Proposal talk:Power generation refinement

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Transformer type

This topic has been moved to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Transformer_type --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


This topic has been moved to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Voltages --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Substation type

This topic has been moved to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Substation_type --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Transformers and substations

This topic has been moved to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Transformers_and_substations --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Generators / plants tagging

Resolved: plant: namespace added to the proposal --Don-vip 13:25, 17 July 2011 (BST)

Many users will be adding power plants containing several generators where they only know the total output for the plant (e.g. a wind farm with so many MW of electricity). Users might put the generator:* tags on the plant to specify the total output, type, etc. or they might put it on the individual generators, or a mix of both. As a data user I would find this quite cumbersome. Would it make sense to give more advice on which tags to add to the plant and which to add to the generator? E.g. if you know the total wind farm output divide it by the number of turbines and add an estimated output rating to each generator rather than to the plant, and not to both (otherwise data users might be tricked into thinking the output is twice what it actually is!) TomChance 11:11, 8 June 2011 (BST)

If someone only knows the output for the entire plant then that is what they should add and ignore the output for each generator. In another situation they may know the output of individual generators (ie xx MW wind turbines) but not know what the output of the entire facility either because they don't know the output of every generator or because it is impossibly or impractical for all devices to be operating at full capacity at the same time. In the case of a windfarm I am guessing that the total may not always be the sum of all the turbines acting at full capacity either because that is impossible or because it would overload the grid. Does that make sense? PeterIto 04:48, 9 June 2011 (BST)
The first part makes sense to me - either tag the plant, or the generators, but not both with the output information. Output should always be maximum potential capacity, which I think for a wind farm would normally mean all turbines going at full belt. Mappers need to be careful not to copy in an estimate of the actual power they expect. I think the source, method and type tags should all still apply to each individual generator. What kind of relation links them all together? TomChance 10:10, 10 June 2011 (BST)
I think the way to deal with this issue would be:
  • never tag generator:output:* on a power plant.
  • When individual generators are not identifiable (unknown number, not visible on aerial imagery, hidden in buildings, ...), add a single generator node in the middle of the power plant with the total output of the power plant.
  • When individual generators are identifiable but their individual output is unknown (near always the case with photovoltaic plants), group all the generators in a single area/multipolygon with the total output of the power plant. I don't think the issue concerns wind farms as the manufacturers are always proud to give the individual power output of wind turbines, nor nuclear power where this can be easily found on Wikipedia or specialized websites, but it will be common for hydro and solar plants. If I'm unclear, I'll give some examples tomorrow --Don-vip 05:10, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Non-electrical energy

Resolved: Clarified in the proposal. --Don-vip 21:45, 8 June 2011 (BST)

This is just a quick plea: don't suggest that the plant and generator tags only apply to electrical generators. We had this debate in the previous "rationalisation" proposal and it got very tedious. But the point is that a lot of generators produce both electrical power and other kinds of output (hot water, cold water, steam, etc.) So despite the fact that we're working with the "power" key it would be good to refer to these things as generating any kind of energy. TomChance 11:13, 8 June 2011 (BST)

What's missing ?

Street level

This topic has been moved to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Street_level --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


This topic has been moved to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#frequency.3D.2A --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Details within a substation

This topic has been moved to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Details_within_a_substation --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Life cycle management

Resolved: Chapter added to the proposal. --Don-vip 13:28, 17 July 2011 (BST)

Like all infrastructure power lines and generators are projected, constructed, used and may be deconstructed if it's disused. So I propose this:

I don't like it. In France, there are plenty of "planned" wind farms that never appeared because of local inhabitants hostility. In all cases, these planned projects last for years, and it's sometimes very hard to know its current status, if it will succeed or is already abandoned for months... It's also very difficult to find information on exact location of planned power facilities, contrary to planned highways. By the way, we don't use power_source anymore, and planned seem to be replaced by proposed=* ;) --Don-vip 05:26, 12 June 2011 (BST)
Why not. Power facilities under construction have none of the cons of planned ones. I will probably insert it in the proposal. --Don-vip 05:26, 12 June 2011 (BST)
I have been exploring the use of a generic 'construction:' and 'proposed:' prefix before any tag. For example voltage=50000;construction:voltage=1000000 indicates that the voltage is going to double as part of work that is in progress. I have used it successfully for a road which is changing from "highway=trunk,oneway=yes" to "highway=unclassified,oneway=no" by tagging as 'highway=trunk,oneway=yes,construction:highway=unclassified,construction:oneway=no' which allows a computer program to model either what is on the ground now or as an alternative what will be on the ground. Of course a new power line where there was none before could be tagged 'power=construction,construction=line,construction:voltage=230000' however it may be simpler to ditch that format a go straight for 'construction:power=line,construction:voltage=23000'. PeterIto 18:19, 12 June 2011 (BST)
Simpler, yes, but not consistent with highway and railway current practice, where a new highway/railway built from scratch is tagged with construction=*. This generic construction: prefix should be a distinct proposal common to all OSM features, not only power. If someone creates it, I'll vote yes :) I'll keep the current practice for now. --Don-vip 02:09, 13 June 2011 (BST)
I have added a construction chapter in the proposal. --Don-vip 16:18, 13 June 2011 (BST)

What if ...

This topic has been copied to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#What_if_.... Please only continue discussions related to power generation here. Further comments concerning substations and transformer should be added at Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#What_if_... --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Some open questions

.. there is a power=transformer mounted at the power=pole or power=tower ?

location=tower --FK270673 16:10, 10 June 2011 (BST)

Resolved: I mark this question as resolved because it will be answered in the very first subject of this discussion page. --Don-vip 06:12, 12 June 2011 (BST)

.. a power=line and power=minor_line using the same towers ?

Tag it with power=line;minor_line ?

PeterIto and I agreed to use voltage for distinguishing power lines as mappers generally don't agree where a minor_line begins (20kV, 46kV, 69kV). We should slowly deprecate minor_line and use power=line, voltage=20000 instead! --FK270673 16:10, 10 June 2011 (BST)

Resolved: I agree. I' have added minor_line to deprecated tags, with some others (including minor_undergound_cable) --Don-vip 05:58, 12 June 2011 (BST)
I think it is sensible to deprecate minor-line. Possibly we should suggest the value of 'voltage=low' for lines where the voltage is is definitely low because the of the design of the insulators, poles, height off the ground but the exact voltage is not known. Similarly it may be useful to codify 'high' for a more serious power line where the voltage is not known. This would also allow a bot to convert 'power=minor_line' into 'power=line,voltage=low'. PeterIto 18:33, 12 June 2011 (BST)
You're right. I have added voltage=low in the deprecated chapter. --Don-vip 01:59, 13 June 2011 (BST)
Different voltage lines are not connected, even when they are supported high above by the same structure. They are not the same line, so they should be different ways with different tags, but using the same nodes. Alv 08:25, 16 June 2011 (BST)
That is not the tagging way currently in use (a single way power=line, with its number of cables=*, and the semicolon-separated values of voltage=* if the cables have different voltage). --Don-vip 11:56, 16 June 2011 (BST)

.. different power=lines using the same tower and split up later? (introducing relations)

Resolved: Beyond the scope of this proposal ? --Don-vip 21:06, 15 June 2011 (BST)
To much for just one proposal, may be seperate proposal later. --Bahnpirat 08:21, 16 June 2011 (BST)

Use relations in this case. Like bus routes they use the same streets (power=line) but are only connected at the bus stops (power=substations). The way is tagged as normal and mentioned in the proposal. I think of a relation with the main components (generator,line,substation) as member. Not included are power=towers. Example relation 941141 on map.

Hi Bahnpirat :)
Thanks for the interest you find in my proposal. After many thoughts, I don't think I will include this idea in this proposal, even if I find it very good. Why ? Because it's far beyond the scope of what I want to make of this proposal. I have created it essentially to define a consistent way of tagging power plants, not overhaul the full power scheme. Don't forget we have an entire section for power proposals, we are not forced to merge all of our ideas in a single proposal. For the same reasons, I think it's finally a bad idea to consider the deprecation of power=minor_line, power=underground_cable and power=minor_underground_cable in this proposal. I think that would need a separate proposal, focused on power transmission (mine is entitled generation, after all). If you want to create it, I assure you will have my vote :) --Don-vip 21:06, 15 June 2011 (BST)
I agree this proposal is big enough and so don't include it here. --Bahnpirat 08:21, 16 June 2011 (BST)
Two methods of circuits tagging with relations are proposed in the arcticle Power_lines. --Surly (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

.. power=substation is part of the power=plant. One or two areas ?

Many areas! Some plants have a 500kV substation, a 230kV substation, a 138kV substation and a 69kV substation!

Brunot Island is a very big plant with many substations that could be used as a sample for complex plants:

--FK270673 16:10, 10 June 2011 (BST)

.. line is deconstructed, but still visible on aerial image ?

see Talk:Proposed features/Power generation refinement#Life cycle management power=abandoned, voltage=20000 --FK270673 16:10, 10 June 2011 (BST)

No ! If the line has been deconstructed, it's probably because it has been grounded, and so tagged as it (power=cable). --Don-vip 05:30, 12 June 2011 (BST)
Clarified in the proposal. --Don-vip 16:19, 13 June 2011 (BST)
There are two good reasons NOT to delete a demolished line. First of all it prevents other mappers not aware of the current situation from remapping the line from aerial imagery. Secondly it may also be useful to keep a record of a historical line that is no more. I simply change "power=line" to "power:dismantled=line" which effectively deletes the line from the map. I also add "end_date=*" if I know when the line disappeared. --polderrunner (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What should go in separate proposals

This topic lists all the suggested ideas I (Don-vip) agree with, but find beyond the scope of this proposal, and thereby think they should go in separate proposals (but having already this one to manage, I do not not intend to lead them (at least right now), so if any volunteer is willing to do so, do not hesitate !).

Proposal #1: Construction namespace

PeterIto suggested to create a new "construction:" namespace to allow more flexibility in the way tagging features under construction.

Generator type values

I would propose the following further values for the generator:type=* key in combination with generator:method=thermal:

  • steam_turbine
  • gas_turbine
  • internal_combustion_engine --polderrunner (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Further I would change pelton_wheel to pelton_turbine since that is what [1] suggests. --polderrunner (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be great to have further opinion on that special question. Wikipedia only knows "Pelton wheel" :
I agree with you for consistency and relevancy. Fanfouer (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
According to what already exists (Key:generator:source), I've added many types of generator including steam_turbine in type field.
Could you please give me details and example about the gas_turbine and internal_combustion_engine types?
Some of other types are still missing from a potential exhaustive list version. Feel free to improve it. Fanfouer (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Gas turbines will run on gas (obviously) and maybe biogas? Internal combustion engines are common as power plants on smaller isolated islands (big diesel generators) and in smaller cogeneration plants using gas or biogas engines. One type missing is the combined cycle gas turbine (using a steam turbine to recover exhaust heat from the gas turbine). To be honest, the table is getting pretty complicated with all those combinations of source, method and type! --polderrunner (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I let you see if the new generators' sources/methods/types table suits to your thoughts. Fanfouer (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm still missing gas turbines and internal combustion engines (these are rather important types of power plants!) --polderrunner (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I would add gas turbine to generator:source=gas because it doesn't seem to exist with biogas. Internal combustion engines would match generator:source=diesel, are you agree?
I admit this table is going to be overloaded will all that combustion stuff. Do you see a better way to represent it? May we reduce the amount of different fossil source? Fanfouer (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I have permitted myself to add gas turbine and reciprocating engine as generator types. Furthermore, I have included only the more likely combinations of fuel, method and generator type. Hope you don't mind this edit. --polderrunner (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course I don't mind, thanks :) That sounds good, I have a better understanding of what you tried to explain to me.Fanfouer (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It may also be appropriate to add frequency=* to generators especially if they supply railway traction grids operating at a different frequency than the normal power grid. --polderrunner (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I've just add it to the proposal page. Fanfouer (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice :) --Don-vip (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Split proposal?

Could we split the proposal into two or three proposals? Currently the proposal incorporates a lot of different stuff that really doesn't relate to the title of the proposal. Substations and transformers are really part of power transmission systems, not of generation facilities in general. Life cycle management (construction, disused, demolished etc) of power features can also better be dealt with separately. When the voting starts you will have to approve or reject the entire 'package' as it is now. Many mappers may agree to the majority of the proposal but dislike some particular part and therefore vote 'no'. The 'substation' versus 'station' dispute in particular springs into mind. By splitting up the proposal there will be less risk that the good things fall victim of something that should really be dealt with separately.

Thus I propose to split the proposal as follows:

  • Power generation refinement (a cleaned version of the present proposal)
  • Substation refinement (all the substation and transformer stuff goes there)
  • Life cycle management (move to separate proposal or refer to general page?)

--polderrunner (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok for splitting as described.
Concerning the life cycle management, I don't think it's only a power transmission matter thus me should move this stuff to a general proposal (or create a new one). Fanfouer (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have started creating a separate substation refinement proposal, see Proposed_features/Substation_refinement. I will progress to remove the substation stuff from this proposal. Further, I'll move the discussion topics relating to substations and transformers to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement. I will leave stubs on this page of removed discussion topics. --polderrunner (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
All the substation and transformer stuff has now been removed from this proposal. The relevant discussion topics have also been replaced by links to the moved discussions at Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement --polderrunner (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Filtering rules for substations

This topic has been moved to Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Filtering_rules_for_substations --polderrunner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Solar thermal energy

We should have a tag for solar thermal generators, which usually produce hot water for home use.
For solar energy when we use generator:method=thermal we should have different generator:type=*, at least these:

If we want we can even use different tags for parabolic troughs, heliostats, dish concentrators, fresnel reflectors...
For consistency generator:type=solar_panel should become generator:type=solar_photovoltaic_panel.
Alternatively, we should introduce at least generator:type=solar_concentrator, if you think that plain thermal panels and photovoltaic panels can be distiguished by generator:method=thermal and generator:method=photovoltaic. --Viking81 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.
I would agree for method distinguishing between thermal and photovoltaic. Even if we can't make a distinguishing on this tag, I would be in favor of removing the solar_ prefix in both generator:type=solar_concentrator, generator:type=solar_thermal_panel or generator:type=solar_photovoltaic_panel.
We would only have generator:type=thermal_panel, generator:type=concentrator, generator:type=photovoltaic_panel and generator:type=steam_turbine as possible values.
Are you agree? Fanfouer (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
And you will use generator:source=solar to specify the source. Ok, you are right, I've missed it.
But generator:type=concentrator is not clear for most people, what's about generator:type=light_concentrator? --Viking81 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Err, after thinking, it appears clear to me that the main goal of thermal power plants is to produce steam and to inject it in a steam turbine. So introducing generator:type=thermal_panel, generator:type=light_concentrator or generator:type=thermal_dish sounds irrelevant since the generator is always a steam turbine.
Nevertheless, it is definitely useful information so we can map it as "special roles" of the power=plant relation. Have a look to the paragraph dealing with that just below generators table. Proposed_features/Power_generation_refinement#Specific_roles Fanfouer (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No, solar thermal panels can be used to produce only hot water for heating or sanitary use: in these cases there isn't a turbine at all. Think to home use or to tele-heating plants. --Viking81 (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
So if it's not for power generation we can still use standalone special roles: Thermal panels would be tagged with power=solar_thermal_panel but there won't be any power=plant relation to be member of. Are you ok with that? Fanfouer (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Read the definition of power generator here power=generator: "A power generator is a facility for converting energy from one form to another" and "a power generator may however also create heat in the form of hot water as well as, or instead of creating electricity".
Besides, read here if we use solar_thermal_collector, it includes both flat panels both parabolic collectors both other geometries.
So for collectors that produce hot water or steam (not used in a steam turbine to produce electricity) you should use:
generator:type=solar_thermal_collector I think that specify solar and thermal here although it is a repetition, is more clear for a normal mapper.
generator:output:hot_water=yes or generator:output:steam=yes
This point of view would force us to consider many chained elements as generators, including and especially in power plants.
If we tag standalone solar thermal collectors located on residential home roofs as generators, same thermal collectors in power plants must be tagged in the same way for consistency sake.
This would disturb computation of power plants capacity because some of these generators won't be frontend but just backend of other generators which output electricity.
I agree with you for tagging standalone thermal collectors as generators since there's no subsequent power conversion but it's pretty incompatible with what we have in big power plants.
=> solution: Only frontend generators (those which output same output form of the whole power plant/system) must be added to the power=plant relation with role=generator. Backend ones are member with Special Roles. We must specify output of the whole power plant in power=plant relation to check
It would imply important load of work to describe many different situations. Generators source/methods/type table should be extended to add output power of each generator. Fanfouer (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This point of view is needed for consistency with the pre-existent power=generator definition on wiki, that anyway is a good and phisically correct definition.
However, yes, only generators that produce output (here hot water or steam) for "outside use" should be tagged in that way. Intermediate generators can be tagged with special roles, or not tagged at all. Be carefull anyway that the distinction is if the output is for "outside use" or for "internal re-transformation" in the plant. If for this distinction you use the words "same output form of the whole power plant/system", you should point out to the mappers that there are plants that haven't a unique output form, but multiple ones (e.g. electricity and hot water). --Viking81 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. We almost agree on that particular point. I've updated the proposal to have a better specification of power=pant relation.
This would enable us to group special roles under relation specs and not under the different generators which are member of such relation. It's a detail but not exactly the same thing.
I will update both generators and special roles tables to match this later this evening.
About the solar thermal power, thermal generators will be added to the table which will be extended with output values for each of generators source/method/types.
Finally, special roles members of power=plant relation will only correspond to elements which are not generators which contribute to the total output of the plant. Fanfouer (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
About the power=plant relation it depends: collectors for home use do not form a plant, but a tele-heating solar plant do it.
Ok. Fanfouer (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
And generator:type=solar_panel should become generator:type=solar_photovoltaic_panel. Again, solar is a repetition but it is not wrong and it is clearer.
Ok. Updated. Fanfouer (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
About solar thermal collectors used to produce electricity, ok for special roles in the relation and for the use of generator:type=steam_turbine. --Viking81 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More generator sources and methods

I have added the following generator sources to the table:

  • wave power
  • geothermal power
Could you please explain the difference between wave power and tidal power?
I've put tidal method in hydro source which include tidal turbines and wave power plants like Wikipedia:Rance_Tidal_Power_Station but it may be too tricky.
Do we need dedicated source for such power plants? Fanfouer (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Wave power and tidal power are very diffirent energy sources (waves are created by wind, tides by the gravitational effects of the Moon and Sun). The machines needed to extract those two different types of energy are very different. I would actually suggest to make tidal power a generator source, not a method. There are actually different methods for extracting tidal power, mainly stream generators (underwater "wind turbines" using the kinetic energy of the water) and barrages (dams across bays with kaplan turbines using potential energy across the barrage). These would be generator methods. --polderrunner (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I have a better understanding of the differences now, thanks.
For tidal power, do we need to distinguish offshore and barrage generators? In both cases we could have horizontal or vertical axis generators (like in wind source). Make the distinguishing of offshore/barrage in the method would imply to distinguish vertical/horizontal for both whereas the location of the generator itself would give this information.
Yes, I think we should make that distinction. A barrage type plant (like Rance) is similar to a low head hydro-electric plant using turbines. I would suggest "barrage" as method and "kaplan_turbine" as type (a kaplan turbine is the only turbine type suitable at such low heads). For the tidal stream type generator using the kinetic energy of tidal flows ("wind turbine under water") I suggest "stream" as method and "horizontal_axis" and "vertical_axis" as types. This is consistent with wikipedia's definitions. --polderrunner (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Updated. Fanfouer (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
For wave, there're indeed many different methods & devices to capture wave power. Wikipedia:Wave_power#Modern_technology . May I would keep generator:type=buoy, generator:type=sea_surface_attenuator, generator:type=undersea_attenuator, generator:type=wave_surge_converter and generator:type=absorber. Pretty big, don't you? Fanfouer (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think they are 'methods' more than 'types'. The 'type' is more describing the machine directly driving the generator (typically some kind of turbine). But considering the large number of different designs and the rather experimental stage wave of current wave power technology I wouldn't bother to define values for 'method' and 'type'. --polderrunner (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Fanfouer (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Further, I have added gasification as a possible generator method for biomass and waste fuels (this is not simple combustion). There are still various more exotic sources, methods and types missing from the table such as osmotic power and fuel cells but they are typically still at the experimental stage, not in commercial operation. --polderrunner (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok for me :) Fanfouer (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Perimeter member for farms plants

In the original User icon 2.svgdon-vip (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.)'s proposal, he mentionned that power=site relation musn't have a perimeter member since it would downgrade the farm's total power computing from this relation members.
See here: Proposed_features/Power_generation_refinement#Advanced_tagging_2
It's definetly possible to filter members on their role attribute, so why can't we make the perimeter member mandatory for such relations?
Concerning offshore farms for instance, I'm in favor to give perimeter just to allow users to make comparisions with territorial water boundaries.
What do you think? Fanfouer (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, a perimeter member can be filtered for computing purposes. Besides, I think that a perimeter should be added if there is a phisical one (e.g. a fence), but do not add it, if it is imaginary. --Viking81 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok thanks for your opinion. I've accordingly updated the proposal. Fanfouer (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively: wrap all members in a relation, such as Whitelee Wind Farm. You can't accurately calculate a wind farm's total maximum power unless you know a lot about its distribution system. It's not easy to get lead/lag and MVA parameters from public information. --Scruss (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Power plant specification

Power plant in a nutshell

I've drawn a bit of schema to show how we can most commonly describe a power plant. The trick was to make the distinguish with intermediate and output generators since the first type can't be part of the total power amount computation of the power plant. Intermediate generators won't be member of the power=plant relation with role=generator but output ones will. Both will use power=generator and all attributes of this wiki. Consistency control is provided by specifying source and output power types of the whole plant. Thus, tool chain would be able to ensure users that generators member of power=plant relation are consistent with the global nature of the plant. Fanfouer (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Diverse generator tags

Sorry for coming that late. I think the tagging of the different generators still has room for improvement.


Normally, in OSM no abbreviations are used. The type should be more general, just pressurized_water_reactor or so. How about unsuccessful designs like high temperature reactor or breeding reactor, natural Uranium reactor, how about research reactors like in Grenoble, Dahlem or Garching? Generator_output=neutrons? Probable future designs like trans-mutating reactors?

I do not see the point about abbreviation. What makes it unclear since they are widely used in IAEA documentation.
I can make a mistake but I don't think Grenoble Synchrotron is about fission to produce power. Wikipedia:Synchrotron Fanfouer (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Type should be either Tokamak or Stellerator, not ITER

Ok I agree. ITER is the only fusion projet name today... but there can be several of them in the future. Fanfouer (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. ITER is not reactor type! ITER uses the Tokamak principle and the Wendelstein 7-X is built as a Stellerator. known types to me are:
- Tokamak
- Stellerator
- Laser
- Cold Fusion
(the problem might be that other Fusion projects actually don't have an higher energy output than input and they aren't actually power plants) Hedaja 14:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


Why new tags? generator:method=dam or pumped_storage are already in use.

They was added to be exhaustive. For post-vote cleanup I planned to copy/paste this table in generator:type=*'s page. Fanfouer (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


ordinary steam turbine is rather unusual, because at these temperatures efficiency is low. heat pump needs another explanation, as a heat pump system will not generate electricity.

Typical cycles are Wikipedia:Kalina cycle or Wikipedia:Organic Rankine Cycle

multi fuels

Something like waste;coal or waste;oil should be a must be rendered. Suggestions for the common combination of gas plus oil as reserve?


More clarification for biogas plants necessary. Is fuel=biogas limited to burn biogas that is produced elsewhere, a plant that gasifies biomass and burns it should tagged biomass? Gasification is ambiguous. It can be either anaerobic_digestion (already a common tag) or pyrolysis.


type=solar_photovoltaic_panel does not give additional information, instead something like concentrator cells, amorphous, poly/single cells, multi-layer cells would give more information. reciprocating_engine is ambiguous, as it can be either a steam engine, an internal combustion engine or Stirling engine. All mentioned in the Wikipedia article... I think combustion is redundant in most cases. Instead I think in these cases the values of type should move to the method tag.


room for more specification, as they might use kalina or orc for the steam cycle for better efficiency.

district heating

add tag output:hot_water

Basstoelpel (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok to update proposal with some elements of yours and thank you for your contribution. But you'll have to ask the ~15 users who vote those past 2 days. Would they maintain their opinion about it?
When voting phase is open we can't update proposals easily. Furthermore RFC was long enough to express yourself I'm afraid :( Fanfouer (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Post-vote discussion

Missing source/method for plants

This proposal defines generator:source=* and generator:method=* only for generators, however these must be defined for plants as well, because this information is crucial for describing a plant in general, and information on generators may be unavailable. I'm going to assume plant:source=* and plant:method=* with similar semantics. --AMDmi3 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not. I imagine it would be useful in some cases. Would you mind create two wiki pages for them ? Fanfouer (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Why do we even have generator:method=*? It's wholly redundant. --Scruss (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
No it's actually not - after further thinking about it. Some plants can combine several kind of generators. generator:source=*, generator:method=* make sense at generator level but not at plant one. If you want to know what is the source, method, type of the whole plant, you should explore generators which are part of it. Fanfouer (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
plant:source=* definitely makes sense and I'm already adding this tag to any power plant that I come across. plant:method=* on the other hand doesn't seem very relevant to me. The method is strictly a property of individual generators and it may not be the same for the different generators of the plant. Furthermore, I tend to agree with Scruss. generator:method=* is in most cases redundant and I rarely use it. generator:type=* on the other hand is much more useful. --opani (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

tag status of generator:method and generator:source from table generator types

I'm looking for the proper status of tag values for generator:method=* and generator:source=*. Does the fact that a value is listed in the table of Proposal:Power_generation_refinement#Generator_types means that it is approved by this proposal or not? – That will affect generator:source=gasoline, generator:method=barrage, generator:method=stream, which were not in Proposal:Generator rationalisation. How do you see that? --Chris2map (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello ! generator:method=* and generator:source=* were originally approved by Proposal:Generator_rationalisation and some value were added here, right. We may distinguish the approval link for keys and values, particularly for generator:source=gasoline, generator:method=barrage, generator:method=stream if necessary. Fanfouer (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, generator:source=* currently confuses actual sources and fuels. A good improvement would be to move fuels to generator:fuel=* and keep actual sources like wind, hydro in generator:source=*. Fanfouer (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
So your statement regarding status is that the key value combinations listed in table Proposal:Power_generation_refinement#Generator_types for generator:method=* and generator:source=* are part of the proposal and the approval voting? Therefore status of generator:source=gasoline, generator:method=barrage, generator:method=stream are approved!? --Chris2map (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes sir Fanfouer (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Aye, aye! Thanks for quick response! I join this view. --Chris2map (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)