Talk:Solar power in Australia

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Solar power in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Hanwha Group#Affiliates|Hanwha Energy Australia]] The anchor (#Affiliates) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

New Solar power in Australia Page

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.

NPOV

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)[reply]

what reliably sourced criticism do you suggest? Or should we just make some up to find a 'competing view'? Ie, if you put in a tag, you need to identify a problem and a way, at least towards, fixing it. Merbabu 05:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, if in the name of 'balance' you talk about the market, no doubt you will bring in discussion of market failure, particularly in regard to externalities. Merbabu 09:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, keep in mind that this is an Australia-specific article. It sounds like your planned criticism is much more general and more suited to Solar power. Please focus on Australia. Merbabu 09:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draw the line

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)[reply]

Sounds fine. I would support this. Johnfos (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a seperate effort to start with the data from Geoscience Australia, and further refine it into Google Earth, there is a vast amount of data already in the database. However i understand that Wikipedia is not a link repository, so i merely put it here for reference as it will no doubt help locate sites for this wiki article - but it's a web2.0 effort so the original database can be updated/refined on demand. http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1090761 Roidroid (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Addition?

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)[reply]

Citation Solved?

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)[reply]

RECs in Australia

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)[reply]

Topics not covered

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)[reply]

Insolation

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)[reply]

Projects Table

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)[reply]

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 03-93284800TheGreenSpaces (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table is getting huge. Listing projects with few kW is not encyclopedic. I propose to put a limit at 5-10 MW or a limit on the number of entries (20?), just to list the largest solar power stations. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a list of possible additions to the page that would push the number of projects of >50 MW to 20-25. There's a few projects that haven't had finance or construction updates that I'm a little unsure of adding but even then it sits at 20 projects of >50 MW. I'd also suggest including projects only if they have finance or are under construction. For example, the Lilyvale and Tieri projects are currently stated as having development approval (Lilyvale recently obtained a PPA but the point still stands at the moment for Tieri). I don't think approval is sufficiently advanced in the development process to be included in a list of solar projects when you consider that the likes of the 1000 MW Wandoan project probably won't be producing electricity for at least a year and a half but has development approval. With dozens of projects at various points in planning and construction this list will need to have pretty strict conditions in the future. I expect by the end of next year it will only include 20 projects completed or under construction, with finance being insufficient to include, similar to the Wind power in Australia's top 10 which only includes completed projects. Conspice (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) 10:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list needs to be cleaned up. I propose to list only completed projects (actually producing electricity). --Ita140188 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edit covers most projects that are currently operating. I've left information in the edit description to find a non-exhaustive list of ongoing projects (>50 MW) on the talk page and will add that momentarily. Availability of project names within the talk page should allow the status of major projects to be more easily tracked. Conspice (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that only completed projects are to be included I would like to suggest that the Status column instead be replaced with a more specific completion date (This could be YYYY or MM/YYYY, whichever seems more appropriate. Also, in order to streamline the process of determining such dates I would like to suggest that the project list be primarily updated via the Australian Photovoltaic Institute set of data, here: http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/power-stations. This list includes all projects officially included under the Australian Government's Large Scale Renewable Energy target. These dates are typically a few months earlier than those already included in the Status column, however it is probably a more accurate measure of when generation commenced than news articles that refer to official openings.

There's now 10 projects of 50 MW+ in the projects list with at least six more that will be completed before the end of the year. Is it time to change the cutoff to 50 MW?

It's getting a bit cluttered with close to 25 projects listed at 50+ MW. Given that 10 projects was the threshold last time it's just about time to up it again to 100 MW. MystBysc (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of Haughton that's 12 over 100 MW. I'm going to up the threshold to 100 MW. MystBysc (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.1

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)[reply]

Ongoing Projects >= 100 MWac

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)[reply]

Horsepower?

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)[reply]

Agree. I removed it. --Ita140188 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solar

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)[reply]

Installations by type table

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)[reply]

Time for a clean-up

This article is extremely sprawling. I'm thinking a simpler structure like this might work well:

Quick intro with a brief history, status, and potential.
Development: Major changes in government policies, big projects (no comprehensive tables, please), and growth.
Statistics: A brief overview of solar power statistics (not a database!), focusing on the most relevant and recent data.
Challenges: Some of the issues in the industry, power grid, and economy.
Impact: Environmental and economic impact.
Outlook: Likely direction/development.

If no objections, I'll have a crack at a major rework. El T (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest plants

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)[reply]