<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I would be strongly in favor of power=energy_storage for
individual modules instead of tagging them as power=generator as
proposed. I think it is useful to separate generation from
storage. While both transform energy from one from into another,
generators convert from primary energy sources such as fossil
fuels or solar, while storage devices convert from intermediate
media, such as electrochemical cells. This would then also be
compatible with the electricity proposal which separates
electricity as coming from three main sources: grids (large
plants, etc), stand-alone generators, and stand-alone energy
storage. I'd also like to note that OSM does not, in fact, use the
IEC definition of a generator.</p>
<p>- Lukas<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/12/2020 16:13, Christian Pietzsch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:16508993c4faa736723ae82c35902682@piespace.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div data-html-editor-font-wrapper="true" style="font-family:
arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<p>looking at my original proposal I had some ideas of
simplyfing it and reducing tagging.<br>
things would be put under the subtag <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_storage#Tagging"
moz-do-not-send="true">storage:type</a><br>
So without the the pre-tag of plant:generator so it can be
used on either of these. categorization based on physical
basis gets dropped (so no more electrochemical/thermal/...)
because the level below is most likely known. sub_types of for
example batteries then could be tagged with battery=*</p>
<p>Let me know if this makes things easier. Would also mean
there wasn't a need for power=storage as long as you consider
storage as a plant/generator.</p>
<p>Check out the examples below to get an idea of what it would
look like.<br>
<br>
29. Dezember 2020 15:49, "Christian Pietzsch" <<a
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="mailto:christian.pietzsch@piespace.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">christian.pietzsch@piespace.de</a>>
schrieb:</p>
<blockquote>* we could have a power=energy_storage tag that
builds the foundation for all storage devices and<br>
facilities
<blockquote>How will such device should be tagged, then?<br>
<br>
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2402929868"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2402929868</a></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I didn't include pumped hydro in this proposal on purpose.
It's already been well established and I<br>
know how resistant people within the community are to change
established tags (see contact: wars).<br>
I would have left this our for a secondary proposal.<br>
But if you ask me it would be for the idea (not the original
one I wrote down in the proposal)<br>
would be power=storage + storage=facility +
storage:source(?)=hydro + storage:type(?)=pumped_hydro<br>
+storage:capacity= xxx MWH.<br>
Individual generators would stay the same as they are.<br>
<br>
* we could have a energy_storage=facility (for whole
facilities dedicated solely to storing energy<br>
like Honrsdale Power Reserve) or energy_storage=module for
individual storage units (for example<br>
the containers with the batteries at Hornsdale or within a
power=plant that also has storage)
<blockquote>How will facilities with PV, batteries and
hydrogen electrolyser be addressed between power=plant<br>
and power=energy_storage?<br>
<br>
Here is a 1 GW project in France with them three<br>
<br>
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="https://www.greenunivers.com/2020/12/engie-et-neoen-sur-un-mega-projet-solaire-hydrogene-en-france-e"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.greenunivers.com/2020/12/engie-et-neoen-sur-un-mega-projet-solaire-hydrogene-en-france-e</a><br>
clusif-248632/</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
as mentioned above power=storage would only be used for
facilities/modules solely dedicated to<br>
storing and releasing energy. SO for a combined plant it would
still be power=plant. But here we<br>
come back to the problem I mentioned before<br>
<br>
The one issue I have is that you can easily tag the storage
capacity for a combined generation and<br>
storage plant but you can't tag the method of storage. For
Example if I have Kraftwerk Fenne<br>
(<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434</a>)
which would be power=plant with individual<br>
power=storage modules for the battery storage (<a
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434</a>.
<blockquote>That's why power=energy_storage is not the best
option</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
with the outline I gave here on talk (because there have been
so many people wanting a dedicated<br>
power=storage), you could only add storage:capacity:hydrogen=*
and storage:capacity:electricity=*<br>
to the PV power=plant and then tag the individual batteries
and electrolyser seperately.<br>
With the ordignal proposal you could add
plant:storage:type=electrolyser;lithium-ion.<br>
<br>
* than have the different methods of storage. Not exactly sure
how we would name these tags<br>
* Wikipedia has methods as the highest level
(electrochemical/thermal/....) We might not<br>
necessarily need these<br>
* next level down comes type (which would be
magnetic/capacitor for electrical or<br>
flywheel/gravitational/compressed air for mechanical)<br>
* and one level down would be sub types (like
lithium-ion/lead/liquid-salt/.... for batteries)
<blockquote>Experience of power=generator with 3 levels of
classification, including a :type tag is not that<br>
good despite it comes from good and ambitious intentions.<br>
<br>
As those n-levels classifications are often logical trees,
here generator:type could imply most<br>
generator:source and generator:methods.<br>
<br>
More recently in pumps proposal, a multi-level
classification (out of Wikipedia) was synthesised<br>
with a single OSM key<br>
<br>
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Pump_mechanisms"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Pump_mechanisms</a><br>
<br>
You won't find velocity, positive_displacement, gravity...
as OSM values here but it's easy to<br>
retrieve them.<br>
I suggest to do the same with storage, a single key for the
whole classification.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I agree that we don't necessarily need them. But I think
having a higher level available when<br>
details are unknown, could be helpful. For example I might
know that the facility uses batteries<br>
but I can't find out whether these are lithium-ion or lead or
so.<br>
So I think as for generator and plant the tree should probably
be seen from the other side. If you<br>
don't know the lowest level, you go one higher.<br>
<br>
For a data consumer to know how the power plant stores it's
energy, they would have to find the<br>
tagged storage modules within the facility. Which also is a
problem for mappers that might not know<br>
where the energy storage is located but know the power plant
uses this or this kind of storage.
<blockquote>Need to know a particular kind of feature is
located in a facility doesn't force anyone to use the<br>
primary key to do so.<br>
No need for power=* to state for such capability here.<br>
<br>
i.e : "I know this public swimming pool got toilets but I
don't know where" isn't a valid reason to<br>
retag leisure=swimming_pool to amenity=toilets.<br>
Same applies here.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I never
intended to retag a power=plant to a<br>
power=storage because it has one battery. What I meant was
that from the perspective of a data<br>
consumer it would be easiest if you have all the tags for the
facilities power generation as well<br>
as its energy storage together. Which would also make sense
logically. power producing and storing<br>
part together form the power=plant<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>