Talk:Solar Energy

Dear Henning, your review is very good and concrete, it is focused on the content and its practical aspects and conclusions which is fine and also appears to be the main problem with the reviewed text (formally there are only little deficiencies). On the other hand, the author always has to develop his own standpoint which is somehow “biased” and defend it against others! Of course his arguments need to be as well informed and comprehensive as possible. Lina´s view is fine: developed countries have to bear the cost of development, not only derive benefits from it – and they are rational enough to “shape” this development so that it has positive impact.

--Jana Dlouha 09:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Basic criteria

1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) High

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) Medium

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) Medium

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) High

2. Summary Comments for Author(s)

2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) High

2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) Medium

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) Medium

2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) Yes (you are leaving out "accurate" downturns of solar power though, see below)

2.5. Current information (Yes/No) Yes

2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) Yes

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) Excellent-Readable

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) Yes

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) Yes

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No)Yes

3. Written Comments for Author(s)

You have made an interesting article about a highly relevant topic. Your writing style is quite fluent and the entire Wiki-Article is well structured. Especially the challenges to meeting energy demand in the coming decades is well pictured, so it’s relevance comes across well. There are only some minor issues I like to address chronologically.

First, there is the correlation of oil price and supply: You should realize that without inflation current oil prices are actually lower than in the 70s and 80s. To explain recent increases and rollercoaster price curves in crude oil trading there is not only supply that matters but the massive increase in commodity future trading that took place in recent years, where in simple terms a trader would buy a contract for a fixed price and then sell again and so on. The increases in Brent crude oil of recent weeks are testimony to the massive capital influx on the oil market, because while the price increases there are a lot of oil storages that are filled with oil and no one to buy it. There are even crude oil carriers in some ports like Singapore that are refunctioned as swimming depots. So it is merely my suggestion not to take rising oil prices as an indicator for oil “getting low”.

The other issue concerns the advantages and disadvantages of solar power. While you manage to create a positive image about solar power, e.g. decrease in fuel imports and contributions to a more peaceful world, you don’t mention any disadvantages except that they are apparently more expensive to build. As far as I know this is incorrect, however, since the build costs (capital charges) of renewables are actually lower than conventional plants but their electricity production costs are much higher. An interesting OECD study about the generation costs of electricity can be found here for free http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCost.pdf (especially pages 35-62 are interesting). In my opinion disadvantages should also feature the limited availability of solar power and hence its limited use to industries, hospitals, etc, all branches that require base load capacity and 24-hour security in electricity supply. You could also mention that in Germany the greater generation costs of renewables spur general increases of electricity prices with the inevitable consequence of driving the costs of energy-intensive products (steel, cars) ever upwards.

Your conclusion is well done, however, and the issues I have you with your essay requires only minor changes.

4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):

4.1. Publish as is

4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications

4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications

4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):

4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course

4.4.2. Technically deficient

4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor

--Henning Strate 11:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá

Remarks:

Hello Lina, you have written quite an interesting article in the end, and relatively extensive. My overall impression is that you have had limited time for it as many things are not finished yet: including the way you cite your sources, you have no conclusions, and some ideas are not developed properly (you do not explain abbreviations etc.). Also, you did not reflect your theme in a wider context, it looks like utopia from the first sight even if technically oriented. You might be right but you did not prove it!

Please avoid the ozone hole in the beginning – the reason of ozone depletion is in CFCs, not CO2 and other emissions!

--Jana Dlouha 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from December 8th

Very good text although sometimes more technical problems are being solved. You do not explain your thesis sometimes - if you value something positively or negatively, you always have to support your argument somehow. You suppose that only obvious facts are presented but everything is more complex than we could imagine and these mutual relationhips could be stressed.

--Jana Dlouha 12:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)