l-emele
commented
1 year ago After thinking a bit about this issue I think it is a viable solution and to me it does not look like an alternative to the energy carriers and energy transformations approach, but more like an extension or refinement of that discussion.
Looking at the table I think, there are three distinctive parts: a process, an artificial object and energy carriers, but in some cases parts of that are not necessarily be shown to the users of the fact sheets.
Anyway, this understanding of technology is very different from our current definition of technology thus we needs a redefinition. I'll open an issue for that in the oeo repo.
Description of the issue
As discussed before, the structure of the oeo for
energy carriersandenergy transformationsdoes not sufficiently satisfy the requirements to describe a study/scenario. This initiated a restructuring ofenergy transformationhierarchy, which is worthwile anyway.However, further feedback on factsheet part of
energy carriersandenergy transformationsgave, that user / modellers have rather a concept of "technologies" in mind, when they want to describe their study. "Technology" as generalized term (and provider of a proper hierarchy) is not part of the oeo. The entities that users mean by "technologies" are, though, yet kinf of scattered around the oeo.With a little OEO jigsaw here comes a proposal that focuses on this "technology perspective" and hopefully satisfies better the user requirements. This section could replace the current energy carriersa ands transformation section of the factsheets.
Feedback on whether this structure improves the descriptiveness of studies and, in case, on further refinement is very much apprechieated @l-emele @ludee @u-mueller @han-f @christian-rli Thanks!
FYI @adelmemariani @fabianneuhaus
Ideas of solution
Workflow checklist