Jump to content

Talk:Solar cell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,312 edits
m Signing comment by 95.33.68.172 - "→Environmental aspects: "
Accidental Revert Undid revision 1247883932 by Cooldudeseven7 (talk)
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
| topic = engtech
| topic = engtech
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Technology|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=High}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Energy|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Electronics|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Electronics|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Technology}}
{{WikiProject Technology|class=B|importance=Mid| b1 = y| b2 = y | b3 = y | b4 = y | b5 = y | b6 = y}}
{{WikiProject Environment |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Electrical engineering|class=B|importance=mid}}}}
{{WikiProject Electrical engineering|importance=mid}}
}}
{{split article|from=Solar cell|to=Solar cell efficiency|diff=|date=23 October 2010}}
{{split article|from=Solar cell|to=Solar cell efficiency|diff=|date=23 October 2010}}
<!-- article was nominated for GAN in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGood_articles&diff=34164972&oldid=34163193 -->
<!-- article was nominated for GAN in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGood_articles&diff=34164972&oldid=34163193 -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
{{energy portal fact}}
<!--
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=30|dounreplied=yes
|archiveheader =
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|counter = 6
|minthreadsleft = 6
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Solar cell/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Solar cell/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}} Doesn't work, someone with more bot-fu than I must fix -->
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}

== Citations needed ==

it must be noted that large tracts of this article are entirely uncited. This is particularly true in the highly mathematical and physics-based sections, as well as some of the more commercial and recent-ist claims. Surely, so much of this article was not written merely from memory or guesswork? This could by a symptom of serious problems in the article and needs addressing.

Apart from the lead, which may be considered an exception, particularly uncited sections are:
# [[Solar cell#Applications and implementations]]
# [[Solar cell#Simple explanation]]
# [[Solar cell#Photogeneration of charge carriers]]
# [[Solar cell#Charge carrier separation]]
# [[Solar cell#The p-n junction]]
# [[Solar cell#Connection to an external load]]
# [[Solar cell#Characteristic equation]]
# [[Solar cell#Open-circuit voltage and short-circuit current]]
# [[Solar cell#Cell temperature]]
# [[Solar cell#Series resistance]]
# [[Solar cell#Shunt resistance]]
# [[Solar cell#Reverse saturation current]]
# [[Solar cell#Ideality factor]]
# [[Solar cell#Quantum efficiency]]
# [[Solar cell#Maximum-power point]]
# [[Solar cell#Comparison of energy conversion efficiencies]]
# [[Solar cell#Light-absorbing materials]]
# [[Solar cell#Bulk]]
# [[Solar cell#Crystalline silicon]]
# [[Solar cell#Thin films]]
# [[Solar cell#Light-absorbing dyes (DSSC)]]
# [[Solar cell#Nanocrystalline solar cells]]
# [[Solar cell#Silicon solar cell device manufacture]]
# [[Solar cell#Lifespan]]
# [[Solar cell#Low-cost solar cell]]
# [[Solar cell#Current research on materials and devices]]
# [[Solar cell#Metamorphic multijunction solar cell]]
# [[Solar cell#Polymer processing]]
# [[Solar cell#Transparent conductors]]
# [[Solar cell#Infrared solar cells]]
# [[Solar cell#Validation, certification and manufacturers]]
# [[Solar cell#United States]]

That is a huge list of largely uncited sections for one article! --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 17:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for a "Tandem Solar Cells" citation. This needs to be reviewed before inclusion IMO.
http://plasticphotovoltaics.org/lc/lc-polymersolarcells/lc-tandem.html
[[Special:Contributions/98.125.209.52|98.125.209.52]] ([[User talk:98.125.209.52|talk]]) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)



:Along the same lines, the Lifespan section previous cited http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Electrical-Electronics/pv-systems#warranty, which did not support any of the claims made in the Lifespan section. As a result, I removed the irrelevant citation, and added "Citation needed". --64.31.145.99 1 November 2011 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.31.145.99|64.31.145.99]] ([[User talk:64.31.145.99|talk]]) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Geography and sunlight ==

I think it would be useful if the article introduced the reader to the concept of the relationships between the amount of sunlight incident upon a solar cell and geographic location (latitude, amount of sunlight available, time of year, etc). This aspect seems relevant insofar as one might try to access this article in an attempt to evaluate the feasibility of a system utilizing solar cells (panels/modules/arrays etc). It is not necessary to cover this aspect entirely - the article might point the reader to other resources that might adequately answer these questions.
[[Special:Contributions/24.222.87.186|24.222.87.186]] ([[User talk:24.222.87.186|talk]]) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The relation of sunlight and geography is covered in [[Solar radiation]] and [[Insolation]]. <font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 00:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

== Warranty example ==

To source information about [[Solar cell#Lifespan|panel warranties]] we have used an actual example but some of us have been concerned about accessing this as an external link to a commercial web site. Does anyone have any ideas about how to source warranty information without sending readers to a commercial site? <font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:Answered my own question ([http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Electrical-Electronics/pv-systems#warranty http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Electrical-Electronics/pv-systems#warranty]), but if anyone can improve on that, please do. <font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

== Link to place in article ==

I am not sure, that this link may be placed directly to main article.

http://drugoi.livejournal.com/3411895.html
An article about producing solar cells for Russian space ships.
[[User:Sergei Frolov|Sergei Frolov]] ([[User talk:Sergei Frolov|talk]]) 10:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

== Cost ==

The "Cost" section in the article about solar-cells contains an interesting discussion, but no real information about cost. The section should contain information about actual cost, in dollars, of solar cells currently available for purchase.

The article states that cost for solar cells is given per unit of peak electrical power, but it seems to me that cost per square meter would be a much more useful parameter.
[[User:DougGeo|DougGeo]] ([[User talk:DougGeo|talk]]) 21:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

:Cost per unit of peak output is the standard way of talking about cost in the PV industry. The reason for this is that ultimately, buyers of solar cells are interested in how much ''energy'' they will get for their dollar, not the number of cells or the number of square meters, and in this context, peak power is a reasonably good and easy-to-understand proxy for energy (there is a debate about whether this can be improved, but that is for another discussion). As a result, low-efficiency solar cells tend to cost much less to manufacture and sell (per cell and per square meter) than high-efficiency ones, but they are roughly equal on a cost-per-peak-watt basis. Therefore, the cost per-cell or per-square-meter is ''strongly'' dependent upon cell efficiency, while the cost per peak watt is independent (or, more accurately, only weakly dependent) upon cell efficiency.--[[User:Squirmymcphee|Squirmymcphee]] ([[User talk:Squirmymcphee|talk]]) 16:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

== Three generations ==

Thin films, '''the second generation''', had 40% market share in 1988 and it has steadily declined since then, there was a brief resurgence with CdTe which ended last year when the market share of thin film again dropped by thirty percent to less than 13%. More than eighty seven percent of commercial solar cells are made with crystalline silicon and thin film is very much yesterday's technology. (For the data see March issues of Photon International for each of the last ten years) The three generation discussion is misleading and is a technology judgement that is neither objective nor accurate.

Organic solar cells could be the third generation, well maybe. Plants have an efficiency of 1% this is an order of magintude lower than today's solar cells. There will be other solutions to better solar cells. Maybe someone might invent an inexpensive tandem cell. A photo converter that converts a blue photon into two red photons that are well matched with the PV bandgap might become the next best technology. Who knows, I don't and '''the three generation''' people don't know either it is premature to crown either a second or a third generation.

I deleted the text '''three generation''' text with the intend to make wikipedia better.

[[User:Cleanenergy|Cleanenergy]] ([[User talk:Cleanenergy|talk]]) 21:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

:I agree 100% with deleting it. "Three generations" is sometimes used for one person's opinion of the future of solar cells, and other times used as a vacuous marketing slogan. :-) --[[User:Sbyrnes321|Steve]] ([[User talk:Sbyrnes321|talk]]) 22:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

== Merge from [[Fill factor]] to [[Solar cell#Efficiency]] ==

The [[Fill factor]] article has a concise discussion of the term (and a citation) as used in photovoltaics and then mentions a couple of other uses of the term in other areas. My proposal is to merge the PV portion into [[Solar cell#Efficiency]] and leave the existing article as a disambiguation page for the general term. <font color="#500000">[[User:Jojalozzo|Joja]]</font><font color="#005000">[[User talk:Jojalozzo|lozzo]]</font> 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
:I agree: Fill factor, in this context, is only about efficiency, which can be handled in a small paragraph here.[[User:Peter Chastain|Peter Chastain]] ([[User talk:Peter Chastain|talk]]) 17:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::Done. We didn't need nearly as much math as it had, and defining terms in English instead of math subscripts is probably a good plan everywhere in an encyclopedia. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 18:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Environmental aspects ==
Well, I must say that it occurs very rarely that "our" German Wikipedia articles are ''light years'' better than their English equivalents. However, this time it is the truth: [[:de:Solarzelle#Umweltschutz]]. What, in contrary to that, has this English article been turning to over the years from its creation back in 2006? To me it's a PR pamphlet written by solar cell ''enthusiasts''. Or why are the environmental aspects mentioned nowhere? The toxicity of cadmium; the highly problematic residues from SC production; the greenhouse effect provoked by the gases used in the lavation phase; and ... and ... Everything reads as if solar cells are the most eco-friendly thing ever. Well, once in use, YES; but while they're produced, residue accumulates that has to be treated in a special way. Some of them ''might'' (assuming!) even produce [[toxic waste]], i. e. relics with long-lasting effects. -andy [[Special:Contributions/77.190.46.74|77.190.46.74]] ([[User talk:77.190.46.74|talk]]) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

:I agree this article could use some discussion of the environmental aspects of PV production, since it is meant to be an eco-friendly technology. However, if my rudimentary German and Google Translate have come anywhere close to a correct translation of the section you link to, the German Wikipedia entry is hardly a paragon of quality. As far as I can tell, it is mainly a FUD piece that attempts to demonize solar cells on the basis of CdTe solar cell processing. These cells make up about 5% of global production and, while I'm no great defender of CdTe, they contain no cadmium metal (as the supposedly high quality German article states without reference). Before you object, let me put that another way: Saying that CdTe solar panels contain cadmium metal is exactly like saying water contains hydrogen gas. There are certainly occupational safety issues -- cadmium metal ''is'' involved in the production -- and there may also be toxicity issues in the field, but so far testing has not been able to prove the latter.
:Anyway, this is supposed to be a place for discussion of the article, not so much the article's contents, so I will stop there. You're welcome to add something on the environmental aspects of course, but if you plan to translate the German version I strongly suggest you gather a few more references. (I'm not likely to do it myself, at least not anytime soon.)--[[User:Squirmymcphee|Squirmymcphee]] ([[User talk:Squirmymcphee|talk]]) 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

::I'm less concerned about cadmium than about NF3.
::Especially in (resp. above) China alarming levels of NF3 have been measured already. And it will stay up there quite a while. For more info on this highly potential greenhouse gas see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_trifluoride#Greenhouse_gas - sonny22 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.33.68.172|95.33.68.172]] ([[User talk:95.33.68.172#top|talk]]) 11:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== [[Solar thermal]] resource in [[BusinessWeek]] ==

[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/solar-panels-start-to-outshine-mirrors-10132011.html Solar Panels Start to Outshine Mirrors; As prices for photovoltaic cells tumble, developers are abandoning solar thermal plants] October 13, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Ben Sills [[Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188|97.87.29.188]] ([[User talk:97.87.29.188|talk]]) 23:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

== Crap state of the article ==

Andy is right. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Solar_cell&oldid=457105307 current article] This article is an internal memo for some firm on a planet far far away. Go nuts on the hack and slash, if anyone wants or needs a third, I'll be happy to help. You could machine-gun this article with templates there are so many sections that are rubbish in so many ways. Someone needs to learn how to plagiarize their own companies brochures for an encyclopedic audience. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Penyulap|<span style="color:#002100">'''Penyulap'''</span>]]</span><sub>[[User talk:Penyulap|<span style="color:07AA07">''' talk'''</span>]]</sub> 16:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


== If not crappy, then unintelligible in places ==
"Other technologies have tried to enter the market. [[First Solar]] was briefly the largest panel manufacturer in 2009, in terms of yearly power produced, using a thin-film cell sandwiched between two layers of glass. " Why is this a different technology..... even if the content in the article is ok (and it does need some work--took me a while to figure out where the history of development material was ) it reads as if it hasn't been proofread by the last person who edited it...commas and verb tenses count...the preview feature is there for a reason...please read your edit after you post it to make sure you are not obfuscating a clear point or concatenating stupidly. Eliminate run on sentences....etc etc , etc...
[[User:Primacag|Avram Primack]] ([[User talk:Primacag|talk]]) 15:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

== To consider for inclusion ==

* ''lay summary'' {{Citation |publication-date=23 Jan 2012 |title=Addition of quantum dots to solar cells gets dramatic results |work=[[R&D Magazine]] |at=rdmag.com |publisher=[[Advantage Business Media]] |url=http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/01/Energy-Electricity-Photonics-Addition-of-quantum-dots-to-solar-cells-gets-dramatic-results/ |accessdate=23 Jan 2012 }}
* ''peer-reviewed publication'' {{Citation |author= |last=Sablon |first=Kimberly A. |first2=John W. |last2=Little |first3=Vladimir |last3=Mitin |first4=Andrei |last4=Sergeev |first5=Nizami |last5=Vagidov |first6=Kitt |last6=Reinhardt |publication-date=5 May 2011 |title=Strong Enhancement of Solar Cell Efficiency Due to Quantum Dots with Built-In Charge |chapter= |type= |journal=[[Nano Letters]] |at=Articles ASAP |volume=11 |issue=6 |pages=2311&ndash;2317 |doi=10.1021/nl200543v |url=http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl200543v |accessdate=23 Jan 2012 }}
&mdash;User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 01:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

== This page disagrees with another wiki. ==

Please note that the efficiency section states that "Single p-n junction crystalline silicon devices" are nearing 37.7% efficiency as is in-line with the Shockley Queisser limit but the Shockley Queisser limit page (linked below) states a maximum of 33.7% (which is the only reference of the claim).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit

Either one of the numbers on one of the pages are wrong or the Shockley Queisser limit is incorrect, which I strongly doubt. The link in the Shockley Quesser page directs the user to the below linked source which says 30%. Since I don't know which number is right, I'll leave it to others to make the appropriate correction.

http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v32/i3/p510_s1?isAuthorized=no <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.44.8.162|199.44.8.162]] ([[User talk:199.44.8.162|talk]]) 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Confusing image caption – "Mono" and "Multi" ==

[[File:PV Technology.png|thumb|left|'''Market share of the different PV technologies''' In 2010 the market share of thin film declined by 30% as thin film technology was displaced by more efficient crystalline silicon solar panels (the light and dark blue bars).]]
The caption in the image in the section [[Solar_cell#Thin_films]] is confusing. What is "Mono" and "Multi"? "Monocrystalline" and "Multicrystalline"? "Mono-Junction" and "Multi-Junction"? [[User:Tony Mach|Tony Mach]] ([[User talk:Tony Mach|talk]]) 10:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
:You're right, it is confusing. I tagged the image page itself with {{template|Unreferenced}} (I'm not sure if you can do that to an image page, but hey-ho). The user who created the image doesn't seem to have contributed to Wikipedia since 2011, and their talk page is mostly a reminder to cite sources. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 13:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

== current events section ==

the current events section references 2011, it's 2013 and the prices have been moving hard.
It may be worthwhile to update this.--[[User:Patbahn|Patbahn]] ([[User talk:Patbahn|talk]]) 21:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

== Efficiency - Shockley-Queissner ==

In the 'Efficiency' section, there is:

"Single p–n junction crystalline silicon devices are now approaching the theoretical limiting power efficiency of 33.7%, noted as the Shockley–Queisser limit..."

But in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit (the 'Shockley-Queissner limit' article) there is:

"The limit places maximum solar conversion efficiency around 33.7% assuming a single p-n junction with a band gap of 1.34 eV (using an AM 1.5 solar spectrum).[1] That is, of all the power contained in sunlight falling on an ideal solar cell (about 1000 W/m²), only 33.7% of that could ever be turned into electricity (337 W/m²). The most popular solar cell material, silicon, has a less favourable band gap of 1.1 eV, resulting in a maximum efficiency of 29%."

So it sounds to me that in this (Solar cell) article, the single p-n junction crystalline SILICON solar device would have a theoretical limit of 29%, not 33.7%. The 33.7% limit applies to some other semiconductor with a 1.34ev band gap, (NOT silicon, which is 1.1eV).

Right?
[[Special:Contributions/71.139.169.27|71.139.169.27]] ([[User talk:71.139.169.27|talk]]) 00:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

---------
Not quite. Auger-recombination limit 29%. S-Q limit 33.7% <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/14.200.69.23|14.200.69.23]] ([[User talk:14.200.69.23|talk]]) 09:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Electrical Circuit Diagram Symbol ? ==

Please would someone add the electrical circuit diagram symbol for a solar cell? Thanks ! [[User:Darkman101|Darkman101]] ([[User talk:Darkman101|talk]]) 19:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

== Current lede is gibberish ==

I'm here to learn about the topic, so I am not sure how to fix it without introducing error but....if anyone is following this page, please at least try to fix the grammar. Also, how can it also be called a photovoltaic cell if it is a type of photovoltaic cell? Seem like one of those statements is partly wrong [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]])

== Photovoltaic cell a type of solar sell? ==

On the Dutch wiki it is said that a photovoltaic cell is a type of solar cell. Here it is stated that these are exactly the same things. I am confused on what is correct. Can someone point out some literature to put some light on this? Kind regards, [[User:Timelezz|Timelezz]] ([[User talk:Timelezz|talk]]) 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The Dutch wiki says:
{{Cquote|Er zijn twee soorten zonnecellen. De bekendste is de geheel uit vaste stof bestaande fotovoltaïsche cel, die met vele tegelijk wordt gemonteerd in zonnepanelen. De tweede is de foto-elektrochemische cel, welke terug te vinden is in foto-elektrochemische generatoren.
<small>There are two types of solar cells. The most famous is fotovaltaïc cell which is completely composed of solid matter, and is installed with many in solar panels. The second is the [[photo-electrochemical cell]], which can be found in photo-electrochemical generators.</small>|}}
Kind regards, [[User:Timelezz|Timelezz]] ([[User talk:Timelezz|talk]]) 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

== Thin film ==

The article seems overly detailed on this topic, given that there is a separate article focused on it. I propose we move the details to [[Thin film solar cell]]. [[User:Lfstevens|Lfstevens]] ([[User talk:Lfstevens|talk]]) 03:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:Hi Lstevens, the entire section [[Solar_cell#Materials]] needs a thorough revision. Are you interested in some team work? Pls let me know. - [[User:Rfassbind|Rfassbind]] ([[User talk:Rfassbind|talk]]) 07:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

== Research Cell Efficiency Chart ==

The latest NREL solar cell efficiency chart is now available again from WikiCommons: PVeff(rev140627).jpg. Could someone add this back to the Efficiency section of the Solar Cell article and the Solar Cell Efficiency article? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dgwinner|Dgwinner]] ([[User talk:Dgwinner|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dgwinner|contribs]]) 18:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:done.[[User:Mion|Mion]] ([[User talk:Mion|talk]]) 19:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:: Has somebody an idea how to tell [[User:Dgwinner|Dgwinner]] ([[User talk:Dgwinner|talk]], that he doesn't need to upload a new file every time a revised efficiency chart is published. Instead, the "Upload a new version of this file" option should be used and the linked filename would remain the same...see [https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=PVeff%28rev140811%29.jpg&wpForReUpload=1 here] - [[User:Rfassbind|Rfassbind]] ([[User talk:Rfassbind|talk]]) 07:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
:::The file names contain a revision number on purpose, in the future you could do historic research on how efficiency changed over time. This adding was only problematic because someone deleted the chart for some reason, now its back you only need to change the version number on the image link, like before :) [[User:Mion|Mion]] ([[User talk:Mion|talk]]) 21:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::::You don't seem to understand what "uploading a new version" means. The previous files won't be deleted. They are still available in the history (even better: they are listed altogether in a chronological order). Uploading a "new version" has the advantage that there is no need to amend a wikipedia article that links to the file. Currently different articles link to different files. Do a search on WikiCommons with the keyword '''PVeff(''' and see for yourself what pops up and which article links to which version.... - [[User:Rfassbind|Rfassbind]] ([[User talk:Rfassbind|talk]]) 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::I would be nice if commons had version control on images, but i think the uploader is the one that uploads the different named versions, here :[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FAQ#How_can_I_upload_a_new_version_of_a_file.3F] is no mention of version control. [[User:Mion|Mion]] ([[User talk:Mion|talk]]) 21:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::I don't know why you are being so stubborn about this. But never mind. I found the file I was talking about and amended the article accordingly. - [[User:Rfassbind|Rfassbind]] ([[User talk:Rfassbind|talk]]) 05:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

== Upcomming revision in 2014 ==

I will start to revise large parts of this article in the next few weeks. Pls help me with your feedback and copy-edit skills whenever you can. Intermediate steps include:
* Revision of the articles layout and image choice
* Revision of the "Materials" section ("Cell types and materials")
* Cutback on the excessively large "Research section" and merge them with "Cell types and materials"
* Adding section about how a solar cells works
* Replacing lead section
Plz add your ideas and make constructive suggestions. Older comments on this talk page are rather disencouraging. Thx -- [[User:Rfassbind|Rfassbind]] ([[User talk:Rfassbind|talk]]) 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:[[Endeavour House]] is one of the most eco-friendly office buildings in Europe as it has 51,000 photovoltaic cells so there should be a section for this type of energy in buildings. [[User:Wrightie99|Wrightie99]] ([[User talk:Wrightie99|talk]]) 13:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
::'''Dont''' Cutback on the excessively large "Research section" and merge them with "Cell types and materials", The article has to keep a split between proven commercial/market ready technologies and the technologies that are still in the maturing phase (research). For the rest, good plan, always nice to see an article getting updated in time. [[User:Mion|Mion]] ([[User talk:Mion|talk]]) 14:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
::: Is there anyone else beside me, who disagrees with ''Mion'' about the trimming of the research section (e.g. this→[[Solar cell#Organic/polymer solar cells]])? This section is totally out of proportion, while other important sections are completely missing (see list above). I won't go through all the hassle revising the article, if we can't even agree on the most simplest things. -- [[User:Rfassbind|Rfassbind]] ([[User talk:Rfassbind|talk]]) 17:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Ah, the all or nothing approach :) well, i think we have a misunderstanding, i thought you where going to destroy the research section, but trimming a text back to 5 lines is perfect. [[User:Mion|Mion]] ([[User talk:Mion|talk]]) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
::: Hi '''Wrightie99''', the article you mentioned ([[Endeavour House]]), may be mentioned in [[Green building]] (also named '' Energy efficient buildings''). Also, since the article is about a building with 50,000 photovoltaic cells incorporated into the glass curtain walls, it would be worth mentioning in the article [[Building-integrated photovoltaics]], but not in this generic article about ''Solar PV cells''. Do you agree? Why don't you take a look at the two articles I mentioned and see if you can do something there? Cheers, -- [[User:Rfassbind|Rfassbind]] ([[User talk:Rfassbind|talk]]) 17:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

== Grid parity ==

Grid parity is now in 19 countries [http://static0.trouw.nl/enwiki/static/asset/2014/Solar___2014_Outlook_Let_the_Second_Gold_Rush_Begin_7166.pdf] 2014 outlook DB. [[User:Mion|Mion]] ([[User talk:Mion|talk]]) 19:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

==Merging==


== Hasn't been updated since 2016 in many sections ==
Shouldn't this and 'solar panel' be merged? Or are they completely diffrent things? Can someone please tell me
[[User:McTreevil|McTreevil]] ([[User talk:McTreevil|talk]]) 13:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
: {{u|McTreevil}}, I'd say "no" on a merge in general as [[solar panel]] article is about modules containing one or more cells while this article is about the history and technology of the individual cells. There is some cell specific information in the solar panel article that should be here. There's also [[Photovoltaic system]] which includes all of the other stuff needed to make the panels usable. Unfortunately, the first two articles suffer from poor sourcing and insertion of POV language by manufactures, sellers, installers, and PV advocates. The photovoltaic system article is in slightly better shape. --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]&#124;[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 23:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Factual numbers like cell efficiencies, prices per watt, or deployed world capacities, do not appear for any date after about 2012-2016 in various parts of the article. Some parts describe "forecasts" for 2017. Edits from someone who's conversant with 2019 efficiencies, market makeup, and prices (and can cite references for them) could really benefit this article. [[User:Gnuish|Gnuish]] ([[User talk:Gnuish|talk]]) 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
*How about merging this article with '''[[photovoltaics]]'''? "Photovoltaics" is just a long word for solar cells, and the two articles seem to be about the same thing. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] ([[User talk:Geoffrey.landis|talk]]) 22:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:It seems to me that there ought to be a WikiProject:Solar Power or a WikiProject:Solar Electricity or a WikiProject:Solar Energy so that these projects could be owned, coordinated, and managed to higher standards. [[User:MaynardClark|MaynardClark]] ([[User talk:MaynardClark|talk]]) 21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


== Exxon didn't exist ==
== "Solar Cell" or "Photovoltaic"? ==


Sorry, is this article about "solar" cells or about photovoltaic cells/photovoltaic devices? Because they are not the same thing, and when I was last editing this article (re-writing it, really), my edits reflected this. If you don't know that they're not the same thing, or can't understand how they would be two different things, it seems likely that you should not be editing this article. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/107.77.205.122|107.77.205.122]] ([[User talk:107.77.205.122#top|talk]]) 05:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The article gives I think a bit too much prominence to Elliot Berman and Exxon Solar Power Corporation, who were by no means the only player in developing low cost photovoltaics.
I would like to challenge this statement (under price reductions), however:
''"In late 1969, Elliot Berman was investigating organic solar cells, when he joined a team at Exxon SPC who were looking for projects 30 years in the future."'' (SPC = Solar Power Corporation).
Exxon didn't exist in 1969. This timeline [http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/a/Photovoltaics_2.htm] dates Exxon Solar Power Corporation to 1975. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] ([[User talk:Geoffrey.landis|talk]]) 23:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:got it-- found a reference, and SPC was funded by ESSO, not Exxon. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] ([[User talk:Geoffrey.landis|talk]]) 23:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth==
== Cite (currently 41) URL expired ==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Carleton_University/ERTH_4303_Resources_of_the_Earth_(Winter) | assignments = [[User:Ezanaa.yo|Ezanaa.yo]] | reviewers = [[User:User5843|User5843]], [[User:Saihaj|Saihaj]] | start_date = 2023-01-13 | end_date = 2023-04-15 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:ChloejWard|ChloejWard]] ([[User talk:ChloejWard|talk]]) 03:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)</span>
This url seems to have expired. There's no marks on it for when this was added or last accessed.
"Cite book | doi = 10.1115/SED2002-1051| chapter = Net Energy Analysis for Sustainable Energy Production from Silicon Based Solar Cells| title = Solar Energy| pages = 181| year = 2002| last1 = Pearce | first1 = J. | last2 = Lau | first2 = A. | isbn = 0-7918-1689-3|url=http://www.cede.psu.edu/users/alau/ases02_net_energy_pv.pdf" <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/73.170.156.225|73.170.156.225]] ([[User talk:73.170.156.225|talk]]) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 14:48, 26 September 2024

Former good articleSolar cell was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 6, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 12, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Hasn't been updated since 2016 in many sections

[edit]

Factual numbers like cell efficiencies, prices per watt, or deployed world capacities, do not appear for any date after about 2012-2016 in various parts of the article. Some parts describe "forecasts" for 2017. Edits from someone who's conversant with 2019 efficiencies, market makeup, and prices (and can cite references for them) could really benefit this article. Gnuish (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there ought to be a WikiProject:Solar Power or a WikiProject:Solar Electricity or a WikiProject:Solar Energy so that these projects could be owned, coordinated, and managed to higher standards. MaynardClark (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Solar Cell" or "Photovoltaic"?

[edit]

Sorry, is this article about "solar" cells or about photovoltaic cells/photovoltaic devices? Because they are not the same thing, and when I was last editing this article (re-writing it, really), my edits reflected this. If you don't know that they're not the same thing, or can't understand how they would be two different things, it seems likely that you should not be editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.122 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2023 and 15 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ezanaa.yo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: User5843, Saihaj.

— Assignment last updated by ChloejWard (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_cell&oldid=1247884153"