[Tagging] Power Storage Proposal (RFC)

[François Lacombe]

Hi Paul

Le mer. 30 déc. 2020 à 15:41, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Are you sure that professionals within the industry regard batteries as
> generators or is this the result of a strict parsing of the IEC definition
> to give a result that was not intended?
>

At first it is a strict reading of IEC definitions
IEC people had discussions and spent time I'm not competent to question as
well.

I had a look at how French TSO considers batteries integration in the grid
and there are times they clearly describe them as power source, like
mechanical generators.


> Looking at the IEC definitions of cells, batteries, etc. I didn't
> see anything that obviously classed them as a category of
> generator.  They appeared to be distinct from generators.
>

IEC 482-01-01 battery cell "basic functional unit [...] that is a source of
electric energy obtained by direct conversion of chemical energy"
IEC 151-13-35 generator "energy transducer that transforms non-electric
energy into electric energy"
chemical energy is non-electric energy here

As said before, no problem to define power=battery for chemical cells only.
However no one brought solutions to deal with many other storage-capable
devices.
power=generator sounds to be the best candidate here, as soon as we agree
to deal with storage as a capability, not as a device name.

Le mer. 30 déc. 2020 à 15:53, Christian Pietzsch <
christian.pietzsch at piespace.de> a écrit :

>
> Do you have any example where primary (non-rechargable) cells are used in
> the grid?

I think all storage we are talking about for OSM is either connected to a
> nationwide or local grid and serves as a buffer. I can't come up with an
> application where they would power a grid with primary cells.
>

OSM community also deals with autonomous and disconnected infrastructures.
You'll actually find households or distant monitoring stations fed by
primary cells people are in charge to periodically replace.


> That's one of the things that I found most complicated.They are kind of an
> energy storage at least they are considered as such by most. But only in
> combination with a power generator burning the fuels again, they actually
> become one that serve the electricity gird. I guess you could tag them as
> storage, if they are an enclosed facility producing, storing and burning
> powert-2-gas. Probably doesn't make sense for individual electrolysers.
> So the question is how we would tag the electorlyser part within such a
> facility.
>

Same question applies on nuclear power plants where you find 3 different
actual generators, producing intermediate power.
That problem will remain complicated unless you consider storage as a
capability of power generators.
As a capability among others, it should get a dedicated value on power=*
but on a side key=*.

Regarding vector production like hydrogen, electrolyzer shouldn't get any
storage capability, only fuel cell consuming part of that hydrogen should.
Same applies on fuel tanks. Refineries won't have any electricity storage
capability, only fuel power plant consuming refined fuel will, won't you?


> > Then "type" isn't useful. It often (not to mention always) doesn't bring
> additional information as
> > anything is a type or category of something in OSM.
> > storage=battery is as meaningful as storage:type=battery
>
> I agree with you. storage=battery could be sufficient. I chose
> storage:type because it was closer to the way we tag generators and plants.
> I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on that as well.


As a contributor of generator:type establishment I could say now it's a
mistake and I won't propose any :type key again.


All the best

François
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201230/9a0b68ff/attachment.htm>