Talk:Solar energy

Stirling Solar

I came to this page and did a word search for "Stirling" and nothing came up. So I added a section on stirling solar after the section on dishes where I thought it most appropriate. Stirling solar is the emerging technology that will take over and dominate the solar power industry. Get up with the times people. If any experts on stirling energy want to add to it, please do. --User:Aidan_oz —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

It's already covered in the Concentrating solar power section Aidan. Mrshaba (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba ; I wrote that section somebody has moved it under Concentrating solar power.see history. By the way folks there is an error in that section where its stated "In all these systems a working fluid is heated by the concentrated sunlight, and is then used for power generation or energy storage.[87]" This information is WRONG ! If you look at the very next reference a greenpeace article, it states that concentrating solar power can be converted to electricity in two ways, one by heating a fluid such as oil which is then used to heat steam for a turbine and the other option is a Stirling engine. So under the section concentrating solar power there should be subsections describing which technology is used to couple with dish. There are options !(124.187.32.53 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)) (Aidan oz (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Stirling engines use a working fluid. Mrshaba (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Golden Thread notes there were large scale solar troughs in Egypt in 1900.--82.12.222.230 (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep... At one point this page included some info about Shuman, Tellier, Mouchot etc. but most of these snippets have been parred out. The information about the Shuman project in Egypt should probably be added to the Parabolic trough page. 24.85.246.143 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

News article: New nano coating boosts solar efficiency

• New nano coating boosts solar efficiency Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

solar power is a mean of clea and sustainable power —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.145.217 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) This place is the best right now im doing a report on this thanks

Blog reference

The section on overhead wires and solar panels over carpool lanes needs to be rewritten and find a non-blog reference:

There is a new concept that may be developed by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler in a Manhattan Project approach in return for their Bail Out Money. In this approach Overhead Solar Panels and wires are installed above Diamond Lanes on the nation's freeways. Concurrently, new electric cars are produced that do not require batteries, but are recharged as they run down the Electrified Freeway. This system could also control the navigation of all electric vehicles allowing the driver and passengers to be connected to the Internet getting work done or being entertained.

Also lose the words "Manhattan Project" and "Bail Out Money", and don't capitalize "Overhead Solar Panels" or "Diamond Lanes" and "Electrified Freeway". Also, this is not a "new concept", having been proposed many years before. And you don't do something "in return for bail out money" (such as paying off the Senators voting for it). You keep the company in business in return for bail out money. And it would not involve electric cars that don't have batteries, it would just mean the batteries would not be used during that portion of the trip. 199.125.109.37 (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Error?

Is it just me, or are the "primary energy use" and "electricity use" numbers completely wrong. I know for a fact that we consume a lot more than 45 TWh in a year. The real number is about 20,000 TWh, and that's of actual electricity off the grid. If you calculate it based on heat content of the fuel that goes into producing that electricity, it's more than twice that.165.123.122.14 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The numbers are sourced so you can check them out for yourself. Here are some handy Conversion Factors that help. 462.798 Quads x 293 TWh/Quad = 135,600 TWh. Hmmm... That should be total primary energy use so it appears someone made a conversion error. Good catch. Mrshaba (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

lkmnohrt;worihn'lirshy'lirjho'sihje;rohgtonb'lWR3HPIqgre' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.181.98.10 (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The sun's ydrogen Supply is finite!

This is true. But only if the concept of finite / infinite is discarded.

This concept is flexible. It is quite normal, for example in botanical studies to say, the "number of petals in this flower is infinite", if the number crosses 25 or 30.

Similarly, the number of celestial bodies is normally considered infinite, though it can definitely be counted given enough time and resources. In the latter sense, hydrogen supply in the sun is infinite. Even technically we do not know enough to say that it is non-renewable.

Please edit out this claim as it only distracts the reader.

In any case, if it merits space under this subject it definitely needs to be a. relocated and b. argued and referenced.