Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add wind power density to the OEO #1997

Open
1 task
madbkr opened this issue Dec 13, 2024 · 5 comments
Open
1 task

Add wind power density to the OEO #1997

madbkr opened this issue Dec 13, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
[A] new term Including new term(s) in the ontology in discussion Issues being discussed by users and/or maintainers

Comments

@madbkr
Copy link
Contributor

madbkr commented Dec 13, 2024

Description of the issue

Wind power density (WPD) is a term used in the definitions of the tasks module (see #1891). As decided in the dev meeting there should be a separate issue to discuss the definition.
It was also discussed if this should be the subclass of areal power density.

Ideas of solution

I propose this definition:
wind power density (WPD) is a quantity vale of the power wind has in a specific area. It is calculated as 0.5 * air density * (wind speed to the power of 3)

Workflow checklist

  • I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
  • [ x] I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
  • [ x] The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

  • [ x] every entry in the ontology should have a definition
  • [ x] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words
@madbkr madbkr added [A] new term Including new term(s) in the ontology To do Issues that haven't got discussed yet labels Dec 13, 2024
@stap-m stap-m added this to Issues Dec 13, 2024
@stap-m stap-m moved this to To do in Issues Dec 13, 2024
@tpelser
Copy link

tpelser commented Jan 17, 2025

This looks like a good definition.

@stap-m
Copy link
Contributor

stap-m commented Jan 17, 2025

wind power density (WPD) is a quantity vale of the power wind has in a specific area. It is calculated as 0.5 * air density * (wind speed to the power of 3)

So, we are talking about wind (i.e. moving air) and not wind power plants. Is this correct for the task definition use case @tpelser?
If it refers to a specific area (which "density" and also the definition suggests, I'd expect it to be part of the calculation, i.e. 0.5 * air density * (wind speed to the power of 3) per squaremeter.
We should probably distinguish between wind power and wind power density.

@tpelser
Copy link

tpelser commented Jan 17, 2025

In this case, yes. The theoretical wind potential can include the wind power density of an area. In the technical potential there is a similar, but different term called the "capacity density" which refers to how many megawatts of wind power are installed in a square kilometer.

@github-actions github-actions bot added in discussion Issues being discussed by users and/or maintainers and removed To do Issues that haven't got discussed yet labels Jan 17, 2025
@madbkr
Copy link
Contributor Author

madbkr commented Jan 20, 2025

It may also be useful to provide the unit that the WPD is supposed to be in. I assume it would be W/m²? At least this is what I found searching online. The formula I used for the definition is also the generic one I searched online.

But since this issue wants to use WPD as its own term I would assume we should stick to the generic use of the formula - even if in the task there may be something more specialized in use?

@tpelser
Copy link

tpelser commented Jan 20, 2025

Hi, yes I agree and the unit is correct (W/m^2). The formula is also correct for wind power density. Capacity density is something entirely different with a similar sounding name.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[A] new term Including new term(s) in the ontology in discussion Issues being discussed by users and/or maintainers
Projects
Status: To do
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants