)}

Solar Power Renamed

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)

You point out I failed to do the Mrshaba 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC) thing. I wasn't trying to hide. I have made many contributions to this article. Sometimes I Mrshaba 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC) and sometimes I don't. I have no motives besides the advancement of this topic which I find incredible.

That being said, I disagree with you. I disagree with you because, as stated above, I'm having a hard time writing to an article that is called solar power when I think it should be called solar energy. I think it's easier to describe things to a general audience in terms energy. This applies to solar power/energy specifically.

One glaring reason for this is that solar power is not a reliable source of power. There's day and night. There's weather. When we talk about solar power there is a large divergence between peak power and average power. I'm saying bypass this divergence and talk about energy. We can't store power. An essential part of solar energy's future will be energy storage. I say we should recognize this and describe this topic in terms of energy rather than power. I'm talking about focus. Give energy primary focus and power secondary focus.

I say flow you say rate. They are the same thing. I'm pointing out the difference between flow and volume - between rate and quantity. I'm not an academic. I have experience rather than credentials. I'm trying to communicate a subject. My point is that solar power and solar energy should not be synonymous. Mrshaba 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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[2] 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)

I work at a power plant. We make 2400 MW, we are on line 90% of the time and our electricity costs about 2 cents per kwh. At first glance solar power seems far from competitive with the size, cost and reliability of my plant. But this impression is due to the straw man metrics of comparison I have chosen. If the shoe fits wear it. If it doesn't find some sandles or go barefoot. This title doesn't fit right. I've made my points. Mrshaba 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Are there any regular contributors that have run into the energy vs. power issue? Anyone that is not an IP address? I looked at the Power Station article and I found this quote, "Some prefer to use the term energy center because it more accurately describes what the plants do, which is the conversion of other forms of energy, like chemical energy, gravitational potential energy or heat energy into electrical energy." This quote was in the lead paragraph. The power station article is simple compared to this article where we are discussing a multitude of energy transformation technologies. I think the energy vs. power distinction is more critical to this topic. It's definitely one of the reasons this article isn't moving forward.

Strangely, our "Energy from the sun" section has everything in terms of power and a map showing average day/night solar power. This reference has been brought up repeatedly as confusing. This confusion is compounded when we use an annual average solar energy map in the Advantages and disadvantages of solar power section.

We've made an effort to use the metric system throughout the article. It would be straight forward and more accurate to use an energy convention rather than a power convention throughout the article as well. It would improve the article. We simply make the decision to use an energy convention. We switch the redirects between solar power to solar energy and voila. Mrshaba 01:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"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)

Encarta Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, World Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica cover this subject as Solar Energy... The SEIA stands for Solar Energy Industries Association. The ISES stands for the International Solar Energy Society. Solar Power is a subset of Solar Energy. We've got the wrong name on this article. Mrshaba 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I would support a name change to "Solar Energy". --Skyemoor 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)}

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)

I rewrote the intro. I hope these changes are kept. I think these changes show how solar energy is a better way to follow this topic. I also hope that my discussion comments show how solar power falls into a sub topic of solar energy.Mrshaba 05:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

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)}

Energy from the Sun

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)

Is there a way to group the two maps in this section to be side by side and fall below the diagram above them? This might result in a visually streamlined format. At this point I'm simply curious but it's worth a try.Mrshaba 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Vehicles

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)

Image of the sun

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)

This article is about solar energy. As stated above the Encarta Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, World Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica cover this subject as Solar Energy. The national and international solar agencies are Solar Energy associations rather than solar power agencies.

Solar energy is used here to generically describe all solar technologies while solar power is used to specifically describes solar mechanical and solar electrical technologies. I understand that power is energy per time but it can be difficult to put this relationship into practice. Treating the topic generically simplifies things.

There is a heavy POV bias for PV when solar energy is discussed. This is unfortunate because solar hot water applications have about 90 GWth worth of output compared to about 9 GWe for PV. Describing this topic as solar power rather than solar energy tends to reinforce this bias rather than correct it.

Solar energy is a global ever present thing. The picture of the earth reinforces the global idea. The picture of the yellow sun, however appropriate, is boring by itself. The red picture of the sun followed by the blue picture of the earth provides a wonderful contrast and the caption is appropriate. The message is that the sun "powers" the earth.

As far as changing picture sizes goes. Have at it. I'm experimenting too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.89.192.111 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2007

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)

Why do the other encyclopedic entries present this material under the heading of Solar Energy? It is true to say that Wikipedia can be edited by everyone but most articles are edited by a small group of dedicated editors. I am dedicated. The article has largely stood still due to the complicated scope of the topic and constant vandalism. We are finally making some progress and I would like to see the article move forward rather than bickering over pictures. At this point my impression is that you have become more of a spiteful critic rather than a conscientious contributor. I believe this is a consensus view.Mrshaba 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

The image which now heads the article is unacceptable as a lead on the subject. It lacks dramatic effect; it almost says this subject is boring. It is also misleading because it seems to show that most energy is available in the southern hemisphere. Remember that a lot of readers will be children with little knowledge of the subject. Lumos3 07:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Solar Power Renamed 2.0

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)

Here is an example of why we should rename this article: http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=63022

I added the new intro about a week ago. It's already been copy and pasted by Ms. Hackett. Unfortunately, the information is presented as if the Greeks, Native Americans and Chinese used solar power. This was not my intention when I wrote this material. I think I've presented a solid argument for renaming this article. I'm weary of switching the links myself but I'll give it a try tomorrow. I will also add material to the lead section which points out the fundamental distinction between solar power and solar energy technologies.Mrshaba 05:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From Proffessor Beckman at UW Madison's Solar Energy Laboratory

"You are correct, there is a confusing use of "solar energy" and "solar power". Solar energy is in common use to mean the conversion of the suns energy into useful energy for use by humans (e.g., hot water for shower). Since the energy is often stored in a hot water tank, it is not confusing to talk about energy rather than power. For solar systems that generate electricity or mechanical power, solar power is usually a better term since storage is often not a part of the system although batteries are sometimes used to store the energy. So, your final sentence [Is it correct to say the term solar energy generically describes all solar technologies while the term solar power specifically describes solar mechanical and solar electrical technologies? ] does accurately describe the general usage."

A spirited discussion with an ASES member informally determined that ASES does not have positions on such terminology. "Even in ASES meetings people regularly screw up on terminology, and at most the listeners frown or shrug their shoulders."

I will work on switching the links today and adding some clarification to the lead. Hopefully this will clean up some of the bias towards thinking of solar energy solely in terms of electricity.Mrshaba 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

I started on the redirects but I can switch them back. I found redirects at solar energy, solar powered, solar-powered, thermosolar, sola power, solar radio and solar concentrator.

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

As stated above the concensus with encyclopedias is to cover this article under the heading Solar Energy. My survey of solar energy institutes and experts agreed with the classification. I'm not worried about joules or watts. I'm more concerned with the potential bias towards electricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.89.192.111 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

The ASES member I communicated with had this to say in regards to the solar power vs. solar energy question: "I agree with Scott Sklar, who is a pretty solid character."

This is the intro that I propose.

Solar energy is energy from the sun. Solar energy also broadly describes technologies that utilize this energy. The primary forms of solar energy are heat and light. Secondary forms and effects include biomass, wind, the Gulf Stream, the hydrologic cycle, fossil fuels and electricity.

Solar energy technologies have been used since prehistoric times. Primitive architects incorporated windows to provide light. The Greeks, Native Americans and Chinese warmed their buildings by orienting them toward the sun. Medieval European farmers used thermal mass and elaborate field orientation to increase crop yields.

Solar power technologies convert solar energy into mechanical power and electricity. These technologies represent a class of solar energy technology.

In 1865...Mrshaba 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

There are two parts to the lead. In the first part of the intro I talk about solar energy as sunlight and the forms it can take. The obvious forms such as heat and light and the secondary forms which aren't so obvious. An important goal of this article should be recognizing how solar energy is used both by humans and the environment. I'm not a Gaia theorist but the sun does indeed fuel the earth - thus the picture of the earth. Your vitriolic opinion of the picture is noted. I intend to add something about solar being a renewable energy to the first paragraph.

The second part of the intro talks about solar energy as a technology. When I speak of technology this is what I mean:

"Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment."

Notice the word broad by the way. Technology is broad. Solar energy in its context as a technology is also broad. I'm trying to show that humans have been using solar technology over a broad time span and that the technology has evolved. I do not intend to give solar power an equal footing in the lead. If anything I'm trying to point out that solar power is a type of technology within the broader spectrum of solar energy technologies. Solar power technologies, with few exceptions, create electricity. Electricity is one form of energy. It should be understood that many countries use more energy to heat their homes than electrify them. I have nothing against PV. I can talk PV till the cows come home. I am invested in solar power stocks and cheer the fabulous growth in the industry. But PV is overhyped at the expense of other solar energy technologies which are currently much more significant. Solar heat will likely keep its lead on solar electricity indefinately. The link to class was a set theory (mathematics)link. The implication is that solar power is a set within the larger solar energy set.

Perhaps that is enough for now. Suffice it to say, I am tired of your criticism.Mrshaba 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

External links

Can someone explain what "Move external links to "external links" section or use footnotes" means?Mrshaba 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Solarnomics

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)

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)

I think we can imbed the solar economic/competitivenss info as we go technology by technology. We could also imbed the economic info into the deployment of solar section. Otherwise this section is going to become a distractor.Mrshaba 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Progress

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)

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)

At this point I'm fighting in two directions. I have written/edited much of the article as it currently stands. I've done a good portion of borrowing and an good portion of creation. I feel as though there's some two steps forward and one back action going on. I understand that Wikipedia is a composition by committee affair. I have no problem with this process, but when you're composing a piece you need tuned voices and they all need to be singing in the same language. This is not occurring. I'm trying to steward. I need air support badly.Mrshaba 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Convention

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)

Source of forms of renewable energy

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)

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)

Removed from todo list

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)

Add table summarising world installed PV capacity across serveral years (as for wind power page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power)

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)

Explain the inconsistency of the 1000 W/m^2 at equator (first image) and the 400 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere (2nd image).

Moot now as caption of first image now shows annual power. 199.125.109.87 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss issues of raising voltage level, through series connection of individual PV cells and resulting increase in internatl resistance, which causes large inefficiencies due to hear losses.

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)

GA nominee

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)

~~Please do not delete content from talk pages. If you wish to retract your information, use <strike>~~strikeout~~</strike> instead. 199.125.109.31 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)~~

solar airplane

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)

Solar Power Renamed 3.0

Solar energy is listed as the Category title here: [[3]]. If you look at the sub-categories and the different pages they all fall into the category Solar energy. This is the main article in the category Solar energy. It should be named Solar energy.Mrshaba 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very weak argument. Most of the articles in the category use solar power instead of solar energy in their name. 199.125.109.41 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have written or rewritten the majority of this article. I took the lead from one sentence to several paragraphs. With the lead I attempted to show that solar energy is both a form of energy and a type of technology. I presented solar power as a sub-category of solar energy and included developmental info about solar power as well as present info. I changed the Energy from the Sun section to explain in brief how solar energy is an integral part of the environment - definitely needs additional work. I wrote the classifications of solar energy section - I intend to start another article which explains the classifications of solar energy/power in more depth. I wrote the architecture section with a good deal of borrowing - still needs plenty of work. I wrote the lighting section completely. I wrote the water heating section completely - still needs work. I wrote the heating, cooling and ventilation section with a good deal of borrowing - still needs work. I wrote the Solar power plant section entirely. I wrote the solar cooking section with plenty of borrowing. I wrote the Solar chemical section nearly entirely using the former info as guidance. I added to the Solar Vehicle section. I expanded the desalination section to include disinfection. Solar disinfection seems to be the simplest and most cost effective method of using solar energy to improve welfare on an immediate basis. This section in particular impressed me and I intend to expand on the info. I realize this article is not about saving the world but clean water is a fundamental part of life for the developing world. What impressed me is that sunlight can easily be used to heat and pasteurize water and this is one of the top 5 goals of every NGO out there. People don't generally think of using sunlight as a method of making water safe to drink. I think this should be recognized. I wrote the Energy Storage section with loose guidance from the former material.

I've begun rework on the Photovoltaics section and intend to tackle the Development, deployment and economics section. This will take some serious thought. For whatever reason I've been on a roll this last month. I've attempted to make the sections at least partially comparable. I've used temperatures and efficiencies to give some relativity. To further the relativity between the technologies and times I would like to change all dollars to current values. I did not set out with the intention of integrating all the info but integration has become one of my goals with the article. As part of this I have tried to include as many international references as possible.

I have presented a stream of strong arguments, reasonings and thoughts on this article. I have tried to thoroughly documented my sources albeit without properly formated links - another to do. I have waited a long time to make these edits. I watched the article for a year while it laid dormant with near constant vandalism. I've taken it in a direction. I've tried to move the point of view from solar energy as a source of electricity to solar energy as a source of many outputs such as light, heat, cooling, ventilation and electricity. Most of these outputs have nothing to do with what is generally recognized as power.

The badgering I have received from 199.125.109.41 has caused me no small amount of frustration. If there was criticism from a wider audience I would have backed off but given the singular nature of criticism I have continued with my edits. This criticism and harassment has indirectly improved the page but I would have preferred constructive criticisms. I welcome constructive criticisms and I welcome collaboration.

I do not own this article. I do not think I own this article. My work is a contribution. My contributions have heavily relied on the framework which existed prior to my first edit. I have filled in material using good books, good wikipedia articles and decent internet references. I have attempted to leave no trace of opinion one way or the other.

I remain strongly in favor of changing the name of this article to Solar energy. I believe I have presented many strong arguments which reinforce my view and I will continue to enumerate these arguments. Mrshaba 08:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We all appreciate your good faith efforts and wish that you will make many contributions to Wikipedia, which now has 2,000,000 articles, and could use your efforts on many other articles in addition to just this one. For example, how about learning how to format references and hitting "random article" a few times and fixing a few references that you find? There is also a list of simple tasks that can be done at Wikipedia:Community Portal#Todo. You also just used "I" 48 times and "my" three times. We know that you work in a Nuclear plant and like solar energy. No problem. Lots of people like solar energy, and this year people are even discovering that it is downright practical, as it just got a whole lot cheaper, and for the first time investors are willing to pay for the panels upfront in return for a 25 power purchase agreement.

Just listen to the criticism from other editors when it is given and look for consensus without just putting back your version of the article. No one else is putting back "their" version, the version that is put back is the last consensus version. If you don't like it, and think yours is better, you need to get support for it, before you put it back. By the way it would help if you were more careful to log in when you revert things. It looks like you are occasionally using sockpuppets to do the reverts, which is not a good idea. 199.125.109.31 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Quick fail" GA nomination

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)

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)

GA nomination follow up

I figured as much. Definitely a fair assessment. I have responded to the suggestions by trying to rework the reference formatting. I'm trying to do the references correctly. I've looked at the reference criteria and have attempted to put the references in the right locations. Sometimes the whole paragraph uses one reference so I've put the reference at the end. If this is wrong please correct me. Please correct me on my method of formatting in general. I learned as I went along through the referencing process that there are short cuts. i.e. you can do <ref name="joe"> as a primary reference point followed by <ref name="joe"/> as a subsequent reference point. Using this code allows you to shorten subsequent references to the same source. As a precaution I eliminated some page references. I have the books so I can add these page references when required but at the moment I don't know how so I'm referencing the whole book. I'd also like to know if there's a way to put comments into the references. i.e. a little blurb about how the source document quotes something in btus but the wiki page shows the conversion of the source document in joules. Does that make sense? This would allow better searching of the source documents if conversions have been used. I don't know how to do this.

I understand that the intro is confusing due to the swapping back and forth between Solar Energy and Solar Power. The prose ain't Shakespeare either. I wrote the intro in terms of Solar energy. Rather than repeating my arguments for why this page should be named Solar energy I would like to ask how this can be done. Who should I ask? Where should I post this question? So far there's a positive vote from Skyemoor and a partial positive vote from Corvus. There's also a noncommittal vote from Itsmejudith and a negative vote from ip:199. I think the name should be Solar energy. I've argued toward this point extensively. How are these things decided? I sent off another series of letters to various solar institutes asking for guidance on this question if such a thing exists. There's clearly confusion in this area. I think the confusion is simplified by distinguishing things as I have. I think you have to make distinctions rather than talking about things synonymously. I would like to move forward on the name change. How is that done? Where do we ask? Who are the gurus?

And pictures. Everyone can vote on pictures. I chose the current pictures partially based on suggestion but mostly because I like them. I think the Sun picture is boring and it's already got the sun page so I think something different should be used here. What pictures should be used?

And one other thing... This discussion page has gotten too long. I think the arguments can be largely condensed. Nobody wants to read through a tome. The size of the page impedes the discussion process. I think it might be ready for archive or simplification of some sort. Can we do this? How do we do this? Mrshaba 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and work through your questions, please let me know if I miss any.

For the kinds of alterations you're looking for, you may find the answer in WP:CITE, especially citation templates. These templates often have a field for a quote or comments, either of which can be used to make a notation. I don't think I can explain how to insert page numbers for you, so I would suggest checking out either WP:CITE and its descendant pages, or just looking at an FA-class article that does this already and swiping the format (an article that I know does this is guinea pig).
For the simple mechanics of moving an article, see Help:Moving a page. For a controversial move request, please see WP:RM. In light of the protests by at least one user, I think going to Requested Moves is a necessity here.
First off, Wikipedia does not decide things by voting, it uses consensus decision making. Sometimes straw polls are conducted to gage the general opinion, but the "vote count" does not decide the conclusion. But to answer your question, the place you're probably looking for is Wikimedia Commons. There is probably a solar power category there to choose images from, and you're correct that re-using the lead image from sun is undesirable.
To learn how to archive talk discussion, see WP:ARCHIVE.

Hope that clears everything up! VanTucky ^Talk 18:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just set up auto-archiving. As talk pages go this one is pretty short still and probably doesn't really need archiving, but it won't hurt to set it up anyway, especially if it makes it easier for you. It is not common practice to redact talk pages anymore (largely condense arguments). If you think the sun picture is boring that may be because this is the only article you have been working on for a year. Leave it up until a new proposal is accepted. Your current proposal has no support. Your selection was also based on a misinterpretation of a comment. However, it would be better to keep discussion on that topic in one place. Here is how to do page references. <ref>Smith, J. (Author), Foo (Booktitle), 1999 (pub date) ISBN (number here) page xxx-xyy</ref>. Note that no brackets are needed around the ISBN, but it will automagically become a link if you put a number after ISBN. See WP:CITE for more details on references. If you weren't so obstinate, and just put back the consensus version of the page and asked for unprotection, I could in a couple of hours fix all the online references. The book pages, obviously I have no way of fixing short of buying the book or finding it in a library (and reading the whole book to find out what page was used). While it is never a good idea of redacting talk comments I took the liberty of putting <nowiki>ref example</nowiki> around your ref examples to make them readable.

As to the renaming of the article, that is a totally different ball of wax and needs to be discussed separately and at length. It should not interfere with improvements to this article, and it is my contention that there will always be only one solar power/solar energy article, and as such no content should change if the name changes, although the definition in the lead would be reworded slightly. The time to do that is after any name change, not before. So "moving forward" on changing the name is probably a many months long process that has little effect on the article, and by the way is holding back development right now. I would suggest not even bringing it up until the first of the year. 199.125.109.31 18:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto-archiving set up. 199.125.109.31 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Vantucky - I found the referencing technique I wanted on the Guinea Pig page. It looks like this: <ref>Morales, p. 3.</ref>. Mrshaba 09:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And as a further note on referencing techniques I found this: A concise way to make multiple references is to use empty ref tags, which have a slash at the end.<ref name="multiple">This text is superfluous, and won't show up anywhere. We may as well just use an empty tag.</ref> Mrshaba 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant "so we can use <ref name="multiple"/> for all but one of them?" But don't use it for book references unless each is a reference to the same pages in the book, which seems unlikely. Even with pdf files it can be helpful to provide a page reference. 199.125.109.136 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image selection

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)

Moved from section "Image of the sun":

How do people like the two pictures currently up? The picture of the sun is a featured pictured. I took it from the Sun article and mostly kept the caption too. I used the Space Station photograph because it was blue and it shows a bunch of PV panels and it's international. The old yellow Sun picture is appropriate but boring in my opinion. As Lumos3 said, it lacks dramatic effect. Opinions. 131.89.192.111 09:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC) <-- Mrshaba?

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.[4] 199.125.109.129 10:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else? 199.125.109.43 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this section to get archived.

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

I like the pictures in the lead but this is obviously because I chose them. I have been seriously frustrated by the reversion of these pictures to inferior quality picture. Vantucky mentioned that the long standing previous picture of the sun has already been used as the lead on the sun article so we should use something else. I chose a picture from the sun article and pretty much took the caption as well. I also used a picture of the ISS because it was blue and beautiful and showed the earth below. I like these pictures because they cover solar energy as a raw form and a technology. If we shorten the lead we might have to get rid of one of them. Are there alternate suggestions for pictures? Mrshaba 03:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Available solar and wind power vs total global consumption of all types of energy.

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)

The sun picture that is currently up is a featured picture. People seem to like it. The satellite picture is of featured picture quality. The satellite picture is appropriate because satellites and solar power have had a long and interesting relationship. The second graphic representation that you suggest has information on it that conflicts with the information in the Energy from the Sun section. Can some other people comment here please? This shouldn't be hard. Mrshaba 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

The sun picture has been recognized by wikipedia as a featured picture. People at some point liked the photo enough for the picture to attain this status. Since the picture is featured I think you can infer that people recognize the picture as a picture of the sun. A picture of the sun is appropriate to the article. A picture of the ISS is also appropriate to the article. I've even heard the illustrations described as superb.

I see what you mean about the numbers in the boxes. All you have to do is divide by a thousand and subtract out the energy absorbed in the atmosphere. It really tells the story.

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

I don't think I need your consent. I'm acting in good faith. If others don't like the photos or my rationale I'll go along. Mrshaba 00:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunspot TRACE Mrshaba 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Mostly because there have been zero new proposals, how about replacing the first image (the sun) with the Image:SolarStirlingEngine.jpg image and removing it from it's current location in the "Solar power plants" section? 199.125.109.129 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Format references

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)

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)

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)

Opening paragraph

RFCsci| section=Opening paragraph !! reason=Please write a proposal for the first paragraph. !! time=07:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Close RFC 199.125.109.38 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please write a proposal for the first paragraph. See discussion below for suggestions:

Please obtain consensus before changing. I don't like it any more than you do.

1st proposal:

Solar power (also known as solar energy) is a source of power that uses energy from the sun. The primary forms of solar energy are heat and light. Secondary forms and effects include biomass, wind, the Gulf Stream, the hydrologic cycle, fossil fuels and electricity.

Needs to include renewable energy. No need to create a specific distinction between primary and secondary. 199.125.109.134 01:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Current version:

Solar power (also known as solar energy) is a source of power that uses energy from the sun. The term solar energy is used more specifically to describe the utilization of this energy through human endeavor. It is a renewable energy source that has been used in many traditional technologies for centuries. It is also in widespread use where other power supplies are absent, such as in remote locations and in space. The primary forms of solar energy are heat and light. Secondary forms and effects include photosynthesis, wind, the Gulf Stream, the hydrologic cycle, fossil fuels and electricity.

199.125.109.87 00:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus obtained

From Proffessor Beckman at UW Madison's Solar Energy Laboratory (http://sel.me.wisc.edu/facstaff/facstaff.html)

From Scott Sklar (http://www.thestellagroupltd.com/CleanEnergyFund05-2002.htm)

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.

Scott

From ASES via Francis de Winter (http://www.ecotopia.com/deWinter/resume.htm) who shared his thoughts:

"I agree with Scott Sklar, who is a pretty solid character."

I'm hoping to hear from the Rocky Mountain Institute as well. How many engineers and authors and professors makes a consensus? So far so good.Mrshaba 16:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can not use consensus obtained by asking two people, you have to obtain consensus by asking other Wikipedia editors, which you have not done. All forms of solar radiation result in renewable resources, sunlight is a renewable resource. Your statement "Other transformations result in renewable energies such as biomass, wind and waves" is just plain false, because it is too limited. Wikipedia gets edited by everyone. When one editor tries to take ownership of the article it results in a lack of respect for others. 199.125.109.38 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2nd proposal (please make edits here):

Solar power is energy from the sun. The primary forms of solar energy are heat and light. Solar power is a renewable energy source that has been used in many traditional technologies for centuries. Sunlight and heat are also used in the natural environment for photosynthesis, the hydrologic cycle, and to maintain the Gulf Stream, leading to applications using biomass, wind, waves, and hydroelectricity. It is also in widespread use using photovoltaics where other power supplies are absent, such as in remote locations and in space.

199.125.109.38 18:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Messy (see below) Soulfinger 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd proposal:

Solar power is energy from the sun. The primary forms of solar energy are heat and light. Sunlight and heat are transformed and absorbed by the environment in a multitude of ways. Some of these transformations result in renewable energy flows such as such as biomass, wind and waves. Effects such as photosynthesis, the Gulf Stream and the hydrologic cycle are also the result of solar energy's absorption in the environment.

Too many unneeded words: multitude, transformed, transformations, effects, some of these, result, flows, absorption. Too little content. Let's wait for other proposals and/or comments before implementing any changes such as this one. 199.125.109.134 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no disagreement, the 2nd proposal above will be used. 199.125.109.43 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

4th proposal:

Solar power is the flow of energy from the sun. The primary forms of solar energy are heat and light. Sunlight and heat are transformed and absorbed by the environment in a multitude of ways. Some of these transformations result in renewable energy flows such as biomass, wind and waves. Effects such as the jet stream, the Gulf Stream and the water cycle are also the result of solar energy's absorption in the environment.

The word flow is not needed. The word transformed should be replaced with the word "used". All solar energy is renewable, not some of it. "Are also" is poorly worded. 199.125.109.104 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note - reverting an established proposal to a disapproved one is not an acceptable way of indicating disapproval and it will also be reverted. There are two established proposals, they are "Current version" and 2, above. Either can be used until a new consensus is reached on something else. 199.125.109.124 19:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Power is not energy. Power is a flow or a flow rate of energy. The word flow or something like it is needed. Solar energy is energy from the sun would be another option. The first paragraph then goes onto explain solar energy in its raw form. Not all solar energy becomes renewable energy. Some solar energy escapes without much interaction with the environment and some solar energy is absorbed in ways that we wouldn't classify as renewable energy flows. i.e. keeping us warm. This process is explained by the picture and the energy from the sun paragraph. Are also? Seems like a decent phrasing. Solar energy is here whether we use it or not so presenting it as a raw phenomenon in the environment is a standard practice.

If you think about some of the classifications of solar energy like direct/diffused or direct/indirect you can see that solar energy is both a form of energy and a technology for using that energy. The direct/diffused classifications refer to the form of energy. The direct/indirect classifications can refer to both the form and the technology. Separating the paragraphs makes sense.

The second paragraph could be about solar energy or solar power depending on who you talk to. There are too many proposals to follow by the way. Why are there so many proposals? The second proposal is messy and the third/fourth proposals are critiques rather than proposals. The current version seems fine.

As to the discussion of a name change I would also support this. Solar energy is the description this information is generally presented under.Soulfinger 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article needs to be discussed separately and at length. I think that User:Mrshaba is reconsidering changing to solar energy in favor of keeping solar power, stay tuned for more information. I have no preference as long as it does not affect the content or focus of the article. I think that solar power was chosen just so that it would be named the same as all of the other power articles, nuclear power, wind power, wave power, water power, etc. I do not see any need to split the topic into two articles as was done with nuclear energy, putting the physics in one article and the applications in the other. Applications of solar power already have their own articles, particularly photovoltaics, and all of the forms of solar energy are applications. The large number of options came about because of edits, 1 & 3 were stricken to create 4, so there are really only two new proposals, 2 and 4. 199.125.109.124 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot follow all the revisions. As far as changes go... It's like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, you'll go crazy trying to define quality but you know it when you see it. What I'd like to see is for the ideas and explanations to move on and evolve.

Let me make it simple then. See that section that is highlighted in green? That is the current consensus version. Anything other than that must be proposed here and agreed to by anyone who sees it and wishes to comment. Until that happens no changes may be made to the first paragraph in the article, other than to revert to the above green highlighted version. Is that clear enough? 199.125.109.134 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though you've hung out at this page since I proposed a name change and have been causing trouble ever since. The page has moved forward tremendously in this time at two steps forward and one step back. Section by section. Picture by picture. Speaking of pictures, Lumos3 asked for a picture of the technology in the lead. I found the satellite with the earth below. It's fabulous.

Marvelous. However put it where it belongs, in the section on solar power in outerspace, not in the lead. Solar power in remote locations can also be illustrated by many other photos, a space station is not the best to use to summarize them. 199.125.109.134 22:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I remain strongly in favor of changing the name to Solar Energy. I think the arguments for the change are much stronger than those for keeping solar power. Aside from Perlin, I think the third party poll supported a name change. The input from the few wikipedians that commented also supported a name change.Mrshaba 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Try to keep discussion in the proper location. However, Lumos3 said that the drawing showing sunshine falling on the earth was boring and that it looked like there was more available in the southern hemisphere, not that they wanted a picture of technology, if I am not mistaken. The only reason that image was put up temporarily was because the image of the sun was from the commons and the commons was broken, it has been restored now. What you really need to learn is that this is not your article, you do not own it. You need to let others contribute and listen to their suggestions, and discuss changes that are not agreed to here on the talk page and get consensus before you make them, so that you will not get mercilessly reverted. Please read WP:OWN. 199.125.109.134 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

~~5th proposal (Mrshaba's proposal):~~

Solar energy is energy from the sun. The primary forms of solar energy are heat and light. Sunlight and heat are transformed and absorbed by the environment in a multitude of ways. Some of these transformations result in renewable energy flows such as biomass, wind and waves. Effects such as the jet stream, the Gulf Stream and the water cycle are also the result of solar energy's absorption in the environment.

This paragraph does not exist in a vacuum. I removed references to traditional technology from this paragraph and placed them in the following paragraphs of the lead. My idea was to show that solar energy is both a form of energy and a technology. I wrote the first paragraph about solar energy as a form of energy and the following paragraphs about solar energy as a technology. I removed the "in widespread use" line because I think this forces the reader to think of solar energy as a source of electricity. Solar energy is many times more important as a source of energy for water heating, daylighting etc. These applications compete head on with conventional energy and win. I originally broke solar energy into primary and secondary forms and liked this classification but I decided to move all of these secondary forms into the energy from the sun section and give them more context. Note: the flow of the article follows the pattern of the lead. i.e. Solar energy as a form of energy is given a section followed by sections about solar energy as a technology.

Mrshaba 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please put new proposals at the end. Please do not implement them until there has been discussion and approval from other editors. 69.37.243.171 06:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This version looks remarkably similar to the 4th proposal. What we are looking for is for an uninvolved editor to make a proposal or comments. 199.125.109.31 10:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Restore consensus version by reverting last edit 17:42, 27 September 2007 66.122.72.227[5] This is not an IP edit war, it is a sockpuppet attack by User:Mrshaba to implement a version which clearly does not have consensus. 199.125.109.81 18:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus version. Who voted? Where? The version you have repeatedly put on the page is a smush of old versions that you have scissored together awkwardly. And since you brought it up, you are a permanent sockpuppet. Is it normal for someone who has contributed so little to a page be allowed to hold the lead hostage? Are there any watchers out there? Clue me in. This BS is not fun for me. Mrshaba 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The previous version is the consensus version. The editing process is propose, revert, discuss, reach consensus. If no consensus is reached the previous version is kept until a compromise is reached. And as to making it fun, just fix the above proposal so that everyone can agree and we can use it and move on. You have wasted countless hours on pointlessly pushing a new version that has no support. And no I am not a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet uses different accounts to hide their identity. Some of your edits indicate that you may have either forgotten to log in or got logged out unexpectedly, but other edits that you make while logged out seem to be done deliberately to hide your identity. Another user pointed out that there isn't much of a difference between the 2nd proposal above, and yours, the 4th proposal. All you have to do is incorporate the things that are important from the 2nd proposal into the 4th proposal, and if everyone likes it we are done. In the mean time you need to go back to the version marked "current version" above. And ditch the ridiculous images at the same time. 199.125.109.62 05:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the previous version the consensus version? Who says? Who agreed? What consensus? The so called consensus version is jumbled together and it doesn't jive with the rest of the lead. The difference between the 2nd and 4th version is the addition of the word flow. This distinguishes power from energy. The fifth version cuts to the chase and describes the topic in terms of energy. This article is about Solar energy. Solar energy is the big filing cabinet that all these topics are sorted in. Energy can be used to more easily compare both the forms and the technologies in this category. I've looked at your edits and they are largely commentary rather than content. You clearly know how to use wikipedia better than I do. Good for you. I've put the words on the page.

The reason why the other renewable energy topics are appropriately called Wind Power, Wave Power and Hydro power is that they all produce electricity. Solar power produces electricity too but solar energy covers much more than just electricity. Solar energy should be recognized as being special in this respect. Light, heat, chemical, electricity, architecture, environment etc. These things cannot easily be compared with any metric but energy is the best metric by which to compare them. This argument ties into how I wrote the lead. I've explained this repeatedly. What is so hard to understand? Again, is it normal for someone who has contributed so little to a page be allowed to hold the lead hostage? Are there any watchers out there? Clue me in. This BS is not fun for me. Mrshaba 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I am trying to do, is give you a clue about how to use Wikipedia. Be bold, make an edit, if it gets reverted do not just keep trying to force the issue. Discuss it and find a consensus compromise. I see a lot more different between the 2nd and 4th than just the addition of the word flow. I see that there is a focus on solar energy being renewable in 2 and not in 4. I see the unnecessary words transformed, multitude, and effects in 4. I see the unneeded word flow in 4, although not everyone agrees with me on that, and that point can be discussed. The main point is that you are putting the cart before the horse, you are deciding to change the name of the article, and are trying to write a new article about solar energy before there has been agreement to change the name. You need to realize that a lot of discussion needs to take place before a monumental change like that can be made, and getting hung up on four sentences at the beginning of the page has stopped all development of the page. Just chill out, put the old version back up, which is the only version anyone has supported, ask for unprotection of the page and we can move on with improving the article. 199.125.109.62 01:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Development on the page has carried on in parallel with all this. I asked for a name change almost two months ago. The page is cleaner and fuller now than it was then. You've been here the whole time watching. I've been doing.

Why is the previous version the consensus version? Who says? Who agreed? What consensus? Where is the discussion taking place? Again, is it normal for someone who has contributed so little to a page be allowed to hold the lead hostage? Are there any watchers out there? Clue me in. This BS is not fun for me. Mrshaba 02:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has been taking place here. Only one other person has commented and they said that "The second proposal is messy and the third/fourth proposals are critiques rather than proposals. The current version seems fine." No one other than you is "holding the lead hostage". You also had no objection to the current version (above) when it was introduced - you left it as is and made at least 20 other edits over the next three days before making any changes, including reverting other edits. That tells me that if you didn't like it you didn't not like it that much either. 199.125.109.62 03:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I made over 60 edits between the 15th and 18th. One of these edits pulled the references to secondary energy out of the first paragraph. I put this info in the Energy from the Sun section and expanded upon it. I put back a reference to Renewable Energy into the lead based on your suggestion. I also expanded on the Architecture and Lighting sections and rewrote the Solar chemical section during that time so I was busy. I've repeatedly stated my objections to your version during and after you made it. The paragraphs are broken up. The references to technology are in the second third and fourth paragraphs. The reference to solar power being in widespread use in remote locations and in space should be put in the paragraph about PV. This could still be done. The first paragraph is about Solar Energy as a form of energy. I think it makes sense to talk about solar energy as a form of energy. As was mentioned before:

Talking about Solar energy as a form of energy first and a technology second follows the overall flow of the article. The first paragraph could definately use some work but I think the content should be cohesive.

Whether or not you accept my definition of solar energy vs solar power, the paragraphs show a general trend of advancement of the technologies with time. It makes sense to put PV later rather than sooner. This logic seems obvious.

I'd really like some participation here. Lumos3? Itsmejudith? Corvus? SengKang? Mrshaba 05:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you call it my version? You wrote most of it. However it doesn't matter who wrote it. All that matters is that until someone makes a new proposal that everyone can agree on, it's the one that we are stuck with. I said at the beginning of this section that I don't like it any more than you do. The only way to get rid of it is to make a new proposal (here), wait for support, and if there are no objections, implement the new proposal. In the meantime you have no right to force your version on the rest of us, and needlessly cause the page to be protected against being edited. That's the wrong that needs to be righted first. Just revert the last revert [6], and wait until everyone comes to a new consensus before making any new changes to the first paragraph. 199.125.109.129 06:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but I do have a suggestion. Perhaps if you start with elementary physics and then supply the context. Power is the amount of work done by the energy during a particular time. Solar energy is radiated heat and light. For example (a proposal if someone can write it better):

6th proposal:

Solar energy is energy emitted by the Sun, primarily visible light and infrared radiation which we feel as heat. Solar energy reaching the Earth is transformed into kinetic energy by heating the atmosphere and oceans, into chemical energy from biological processes, and into heat energy by absorption. The effects of solar energy on the Earth are collectively called Solar Power. Wind and ocean currents, ice melting and evaporation, photosynthesis and warming of the planet and air are all examples of Solar Power. The term more commonly refers to the technology which utilizes any transformation of Solar Energy.

Wphamilton 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about reversing solar energy and solar power, since the name of the article is solar power, also I would like to see it emphasized that solar power is a renewable energy source. I would also prefer including the "also known as" sentence, but leaving that out we have (also taking out all the extra capitalization):

7th proposal:

Solar power uses energy emitted by the Sun, primarily visible light and infrared radiation which we feel as heat. Solar energy reaching the Earth is transformed into kinetic energy by heating the atmosphere and oceans, into chemical energy from biological processes, and into heat energy by absorption. The effects of solar energy on the Earth are collectively called solar power, which is a renewable energy source. Wind and ocean currents, ice melting and evaporation, photosynthesis and warming of the planet and air are all examples of solar power. The term more commonly refers to the technology which utilizes any transformation of solar energy.

199.125.109.41 01:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like Wphamilton's version. I think the also known as line can be moved to the following paragraph about technology. I agree that renewable energy could be mentioned. hmmm... Mrshaba 05:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to use "also known as" it has to be in the very first sentence, otherwise you fall into the trap of redefining your topic way down in the second paragraph. 199.125.109.124 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bazillionth Proposal

This intro is written as if the name of this article were solar energy. It's short but it hits everything that has been requested. The first line is amendable to, Solar power is the flow of energy from the sun and the third line is similarly amendable. I took the second line from the sun article and tweaked it a bit. This paragraph tries to stage solar energy as both a class of energy and a technology. I figure we can move the history stuff into a new History of Solar energy and fill it out ever so slightly.

8th proposal :

Solar energy is energy from the sun. This energy, in the form of heat and light, supports all life on Earth, drives the Earth's climate and weather and is predominately responsible for the class of resources collectively known as renewable energy. Solar energy (also known as solar power) also broadly describes technologies that utilize sunlight. These technologies are diverse, date back millennia and remain ~~an integral~~ a common part of daily life.

Mrshaba 07:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to discuss. It was written assuming that the name of the article had changed, which it has not. Can we agree on the 7th proposal? 199.125.109.43 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that both the 7th and 8th are improvements. Wphamilton 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The 7th proposal is too vague and while it encompasses absolutely everything that solar energy is it really has very little to do with what people mean when they say "solar power". The 8th proposal is much better with the exception of the last sentence which I would change to "This diverse group of technologies has been used throughout history and is use in both residential and industrial applications today." A solar power plant being an example of an industrial application (mass production of electricity) and a hot water heater being an example of residential use. Nailedtooth 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would make a minor suggestion to the last sentence. "This diverse group of technologies has been used throughout history and is currently used in both residential and industrial applications. Residential applications include hot water and photovoltaics while industrial applications include solar power plants." This has a parallel structure and a slightly more active wording. Mrshaba 02:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I never really intended for the last sentence of my post to be included, only the italicized part. However, it may be a good idea to include that information: "This diverse group of technologies has been used throughout history and is currently used in residential hot water systems and large scale electrical generation among other applications." Nailedtooth 04:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I realized your intention after I posted. Examples could be included or left to the page. It is a good suggestion. Mrshaba 05:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we are back to square one and still need a new proposal. In addition to not being intended to be used for solar power, the 8th has way too many superfluous words. Until a new consensus is reached we still need to revert to the last consensus wording, as what you call a "better version" is worse.[7] 199.125.109.41 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this. It's short compared to the others but I think it gives a previously uniformed reader a good general idea of what solar energy is:

9th proposal:

Solar energy is all the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun though generally it referes to the visible, ultraviolet and infrared light that supports most life on Earth and drives Earth's weather. Solar Power technology uses sunlight as an energy source and many renewable resources such as wind power and biomass power use solar energy indirectly.

Nailedtooth 22:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

10th proposal (Mrshaba):

Solar power (also known as solar energy) describes technologies that utilize sunlight. The applications are diverse and date back millennia. The Greeks, Native Americans and Chinese warmed their buildings by orienting them toward the sun. European farmers used elaborate field orientation and thermal mass to increase crop yields during the Little Ice Age. Modern solar technologies continue to harness the sun to provide water heating, daylighting and even flight.^[1]^[2]

In 1866, the French engineer Auguste Mouchout successfully powered a steam engine with sunlight. This is the first known example of a solar powered mechanical device. Over the next 50 years inventors such as John Ericsson, Charles Tellier and Frank Shuman developed solar powered devices for irrigation, refrigeration and locomotion. The progeny of these early developments are concentrating solar power plants.^[2]

The modern age of solar power arrived in 1954 when researchers at Bell Laboratories developed a solar cell capable of effectively converting light into electricity. This breakthrough marked a fundamental change in how power is generated. Since then solar cells efficiencies have improved from 6% to 15% with experimental cells reaching efficiencies over 40%. Prices on the other hand have fallen from $300 per watt to less than $3 per watt.^[3]

Solar energy is also energy from the sun. This energy, in the form of heat and light, supports all life on Earth, drives the Earth's climate and weather and is predominately responsible for the class of resources collectively known as renewable energy.

The utilization of solar energy and solar power spans from traditional technologies that provide food, heat and light to electricity which is uniquely modern. The diversity of form and long history of solar energy are manifest in a wide variety of applications. These include:

Heat (hot water, building heat, cooking, process heat)
Lighting (daylighting, hybrid lighting, daylight savings time)
Electricity generation (photovoltaics, heat engines)
Transportation (solar car, solar plane, solar boat)
Desalination
Biomass (wood, biofuel)
Clothes drying

While I like the "also" in the first sentence, this proposal needs to be discussed before being implemented. 199.125.109.41 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Renewable energy should be a link, and the words "the class of resources collectively known as" are unnecessary. Make those two changes (despite the fact that it is too long), and this suggestion is a big improvement. Please note that what I mean by make those two changes, are make them here so that others can review, not make them to the article. The list of applications should probably be incorporated into the lead paragraphs instead of appearing as a list. One thing that I use this article for is a way to find the photovoltaics article, so it would be nice to make sure that however the lead paragraphs are worded, it is easy to find the link to photovoltaics. 199.125.109.41 15:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I get it. You get locked out of articles so you want the discussion here. I see said the blind man. Use the page to write on. That's what it's for. The goal of WP is to write a great encyclopedia, not to discuss it. But you're right, renewable energy should be linked. And yes photovoltaics should be mentioned in the part about the modern age of solar. It takes seconds. I don't think "the class of resources collectively known as" is unnecessary. Let it sit for a while... To long to short to wordy to superfluous. Quit critiquing the work I've done and do some of your own. Work on the architecture section and try to make a paragraph out of the bullets. Do the same on the solar cooker section. Improve the desalination section. Add some new material. Take your pick. Quit changing the pictures to boring pictures. You're the space guy. You should like the satellite picture. And the sunspot picture is more expressive than that boring yellow guy we've had so quit changing it too. These pictures bring the page to life. I encourage you to bring the page to life. Quit killing it and do some good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No you don't get it one bit. You are simply trying to create a pointless edit war because you refuse to discuss disputed edits. And no your photos have no support. And please keep discussions in the proper section. And definitely don't try to tell another editor what section or article to work on. 199.125.109.41 16:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we've discussed the paragraphs quite enough. I moved things around. There was a lot of compromise done. I don't think the concensus process is working so I'll kick it up to the next step. 131.89.192.112 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on consensus. You can't change that. If you want to move things around, move them around here, and give everyone a chance to see your proposal. I haven't said anything was that much wrong with it, but I have said that you can't implement it until you follow the process and let others comment. If no one comments in three days, feel free to implement it with the two changes that I proposed. Your alternative, if you don't like those two changes, is not using it at all. It's your choice. 199.125.109.129 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As to your recent changes (proposal 11):

The modern age of solar power arrived in 1954 when researchers at Bell Laboratories developed a photovoltaic cell capable of effectively converting light into electricity. This breakthrough marked a fundamental change in how power is generated. Since then solar cells efficiencies have improved from 6% to 15% with experimental cells reaching efficiencies over 40%. Prices on the other hand have fallen from $300 per watt to less than $3 per watt.^[5]

Solar energy is also energy from the sun. This energy, in the form of heat and light, supports all life on Earth, drives the Earth's climate and weather and is predominately responsible for the class of resources collectively known as renewable energy.

Heat (hot water, building heat, cooking, process heat)
Lighting (daylighting, hybrid lighting, daylight savings time)
Electricity generation (photovoltaics, heat engines)
Transportation (solar car, solar plane, solar boat)
Desalination
Biomass (wood, biofuel)
Clothes drying

The same comments above apply, minus the bit about the two links (renewable energy and photovoltaics), although in addition, there is no need to make solar energy bold twice in the lead. But don't even think of changing that in the article. Change it here. If you can get even two editors to say they like your version, I'll use it myself, and close out the RFC. Until then you really have to wait and give everyone the opportunity to agree or disagree. 199.125.109.129 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

12th proposal (Nailedtooth):

Solar power (also known as solar energy) describes technologies that utilize sunlight as an energy source. Solar energy can also refer to all the electromagnetic radiation the sun emits though generally it refers to the visible, ultraviolet and infrared light that supports most life on Earth and drives Earth's weather. Light from the sun - solar energy - is predominantly responsible for the class of resources collectively known as renewable energy.

Solar energy has been used by many peoples throughout history to provide heat and light. The Greeks, Native Americans and Chinese orientated their buildings toward the sun to heat them and European farmers used elaborate field orientation and thermal mass to increase crop yields during the Little Ice Age. ^[6]^[2]

Modern development of solar energy to provide mechanical force began in the mid 19th century. In 1866, the French engineer Auguste Mouchout successfully powered a steam engine with sunlight, the first known example of a solar powered mechanical device. Over the next 50 years inventors such as John Ericsson, Charles Tellier and Frank Shuman developed solar powered devices for irrigation, refrigeration and locomotion. Concentrating solar power plants are the result of these early developments.^[2]

In 1954 researchers at Bell Laboratories developed a solar cell capable of effectively converting light into electricity. Since then solar cells efficiencies have improved from 6% to 15% with experimental cells reaching efficiencies over 40% while the price of solar power has fallen from $300 per watt to less than $3 per watt.^[7]

The diversity and history of solar energy are manifest in a wide variety of applications, including:

Heat (hot water, building heat, cooking, process heat)
Lighting (daylighting, hybrid lighting, daylight savings time)
Electricity generation (photovoltaics, heat engines)
Transportation (solar car, solar plane, solar boat)
Desalination
Biomass (wood, biofuel)
Clothes drying

This proposal: I removed much of the superfluous or redundant language and reorganize the paragraphs so similar pieces of information are adjacent. I changed or added some sentences to improve flow and reduce choppiness. I added technical details where appropriate.Nailedtooth 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Make solar energy bold - "also known as solar energy", change "solar plane" to a link to [[NASA Pathfinder]] instead of listing flight separately, and I would support this version. 199.125.109.129 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I made those alterations in the proposal, I don't think they're major enough to warrant a new proposal. Nailedtooth 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Solar energy needs a separate definition as a form of energy. You guys are not getting it. Solar energy is a type of energy. Give this point it's own paragraph. There are already two pages dedicated to solar energy as a form of energy. The insolation page and the solar radiation page. Give this point a separate paragraph away from the stuff about technology. Solar energy as a type of enegy is not synonymous with solar power. Wood is not a source of solar power. Fossil fuels are not a source of solar power. These are indirect forms of solar energy. You are mixing them up. Stop mixing them up. Diffused and direct do not describe solar power. They describe solar energy, solar radiation, or insolation. If you want to use synonyms use those. Solar energy (also knows as solar radiation or insolation) is not a technology... Mrshaba 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not "getting" it? Solar energy is not a type of energy, nor is it a form of energy, it is a source of energy. Where do you see anything about wood or fossil fuels being a source of solar power? Is solar energy the source for both of them? Yes. Solar is also the source for all renewable energy other than geothermal and tidal. "The class of resources collectively known as" is unnecessarily verbose, but that's not a sticking point. I think the above is well worded and should be used. If you don't like it you are free to make your own proposal, but since it has been three weeks now with no good proposal other than this one, well I think we should just use it. 199.125.109.38 22:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

13th proposal (Nailedtooth):

Solar power (also known as solar energy) describes technologies that utilize sunlight as an energy source and such technology is predominantly responsible for the class of resources collectively known as renewable energy. Solar energy can also refer to insolation or solar radiation.

Solar power technology has been used by many peoples throughout history to provide heat and light. The Greeks, Native Americans and Chinese orientated their buildings toward the sun to heat them and European farmers used elaborate field orientation and thermal mass to increase crop yields during the Little Ice Age. ^[8]^[2]

Modern development of solar power to provide mechanical force began in the mid 19th century. In 1866, the French engineer Auguste Mouchout successfully powered a steam engine with sunlight, the first known example of a solar powered mechanical device. Over the next 50 years inventors such as John Ericsson, Charles Tellier and Frank Shuman developed solar powered devices for irrigation, refrigeration and locomotion. Concentrating solar power plants are the result of these early developments.^[2]

The diversity and history of solar power are manifest in a wide variety of applications, including:

Heat (hot water, building heat, cooking, process heat)
Lighting (daylighting, hybrid lighting, daylight savings time)
Electricity generation (photovoltaics, heat engines)
Transportation (solar car, solar plane, solar boat)
Desalination
Biomass (wood, biofuel)
Clothes drying

You seemed to have a point that this article is about the technology and not insolation, so I removed most of the first paragraph to reflect this. I linked to insolation instead. Please reread the 12th proposal. I think it has been clarified quite a bit. Nailedtooth 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Renamed to the 13th, as massive changes were made. The previous version, the 12th, was much better. 199.125.109.38 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is that #1 solar energy is a class of energy. #2 solar energy is a class of technologies. The way to clarify this is to rename the article. I'm trying to get this done and it looks like there's some support for this idea. I think you should describe the class of energy first. That's the way I've commonly seen the narrative done. That's part of the reason why we've always had a picture of the Sun at the top of the page. It's really very obvious. Starting with Solar energy helps the reader get into the subject. You don't mention power at all because it doesn't belong. If you don't explain solar energy as a form of energy first the reader isn't ever going to recognize the differences between solar energy and solar power. They aren't going to recognize that the classifications apply sometimes to the class of energy and sometimes to the class of technology. This topic hasn't seen much attention for about a year. I wrote the new intro and immediately the anonymous one started screwing around. Within a week the intro was used in a news article so apparently it wasn't all that bad. You've made some changes to the into. Some I like. Some I don't think work. But I'm getting rather tired of all this. I think my work on the page would have been complete weeks ago and we'd be at GA status but for all this. It's hard to believe anything ever gets done on WP but I think the main problem is that this article is backwater. It hasn't been worked on in about a year so I can't expect a big audience of collaboration. That's why this BS with the anonymous guy has kept up. I laugh at it sometimes and think am I speaking Martian here? Don't people have an opinion about the content and the pictures in the lead? Why is some guy who hasn't done anything on the page allowed to play with the lead? I've tried to compromise but that path isn't working. Now the needling has moved onto the second paragraph. What a joy. I don't see this proposal process getting anywhere without a decision on the name of the page. I'll try referring it to a request for comment from here. Mrshaba 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with renaming the article. You said yourself there are numerous articles on 'energy from the sun' already and cited insolation and solar radiation as examples. Solar power would then seem to adequately refer to the class of technology that derives its energy from isolation and solar radiation. Renaming it to "solar energy" makes it more ambiguous rather than clarifying the issue.

Describing the class of energy first is redundant when there are other pages that already do so in more detail than we could hope to accomplish here. The reader doesn't need to know about solar energy to know about solar power technology. Knowing that sunlight is the source of the energy is enough to get them 'into the subject'.

Anonymous started screwing around because you started screwing around. That's the nature of wikipedia. If you aren't willing to deal with a can of worms, don't open one up. Also, anyone can edit. Just because someone has never edited a article before that doesn't mean they have no right to. A long time editor of an article has no more right to it than a newbie.

Also: Paragraphs, please use them.

Here is my vote for the 12th version. So far we have 2 votes for the 12th proposal. Nailedtooth 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are there so many more books written, hits on google and definitions of solar energy on google than solar power? Mrshaba 23:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. This section is about the lead, not about the name of the article. As a refresher on "forms of energy", here is a list, from the article energy:

5 Forms of energy

   * 5.1 Potential energy
         o 5.1.1 Gravitational potential energy
         o 5.1.2 Elastic potential energy
   * 5.2 Kinetic energy
   * 5.3 Thermal energy
   * 5.4 Electrical energy
         o 5.4.1 Magnetic energy
         o 5.4.2 Electromagnetic fields
   * 5.5 Chemical energy
   * 5.6 Nuclear energy

199.125.109.38 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Solar energy is heat (thermal energy) and light (electromagnetic enegy) from the sun. There are about 20 definitions on google. Do you agree? Mrshaba 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the 12th version should be used. What does google have to do with anything? Last I checked we are 150 million km from the Sun, so no matter how much thermal energy the sun has it has to get here somehow. I also agree that you need to revert to this version [8] until a new consensus is reached. 199.125.109.38 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You are avoiding simple questions. Solar energy is heat (thermal energy) and light (electromagnetic enegy) from the sun. Do you agree with this definition. Why should "solar energy" which gets nearly twice as many hits on google and 6 times more books written about it than "solar power" be redirected to solar power? I deconstructed your argument completely. I gave you the time. Anon, you are the main opponent of everything I'm trying to do on the page. Absolutely everything. The pictures, the lead, the name. I've written most of the page and now you are blocking me. Answer the questions. Mrshaba 01:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

14th

Solar energy (also knows as solar radiation or insolation) is energy from the sun. This energy, in the form of heat and light, supports all life on Earth, drives the Earth's climate and weather and is predominately responsible for the class of resources collectively known as renewable energy.

Solar energy also broadly describes technologies that utilize sunlight. The applications are diverse and date back millennia. The Greeks, Native Americans and Chinese warmed their buildings by orienting them toward the sun. In Europe, farmers used elaborate field orientation and thermal mass to increase crop yields during the Little Ice Age. Modern solar technologies continue to harness the sun to provide water heating, daylighting and even flight.

Solar power generally describes technologies that convert sunlight into electricity and in some cases thermal or mechanical power. In 1866, the French engineer Auguste Mouchout successfully powered a steam engine with sunlight. This is the first known example of a solar powered mechanical device. Over the next 50 years inventors such as John Ericsson, Charles Tellier and Frank Shuman developed solar powered devices for irrigation, refrigeration and locomotion. The progeny of these early developments are concentrating solar power plants.

You know what? This is going nowhere. In three weeks no one has come along with anything that you like. So I am just going to close the RFC, put up the above and rip it to shreds. I'm also going to take out your images, because there has been no support for them. 199.125.109.38 02:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete from to do list:

Rewrite lead, see WP:LEAD

199.125.109.38 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The process indeed went nowhere. I am going to restore the former info which proceeded the initiation of the RFC. The above RFC will be archived and another RFC will be initiated followed by a proper review. As SmokeyJoe said, the method used above was not correct. You out gunned me with your superior knowledge of WP but you never presented superior information. Additionally, I do not believe you are acting in good faith. You do not appear to have a strong grasp of the information presented on the page. Your edits have been removed by multiple people. I do not think you have tried to compromise or collaborate. I am seeking adoption which should give me the WP tools I need to catch up to you legislatively and going forward I will continue to aggressively pursue the maintenance and improvement of this page. Mrshaba 04:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is the versions you keep coming up with are hideously verbose, choppy and have a poor flow of idea, yet you still insist on keeping them and are totally resistant to other versions. There is precious little information in the 14th proposal has that the 12th or 13th don't. I attempted to pare down what you had written in the 12th but it seems you have all but ignored my edits with your latest proposal. The 14th proposal is nothing but the 11th with a opening paragraph rewritten to look something like the 13th. It is inferior to both the 12th and 13th. Nailedtooth 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I threw up my arms in disgust and just used the 14th as a starting point for whatever I could make of it. 199.125.109.38 05:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If I think Anon and Naildtooth are the same person how is this dealt with? Mrshaba 04:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do then get over it because they aren't. Hallelujah for your finally recognizing that you need to seek a mentor. My first recommendation would be to not even look at this page for at least a month. Let someone else whack it about for a while. Which by the way won't be me. 199.125.109.38 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so rude? From your opening salvo of "How do I put this politely" to your "Hallelujah"s you've been a consistent jerk. I have not gone out of my way to attack you as a person but I have consistently attacked your content. My content spans over the whole page but you've concentrated on the lead and some of my pictures. You've reinstated pictures in the lead which you've formerly disparaged on the page. It makes no sense. I'm trying to make sense but I don't think you are. Your edits consistency disparage and infuriate. You've angered me tremendously. Go away. You are not acting like a good Samaritan. Mrshaba 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it seems to me that the some of the later re-writes suffer from lack of focus. The 14th try is again an improvement, with good simple science as the general preamble followed by a brief history. It's a good approach. No need for heated arguments. Wphamilton 13:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The 14th version is the version I had up when this process began. Imagine if you will how frustrating it is to have to wade through all this. Mrshaba 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just plain silliness. This article is solar power not solar insolation, not solar radiation, and not solar energy, although it covers the topic of solar energy along with solar power. My version [9], although somehow the references got trashed, was an attempt to bring it up to date, but it is important to respect the contributions of other editors and not just blindly going back to an old version. You now have two no votes vs. one yes vote. 199.125.109.27 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the content. Solar energy is the resource. Solar power is the technology. The two are confused. They need to be described progressively. Mrshaba 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives