Wikidata:Property proposal/feed-in tariff
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
feed-in tariff
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | feed-in tariff is the monetary value in a given currency, where a power station gets paid for the amount of power they generate |
|---|---|
| Represents | feed-in tariff (Q279637) |
| Data type | String |
| Template parameter | en:template:infobox power station --> |
| Domain | property |
| Allowed units | currency |
| Example 1 | Uthuru Janani Power Station (Q25058343) → LKR 17.86 per kWh |
| Example 2 | Sault Ste. Marie Solar Park (Q7427401) → CAD 0.42 per kWh |
| Example 3 | Burgos Wind Farm (Q4998672) → PHP 8.53 per kWh |
| Example 4 | Cirebon Steam Power Plant (Q5121854) → USD 0.0443 per kWh |
| Source | en:Feed-in tariff |
| Planned use | integrate in the power station infobox |
| See also | Wikidata:WikiProject Energy |
Motivation
[edit]FIT is a rate (in given currency) at which power stations get paid (by the state utility) to generate electricity. It is an industry-standard term. Rehman 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Support in principle, but can you put together a real example for a specific power station of how you want this to look? There would be point-in-time qualifiers etc. right? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks; apologies if the proposal isn't complete. I'm not sure how to show an example. Currency would be a mandatory qualifier (as it is a tariff rate). Start and End dates would also be used for plants with term contracts, but that info is not always readily available, and hence should not be mandatory. Rehman 16:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are also tariff blocks, but I don't know how that could be stated on Wikidata (maybe you could suggest). For example, here in Sri Lanka, we have FIT that is structured such that the first 7 years, the plant would earn Rs.22, while the remaining 13 years (of the usual 20 year contract period), the plant would earn Rs.18. Rehman 01:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have an item-valued property, so that you can specify the details of the tariff contract on a dedicated item describing that contract? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- That could work, but I'm not comfortable in making the call, as I am not familiar with the broader spectrum of property usages for such cases. Maybe someone more familiar with property structures would be able to weight in on this? Rehman 11:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have an item-valued property, so that you can specify the details of the tariff contract on a dedicated item describing that contract? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please provide a description in the description field that explains what the feed-in tariff happens to be. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I am not sure whether creating a property for feed-in tariffs is the right way to go. There are a lot of power plants which to not have a FIT. There are also other approaches like power purchase agreement (Q4170531), Market premium (Q1227661) or even net metering (Q2685471) (ok, this is mostly for small plants). Thus, I would rather suggest a property called something like remuneration scheme which can be anything of the given approaches. Height, start and end times for each scheme could be done as a qualifier. --Katjos (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. Every power plant has a FIT. That plays a large part in determining the feasibility of running a power plant. A power purchase agreement (PPA) is where the FIT would be agreed upon, it is not an alternative. Net metering is a technology, and depending on local regulations, it also almost always has a FIT if the user exports excess production. Market premium is completely unrelated IMO. Rehman 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- SupportChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can an admin/property creator please close this request? Is there anything blocking the creation of this property? Kind regards, Rehman 11:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Rehman, ArthurPSmith, ChristianKl, Katjos: Property feed-in tariff (P6826)
Done. If XYZ in "per XYZ" possible is kilowatt hour (Q182098), perhaps the required applies to part, aspect, or form (P518)=XYZ can be dismissed, but for now, as I don't have this information, that's the only way I could think to model the property. Good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ederporto. Does it make sense to use the qualifier criterion used (P1013) instead of applies to part, aspect, or form (P518)? Since this is currency per kWh. An example: Nirmalapura Wind Farm (Q15262391). Rehman 14:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, is it possible to restrict the uses to kilowatt hour (Q182098) and megawatt hour (Q14787261) only? The latter is rare, but the only other unit in use. Rehman 15:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ederporto, fixed my previous comment. I mentioned the wrong "relative to" property. I also went ahead and changed to criterion used (P1013) instead of applies to part, aspect, or form (P518). Please do revert if you disagree. Rehman 12:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)