Talk:Photovoltaics

Orphaned references in Photovoltaics
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Photovoltaics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fraunhofer-PR-2014": From Solar cell:  From Solar power:  From Photovoltaic system:  From Concentrator photovoltaics:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Reference link broken to:
 * "have supported solar PV installations in many countries.[6]" Eyal Privman (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Fraunhofer-PR-2014 named missing source about wafer thickness
I made the following edit, unable to found a source from Frauenhofer in 2014. I checked the 2014 Report but I have not found the claim: "Crystalline silicon wafers are nowadays only 40 percent as thick as they used to be in 1990, when they were around 400 μm.". --Robertiki (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Some dubious sources in the "Environmental costs of manufacture" section
First of all this link by Institute for Energy Research, a fossil fuel industry interest group, is currently referenced five times. If the manufacture of solar PV panels really does require "a large amount of energy" (which is a rather nebulous and imprecise claim) and is fueled by coal power, then surely it wouldn't be difficult to find a source that isn't a mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry.

Second, this article by Environmental Progress, a nuclear power interest group. Only referenced once, but the sentence it's used to source is rather forward on its non-neutrality (nebulous and imprecise wording; "potentially unsustainable", "will run out eventually", "uses toxic substances", "cause pollution", "no viable technologies for recycling"... rather impressive for a single sentence).

In light of this, the entire section should probably be closely scrutinized. Some of the sentences in there seem like they're from an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. --Veikk0.ma 03:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

- I second that, reading the article it's weird as PV panel recycling is a reality, as it is mandatory in the EU. See this article about recycling facilities in France: Bohwaz (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the same on the Institute for Energy research and deleted that passages, especially since they were repeating itself time and again. One is tempted to think that those climate denier talking points should be hammered in the heads of the readers. But you are right, User:Veikk0.ma, also the other passages and sources should be checked since they are obviously biased. It seems all those talking points came in in June 2021 by an IP contributor. It would be wise to check all those edits, maybe the IP wrote more dubious (or worse) content. Ping: User:Bohwaz. Andol (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andol, @Veikk0.ma, is this now resolved? Any objections to the removal of the tag? Femke (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I removed everything that was added by a man-on-a-mission, so it would be wise if someone closely scrutinized the whole entry, to be sure. If nothing (serious) is found, the tag can be removed. Andol (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is still has 16.6% authorship of the IP that added the climate denial source, . Most of the other things they wrote do not seem to be less accurate than most articles, and I don't see an overall clear bias. I really dislike tags when there is no actionable concern on talk. Femke (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed tag Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there still "no viable systems" for recycling photovoltaics?
This article's lead section claims that there are "no viable systems" for recycling photovoltaics. I don't think this is true; I've found other sources (such as this article from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) that appear to contradict this. Jarble (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that is untrue. I'll delete the claim in the article. See also the Discussion point above. Andol (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead section also claims that emissions caused by fossil fuels in the manufacture of solar photovoltaics "can't be avoided": is this untrue as well? Jarble (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I wonder why such unsourced claims by IPs that completely change the meaning aren't reverted at once. In the German Wikipedia such edits wouldn't have a chance. Thank you for the information! Andol (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perovskite solar cells 1.jpg

photovoltaic effect
Topic tells about photovoltaic effect or solar cell, solar panel or concentrating solar power, which? I think, this topic is unnecessary. Gokhan.kapici (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)