[Tagging] Power Storage Proposal (RFC)

Wed Dec 30 12:27:07 UTC 2020

I like that idea. Because the way of tagging also slightly differs from normal generators.

	I updated my proposal and tried to include your idea mentioning the difference between primary power generators and storage.

Christian

30. Dezember 2020 11:07, "Lukas Richert" <lrichert at posteo.de (mailto:lrichert at posteo.de?to=%22Lukas%20Richert%22%20<lrichert at posteo.de>)> schrieb:
	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
facilitiesHow 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 (mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org) https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201230/5bf1ea8c/attachment.htm>