Talk:List of photovoltaic power stations/Archive 1

Coordinates
Not sure what this column adds, since coordinates available from WP articles on locations .... unless they could appear on a map. Now that would be an interesting wikitool, to create maps and add points of interest.--Oldboltonian 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Split and rename
Im going to rename the page List of photovoltaic power stations since it is esentally a list now. And Im going to remove the subarticle of each solar station. All the subarticles already have seperat pages and are linked in the list ZyMOS (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Much more discussion needed on this and in the meantime have restored content and name... Johnfos (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok so let the discussion start and the voting begin:


 * Split and rename: This is my vote ZyMOS (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The article has been sitting here quite happily for some time, and I just don't see the need to make drastic changes to it. Johnfos (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal
We've had various names for this article and I think the current one, Photovoltaic power station, doesn't fit particularly well with the content of the article. I'd like to suggest that the article be moved to "List of photovoltaic power stations". Johnfos (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, since there were no objections for seven months. Graham 87 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Update needed
There are many new PV power plants coming online and our list has gotten rather out of date. Any help with updating would be much appreciated. Also, we need some more individual articles and photos of the larger plants listed. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes, GWh
It would be intersting to get GW-hour values for these plants, which tells us the annual average power output, not just the peak noon-time output. Some of the entries in the table have the same number written in both the MW and GWh columns, which is likely an error. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed some GWh figures which don't have a source. Johnfos (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Having the same numbers of MW of peak power and GW·h of annual production might be an error, or just a coincidence:
 * n × 10^9 W·h/yr / (n × 10^6 W × 8766 hr/yr) = 0.114
 * That's a plausible capacity factor for PV power in Germany.


 * Which energy production figures did you think didn't have a source?
 * Lieberose Photovoltaic Park: "With an output of about 53 megawatts ... Annual yield: around 53 million kWh"
 * Moura photovoltaic power station: "46 megawatts (MW), vai produzir 93 milhões de kilowatts/hora (kWh) por ano"
 * Waldpolenz Solar Park: "40-Megawatt-Anlage errichtet. Mit der Kraft der Sonne erzeugt die Anlage pro Jahr rund 40 Millionen Kilowattstunden"
 * —WWoods (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To avoid confusion and enhance verifiability, I suggest that each figure in the GWh column be accompanied by a citation to show where that data has come from. Johnfos (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Selected smaller plants
I am afraid that this section is just random list not based on notability. --Jklamo (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it really is just blue links for smaller plants that we had articles for. Johnfos (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We have more articles than blue links there. So i propose to get rid of that section completly or to remake it with real notability claims (for example largest station in XX country or former world largest station completed in xx). --Jklamo (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy for you to do what you see fit. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
The main source being used in this article seems to be a self-published website -- PVresources.com -- and so doesn't appear to qualify as reliable, per WP:RS. Comments welcome. Johnfos (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? They seemed to cooperate with scholars and were published in reliable third-party publications (here is a link from EC website). --Jklamo (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFPUBLISH discusses things more. I think the one thing that would make PVresources.com qualify as a reliable source on WP would be if there were an "established expert on the topic" who was running the site, but this is not the case as far as I can see. Certainly I have no problem with reliable scholarly and third party sources, and I think this is what we should aim for. Johnfos (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be ideal if we could get info from peer-reviewed sources, but little appears to be available on this topic. Fortunately there does appear to be reasonable coverage of basic info about larger plants in several other sources. For example: PV Power Plants 2010: Industry Guide p. 12 Johnfos (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've weighed in on WP:RSN, and believe Pvresources meets the requirements for an expert SPS. And this is the type of information a primary or SPS source would be appropriate for; a list of power plants is not something that requires scholarly peer review. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should go with that, and accept that Denis Lenardic is an "established expert on the topic", and so PVresources.com is an acceptable SPS. Johnfos (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. And we can always add more sources to compare/contrast with. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose to merge List of photovoltaic power stations in 2011 into this article. The inclusion criteria for List of photovoltaic power stations in 2011 is not clear and it seems largely duplicate this list. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a fork. Redirected to this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it actually covers a lot more material, and won't have to be updated. Fotaun (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems excruciatingly and agressively pointless; do we have Germany in 2011 just so we don't have to update it? Updates are kind of low-cost here on Jimbo's Dream. See also WP:CFORK. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This article trims the smallest power plants as they become too numerous to cover, but is preserved on the other page. As for forking, article spinouts are widely accepted. Fotaun (talk)
 * Why 2011? Why not 2008? Or 2012? Or 1998? It's arbitrary. One article is enough. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 was chosen since it is the current year, but maybe there is a better solution? If your willing, look at this revision. See how this content is not being duplicated? Fotaun (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is just random pick from history of the article. Now we have full list over 25 MW, by restoring parts of the list, you just get a random not updated list of 5 - 25 MW plants. --Jklamo (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What we have done in the past is include a smaller systems listing in the relevant "Solar power in xxxx" page. See, for example, Solar power in Germany. I think this approach works quite well. Johnfos (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Solar power in 2010s"? Fotaun (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Inclusion smaller plants to the regional list is good idea, as regional list can have lower cut-off level and still be complete. --Jklamo (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I understand that possible compromise was adding smaller stations in "Solar power in xxxx" or regional lists, not moving the article to List of photovoltaic power stations up to 2010 as it was done. Beagel (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, moved it to "Solar power in 2011". Fotaun (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A bad idea. 2011 is a completely arbitrary year. I'd prefer to see major projects kept here ( if at some point there are too many, the lower threshold for capacity can be increased). Yearly articles are for a solar power industry yearbook, not an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you misinpreted "Solar power in xxx". Under xxx we meant country or region (see Template:Renewable energy by country), not just year. --Jklamo (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Cut-off
List is getting longer and longer and thus harder to maintain. Also smaller stations are now occupying big part of the list. Thus i suggest to raise the bar to the 25 or even 30 MW. --Jklamo (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * List is again getting too long and unmanageable. Looking at the second list of projects under development, there is a good case for increasing the cut-off to 100MW --RaAmun (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 100 MW is too much, that will left only 10 power stations. Second section is long, but note that it includes also proposed only stations (and some of them are unlikely to be built in fact). 30 MW or 40 MW will be more reasonable. --Jklamo (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How about 50MW for the first list (still leaves about 40 stations on the list - and it will soon get longer), and 100MW for the 2nd list (they are mostly over 100MW anyway)? --RaAmun (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This list now has nearly 80 entries, which is much too long to be able to maintain with any accuracy (I am aware of about 35 operating projects of 30MW+ which could be added). If the cutoff is raised to 50MW, the list would still have 40 entries (plus 8 to be added). I propose that would be more manageable.--RaAmun (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I support an increase to 50MW--MrRenewables (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, 50 MW seems reasonable. Beagel (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See proposal on future cut-off below. --RaAmun (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Golmud Solar Park
Golmud Solar Park was removed from pvresources list. That is suspicious, as pvresources is highly reliable source. However we have another sources, here is one from december, stating that plant is u/c but "Due to the fast paced nature of the project ... needed to be ... implemented within a two-week period". Unfortunately it is not easy to get reliable informations from China. So my opinion is to keep project in the list. --Jklamo (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The topic is really very confusing and there seems to be different projects in Golmud by the same name. One sources talks about 200 MW project, others talk about 20 MW project . Although they seems to be different projects, it is quite difficult to understand what is what. I would be useful if somebody will start articles about these solar parks to have more systematic information collected in one place. Beagel (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For sure there are multiple projects in Golmud developed by different developers. But i am afraid there are even multiple projects by same developers and multiple projects with same nominal power by (hope that) multiple developers. Thus result are very confusing. There is some list, to confuse more 200 MW project in Golmud developed by Huanghe Hydropower is missing there. --Jklamo (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are multiple references stating that there is a 200 MW solar park - if it is disinformation it is a huge news story, and that has not broken to my knowledge. There is also under development in China a 2000 MW, 25 sq. mile (65 sq. km) photovoltaic plant, scheduled for completion in 2019, the Ordos Solar Project, but my guess is that by 2019 that will not even make the list of largest solar plants - the cutoff being 3 GW or even larger. I would guess that a typical large solar plant by then will be about 10-20 GW. Apteva (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Apteva and Johnfos on this. The (alleged) 200MW project is clearly distinct from the 10 and 20MW projects referenced elsewhere. These may be those which are now visible on satellite mapping here and here. There is a further 20MW project to the East of Golmud in the CDM system, which may be at the site here (though it looks a bit too small). The CCTV reference I have added shows a project which is much larger than any of those, and could be 200MW, though it's hard to tell. If it's the size quoted in the text, that's about right. --MrRenewables (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiki-solar shows it as here. Apteva (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Serbia
What about mx groups serbian project?Oldboltonian (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Apteva (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Main table needs cleanup
The main table in this article, “World's largest photovoltaic power stations (25 MW or larger)”, is very large, has many redlinks, has much missing info, and is difficult to read. I would suggest that some of the redlinked PV plants listed in the left hand column be turned into blue links to an associated article. The co-ordinates should be listed in a smaller font to make them less obtrusive. Some columns (eg., capacity factor, annual production) have a tremendous amount of missing data, add to clutter, and contribute little, and should probably be removed until a much more complete data set is available. Johnfos (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Still too many redlinks in main Table, but some improvements have been made. Johnfos (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Special thanks to Apteva for filling in some of the redlinks and updating the Table... Johnfos (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All the redlinks are gone, but I just removed the links for the proposed and under construction redlinks. They can be restored as soon as articles are created. Apteva (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Indian plants in planning; Gujarat, Charanka
I'm dubious about these four 1,000 MW entries, as India has a history of ambitious energy plans that come to nothing. Johnfos (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have now removed these four entries. Johnfos (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gujarat Solar Park is being dedicated on 19 April 2012. By my watch that is the day after tomorrow. It consists of 80 projects, about 42 of them now completed. They are consolidated into one giant aggregate solar park under the Gujarat Power Corporation. Apteva (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this. That would certainly be a worthy inclusion in the article. Johnfos (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have temporarily moved Golmud and Gujarat to the under development section to avoid the edit war that has been going on. It is pretty clear that more than 25 MW is operational - 570 MW in the Golmud, China area, and at least 100 MW in Gujarat, India. This should resolve itself after tomorrow when Gujarat Solar Park is dedicated, and after the top 50 PV website is updated. Apteva (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a good compromise. As for Golmud, I think we still need to find little bit more precise information about different projects. There is still a bit of confusion about these projects. Beagel (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Charanka should be listed as there are many references to 214MW being operational there. However, strictly speaking, it is a number of different installations built by different companies. Conversely I do not believe that Gujarat Solar Park should be listed. This name has been widely used in the press recently, but is a collective title for most or all of the solar projects being installed around the state of Gujarat. If we include it, then we could in future find ourselves listing 'Germany Solar Park' with a capacity of many GW! --MrRenewables (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Charanka is all at one location, though - it is a large solar park that was available to whoever wanted to build a section. Calling Gujarat one solar park was quite like calling California one solar park. They were consolidated into one article simply because of the existence of a "Gujarat Solar Park", complete with website and logo - two of them now =. For some time Rajasthan has been attempting to build large solar projects, also in the Thar Desert. It will be interesting to see if they follow Gujarat's example. Apteva (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Update
List is starting to fall behind. shows some large U.S. projects as complete that we list as under construction. Rmhermen (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to update list using linked reference. But try to found also another reference, in past I was trying to use older version of linked list as reference, but I found multiple errors there. --Jklamo (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking through that source I see

listed as operational but are "under construction" on our list. Also Topaz is listed with 34MW online so not quite enough yet. Rmhermen (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Centinela, 170MW,
 * Imperial south (First Solar), 120MW
 * Imperial phase 1 (AES Solar), 200MW
 * This confirms 200MW Imperial Phase 1 and gives Centinela (but only 125MW) in August. Also gives different value for Catalina than we already have on list (60+66 is less than or 143). At least 40MW are online at Imperial South  but I can't find a second source saying that all 120 are online yet. Rmhermen (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like one or more of the Imperial Valley plants is renamed as is its parent company: "Silver Ridge Power LLC, formerly known as AES Solar, and Google Inc. announced Thursday that Google became a partner and will invest about $103 million in Silver Ridge Power’s 265.7 MW Mount Signal Solar project." And I think it is the project that this article is about: [Imperial Valley Solar Project]. Some cleanup is definitely required. Rmhermen (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Update
Sorry I am new to Wikipedia, but how about adding the following Photovoltaic Power Station to the list: China, Xinjiang Hami: Currently, 150MW are installed, with plans for much more: Source http://www.meeting-china.com.cn/Industry_News/Pvsystem/2013/0328/1300.htmlAndythetiger62 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't seem to say that it is built but that it will be. Rmhermen (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is built, and it is partially on grid, e.g. 40MW by Huadian, 60MW by CPI (China Power Investment) and 40MW by CGN (China Guangdong Nuclear Power). Andythetiger62 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see those numbers in the link you gave. Rmhermen (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see this link by a PV consultancy based in Beijing China: http://www.aecea.com.de/mediapool/134/1345433/data/2014_08_03_China_Briefing_Paper_Solar_Market_Development_Frank_Haugwitz_AECEA.pdf Andythetiger62 (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)User:andythetiger62 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andythetiger62 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposals
Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) What? Removing month of the year in 'Commissioned' column. Why?It would make sorting possible (or just easier to implement). In my opinion for readers a month of commissioning doesn't say much.
 * 2) What? Adding a separate column just for references Why? Easier for reader to keep a track of source, rather than search it in the whole row
 * 3) What? Production (annual) should have a (est), (avg) or (year) after the value Why? Easier to see if it is an expectation or actual
 * 4) What? Introduction needs to be rewritten Why? Outdated statistics


 * Hi there, pls feel free to implement your suggestions. Do it in small pieces per edit, so that when someone (e.g. me) disagrees, we can sort it out better. One thing, try not to enter new-lines and tripple-pipes in the wikitable syntax, OK? So let's go tiger and do your best :) -- Cheers,  R fassbind   -talk   13:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know what new-lines and tripple-pipes are, but I know that when I used a visual editor in order to create a new column, it removed the table title. The list seems to need a facelift and verifications. And some article pages about individual power stations need to be created. To be short: a lot of work. In order to save time, I think that the solar parks with above 100 MW capacity should be more prioritised than those that are below 100 MW. Because as the list grows, it seems to be a good idea to shorten it by setting minimum to 100 MW and moving those that are below to a new article page (For example: List of photovoltaic power stations between 50MW and 100 MW). In my mind it needs restructuring so it would look like this: List of photovoltaic power stations above 100 MW – classify as a list for big power stations; List of photovoltaic power stations between 50MW and 100 MW – list for medium size, List of photovoltaic power stations below 50MW – small size. P.S.:Range may vary. ––  Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Georgij, I agree with so much you noticed above. Also, sorry about the today's confusion I caused in our effort to improve the table about the largest PV power stations in the world. I suggest we proceed in two steps. First, we change the structure of the existing table. When this is done, we can talk about how many records, what limit and other criteria should be applied to the table, OK?

Step One -- Here are the structural changes I suggest: Well that's it. Let me know where you disagree. After that we just need to coordinate (our) edits and when this is done we can discuss the second step I mentioned in the beginning. Hope I made sense. Cheers, --  R fassbind   -talk   15:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Date commissioned column: move month to the comment column (if not there already). So column is sortable in all types of browsers (as you correctly noticed).
 * References: this is a hard one, as some references only are used for specific bits of information. But yes, let's move all references to a new column "Refs" (at the end of the table, if possible without using visual editor?).
 * Coordinates: unfortunately it seems there is no way to only display the icon. The (long) string of of numbers are always displayed. I sugguest to use Template:small wrapped around the coordinate values (so it takes less space). Also, should we move the column? Maybe to the second-last position, right before the "Ref's" column?
 * Generation (GWh) data: to me, theses figures are all estimates. By definition they gradually decrease over the years and fluctuate for each year as well. In addition, for most power stations there is no such figure available. Any attempt to calculate the approx. Generation figure would be WP:OR. My suggestion: remove the "Production Annual" column, and move the generation values (GWh) to the "Comment/Remarks" column. If you asked me, in this case I would be a little inconsistent and let any specific reference stick to the generation figure, and not move that type of citation to the Ref's column.
 * New col Location: I suggest to add a new column "location". That contains a state or province name.
 * Sortable colums: currently all columns are sortable: this makes no sense for remarks, coordinates and probalby not even for column "location" (if implemented). Soratbillity can be removed for specific columns.
 * Simplify headers: column header should be simplified (I already simplified the ones that are hardly controversial).
 * Footer: it's always a good thing to use footnotes if additional explanations are needed that concern more than one power plant (e.g. capacity figure in watt-peak vs AC figures)

–– Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Date commissioned column: Month removed completely as it isn't history article, and just a year is pretty much enough. And commissioning month isn't that accurate sometimes, because some references say that it is the date of completion of construction and not the connection to power grid. And in the long run, the month becomes less and less important.
 * Refs: yes, new column
 * Coordinates: I think they should stay at the same place. And to make the numbers smaller is a good idea. Also it would be nice to add a map that displays all the coordinated in this page in one image.
 * Generation Gwh: is very varying number. I think it should be removed as it is hard to find a solid data. And any data moved to 'Remarks'
 * New col Location: I think the state/province isn't important for small countries, and should be added just for countries that are big, like for example US. state should be added in the same column as country. Most of the readers aren't that much familiar with geography of countries, and province/state won't give much info, the coordinate are the ones that gives exact location beside the 'country'.
 * Sortable colums: yeah, sortability should be removed for Remarks.
 * Simplify headers: it seems simple enough.
 * Footer: Cap MW is actually DC, and is converted to AC in order to connect it with power grid. Average loss with conversion is about 15%. I don't think the MW AC should be added, because there could be some power station that may use HVDC grid (None that I know of, but if).


 * Also we can merge Country and Co-ordinates column (like on one page that I worked on before), but I don't think it would look decent. ––Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Constantly updating Do/Done list:

 Done : Refs (current stations)

 To Do : Add missing Co-ordinates; add references for rows without any reference; red must die

–Last updated: Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Overall revision table (as per 23 April 2015):

–Last updated:  R fassbind  -talk   13:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Commission date now displays year only (moved month to col "remarks"). Dates for several records are missing (marked as "???").
 * 2) Merged Country/Coordinates into one column, named "Location". It would be nice if some farms would display the additional state info (especially for those in the USA).
 * 3) Centered values for columns: Capacity, Generation, and Year.
 * 4) Renamed header (simplified)
 * 5) Added "n.a." when generation (GWh) is missing.
 * 6) Ref-column eats up too much space, I think.
 * 7) Clean-up syntax (removed newlines, consistent spacing between cells . Suggestion: since structure of table is no longer compatible with the other table "under construction", it doesn't matter anymore if additional changes to the layout of table are made. So maybe we should change the table's structure to "one-line-per-cell" (removing double pipes). This would be more appropriate for such a "complex" table?

Consistent policy for future cut-off threshold
Because this list will continue to tend to get longer - and therefore less manageable - as it has in the past, it would be sensible to have a consistent policy for setting new cut-off thresholds. Here is a proposal for the future:


 * We agree a 'Lower Limit' on the length of the list (perhaps 40) and an 'Upper Limit' (say 60). We also agree a reasonable sequence of capacity cut-off thresholds after the current 50MW; perhaps 60, 75, 100, 120, 150 MW etc.


 * The threshold would be raised to the next level when BOTH of the following apply: The existing list length exceeds the 'Upper Limit', AND if the next threshold is adopted the list length will NOT be less than the 'Lower Limit'.


 * On this basis, the threshold does not need to change at present. What do editors think? --RaAmun (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to shorten this list as we are missing a number of completed 50MW plants - and the incomplete data for India and China especially will make these now lower end plants increasingly hard to track. Rmhermen (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of photovoltaic power stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121014155331/http://www.solarserver.com:80/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/2012/kw35/chile-gives-environmental-approval-for-5065-mw-of-pv-projects.html to http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/2012/kw35/chile-gives-environmental-approval-for-5065-mw-of-pv-projects.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of photovoltaic power stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120716183436/http://www.serbia-energy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1208:solar-park-highlights-the-growing-focus-on-green-energy-projects-in-serbia&catid=35:resources&Itemid=38 to http://www.serbia-energy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1208:solar-park-highlights-the-growing-focus-on-green-energy-projects-in-serbia&catid=35:resources&Itemid=38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Combined capacity
I would guess this is no longer true? Any one want to add it up? "...combined capacity of about 12 gigawatts peak." Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We may have 1 GW of errors predating that time (January 2015) and almost twice that total to the present. I don't think we can give a very accurate total at the moment. Rmhermen (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Imperial Valley
There now seem to be four plants using this name and I am not sure we have them all straightened out yet.
 * CSOLAR IV South (Tenaska) 130 MW finished -- aka Imperial Valley South
 * Imperial Valley Solar 1 (AES; formerly Mt. Signal Solar) 200 MW finished
 * CSOLAR IV West (Tenaska) Solar PV Imperial Valley, CA 150 MW Pre-construction --- aka Imperial Valley West
 * SolarGen2 Imperial Valley 150MW In Construction

Rmhermen (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the stub article Imperial Valley Solar Project probably refers to what is now Imperial Valley Solar 1 but I am not certain. Rmhermen (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Imperial Valley Solar 1 and Mt. Signal Solar are different projects. SEIA list includes Mount Signal Solar Farm and Imperial Valley Solar Project Phase 1. They have different developers (Abengoa/AES Solar) and different time of completion. Shamash-hors (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * According EIA (and previous editions):

Jklamo (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From the EIA monthly plant level database, I find

so two plants with the same name and one that hasn't reported in almost two years (it is also in northern Imperial County while the other three are in the south). Imperial Valley Solar Project is about Imperial Valley Solar LLC, #56917. Rmhermen (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Imperial Valley Solar LLC, #56917 from Nov 2013 to present
 * Imperial Valley Solar Center South, #58468, from July 2013 to present
 * Imperial Valley Solar Center South, #57490, from November 2013 to present
 * Imperial Valley Solar Company 1, LLC, #58062, from June 2012 to Dec 2012
 * Imperial Solar Energy Center West, #57491 is not under construction yet.

From this article:


 * 1)    Imperial Valley Solar Farm 200 MW (#56917, Imperial Valley Solar LLC)
 * 2)    Mount Signal Solar 200 MW (aka  Imperial Valley Solar 1 (IVS1))
 * 3)    Imperial Solar Energy Center South 150 MW (matches 130MW ac Imperial Solar Energy Center South #57490 owned by CSOLAR IV South LLC)
 * 4)    SolarGen 2 Imperial Valley 150 MW  (150 MW Solar Gen 2 #58592 owned Southern Power Co, near Calipatria)

The plans for a 150MW (or larger?) Imperial Valley Solar 2, LLC - Mount Signal Solar 2 [www.waterboards.ca.gov/.../water.../imperial_valley.pdf], the lack of any data at the Electricity Data Browser for Mount Signal and the same reported MW and lack of any other plant in Google earth lead me to believe that 1 and 2 are the same plant.

10 MW Heber Solar #58398 owned by Imperial Solar 1 LLC is new to my above list but Imperial Solar Energy Center West, #57491 is not mentioned. Current list skips from 57490 to 57494. Imperial Valley Solar Center South, #58468 is also no longer mentioned. Rmhermen (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose merging Mount Signal and Imperial Valley Solar Farm as they appear to be the same solar farm. Rmhermen (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing / excess solar farms on list?
Comparing our list to the Large-Scale PV Power Plants - Top50 which we use several times as a source (and allowing for different naming and different method of counting added phases), I still found a number of differences:

We have at least 3 farms not on his list:
 * Imperial Valley Solar Farm 200 MW on list - our own article says 99MW (old mistake now corrected)
 * Imperial Solar Energy Center South 150 MW
 * SolarGen 2 Imperial Valley 150 MW

Several parks appear on his list but not on ours:
 * Canada - Grand Renewable Solar Project (GRS) 133MW (only 100MW per )
 * Honduras - Nacaome PV power Plant 	146MW 2015
 * Canada - Kingston PV Power Plant 140 MW 2015 magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/sma-takes-over-operational-management-of-canadas-largest-pv-plant_100016533/#axzz42WwCQM7S]
 * Thailand - Tambol Huawai 126 MW, 2013 [pennwell.websds.net/2014/kl/rewa/papers/t1s8o3-paper.pdf]
 * Germany - Solarpark Jocksdorf 104 MWp, 2012 - can't find a good reference, the German Wikipedia article supports those numbers but is unreferenced
 * South Africa - Kathu Solar Facility 100 MWp 2015 - I think this is a mistake for the 100 MW solar thermal plant proposed there..

I can't sort out the 100MW Chinese ones: We have:
 * Gansu Jiayuguan Solar Park - completed June 2013
 * Xitieshan Solar Park - 2011
 * Ningxia Qingyang Solar Park - 2013 -- (appears correct )

Large-Scale PV Power Plants - Top50 has: Any help sorting this out is appreciated. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jiayuguan PV power plant, Gansu Province - 2013
 * Xitieshan I,II,III PV power plant - 2012
 * Chengde PV Project Phase I and II, Hebei Province - 2013 -- appears correct
 * Xiangshui Solar - 2014            -- appears correct -magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/jinkosolar-connects-100-mw-of-pv-project-in-chinas-jiangsu-province-_100016388/#axzz42dNMv1BH])
 * Gonghe County, Qinghai Province - 2013  -- appears to be a mistake for a 20 MW plant there
 * I added the missing ones where I found other sources (added Grand Renewable, Kingston, Nacaome, Tambol Huawai, Chengde, Xiangshui but not Kathu, Gonghe, and Jocksdorf) and removed 200MW Imperial Valley. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If we talk about China, this cluster (called Qili Photoelectricity Park, Qili Solar Cluster etc.) is possibly 500 MW+. --Jklamo (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of planned and under construction section
I removed this section as it is not being maintained and probably cannot be. Some of these projects are already finished, some never abandoned, many are renamed, many never made it of the drawing board. Many actual under construction solar farms never appear in this section at all. I just checked a list of eight 100MW and larger solar farms under construction in Texas and only one group of them appears in the list but it is listed as one 400MW farm instead of three 100 MW farms. And this is for the United States where we have good data. The number of missing farms in China and India must be enormous. Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal of planned power stations, but I am neutral about removal of under construction power stations (preferably with higher threshold like 200 MW). --Jklamo (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have fragmented this discussion by bringing it up again in a new section at the end of this talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Large systems under construction or in planning

 * Legend: * Under construction; ** Planned


 * I've hidden the table for brevity. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Planned section
When another editor makes a change like removing an unmaintainable section, and provides an explanation on the talk page, it's better not to simply restore it with no explanation either in the edit summary or on the talk page. We can't read your mind. We don't know why you did this. Maybe you are offering to help maintain this section? Please explain, then we can discuss. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The previously removed section, Planned and Under Construction Solar Power Stations, is too unique to be occluded from public view. And by doing so, only those users who viewed it previously would know it was missing. More importantly, solar power is notably defined by projects that are planned, but not yet online. Yes, I am offering to help maintain the section, and began work on this over the weekend. Alternately, I would suggest making this section its own page, if its inclusion is currently burdensome to the existing page. Apologies, I am returning to editing after many years away, and simply do not know how to perform many tasks.Lambeth8 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The errors in just the first ten items in that list are larger than the total of everything on the already built list. It is easy to find references when these things are proposed but very hard to find when the plans are finally, completely abandoned. The list is full of these, and renamed projects and vague concepts we can't track, etc. And the information out of China and India is so fragmentary that we aren't completely sure what has already been built, much less what is upcoming. I don't believe that the list is helpful as is or easily maintainable at all. Rmhermen (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I could go along with including projects that are actually under construction, but I'm opposed to including ones that are on paper only. Anyone can announce or plan a project, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides the still unresolved items in the previous sections, some other problems just in the U.S.: I find Blythe Solar and Blythe Mesa listed as separate projects here, Imperial Valley West listed as both "on hold" and due for completion this year in separate but recent government documents, Henrietta Solar may be in Westlands Solar or just outside but Westlands should probably be disallowed following the criteria for India and Chinese groups of plants. Rmhermen (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. I think we have clear consensus to remove planned plants.--Jklamo (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is to move the Planned and Under Construction List to its own separate page. I follow these projects as an independent journalist, and have been happy to start updating the list. Yes, there are many conflicts--they are mostly the result of outdated information. My most recent edits of Blythe Mesa and Henrietta really are the result of considerable research, and my understanding of the process. So, as I do not know how to move the list to a new page, perhaps one could help or suggest how to do so. Finally, it's too lengthy a topic to go into here, but, one really does have to understand the project approval timeline to distinguish between projects that are merely early proposals, and ones that are underway. I'd rather not try to adjudicate that tricky spectrum here. So, again, I propose to move what can become, with some effort, a valuable and useful page--which I will not only continue to update, but may bring in other solar folks to help edit.Thanks!Lambeth8 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't think that the list can be maintained in a way that makes it useful. Look at how many completed 100MW+ plants I had to add to the list recently, look at how we still don't have a source for the MW rating of Jocksdorf, look at how Solar Star may never have been the largest in the world despite all the headlines. These should be easy but they aren't. The Chinese seem to have built the largest farm in the world with no one noticing. Finding out anything from China and India where 10s of GW are planned is not simple. Rmhermen (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Your opinion about the usefulness is based on your competency in this domain. That's fine. I have a different view. So now, instead of re-stating our views once more, I would like to formally propose to move the list to its own separate page, where I can continue to improve, correct, and update it and where I can bring in others to help out. Can those who have weighed in on this issue so far, sign off on this idea? Let's dispense with the idea that killing the page is a superior solution to a move. And it would be much appreciated if you could point me to the technical procedure to move the list. Lambeth8 (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC) cc
 * See Splitting. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the Planned Section
Unless some reasonable objection is raised, I will Split the Planned Section into its own page on 26 March. Many thanks to for the tech help. I am already recruiting energy professionals familiar with the data sourcing to make the new page a success. Best to all. Lambeth8 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Three different people have told you that it is a bad idea. If you do split it off, I encourage you to follow the suggestions above and limit the scope to already under construction farms. I am disappointed that you haven't used your expertise to help solve any of the outstanding issues in the list of completed plants. Rmhermen (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Splitting process currently underway to new page List of photovoltaic power stations in planning or under construction. Once a period of initial clean-up to the new article is completed, I will return to the list of completed plants from time to time to help clean up, update, and improve that list to the extend its needed as suggested. Lambeth8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Leaving it to the discretion of current editors whether to hide, or delete, the list of projects in planning or under construction. Lambeth8 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Quaid e azam solar park
Kindly update the page Quaid e azam solar park, Pakistan Capcity has reached 400 MWs recently in june 2016 Pekizo (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources saying that this expansion is completed. Recent sources say it is expected by the "end of the year" Rmhermen (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of photovoltaic power stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714181024/http://eng.cpicorp.com.cn/e_corporateNews/201312/t20131218_227495.htm to http://eng.cpicorp.com.cn/e_corporateNews/201312/t20131218_227495.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101000000/http://www.pvresources.com/PVPowerPlants/Top50.aspx to http://www.pvresources.com/PVPowerPlants/Top50.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128172123/http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy/2012_priority_projects.html to http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy/2012_priority_projects.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of photovoltaic power stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119074222/http://international.pv-tech.org/chip_shots_blog/ac_dc_conundrum_latest_pv_power_plant_ratings_follies_put_focus_on_reportin to http://international.pv-tech.org/chip_shots_blog/ac_dc_conundrum_latest_pv_power_plant_ratings_follies_put_focus_on_reportin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of photovoltaic power stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130425130939/http://www.powertribemag.com/2013/02/aeg-to-build-450mw-solar-project-in-Pakistan.html to http://www.powertribemag.com/2013/02/aeg-to-build-450mw-solar-project-in-Pakistan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140415041139/http://www.gpclindia.com/showpage.aspx?contentid=15 to http://www.gpclindia.com/showpage.aspx?contentid=15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160410081435/http://www.phelanenergygroup.com/our-projects/de-aar-project-1/ to http://www.phelanenergygroup.com/our-projects/de-aar-project-1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901130149/http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=758547 to http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=758547
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226043004/http://www.welspunenergy.com/welspunenergy/Businesses_WREL.html to http://www.welspunenergy.com/welspunenergy/Businesses_WREL.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Time to raise lower limit again?
Currently the lower limit is set at 100MW and there are 67 projects on the list (probably very accurate for U.S., mostly accurate for rest of world except poor accuracy for India and China). Changing the limit to
 * "over 100" would shorten list by 17 (25%)  leaving 50 projects
 * "over 110"                   by 22  (33%)  leaving 45
 * "at least 150"               by 38  (56%)  leaving 29
 * "at least 200"               by 48  (72%)  leaving 19

A number of new projects will exceed 200MW in 2017, probably at least 10 new entries. The U.S. has at least 20 projects due by the end of 2017 in the 100-200MW range but only 3-4 in the 200MW+ range. Note, however, that at a 200MW cutoff the number of countries in the table would drop immediately from 15 to 5 with 3 or 4 countries likely to rejoin the table in the next 1-2 years. Perhaps a table of over 100MW if largest in country could be added? Rmhermen (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking back in the talk archive I see an old proposal to shorten the list every time it exceeds 60 items. Which we have now. Rmhermen (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Raised limit to 150MW or larger, with 33 items in list (four more than on list in mid-November, with 4 more scheduled for completion in 2016 but unconfirmed: 160MW Roserock, 250MW Moapa Southern Paiute, 250MW Mesquite addition, 175MW Astoria ). Rmhermen (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another editor added a Chinese one and I found confirmation Roserock online so we are at 35 (need to confirm Moapa Southern Paiute, Mesquite addition, Astoria, Neuhardenberg Germany addition, Yanchi China) Rmhermen (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we raise a limit again to 200 MW? What is our target number of displayed fields? – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The most recent proposal was this one from the talk archive: "Because this list will continue to tend to get longer - and therefore less manageable - as it has in the past, it would be sensible to have a consistent policy for setting new cut-off thresholds. Here is a proposal for the future: We agree a 'Lower Limit' on the length of the list (perhaps 40) and an 'Upper Limit' (say 60). We also agree a reasonable sequence of capacity cut-off thresholds after the current 50MW; perhaps 60, 75, 100, 120, 150 MW etc. The threshold would be raised to the next level when BOTH of the following apply: The existing list length exceeds the 'Upper Limit', AND if the next threshold is adopted the list length will NOT be less than the 'Lower Limit'. On this basis, the threshold does not need to change at present. What do editors think? --RaAmun (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)"


 * Short version: Keep the list between 40-60 entries. We are currently at 43 entries. There was no real discussion of the proposal at the time. Rmhermen (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The list currently has 55 items. Moving the cut-off to 200MW would leave 39 entries. Rmhermen (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--Jklamo (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

removed plants
When removing the plants below 200 MW, I noticed an odd one: Zhongli Tenghui solar farm || 🇨🇳||39.73528°N, 98.07944°W || align="center" | || align="center" |
 * align="center" | 2015 || largest farm in Jiayuguan Solar Park a group of co-located power plants which has a total of 589MW ||

This might qualify if we counted it like Charanka. 589MW would be well-up on the list. I can't seem to find much information on the plant though. Rmhermen (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming expansions
In the U.S., several sites on this list - Antelope Valley, Mount Signal Springbok (3), Blythe PV, and Imperial Valley Solar - are all scheduled for expansions before 2022. Which of these expoansions count as separate plants, especially in Imperial Valley may take some careful consideration. Rmhermen (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

table sorting
Whenever you sort the table by capacity, the two Three Gorges projects (500MW) are not sorted. They stay at the top/bottom of the list. Can someone fix this? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Jklamo (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Plant vs. solar park vs. solar cluster
I am afraid we failed to distinguish between individual power plants, solar park and clusters (see for example article "A guide to the world’s largest solar power stations" by Philip Wolfe at pv magazine, blacklisted unfortunately).

We are randomly mixing these three in one table. I am not sure if we are able to split the list into three and properly source them, but at least split to plants vs. parks/clusters should be possible. Any thoughts? Jklamo (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is an impossible task. These terms are not well defined anyway. And I think it would be very difficult to find reliable sources for this kind of detailed information (such as single solar plants inside solar parks). --Ita140188 (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Benban Solar Park
It seems that Benban Solar Park is close to completion. If completed, it would be the largest solar park in the world at 1.8 GW. I cannot find reliable sources that report project completion. If you can find a reference, please reinstate the project in the list. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This source says it's completed, but reports the capacity at 1.5 GW. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This Egyptian source with reference to this source is reporting 1.46 GW (1465 MW). Jklamo (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Combined Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Stations
Ouarzazate Solar Power Station is a 510 MWe solar thermal (CSP) power plant with added a 72 MWp section. The same goes for Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park which will have a 700 MWe Solar Thermal section. Should we but them in a separate list or delete the Ouarzazate plant, which does not qualify as at least 200 MWp, and downsize the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum to 700 MWp less ? --Robertiki (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Being a list of PV plants, only the PV capacity counts, so Ouarzazate is not large enough to be included. It's already in List of solar thermal power stations. The other plant however has enough PV capacity to qualify. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, to avoid confusion we list PV capacity only.Jklamo (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Cutoff point should be at least 500 MW
Otherwise the list will become too long and not kept up to date I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The list is currently 70 entries, which is reasonable, but I agree with the sentiment. 34 of them are in the 200–300 range so for now 300 could be a fair cutoff; 500 would make it smaller than necessary to be decently comprehensive. However I don't think there's a pressing need yet unless there's reason to believe we are in fact missing several and are out of date – perhaps wait until the end of the year to do it. I did a news search for "solar plant/farm opens" but didn't see anything we're missing. Reywas92Talk 07:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with raising the cutoff to 500 MW. We are very likely missing a lot of Chinese plants. There are only 10 Chinese plants, even though China has about a third of global PV capacity. I would expect at least a third of the plants in this list to be in China. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The list should absolutely not be cut by more than two-thirds at once – only seven countries have plants at in the top 22 and there's no need to excise so much relevant information. I'm not sure why potential unknown data justifies deleting known data here, as this doesn't purport to rank the projects. I will try to find more Chinese projects. Reywas92Talk 09:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have a strong opinion about raising the cutoff, keeping it as it is also works for me. However, I think we should try to have a complete list as much as possible (raising the cutoff makes it easier). The current list has a large bias towards English speaking countries, giving the wrong impression that other countries are not very active in the solar power sector. Another comment, slightly related: I think we should harmonize the capacity values by listing DC capacity when available, which is the standard for reporting global solar PV capacity in reliable sources (such as IEA). AC capacity is generally much lower than DC, so right now we are comparing apples and oranges. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree on AC/DC, unfortunately the news articles often don't report both. Reywas92Talk 19:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned above "perhaps wait until end of year". As it seems from https://www.yellowhaze.in/list-of-solar-parks-in-india/ that quite a few 500MW and above plants are missing from India alone what do you think now? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Didn't get the ping since it has to be in the same edit as a signature. Do we know all of those plants have been built? The date column says approval not completion so it's not clear how many would need to be added; I know some proposals haven't gone through. Non counting those there's only 42 >=500 and 79 total since it's been cut to 300 MW now. I think the list could have up to 100 plants before it needs to be trimmed again. Reywas92Talk 17:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems this list is far from complete looking at https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/biggest-solar-farms
 * I doubt anyone will complete the list unless the cutoff point is raised a lot Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? This list isn't missing anything in that link, all 15 are here. I think the Golmud Solar Park includes the Huanghe Hydropower Hainan Solar Park as well as the Huanghe Hydropower Golmud Solar Park listed lower; these may be separate phases whose entries should be combined.
 * We have Template:dynamic list on here and recognize that as new projects are being built – or solar parks are being expanded – we might not be be able to keep this fully complete and up to date. The list does not present itself as perfectly complete or as a ranking, and simply deleting projects doesn't actually solve a problem. It cuurently has 71 entries in the main table, which is not unmanageable. Reywas92Talk 19:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Gonghe Talatan
Driftboating is right, there is over 8 GW of solar at the massive park near Longyang Gorge Reservoir, not only for the state as a whole. See for what it looked like in May, and then today it's grown even more in the southeast corner since then! I outlined it on Google Maps and the solar panels cover about 50,000 acres, which is easily enough for an 8 GW capacity. The mentioned 609 square kilometers includes all the empty space between the project segments though. Both of the sources seem to confirm this. Where the first says 850 MW, that refers to the portion connected to the hydro dam as a hybrid plant (the Longyangxia Dam Solar Park subproject). Its translated "'The photovoltaic power generation park with the largest installed capacity in the world' refers to the 10-million-kilowatt ecological photovoltaic power generation project in Hainan Prefecture. The installed photovoltaic power generation capacity is 8,430 megawatts, breaking the original record of 2,245 megawatts." gives the capacity of the overall group of projects. We will have to be careful regarding the names of subprojects and whatnot though. Qinghai Golmud Solar Park and Huanghe Hydropower Golmud Solar Park are different co-located parks in the same province about 485 km west so they should be kept; the panel coverage there is about 20,000 acres for a total of about roughly 3 GW (maybe those outdated articles should be merged). Reywas92Talk 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Reywas92
 * According to the naming convention, China use the location to name the Solar Park. Like Gonghe Talatan Solar Park(Gonghe is the county name, Talatan is the location), Gelmud East Entry Solar Park(Gelmud is the city name, East Entry is the location of a freeway entrance to indicate location),etc.
 * They will has PV, PT and storage in a Solar Park to meet the code for PV development.
 * Huanghe Hydopower is one of the owner of these PV array. It also has other owner under EPC. Driftboating (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Huanghe Hydopower is one of the owner of these PV array. It also has other owner under EPC. Driftboating (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are locations of mega Solar Park in Haixi, Qinghai

1.Golmud East Entry Solar Park. 36.3823359N, 95.2186609E I have unoffical data, it showed about 2.8GW on the end of 2021

2.Wutumeiren PV Solar Park 36.8177542,93.3701067 (Eventurally it will be the largest PV solar park in the near future) 25GW and 6.95GW PV as planned West Delingha Solar Park 37.3588823,97.2154959

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftboating (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Update the capacity according to People Daily's report.

According to PV, 1GW PV uses about 20 square kilometers area.

345 sqaure kilometers matches to capacity.

Kela PV Park Phase 1 is 1GW with 16 square kilometer. This break 840MW Longyangxia PV/Hydro hybrid plant record.

New unnamed plant in China
China apparently turned on a new 2.2 GW plant in Qinghai, although no name is given in the two sources I've seen. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently we went with Huanghe Hydropower Hainan Solar Park as a name. Rmhermen (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of data and name errors in China PV solar farm. Gonghe Talatan is located in Hainan, Qinghai, China. But it's named like Gelmud. Gelmud is located in Haixi, Qinghai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftboating (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Two Giant Solar Parks are under construction

1.Kubuqi Hanggin Solar Park 8GW 

2.Kubuqi Dalad Solar Park 8GW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftboating (talk • contribs) 16:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)