European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Data-mapping to INSPIRE - energy resources

Angel LOPEZ ALOS
By Angel LOPEZ ALOS Replies (6)

Originally posted by Bettina Stoehr:

We have mainly three problems, the first one regarding the “basic data for wind and temperature distributions” (more specifically, which of them you would regard as basic), the second, where to integrate the facilities extracting the resources, and the third concerns the reasoning behind the coverage application scheme – on these matters the data-specification for the energy-resources is not entirely clear to us.

1) should we put the “mean wind-speed in 140m” and the “annual sum of solar radiation” into the Energy resources theme or the Atmospheric conditions theme? In the data-specification it says quite clearly on page for: “Basic data for wind and temperature distributions are modelled within the Atmospheric Conditions data specification.” However, in the use-case-description on page 117 you denote as input data source a map of the annual sum of global in-plane irradiation. Do you count the annual sums of solar radiation not as basic data?

2) we are not sure where to put the facilities extracting the resources: do they belong to the energy resources theme or to the production and industrial facilities theme? On page 4 of the data specification it says “The technical constructions for abstraction, transport and treatment, these are largely covered by Production and Industrial Facilities.” However on page 31 it is stated that “renewable resources can only be quantified by expressing the capacity of the facility extracting the energy resource” and that you explicitly defined two distinct vector spatial object types to account for this. Also it was decided (p. 5) that hydro power plants are not within the scope of energy resources and belong to the production and industrial facilities theme. We assume that Biogas plants are along the same lines, but what with wind generators, photovoltaic power plants, or rooftop photovoltaics? Since we could not follow your discussion on that matter, we do not see a profound difference between hydro-power plants and wind generators, other than their shape. Also if we do not include hydro power plants and biogas plants, the energy resources will only include about half the data we have about renewable energy resources in Baden-Württemberg, and will mostly consist of the potential that is not yet exploited. If you do not know how much of the resource is currently being used, information regarding the surplus potential can be quite misleading.

 

3) which application scheme should we use for the solar potential on rooftops? On pp. 40/41 of the data specification it says „The Energy Resources Coverage application schema should not be used as an alternative representation of discrete objects like coal deposits, oil fields, or any other delineation of spatial features, nor to represent properties of subsurface non-renewable energy sources. Therefore, the use of this application schema is restricted to those renewable resources, the potential of which can vary over time and space“. But again, on the use-case-description on p. 93 the solar potential of rooftops is shown as an example under the coverage application scheme. However, in our solar potential layer and also in the one at the data specification the potential for a rooftop has no slopes, it does not vary over time and space. Facilities on a rooftop will also most often not be linked with other facilities on different rooftops, because in most cases they will belong to different owners. Therefore extraction facilities will really stand on their own at a small spatial scale, rather like a small wind generator. Our understanding was to put these rooftop photovoltaics into the vector application scheme, but then we probably did not understand your reasoning behind the coverage application scheme..

For any help from you on these matters we would be much obliged indeed.

  • Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    By Angel LOPEZ ALOS

     

    Posted by Caludia Pegoraro:

    Dear Colleagues,

    I am pleased to open the discussion with some input for Topic number 2.

    My start point is keeping in mind the Directive prescription, that is essentially to reach a comprehensive and consistent SDI.

     

    Having a look at these principles, PF was intended to deal with all the locations where an anthropic infrastructure is placed in name of a kind of production activity to be conducted, see PF Theme definition:

     

    Production and industrial facilities

    Industrial production sites, including installations covered by Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control1 and water abstraction facilities, mining, storage sites.

     

    Where are the exceptions to this rule? It seems to be in the AF and US Themes, where facilities are explicitly cited, but whit a specific concern:

     

    Utility and governmental services

    Includes utility facilities such as sewage, waste management, energy supply and water supply, administrative and social governmental services such as public administrations, civil protection sites, schools and hospitals.

     

    Agricultural and aquaculture facilities

    Farming equipment and production facilities (including irrigation systems, greenhouses and stables).

     

    Finally in my view the answer would be Yes, facilities extracting the resources would be considered in PF Theme, if we speak about anthropic infrastructures put in place for that scope.

    Mining resources and Energy Resources Themes may also be intended as candidate for that, but, in my view, those two have to be intended for mapping raw material locations, I would suggest natural deposits, not anthropic sites: this is stated in ER and MR Themes definitions:

     

    Energy resources

    Energy resources including hydrocarbons, hydropower, bio-energy, solar, wind, etc., where relevant including depth/height information on the extent of the resource.

     

    Mineral resources

    Mineral resources including metal ores, industrial minerals, etc., where relevant including depth/height information on the extent of the resource.

     

    Moreover, the INSPIRE cross-theme work group on Facilities concluded that there is a common layer for the INSPIRE Themes involving Facilities (PF, AF, US Themes), a super layer where all Facilities to be put in and where common properties to be shared. This was the Abstract Complex, to have a common concept to clear away any doubt.

    Another input to consider: the ANNEX I of the Council Directive 96/61/EC (the reference law cited in PF Theme definition) concerns the CATEGORIES OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 , where Energy Industries are listed.

     

    Waiting for your feedback and further discussion.

     

    Thanks and best regards,

    Claudia Pegoraro

     

  • Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    By Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    Dear Bettina, All,

     

    Having more detailed information about the scope, structure and entities described in your internal datasets would be helpful in order to address your question more in detail, nevertheless I will try to answer from a generic perspective first and we can go in deep later  if you provide with more detailed information.

     

    Production and Industrial facilities scope covers basically all physical entities supporting the development of economic activities. As is stated on the Technical Guidelines: The overall set of activities considered within the Production and Industrial Facilities theme spans from extraction of resources, to their transformation in products or by-products, and their storage.

     

    ·         Extraction of resources includes the following: non-energy extractive industry (mining of construction materials, industrial minerals, and metallic minerals), energy extractive industry, and water.

     

    ·         Transformation of resources should be seen both as transformation of one resource or product into another, or as transformation into energy, thus including power generation plants within the scope of this theme.

     

    From the practical perspective I would recommend:

     

    If your data set covers all different type of Energy Production Facilities classified by typology (ej. Wind Farm, Hydropower Plant, BioGas Plants) and represented by a single point (x,y) with linked information about production capacity, our suggestions would be to cover this under the scpope of PF – Facilities – Activity Complex and use the Data Types proposed as extensions for Input and Output.

     

    If your data set contains more detailed information (ej, Wind Farm Area and Location for each Wind Generator + Additional Installations for Energy Storage).  Wind Farm Area should be described as a Production Facility (Polygon Shape) and each Wind Generator as a Production Installation. Additional information could be included by using the extension for each entity on the Technical Guidelines.

     

    All information about potential energy sources (wind speed, solar radiation, ...) is out of the scope of Production and Industrial Facilities.

     

    It ́s important to notice about the relevance of describing Energy Production Facilities under the PF Data Model in order to be in condition to potentially use the link with Utilities Data Model (ej. Electricity Networks Linked with HydroPower Plant) through the Facility as a Node described in the Utilities Network.

     

    All information about isolated or small installations (ej. Solar Facilities on a rooftop) for personal consume might be covered by the theme Buildings (potentially linkable with Production Facilities). If these small facilities centralize generated energy into a central storage place (PF Installation) with is connected with the general utility Netwotk all these, if geographically located independently, could be considered as Installation Parts

     

    Note: Discussion about how to link Energy Resource Potential to Facilities in where it is produced, storaged or transformed took place along the Data Specifications process. Finally not direct link between both was defined. If the casuistic stated in this questions is shared by others, this discussion might be reopened or included as extension.

    Thanks a lot and best regards.

  • Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    By Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    Posted by Heinrich Geerling

     

    I would like to provide a brief general excess to your questions, without looking in the

    specifications in detail.

    If this might be helpful we could deepen those issues directly related to the specifications

    in detail in a next round.

     

    We have mainly three problems, the first one regarding the “basic data for wind and temperature distributions” (more specifically, which of them you would regard as basic), the second, where to integrate the facilities extracting the resources, and the third concerns the reasoning behind the coverage application scheme – on these matters the data-specification for the energy-resources is not entirely clear to us.

     

    1)      should we put the “mean wind-speed in 140m” and the “annual sum of solar radiation” into the Energy resources theme or the Atmospheric conditions theme? In the data-specification it says quite clearly on page for: “Basic data for wind and temperature distributions are modelled within the Atmospheric Conditions data specification.” However, in the use-case-description on page 117 you denote as input data source a map of the annual sum of global in-plane irradiation. Do you count the annual sums of solar radiation not as basic data?

     

    Atmospheric conditions first of all means the Condition independently of an Energy resource and of any installation.

    Atmospheric conditions might indicate “The Energy resource”, but energy yield depends also on the technological possibilities,

    it depends on a technological evolution (e.g. Best available Technology, BET), i.e. changing in the future.

     

    From my preliminary estimate e.g. a “annual sum of global in-plane irradiation” can be an implicit or explicit

    information, i.e. a procedural calculated sum extracted from “Basic Data” from Atmospheric Conditions or explicitly,

    a pre calculated estimation of Energy resources as an summarized attribute in the Energy resources theme.

    (By the way, so far it would be an redundant information.)

    Both make sense in the first version of INSPIRE, as procedural derivations are not yet or always possible.

     

    2)      we are not sure where to put the facilities extracting the resources: do they belong to the energy resources theme or to the production and industrial facilities theme? On page 4 of the data specification it says “The technical constructions for abstraction, transport and treatment, these are largely covered by Production and Industrial Facilities.” However on page 31 it is stated that “renewable resources can only be quantified by expressing the capacity of the facility extracting the energy resource” and that you explicitly defined two distinct vector spatial object types to account for this. Also it was decided (p. 5) that hydro power plants are not within the scope of energy resources and belong to the production and industrial facilities theme. We assume that Biogas plants are along the same lines, but what with wind generators, photovoltaic power plants, or rooftop photovoltaics? Since we could not follow your discussion on that matter, we do not see a profound difference between hydro-power plants and wind generators, other than their shape. Also if we do not include hydro power plants and biogas plants, the energy resources will only include about half the data we have about renewable energy resources in Baden-Württemberg, and will mostly consist of the potential that is not yet exploited. If you do not know how much of the resource is currently being used, information regarding the surplus potential can be quite misleading.

    Generally speaking all production facilities of a specific size(!) belong to PF.

    Production includes all kind of products including Energy and even information i.e. data.

    A facility extracting the resources is a PF as well.

     

    But: A Production Facility means an abstract Geographic feature that describes an activity and related attributes, e.g. function, process, input, output.

    PF reverts to BU to describe concrete building and non-building like structures, it means the physical expression, the construction, of

    e.g. hydro power plants, wind generators, photovoltaic power plants etc. pp.

     

    Back to your question:

    Another important classification criterion is related to the “size of a facility”:

    PF and all those other Facilities are strongly related to EU legislation related to environmental protection,

    e.g. IED, Industrial Emissions Directivem, Environment Assessment, Seveso .

    EU and all federal state laws list obligations to permit by authorities in case of planning and authorization of a facility, which means a function

    of the size(!) of the facility or the size of other relevant attributes like “power”, “waste” and “danger”.

    That means that smaller “production facilities” like photovoltaic roofs or block-type thermal power station <BTTP>

    do not fall under the list of obligations to notify the authorities or of permit in that sense.

     So far small units of photovoltaic roofs etc. do not fall under the concept of PF,

    but under BU, ADE.

     

    3) which application scheme should we use for the solar potential on rooftops? On pp. 40/41 of the data specification it says „The Energy Resources Coverage application schema should not be used as an alternative representation of discrete objects like coal deposits, oil fields, or any other delineation of spatial features, nor to represent properties of subsurface non-renewable energy sources. Therefore, the use of this application schema is restricted to those renewable resources, the potential of which can vary over time and space“. But again, on the use-case-description on p. 93 the solar potential of rooftops is shown as an example under the coverage application scheme. However, in our solar potential layer and also in the one at the data specification the potential for a rooftop has no slopes, it does not vary over time and space. Facilities on a rooftop will also most often not be linked with other facilities on different rooftops, because in most cases they will belong to different owners. Therefore extraction facilities will really stand on their own at a small spatial scale, rather like a small wind generator. Our understanding was to put these rooftop photovoltaics into the vector application scheme, but then we probably did not understand your reasoning behind the coverage application scheme...

    May be I didn’t understand that issue very well in detail, but generally speaking the answer can

    be found from the “level of detail” point of view.

    A single Building, BU, might have a roof with a photovoltaic panel and specific attributes

    of energy potential and even “As Is” Energy production data by monitoring the solar energy income.

    So far the issue would be a part of BU or BU ADE, Application domain extension.

    Which are still under development in BU, as far as I know.

     

    But from a higher level of detail point of view, talking about the solar potential of a whole

    city district as an estimation, data that shows a rough summary without depth,

    will match better to the Energy Resource topic.

     

    For any help from you on these matters we would be much obliged indeed.

    With best regards from Karlsruhe

    Bettina Stoehr

    so far for the beginning, if it helps and

    best wishes

  • Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    By Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    Posted by Bettina Stöhr

     

    Thank you for your replies and excuse my late answer – we had a deadline to meet that was a bit tight.

     I included the email-address of the colleague responsible for integrating INSPIRE here at the LUBW, Falk Welker, so I’d like to ask you to please reply to this mail in the future, in order to keep him informed. Thanks!

     For the sake of completeness, I also attached the email Mr. Geerling sent to me on that matter.

     Regarding the data of our “atlas for renewable energy in Baden-Württemberg”:

    We have extraction site data from the themes Wind Energy, Solar power plants, Hydropower plants and rooftop photovoltaics. Coming up are biogas plants and geothermic sites. The extraction sites data consists of position details (coordinates or addresses) plus installed capacity and some theme-specific energy information (like hub height and rotor diameter for wind turbines, or drop height and type of power plant for hydropower). On the other hand we also have information about the yet unused potential: we’ve linked information on land-legislation with wind speed to find areas well suited for wind energy and plotted an optimized array of potential turbines over the area. We’ve done something along the same line for solar power plants, and we’ve also estimated the solar rooftop potential on the grounds of global radiation and laser scanning data (giving information on ground height). We also used information from an expensive, hands-on survey on hydropower potential to assess the surplus potential in BW.

    A third part is the aggregation on several administration levels: it’s basically the same information, but it is still interesting to know the aggregation is available without further effort.

    You can have a look at the data here: www.potenzialatlas-bw.de . Background information can be found here, unfortunately in German only: http://www.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/223581/ .

    On all levels we have information about the annual output and the possible annual output of the potential, which makes it possible to compare the exhaustion of the present potential. But as far as I understand such data is not yet supposed to be included in INSPIRE.

     Regarding the implementation of the data:

    In our department (not connected to the atlas I am concerned with) we also have information about biogas plants regarding occupational health and safety issues. These concern not only addresses of the site and installed capacity, but also names and addresses of the operators and about 40 different columns - when the site was approved, when it was built, with which installed capacity, do they have regular inspections, which safety features are built in, and all kinds of other legal information. Most of the information illustrated in our atlas came from this safety data. So I do agree with your mails, that most or all of the renewable energies information can be put into some other theme, to avoid doubling the information.  

    However, this does not weaken the fact that, as I have elaborated in my first email, the energy resources data specification clearly put care in providing two distinct vector spatial object types to account for the problem that “renewable resources can only be quantified by expressing the capacity of the facility extracting the energy resource” (p 31). Together with the example on the solar rooftop potential this to me does not sound like the theme was planned for mapping natural deposits.

    A general reflection:

    Bringing up those questions without more specific information on the data was maybe not a good idea. I am not sure if that will change the assessment after all. At the moment I must admit I am getting confused about the status of the energy resources theme. Planning the energy supply is a major political concern on a global level and goes way up into not only climate change, but also economy and all kinds of discussions about foreign policy – see Ukraine. Providing integrated information on that account throughout Europe may become very important for planning the power supply on a European level. This would include all energy resources, not only natural deposits.

    So, from the point of providing information for supporting and planning the development of renewable energy and energy supply as a whole, it makes no sense to disintegrate the information. The importance of aggregating this information is the reason why we got so much money for putting it together in the first place. If you want to know what information on renewable energy in Baden-Württemberg is available, possibly because it borders on your terrain of interest or you’d like to provide information on a larger scale, you do not want to start by cruising through the different themes (agriculture, land use, buildings, production facilities) hoping to find some columns somewhere that may or may not contain some information about renewables potential in the area.

    I am not sure if using cross references will help with finding the data. So our idea originally (before reading the data specifications in detail) was to put the present energy installations and the calculated potentials into the ER theme, and the wind speed and the annual sum of solar radiation into the Atmospheric conditions (where it will be in any case, because it’s data coming from the experts group of the respective areas). We’d then have explained in the resources theme which data we used to calculate the potential...

    In this concept the PF-theme would be used for example to display the biogas plants from the health and safety side.

     

    I do understand that in this case we’d cover the position of the biogas plants twice. However, to me the energy information of our data much outweighs the position information, making it clearly relevant for the energy resources theme.

    I do hope bringing up details about our data will help with the classification, and am looking forward to the subsequent discussion. 

    With best regards

     

  • Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    By Angel LOPEZ ALOS

    Posted by Claudia Pegoraro:

     

    Many thanks for providing details on your datasets, this helps a lot giving you a better advice.

    In my view there are two ­­­­­­­­­pragmatic­­ questions you are pointing out:

    1. Where to put each piece of your dataset content detecting the correct  position (class, attribute) in the INSPIRE data schema -> INSPIRE Theme 1, INSPIRE Theme 2, etc.
    2. If putting a specific piece of your dataset content in INSPIRE or not -> this depends on two factors: the premise that piece is to be considered in Directive scope or out of scope; secondly the fact the correct position (class, attribute) for that piece is available or not in the data schema.

    I have been trying to do this mapping exercise considering your content details and the INSPIRE Themes  as potential destinations; unfortunately this takes a lot of time, so I am sorry, I will just proceed with the results from this exercise in a second message.

    Be sure, I will be happy to help you later on.

    Let’s stay in touch.

  • Heinrich GEERLING

    By Heinrich GEERLING

    Dear Claudia, Bettina, Angel, All,

     

    thank you Claudia for your brief explanation how to proceed at that stage.

    I think you hit the point:

    Where to put each piece of your dataset content detecting the correct position (class, attribute) in the INSPIRE data schema -> INSPIRE Theme 1, INSPIRE Theme 2, etc.

    If putting a specific piece of your dataset content in INSPIRE or not ->

    this depends on two factors: the premise that piece is to be considered in Directive

    scope or out of scope; secondly the fact the correct position (class, attribute) for that

    piece is available or not in the data schema.

    I have been trying to do this mapping exercise considering your content details and

    the INSPIRE Themes  as potential destinations …

    I agree that at that point of the discussion it is necessary to check a mapping from

    “one piece of the datsets of any stekeholder into the correct position in the

    INSPIRE data schema” to check wich peaces are allready in focuse of

    INSPIRE or a even missing.

     

    Illustration:

     

     

    So I was looking out for some tools that are available on the market that can be helpful

    in order to stay on top of the things.

     

    Bettina told me that she can provide e.g. ESRI Shapefiles as a test dataset

    of the “atlas for renewable energy in Baden-Württemberg”.

     

    A WFS of those data of the “atlas for renewable energy in Baden-Württemberg”

    is not yet available. But it would even be easier for a data mapping, see below.

    There are some open source tools available on the net e.g.:

     

    What is HALE?

    The HUMBOLDT Alignment Editor (HALE) is a spatial data transformation application. You use HALE to interactively and visually define and evaluate conceptual schema mappings and data harmonisation processes.

    Quick links for HALE:

    https://www.wetransform.to/products/hale

    HALE is licensed under the Free an Open Source License LGPL 3.0. It is available for all major operating systems.


    http://blog.dhpanel.eu/2013/06/29/workflow-inspire-planned-land-use-for-the-trento-province/

     

    Steps:

    1. Import Source Schema from WFS

    (if available or Shapefiles, Enterprise Geodatabases to PostGreSQL, File Geodatabases partly and experimental, FGDB needs much more investigation in detail!)

    1. Import Target Schema from Preset (HALE comes bundled with all INSPIRE schemas)
    2. Import Source Data from WFS
      1. To keep the transformation interactive, we recommend working with a few 100 to a couple 10.000 Features; to configure data subsets, go to Window->Settings->Project->Source Data->Instance Sampling
    3. Set up Type Relations between Classes/Tables/Feature types, then...
      1. Set up Property Functions
      2. Check results of transformation & validation
    4. Save/Export the Transformation Mapping, generate interactive HTML Documentation or Excel Matching Table
    5. Transform entire data set in HALE by using Batch processing, the HALE Command Line Interface or by using the HALE Server HTTP interface
    6. Optionally, share project via HALE Web Templates (http://hale.igd.fraunhofer.de/templates) or wetransform.to to work on it together.

    You may find a detailed tutorial how to use HALE here:


    http://blog.dhpanel.eu/2013/06/29/workflow-inspire-planned-land-use-for-the-trento-province/
     

    The transformation mapping depends always on independent Mappings (type- or property functions).

    It allows to go forward step by step or to say “piece by piece”

     

    For a general discussion for all of us HALE allows to put a comment on any cell, so the results of

    the discussion can be stored.

    This makes it easier to remind decisions.

    From the previous discussion we know, that some features of the source database have to be mapped

    in different INSPIRE themes.

    This is possible by a combination of XML schemata.

    May be those experts could join the discussion?

     

    I hope it will help to get forward?

     

    best wishes

    Heinrich

     

    Heinrich  Gerhard  Geerling

    Architekt Dipl. Ing.

     

    Pleistalstr. 123

    D -  53757  Sankt  Augustin

     

    Tel.: +49 (0) 177 - 2574233

    Fax: +49 (0) 3212-4481100

    Mail:  geerling@geerling.de

     

Facilities & Utilities, Public Services

Facilities & Utilities, Public Services

Covers a broad set of facilities, installations, networks and constructions supporting economic activities and public services