Open main menu

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Energy

Contents

Separation of technologies and power stationsEdit

I had a look at the subclass of (P279) structure of all power station (Q159719). There is a mixture of plants and technologies (e.g. different types of wind turbines). I would suggest to separate the subclass structure of technologies and power stations (actual implementations). I would like to hear your opinion on this. --Katjos (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If I understood this correctly, power stations should not use subclass of (P279), and should instead use instance of (P31) only... Rehman 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I already started to change all power plants I had a look at and which used subclass of (P279) to instance of (P31). --Katjos (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Power plantsEdit

For Commons contributors here not watching the CFD on Commons, please take a few moments to review the above proposal to standardise category names on Commons. Thank you. Rehman 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Identifying how to store power station dataEdit

If we look at power station infoboxes (example on English Wikipedia), there are a lot of specific data related to each type of power station (i.e. geothermal power station, wind farm, nuclear plant, etc). Currently there isn't a standard way to save that data to Wikidata.

The below table is an attempt to standardise that. Let's discuss, test, and populate the table, so that it could be shared on other projects. Please ignore redlinks as the table was expanded upon the infobox power station template on English Wikipedia.

From the looks of it, it seems like we may need new properties created. Rehman 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionsEdit

This section was moved from Wikidata:Project chat#Specific power station related properties

Hi. Anyone have any clue as to how to add data for specific types of power stations? For example, how to add the below information in geothermal power station items:

  1. Power plant minimum geothermal temperature requirement
  2. Number of geothermal wells
  3. Maximum depth of geothermal wells
  4. Geothermal hot water production

I've been trying to figure this out for many months without luck. Hence any help is very much appreciated :) Rehman 14:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rehman: First could be operating temperature (P5066) with qualifiers (if it's the same as the minimum operational temperature); second could be has part (P527) with quantity (P1114) qualifier. I don't know about the other two. I've never edited these items before so you should probably wait for a third opinion. Jc86035 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jc86035. I went ahead and added the first two at Nesjavellir Power Station (Q693330), but the first generates an error. Will wait for more opinions on 3 and 4. Cheers, Rehman 02:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Pinging members of Wikidata:WikiProject Energy: User:ArthurPSmith and User:Katjos. Rehman 13:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman: vertical depth (P4511) works for depth. product or material produced (P1056) with qualifiers for production? Or total produced (P1092)? The errors you mention come from the constraints on existing properties, but those can be adjusted if needed; these seem to me to be perfectly appropriate applications of the properties. Initiate a discussion on the associated property talk pages. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ArthurPSmith. Yes, I had a similar thought about those constraints and started a discussion at the property talk. I will continue doing so accordingly. I've added vertical depth (P4511) to the table above. product or material produced (P1056) seems the best option based on its listed examples, but I can't seem to figure out how to state something like "produces 1100 litres of hot water per second" on Nesjavellir Power Station (Q693330).
If you do have the time, please also do feel free to add suggested properties to the table above for other cases as well. I'll try working it on real items and see if it works. :) Rehman 14:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman: Here are my two cents for the discussion: I would also use has part (P527) for item 2. and 3. together with corresponding qualifiers. For point 1. I think that operating temperature (P5066) has to have a qualifier to state that it the minimum temperature. However, I was not able to set a minimum value for other entries and would be interested how you would do this. Also, could you please clarify what you exactly mean with this? I would read in the English Wikipedia rather that the wells produce hot water with at least 190°C (Min. source temp.). Then it could be also a qualifier of 4. For 4. unfortunately the German Wikipedia is not very precise. I guess that the wells produce 1100 liters (1800 liters stated in the German Wikipedia) of hot water per second. Therefore, I added a qualifier to state that the output regards the well output and not the thermal nameplate capacity. --Katjos (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Katjos:.
  • Yes, there should be a way to state that it is the minimum value. I have marked this issue as pending on the table for now. Need to check with a property expert. The minimum operating temperature is the point at which the geothermal power station can start generating usable power. #1 and #4 are not related. #4 is after the heat is used, hence the water temperature is almost always much cooler.
  • With regards to the hot water output, yes you are correct. It is not equal to thermal nameplate capacity.
Thank you. :-) Please do watch this page if you would like to help in the other areas as well. I plan to go section by section. Feel free to update the table yourself as well. Cheers, Rehman 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman: I would like to help in other areas. To start I went over the table you created above and collected some comments:
  1. I guess the list is a first draft of plants. What is missing in my opinion are run-of-the-river power station (Q1411996) and battery storage power station (Q810924)
  2. I did find it hard in the past to find best practices for entering certain types of power plants. What do you think about to collect a list of such power plants for each type mentioned above?
  3. I think we could also describe the status of a power plant the same way construction_began is described in the table. In my opinion this would be the most consistent way.
 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katjos (talk • contribs).
@Katjos: Thanks; could use all the help I can get! :) Yes there are a few more variants, but I am currently only focusing on the types covered here. Run-of-river are classified under hydroelectric plants, and their data are somewhat different. I plan on doing those after the above task. Also, energy storage is a power station feature, and not a method of power generation. Hence not included above. It would of course be used as a basis for the energy storage parameters.
Regarding list of power stations, that could be easily obtained via SPARQL or a wikipedia category when we're ready to apply the mapped parameters. For now, to test parameter feasibility, I've linked one or more power station items in each coloured sub-section header, in the table above. Status parameter is a bit tricky. Look at the reference note on that row for a potential workaround. Cheers, Rehman 05:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman: Thanks for adding the power plants as best practices to the table. For me as an infrequent editor this is quite helpful. I had a look at the reference note for the status argument. I still think significant event (P793) with different values for the states would be the most consistent solution. However, I do not think this matter is very urgent to be solved now. I will have a look at the table in the coming days. Maybe I can add some of the mappings. --Katjos (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Katjos: You may be right on the status parameter, I'm not too sure myself. Need to run some test cases to see if it fits well. Cheers, Rehman 06:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Katjos: Hi again. I just had a deeper look at your above suggestion; I think we are suggesting the same thing. Is it possible for you to show an example (maybe on a live item, if it makes it easier)? Thanks! Rehman 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rehman:: Sorry for my late reply. I have been quite busy the last days. Please have a look at Berlin-Steglitz Battery Energy Storage Station (Q58842016). I added there both approaches to describe the status of the plant. However, I did not find a proper wikidata item to describe an operational status. I would be happy for your feedback to this. If you want to try this approach further, I could test this approach on Mellach CC power plant (Q1495007). This one is fairly new and was also mothballed for some time due to market conditions (high gas prices and low electricity prices). --Katjos (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Katjos: Hi. The table has been completed and can be found here. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on the template talkpage or here. Once the final bits are added, I will copy the table to Wikidata:WikiProject Energy so that other projects could also follow the data structuring format. Please also do test the trick with operational status, and let me know if you are happy with that approach? Best wishes, Rehman 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/feed-in tariffEdit

Hello. The above property proposal has been created yesterday. Your feedback is welcome. Thanks, Rehman 05:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/solar irradianceEdit

Hello. The above property proposal has been created today. Your feedback is welcome. Thanks, Rehman 11:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/capacity factorEdit

Hello. The above property proposal has been created today. Your feedback is welcome. Thanks, Rehman 06:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User GroupEdit

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Energy".