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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
Floating solar 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
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
I was able to download the article through the university where I teach, and indeed the units on the graph are MWh per year. MWh and MWp are not the same. MWh is a measure of energy production. MWp is a measure of installed power generation capacity. The difference is analogous to the difference between distance (kilometers) and speed (kilometers per hour). In a reasonably good site, 1 MWp of solar panels will produce around 1,300 MWh of electricity per year. But that suggests an error in the Cazzaniga & Rosa-Clot article. Their estimate for 2019 is 1,656 MWh, which would suggest a bit over 1 MWp installed for that year. That's way too low. Christopher Greacen (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text that reads: "This result depends on climate conditions and on the percentage of the covered surface. In arid climates such as parts of India this is an important advantage since about 30% of the evaporation of the covered surface is saved." doesn't seem to reflect what was written in the cited source: http://tehelka.com/do-floating-solar-panels-work-better/. The source says, "One thing is clear. As water evaporation from water bodies is to the tune of 30 percent, FPVs [floating solar] can reduce that to an extent, thus making water available for other uses.”
I think the text in the article should be changed to "Evaporation from reservoirs can reach 30% of water volume in a year in dry areas. Floating solar is expected to reduce this by absorbing a portion of the energy that would otherwise go into evaporating water.' (and then cite the same source)