This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Solar power in Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This page is a sister page to the Wind power in Australia page. It is modelled on that page. The purpose of the page is to provide a record of all solar power projects in Australia, irresepctive of status, sponsor or locality. The page is presently a stu in the Australia - stubs category.
This article does not give a balanced view of Solar power and offers no criticism.
The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. This is clearly not happening here, or elsewhere as discussed in the section above.
So I'm adding a POV tag to the article. Prester John 03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No need to make anything up, there is plenty of referenced criticism which address the shortcomings of solar power. The prohibitive cost of household installations itself, deserves a section, other sub-sections on the economics of pricing, and if in fact the government has a right to impose itself upon the free market is another. In time I will lead the charge in bringing balance to the article, which at the moment is just one sided greenist propaganda. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a table with project status and dates but this should be restricted to projects with a size of greater than (e.g) 30kWp. There is NO point whatsoever of including stuff like 3kW, 4kw, 6kW systems in the table. I know people with residential systems larger than 3kW, should we put them in the table too? I propose to remove all entries under at least 20kW, unless there is something incredibly special about the specific system that is worth mentioning. By the way there is a '42kWp system' (actual peak output is about 35kW) at UNSW, that may be worth including. 211.31.39.123 ( talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A possible additon could be about the cost of the panels, you know, something about if they would be actualy economiclly viable to put these massive Solar Panel power stations in the middle of a somewhere (like a desert or moutain top), or would it just be better to invest in other renewable sources, like wind... Some fella ( talk) 11:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Could these citations be solved by a Bureau page?
despite the hot[citation needed], dry[citation needed], and sunny climate[citation needed], of Australia
Some fella ( talk) 11:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The section on RECs needs to be expanded somewhat. It it a form of carbon trading? What is the worth of a REC? Is it legally mandatory, given the renewable targets? I do not understand. Willemferguson ( talk) 09:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
After a wikicommons search to add some photos to this article I noticed that the solar challenge race is not mentioned. Nor is solar powered signage, weather stations or phones. Should these types of solar power applications be mentioned here or on another page? - Shiftchange ( talk) 17:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Some statistics on the theoretical and economic potental would be useful to the article. Are the dry sunny places with many kwh/square meter/year within reach of transmission lines and the population that would consume the energy? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 15:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice the Projects table was talked about a few years ago regarding the removal of the small systems, however nothing really ever happened. So, to bring it forward again, I would suggest the removal of any project less than 30kW. Thoughts... FNQ ( talk) 23:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi All readers. I'm writing raise concerns regarding the recent removal of PV arrays with less than 30kW. We all want to encourage and give credit to folks to install PV arrays - and culling will not do this - but I also agree that some limit is needed to keep the table size becoming unwieldy. On this basis, a page limit criterion - say 10 pages total - to determine which size of PV system removed would be logical. Also I think that ground and roof mounted arrays should be tabulated separately. Roof mounted PV systems, are more costly /m2 because of limited space and hence will tend to be smaller size, but have considerable benefits of greater public exposure, lower electrical transmission losses and provide building shading, which greatly reduces heat load and energy consumption. In contrast it is lower cost to construct large ground mounted PV systems. For example the City of Melbourne 1200 building initiative encourages building mounted PV arrays, and the 23kW system mounted on the Green Spaces is the largest in the City of Melbourne and hence of significance, yet the 30kW cutoff results in it being cut from the table. In conclusion I would argue for two separate equi-sized (say 5 pages each) tables one for ground mounted arrays and a second for building mounted arrays, each with kW based removal limits set at a level to maintain the page size for each table at less than 5 pages. What do folks reckon? Dave PS Pls phone me if you would like to discuss at 03-93284800 TheGreenSpaces ( talk) 06:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody please read section 2.1 - it is full of contradictory facts and dates. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.126.91 ( talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
QLD | SA | VIC | WA | NSW |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rollingstone 110 MW | Kingfisher 120 MW [1] (Roxby Downs) | Carwarp 100 MW | Cunderdin 100 MW | Hay 100 MW |
Chinchilla 112 MW | Adani Whyalla 140 MW [2] | Kiamal 200 MW | Maryvale 100 MW | |
Aramara 140 MW* | Port Augusta Renewable 150 MW [3] | Nowingi 253 MW | Mumbil 100 MW | |
Kidston 2 270 MW | SSE Whyalla 150 MW* [4] | Springdale 100 MW | ||
Rodds Bay 300 MWp | Pallamana Solar Farm 176MW and battery [5] | Gunnedah 115 MW | ||
Clarke Creek 315 MW | Solar River Stage 1 200 MW [6] | Hillston 115 MW | ||
Harlin Stage 1 500 MW* | Solar River Stage 2 200 MW [7] | Metz 115 MW | ||
Yoorndoo Ilga solar farm 200-400MW (North of Whyalla) EPS Energy [8] | Suntop 150 MW | |||
Riverland 270 MW | Wellington 174 MW | |||
Cultana 280 MW [9] | Sunraysia 200 MW | |||
Bungama solar farm 280MW (east of Port Pirie) EPS Energy [10] | Darlington Point 275 MW | |||
Robertstown solar farm 500MW* + 250MW/1000MWh battery [11] [12] EPS Energy | Gunning 300 MW |
*Unclear if given project size is MWac or DC peak(MWp).
Conspice ( talk) 08:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Since when is solar energy measured in terms of 'horsepower' (second sentence)? Imperial units gone crazy? I have never heard of anybody refer to units of electricity in a solar power scenario in anything but multiples of watts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.53.169 ( talk) 12:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It might be nice to understand the assumptions made in the 'theoretical ' capacity of solar to make this page more objective . And then consider realistic scenarios rather than theory . Incorporating duck curve , decline of output , lack of maintenance , etc . You will find that a realistic maximum is a fraction of a percent to 1-2 percent . 2601:643:8300:8D90:79B6:92C8:C6B8:313F ( talk) 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there a suitable data source that can be used to complete the Installations by type table? For example the Australian Photovoltaic institute lists large scale generators based on data from the clean energy regulator. https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/power-stations DB DrpBr ( talk) 11:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is extremely sprawling. I'm thinking a simpler structure like this might work well:
If no objections, I'll have a crack at a major rework. El T ( talk) 13:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
What is the default sort order of this list supposed to be? Not size, age, alphabetical? I couldn't tell. Rmhermen ( talk) 15:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Solar power in Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This page is a sister page to the Wind power in Australia page. It is modelled on that page. The purpose of the page is to provide a record of all solar power projects in Australia, irresepctive of status, sponsor or locality. The page is presently a stu in the Australia - stubs category.
This article does not give a balanced view of Solar power and offers no criticism.
The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. This is clearly not happening here, or elsewhere as discussed in the section above.
So I'm adding a POV tag to the article. Prester John 03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No need to make anything up, there is plenty of referenced criticism which address the shortcomings of solar power. The prohibitive cost of household installations itself, deserves a section, other sub-sections on the economics of pricing, and if in fact the government has a right to impose itself upon the free market is another. In time I will lead the charge in bringing balance to the article, which at the moment is just one sided greenist propaganda. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a table with project status and dates but this should be restricted to projects with a size of greater than (e.g) 30kWp. There is NO point whatsoever of including stuff like 3kW, 4kw, 6kW systems in the table. I know people with residential systems larger than 3kW, should we put them in the table too? I propose to remove all entries under at least 20kW, unless there is something incredibly special about the specific system that is worth mentioning. By the way there is a '42kWp system' (actual peak output is about 35kW) at UNSW, that may be worth including. 211.31.39.123 ( talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A possible additon could be about the cost of the panels, you know, something about if they would be actualy economiclly viable to put these massive Solar Panel power stations in the middle of a somewhere (like a desert or moutain top), or would it just be better to invest in other renewable sources, like wind... Some fella ( talk) 11:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Could these citations be solved by a Bureau page?
despite the hot[citation needed], dry[citation needed], and sunny climate[citation needed], of Australia
Some fella ( talk) 11:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The section on RECs needs to be expanded somewhat. It it a form of carbon trading? What is the worth of a REC? Is it legally mandatory, given the renewable targets? I do not understand. Willemferguson ( talk) 09:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
After a wikicommons search to add some photos to this article I noticed that the solar challenge race is not mentioned. Nor is solar powered signage, weather stations or phones. Should these types of solar power applications be mentioned here or on another page? - Shiftchange ( talk) 17:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Some statistics on the theoretical and economic potental would be useful to the article. Are the dry sunny places with many kwh/square meter/year within reach of transmission lines and the population that would consume the energy? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 15:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice the Projects table was talked about a few years ago regarding the removal of the small systems, however nothing really ever happened. So, to bring it forward again, I would suggest the removal of any project less than 30kW. Thoughts... FNQ ( talk) 23:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi All readers. I'm writing raise concerns regarding the recent removal of PV arrays with less than 30kW. We all want to encourage and give credit to folks to install PV arrays - and culling will not do this - but I also agree that some limit is needed to keep the table size becoming unwieldy. On this basis, a page limit criterion - say 10 pages total - to determine which size of PV system removed would be logical. Also I think that ground and roof mounted arrays should be tabulated separately. Roof mounted PV systems, are more costly /m2 because of limited space and hence will tend to be smaller size, but have considerable benefits of greater public exposure, lower electrical transmission losses and provide building shading, which greatly reduces heat load and energy consumption. In contrast it is lower cost to construct large ground mounted PV systems. For example the City of Melbourne 1200 building initiative encourages building mounted PV arrays, and the 23kW system mounted on the Green Spaces is the largest in the City of Melbourne and hence of significance, yet the 30kW cutoff results in it being cut from the table. In conclusion I would argue for two separate equi-sized (say 5 pages each) tables one for ground mounted arrays and a second for building mounted arrays, each with kW based removal limits set at a level to maintain the page size for each table at less than 5 pages. What do folks reckon? Dave PS Pls phone me if you would like to discuss at 03-93284800 TheGreenSpaces ( talk) 06:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody please read section 2.1 - it is full of contradictory facts and dates. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.126.91 ( talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
QLD | SA | VIC | WA | NSW |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rollingstone 110 MW | Kingfisher 120 MW [1] (Roxby Downs) | Carwarp 100 MW | Cunderdin 100 MW | Hay 100 MW |
Chinchilla 112 MW | Adani Whyalla 140 MW [2] | Kiamal 200 MW | Maryvale 100 MW | |
Aramara 140 MW* | Port Augusta Renewable 150 MW [3] | Nowingi 253 MW | Mumbil 100 MW | |
Kidston 2 270 MW | SSE Whyalla 150 MW* [4] | Springdale 100 MW | ||
Rodds Bay 300 MWp | Pallamana Solar Farm 176MW and battery [5] | Gunnedah 115 MW | ||
Clarke Creek 315 MW | Solar River Stage 1 200 MW [6] | Hillston 115 MW | ||
Harlin Stage 1 500 MW* | Solar River Stage 2 200 MW [7] | Metz 115 MW | ||
Yoorndoo Ilga solar farm 200-400MW (North of Whyalla) EPS Energy [8] | Suntop 150 MW | |||
Riverland 270 MW | Wellington 174 MW | |||
Cultana 280 MW [9] | Sunraysia 200 MW | |||
Bungama solar farm 280MW (east of Port Pirie) EPS Energy [10] | Darlington Point 275 MW | |||
Robertstown solar farm 500MW* + 250MW/1000MWh battery [11] [12] EPS Energy | Gunning 300 MW |
*Unclear if given project size is MWac or DC peak(MWp).
Conspice ( talk) 08:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Since when is solar energy measured in terms of 'horsepower' (second sentence)? Imperial units gone crazy? I have never heard of anybody refer to units of electricity in a solar power scenario in anything but multiples of watts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.53.169 ( talk) 12:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It might be nice to understand the assumptions made in the 'theoretical ' capacity of solar to make this page more objective . And then consider realistic scenarios rather than theory . Incorporating duck curve , decline of output , lack of maintenance , etc . You will find that a realistic maximum is a fraction of a percent to 1-2 percent . 2601:643:8300:8D90:79B6:92C8:C6B8:313F ( talk) 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there a suitable data source that can be used to complete the Installations by type table? For example the Australian Photovoltaic institute lists large scale generators based on data from the clean energy regulator. https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/power-stations DB DrpBr ( talk) 11:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is extremely sprawling. I'm thinking a simpler structure like this might work well:
If no objections, I'll have a crack at a major rework. El T ( talk) 13:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
What is the default sort order of this list supposed to be? Not size, age, alphabetical? I couldn't tell. Rmhermen ( talk) 15:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)