Solar energy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to get some perspective on the merits and demerits of the Solar energy page. Is the page too long? Is the material balanced and interesting? Anything missing? I'd also like opinions on the quality of the pictures and their captions. This has been a long term problem so please be blunt. Which ones are good and which ones are bad? I'm currently working through minor revisions in the Distillation, Process heat, PV and HVAC sections. I'd like to bring this group up to the level of the Solar lighting, Architecture, Agriculture and Water heating sections which I think are well written.

Thanks, Mrshaba (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bot comments

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

N/A Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all accounted for. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Need help with this one. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bot is seeing cases where percentages are used. i.e. "In the 20th century artificial lighting became the main source of interior illumination and today approximately 22% (8.6 EJ) of the electricity used in the United States is for lighting." I think the few distance conversions on the page are correct. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the headings seem appropriate. Alternate suggestions welcome. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slimmed down the ToC about 20% but the bot still asks for a shorter ToC. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs the attention of an experienced copy-editor familiar with the dates and numbers section of the MoS to clear up some of the issues raised by the bot. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

Interesting article which is fairly well done (and from which I learned a lot). Here are some suggestions for improvement:

We currently have a prototype lead that mentions most of the technologies page. Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the bot PR suggestions but there are a few suggestions that I have not been able to implement. Is there a way to highlight every example where the bot sees a problem? Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good link. Do you think the picture on the right provides context? Would this work: "Earth continuously receives 174 PW of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere (See picture at right)." Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. I'm hoping for a group copy-edit to flush out the remaining need for refs. Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Moved the short paragraphs onto the talk page for expansion. Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one or two of these and plan to convert the list in the Deployment section into text. I don't see any problems with the list in the Energy from the Sun section for now. Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trough and power towers often have integrated storage or are hybridized with a natural gas turbines so the electricity is considered dispatchable. The CSP technologies are novel but not experimental per se. Schematic gone. Captions hopefully improved. Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps - thanks for your peer review of Tungsten (I normally ask that others review an article, but you have). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into getting some assistance from the energy group. Help seems likely. Thanks for your review. Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JMiall's comments

A quick scan through the intro (without properly reading the rest of the article):

The intro is being rework to provide a summary of the page. Current versions are volatile. I might bother you for a review of the intro when things settle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intro has been updated.  Done Mrshaba (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As said above current versions of the intro are volatile but this is being addressed. The first bit of the intro has been toned down and information moved into the Energy from the Sun section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intro is more of a summary of the page now. Mrshaba (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
The Pueblos purposefully oriented their buildings to the south as far as I can tell. Cave dwellers do too interestingly enough. Regardless of this, I've pulled these examples out of the intro and concentrated on the Greek and Chinese examples that have better sources and show more developed solar planning at city scales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this info from the intro. Mrshaba (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Will do throughout the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed refs from intro and added links. Mrshaba (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

a few more points:

Here was the original quote: "Homes were designed according to the cosmology that pervaded all aspects of Chinese culture. The south was associated with summer and warmth, the north with winter and cold. South was therefore the direction of health, and the preferred orientation of buildings." I think cosmology is the correct word because the practice of solar orientation has a rational basis. Cosmology can cover both the quantitative study of the universe and some voodoo whereas astrology is all voodoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original quote: "For almost a thousand years after the Fall of Rome, European architects virtually ignored the principles of solar orientation. The Classical writings on solar architecture of Socrates, Aristotle, Vitruvius and others fell into disuse." See also: Decline of the Roman Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... It's a good quote but you're right... I put it there knowing it could be questionable... You're second opinion on this seals the quotes fate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Hmmm... We'll have to take that to the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It now reads compact proportion (small surface area to volume ratio). Added links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Easy fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... The info in the paragraph draws on two sources and they alternate. The reffing will continue to be reviewed and streamlined throughout the page. Mrshaba (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point and I've been trying to figure out a way to emphasize that these technologies do not necessarily involve capturing as much sunlight as possible but rather controlling the capture of sunlight. To me, "optimize" does not necessarily mean capturing as much as possible so I figured it was technically correct. My wording was influenced by this report: Optimizing tree spacing and row orientation for forage production in silvopastoral systems: Insights from a spatially-explicit light capture model. [1] I think a possible solution would be to replace the quote in the types of technologies section with a blurb that emphasizes the point about how optimizing collection refers to controlling the capture of sunlight rather than maximizing its capture. Examples include thermal mass, shading, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the information as required but the sections generally try to use specific examples. The greenhouse in Arizona is an example of controlling an extreme environment but perhaps an example of greenhouse use in a northern latitude would be a better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I hadn't stopped to think what the climate of Arizona was like. Maybe to be clearer to a worldwide audience the 2 sentences could be combined with a 'for example'? JMiall 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and some more...

Moved to bottom of daylighting section.  Done
Daylighting saves on AC because it replaces conventional lights that produce a lot of heat. Should I mention this about lights? I've tried to cover the heating side in the architecture and HVAC sections. I changed the wording to: These systems directly offset energy use by replacing artificial lighting and indirectly offset energy use by reducing the need for air-conditioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's only a secondary effect that reducing the need for lights during the day reduces the need for AC. That sort of detail belongs in the daylighting article, not in this article. The entire explanation "These systems directly offset energy use by replacing artificial lighting and indirectly offset energy use by reducing the need for air-conditioning" is unnecessary. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fibers have an relatively high extinction coefficient as I remember. 50% was a simple round number for single story buildings but I'd have to review. "The results of this evaluation suggest that light losses in the proposed lighting system will be approximately 50% for a single-story application and an additional 15-20% for second-story applications. These loss factors take into account losses attributed to the primary mirror, SOE, large-core optical fibers, luminaires, and preliminary estimates for debris build-up and aging of the various optical components." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably end up making that sentence more specific with a percentage breakdown and add a ref then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I think it can be considered a technology in the broad sense because we are consciously altering our behavior to use more sunlight. There is also an demand side energy savings associated with DST and many countries switched over to DST because of wars or in reaction to the Energy crises in the 1970s. I tried to keep the blurb short though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been brought up a few times. Yep... I think I'll try to condense the storage section to highlight methods of storage without associated details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed several uses of 'currently' from the page and will avoid this type of phrasing in the future. I checked with Scheffler and the crematorium is still currently under construction. I can update the blurb when operational details become available. Mrshaba (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Good deal, that is the aim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talkcontribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. JMiall 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tremendous help. These are good comments. Exactly what I wished the review to produce. The PV and DDE sections are currently under construction. The plan is to, as you say, talk about favored technologies and the time periods of deployment. Thank you. Mrshaba (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]