[Tagging] Power Storage Proposal (RFC)

[Warin]

On 31/12/20 5:28 am, François Lacombe wrote:
>
> Le mer. 30 déc. 2020 à 17:00, Christian Pietzsch 
> <christian.pietzsch at piespace.de 
> <mailto:christian.pietzsch at piespace.de>> a écrit :
>
>     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).
>
>
> Underground or arctic off-grid facilities may encounter situations 
> were there is no sun nor wind to be charged and you're forced to come 
> periodically to change the battery.


The outback Australian ones are rechargeable.

Communities have back up diesel generators. Microwave repeaters too use 
rechargeable... these do fail - usually the recharging system fails not 
the battery (solar is installed .. don't know if they back that up with 
diesel).

I would think underground facilities would not want batteries in them, 
they would have most of their batteries above ground for safety?

The arctic I don't know. Antarctic winds are fairly strong!

 From

https://www.powerengineeringint.com/renewables/storage-in-the-arctic/

looks like they use rechargeable batteries ... and wind with diesel.


--------------------------------------------------------

Cost and environmental issues would, I think, place non rechargeable 
batteries out of any large commercial energy storage system.


>
> Defining two different ways to describe batteries based on their 
> capabilities (primary or secondary) is once again a poor idea: mappers 
> will be confused on which power=* they should choose.
>
>     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.
>
>
> Agree on that point, split the table between plant and device storage 
> level is a good point.
> It's not mandatory to define several key for that. Compatibility with 
> power=plant and generator/batteries can be handled on values.
>
>     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
>
>
> It's not an easy change as generator:type is now pretty well used.
> However new keys should be designed with experience in mind and :type 
> should be avoided.
>
> Le mer. 30 déc. 2020 à 17:49, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
>
>     Both generators and batteries are power sources, but not all power
>     sources
>     are generators, just as not all power sources are batteries.
>
>
> Are you only considering generators as kinetic energy converters only?
> Wikipedia EN does, without proper source
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_generator
>
> Wikipedia FR doesn't, without proper source
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9n%C3%A9rateur_%C3%A9lectrique#G%C3%A9n%C3%A9rateur_non_tournant
>
> Anyway, OSM already have many solar PV panels as power=generator.
> Will we have to retag them?
>
>     A source of electrical energy.  I agree with that.  What it
>     doesn't say is that
>     it's a generator.
>
>
> As current OSM current definition for a generator is a device 
> converting a non-electric power to electricity (or even any other 
> form) I don't get the difference between them, honestly.
>
>     But a battery is not considered an energy transducer.
>
>
> Transducers are a very wide family of devices and to me batteries are 
> actual transducers.
> Not all transducers are generators as they includes sensors as well.
>
>     Give a list of storage-capable devices and see what the list comes
>     up with
>     for names. :)
>
>
> Many items of proposed table are not batteries
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_storage#Tagging
>
> Is that relevant to define a different power=* value for each?
>
>     Also, I understand the desire to tag everything related to power
>     generation
>     under power, but electrical storage devices store energy, not power.
>     Electrical Engineers and physicists would be upset at the idea of
>     storing power.
>
>
> OSM power=* key covers many activities related to electricity 
> production, transmission or usage.
> We didn't come to a point to make a difference between power and 
> energy here.
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201231/9c9bdc6a/attachment-0001.htm>