[Tagging] Power Storage Proposal (RFC)

[Christian Pietzsch]

>> 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.
But do they really use non-rechargable batteries? I guess for these edge-cases power=generator + generator:type=battery would be a solution. But all isolated cases I have stumbled across that are big enough to include into OSM (not thinking of the clock on my neighbors wall xD) have some kind of way of recharging them. Thinking of remote telecom towers here that often use diesel generator or some installations that use car batteries (sometimes charged by solar).


> 
> 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?
> 

I have to disagree here. For me a fuel cell has no storage capacity at all. It takes fuel and consumes it. Just like an engine takes fuel and consumes it. The fuel is stored in tanks (which would still be tagged as normal storage tanks at the facility). But for me the whole facility that turns electricity to fuel and back to electricity has a storage capacity.
So only the power=plant would get a storage:capacity. And would get a storage:type=power-to-gas 
I will probably have to take the power-to-x methods out and place them a bit separately to better distinguish them from other storage methods.


> 
> As a contributor of generator:type establishment I could say now it's a mistake and I won't propose
> any :type key again.
> 
It's an easy change. I will leave it open for now and see what others think about the idea. I might make a note in the proposal as well

-Christian