Solar energy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

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.

• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

N/A Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 grams, use 2 grams, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 grams.^[?]

Nearly all accounted for. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]

Need help with this one. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is . KG.

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]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]

In this case the headings seem appropriate. Alternate suggestions welcome. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]

Slimmed down the ToC about 20% but the bot still asks for a shorter ToC. Mrshaba (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Done
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?] Done
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

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:

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is that every header in the article should be in the lead in some way, even if it is just a word or phrase. See WP:LEAD

We currently have a prototype lead that mentions most of the technologies page. Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The semi-automated peer review has some good suggestions - several of them could be solved by using ((convert)) - I just checked and see it is used in some places, so perhaps it does not work for energy?

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]

• A model article is often useful for ideas, examples - Renewable energy in Scotland is an FA and may be a useful model.

• Provide context for the reader - perhaps add here When it meets the atmosphere, 6% of the insolation is reflected and 16% is absorbed. that the other 78% is transmitted (at least initially). See WP:PCR

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]

• Encyclopedic tone would avoid first person (such as All the food we eat, wood we build with, and fossil fuels we use are products of photosynthesis.[10]) and second person (If you want to light a 100 Watt bulb continuously you will need a battery and 500 Watts of solar panels.) This last one could be something like To light a 100 Watt bulb continuously, a battery and 500 Watts of solar panels are needed. Done

• While the article is fairly well cited, there are some places that need references. For example, the 100 Watt bulb example above, or By contrast, typical solar water heating systems operating at 60% efficiency will deliver 4.85 to 14.5 MJ/m²/day. or the last four sentences on greenhouses. Every statistic needs a reference.

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]

• Per WP:MOS#Images do not set pixel widths beyond "thumb" for images so as to allow reader preferences to take over. Some wide images like Image:CSP schematics2.PNG are OK to set a size for. Vertical images can have "vertical" to make them smaller. Done

• There are several very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be either combined with other paragraphs, or perhaps expanded. As it is, they interfere with the flow of the article. Done

Agreed. Moved the short paragraphs onto the talk page for expansion. Mrshaba (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several places that have bullet point lists - these are generally frowned on and should be made text if possible.

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]

• I think the images are generally good. Specific ones that seem excessive are as follows.
  • I would choose one of either Image:SolarPowerPlantSerpa.jpg (at the scale shown the arrays in the background are unclear) or Image:Solar panels on house roof.jpg (I like the space station one and would keep it).

• • I would also probably get rid of Image:CSP schematics2.PNG and just use the three actual photos that are near it in the article, perhaps making the captions slightly clearer that these are the three possibilities and perhaps moving one of these down into Experimental solar power (as these are all kind of experimental, right?)  Done

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]

• The article seems a bit long, but I am not an expert and am not sure what could be trimmed. Perhaps ask at a relevant WikiProject?

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):

• 'Solar energy is energy from the Sun in the form of heat and light.' - is this dumbing down too much? Surely all electromagnetic radiation from the sun should be mentioned and you could argue that the particles the sun spits out are an energy source. Even if 'heat and light' is used in the 1st sentence can we get more technically correct for the 3rd please.

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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro has been updated.  Done Mrshaba (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is not actually about 'Solar Energy' as desribed by the first bit of intro, it is about 'The use of solar energy as an energy source on earth'.

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 (talk • contribs) 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]

• 'time of the early Greeks, Native Americans and Chinese' - the time of the early Greeks is very different from 1200AD mentioned in one of the refs. Did the Pueblo people do this deliberately though or was that just the way the cliffs faced? Also I'm pretty certain that people lived in S facing caves way back into prehistory! Did civilizations before the Greeks and Chinese not orient their buildings southwards then? Plus where does this information appear in the rest of the article?

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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this info from the intro. Mrshaba (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Link many more terms in the intro passive design, Sustainable architecture, climate, wave power, wind power, hydroelectricity, biomass, Passive solar lighting etc etc.
• Personally I would remove the referencing in the intro, I don't imagine the 2 cited bits are particularly controversial so provided they appear later in the article they can be cited there. JMiall₰ 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do throughout the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 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:

• 'cosmological traditions' - should this be astrological?

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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• should 'Fall of Rome' have the initial capital?

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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• types of technologies section - I quite like the quote but it is quite an essayish way to start an article.

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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• given 'only primary resource applications are discussed here' it is odd that the Crookes radiometer gets a mention given that 'no practical application has been found for this device'

Hmmm... We'll have to take that to the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• more explanation for 'compact proportion' and links for Thermal mass, heat capacity

OK. It now reads compact proportion (small surface area to volume ratio). Added links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• there are 3 refs in a row (#26) to the same place. 1 at the end of the paragraph should do

Easy fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 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]

• 'Agriculture inherently seeks to optimize the capture of solar energy' - not all agriculture. some plants don't like direct sunlight for example, shepherds may take their sheep to a grassy area without doing anything to cut down trees to make the area larger.

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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'One of the world's largest greenhouse complexes in Willcox, Arizona grows 106 ha of tomatoes and cucumbers year-round' - this is quite specific for a 1 paragraph overview of greenhouses JMiall₰ 12:55, 21 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 (talk • contribs) 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...

• The amount of energy that daylighting can save is mentioned before the description of what daylighting is

Moved to bottom of daylighting section.  Done

• 'and indirectly offset energy use by reducing cooling loads' - I assume cooling load refers to the amount of air conditioning needed? In a cold climate it may instead reduce the amount of heating needed.

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 (talk • contribs) 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]

• 'In single-story applications, these systems are able to transmit 50% of the direct sunlight received' - I assume the mirrors are on the roof? If so how is the number of stories important, optical fibres can be very low loss over short distances? Or is just that x% hits the roof and y% the walls in a 1 story building and the amounts are different in a 2 story?

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 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'The most common types of solar water heaters are batch systems, flat plate collectors and evacuated tube collectors' - is there a ref for this?  Done

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 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Daylight Saving Time paragraph seems to be positioned a little awkwardly. It is only partly related to solar lighting

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 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Thermal and electrical storage section also seems a little odd to me, rather liked all the storage systems have been jammed together. I might suggest putting the battery/grid part in the PV section and leaving a Thermal Storage section.

• 'Batteries used in off-grid applications should be sized for three to five days of capacity and should limit depth of discharge to 50% to minimize cycling and prolong battery life' - looking at the ref it looks like this comment only applies to lead acid batteries. It may not apply to other types.

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 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Watch out for terms like 'currently' which don't date well

OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 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]

• I haven't got time to read the many articles which are given as main articles by the various sections to see if the sections accurately introduce or summarize them but overall I would say that the article does a good job of introducing the whole area.

Good deal, that is the aim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshaba (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the 'Development, deployment and economics' section is probably too small and in an article on Solar Power I would expect to find more about the levels of deployment, favoured technologies at different times, construction costs compared to electricity costs etc

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]