[Tagging] Power Storage Proposal (RFC)
Lukas Richert
lrichert at posteo.de
Wed Dec 30 10:03:08 UTC 2020
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.
- Lukas
On 29/12/2020 16:13, Christian Pietzsch wrote:
>
> looking at my original proposal I had some ideas of simplyfing it and
> reducing tagging.
> things would be put under the subtag storage:type
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_storage#Tagging>
> 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=*
>
> 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.
>
> Check out the examples below to get an idea of what it would look like.
>
> 29. Dezember 2020 15:49, "Christian Pietzsch"
> <christian.pietzsch at piespace.de
> <mailto:christian.pietzsch at piespace.de>> schrieb:
>
> * we could have a power=energy_storage tag that builds the
> foundation for all storage devices and
> facilities
>
> How will such device should be tagged, then?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2402929868
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2402929868>
>
>
>
> I didn't include pumped hydro in this proposal on purpose. It's
> already been well established and I
> know how resistant people within the community are to change
> established tags (see contact: wars).
> I would have left this our for a secondary proposal.
> But if you ask me it would be for the idea (not the original one I
> wrote down in the proposal)
> would be power=storage + storage=facility +
> storage:source(?)=hydro + storage:type(?)=pumped_hydro
> +storage:capacity= xxx MWH.
> Individual generators would stay the same as they are.
>
> * we could have a energy_storage=facility (for whole facilities
> dedicated solely to storing energy
> like Honrsdale Power Reserve) or energy_storage=module for
> individual storage units (for example
> the containers with the batteries at Hornsdale or within a
> power=plant that also has storage)
>
> How will facilities with PV, batteries and hydrogen
> electrolyser be addressed between power=plant
> and power=energy_storage?
>
> Here is a 1 GW project in France with them three
>
> https://www.greenunivers.com/2020/12/engie-et-neoen-sur-un-mega-projet-solaire-hydrogene-en-france-e
> <https://www.greenunivers.com/2020/12/engie-et-neoen-sur-un-mega-projet-solaire-hydrogene-en-france-e>
> clusif-248632/
>
>
>
> as mentioned above power=storage would only be used for
> facilities/modules solely dedicated to
> storing and releasing energy. SO for a combined plant it would
> still be power=plant. But here we
> come back to the problem I mentioned before
>
> The one issue I have is that you can easily tag the storage
> capacity for a combined generation and
> storage plant but you can't tag the method of storage. For Example
> if I have Kraftwerk Fenne
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434>) which would be
> power=plant with individual
> power=storage modules for the battery storage
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24599434>.
>
> That's why power=energy_storage is not the best option
>
>
>
> with the outline I gave here on talk (because there have been so
> many people wanting a dedicated
> power=storage), you could only add storage:capacity:hydrogen=* and
> storage:capacity:electricity=*
> to the PV power=plant and then tag the individual batteries and
> electrolyser seperately.
> With the ordignal proposal you could add
> plant:storage:type=electrolyser;lithium-ion.
>
> * than have the different methods of storage. Not exactly sure how
> we would name these tags
> * Wikipedia has methods as the highest level
> (electrochemical/thermal/....) We might not
> necessarily need these
> * next level down comes type (which would be magnetic/capacitor
> for electrical or
> flywheel/gravitational/compressed air for mechanical)
> * and one level down would be sub types (like
> lithium-ion/lead/liquid-salt/.... for batteries)
>
> Experience of power=generator with 3 levels of classification,
> including a :type tag is not that
> good despite it comes from good and ambitious intentions.
>
> As those n-levels classifications are often logical trees,
> here generator:type could imply most
> generator:source and generator:methods.
>
> More recently in pumps proposal, a multi-level classification
> (out of Wikipedia) was synthesised
> with a single OSM key
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Pump_mechanisms
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Pump_mechanisms>
>
> You won't find velocity, positive_displacement, gravity... as
> OSM values here but it's easy to
> retrieve them.
> I suggest to do the same with storage, a single key for the
> whole classification.
>
>
>
> I agree that we don't necessarily need them. But I think having a
> higher level available when
> details are unknown, could be helpful. For example I might know
> that the facility uses batteries
> but I can't find out whether these are lithium-ion or lead or so.
> So I think as for generator and plant the tree should probably be
> seen from the other side. If you
> don't know the lowest level, you go one higher.
>
> For a data consumer to know how the power plant stores it's
> energy, they would have to find the
> tagged storage modules within the facility. Which also is a
> problem for mappers that might not know
> where the energy storage is located but know the power plant uses
> this or this kind of storage.
>
> Need to know a particular kind of feature is located in a
> facility doesn't force anyone to use the
> primary key to do so.
> No need for power=* to state for such capability here.
>
> i.e : "I know this public swimming pool got toilets but I
> don't know where" isn't a valid reason to
> retag leisure=swimming_pool to amenity=toilets.
> Same applies here.
>
>
>
> I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I never intended
> to retag a power=plant to a
> power=storage because it has one battery. What I meant was that
> from the perspective of a data
> consumer it would be easiest if you have all the tags for the
> facilities power generation as well
> as its energy storage together. Which would also make sense
> logically. power producing and storing
> part together form the power=plant
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201230/51799314/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list