Add `non-energy use technology` #1773

[l-emele]

Summary of the discussion

Implement non-energy use technology as equivalent class.

Type of change (CHANGELOG.md)

Add

• Class: non-energy use technology
  • Definition: A non-energy use technology is a technology that describes among other things how to combine non-energy use of energy carriers with other processes and artificial objects or other material entities in a specific way.
  • Alternative label: non-energy consumption technology
  • Axiom: 'non energy use technology' EquivalentTo: technology and ('is about' some ('participates in' some 'non-energy use'))

Update

• Add alternative label non-energy consumption to class non-energy use.

Workflow checklist

Automation

Closes #1773

PR-Assignee

• [ ] 🐙 Follow the Pull Request Workflow
• [ ] 📝 Update the CHANGELOG.md
• [ ] 📙 Add #'s to term tracker item

Reviewer

• [ ] 🐙 Follow the Reviewer Guide
• [ ] 🐙 Provided feedback and show sufficient appreciation for the work done

[stap-m]

This issue #1726 is very similar to #1773. There is a proposal for industrial technology.

First proposal: industrial technology: An industrial technology is a technology that describes how to combine industrial plants, energy transformations, material transformations, energy, energy carriers and other materials in a specific way to produce an industrial material.

We don't have yet industrial plant, so let's define it: An industrial plant is an artificial object that applies one or more industrial processes to produce one more kinds of industrial products.

https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/issues/1726#issuecomment-1813962631

I'd suggest the following:

• make industrial technology alternative label to non-energy use technology (or main label?)
• extend the def od industrial plant to An industrial plant is an artificial object that applies one or more industrial processes to produce one more kinds of industrial products and thereby consumes energy and/or energy carriers.
• use the def of industrial technology proposed in #1726 instead of the one proposed here. Maybe extend it like that: An industrial technology is a technology that describes how to combine industrial plants, energy transformations, material transformations, energy, energy carriers and other materials in a specific way to produce an industrial material or product.

@l-emele what do you think?

[l-emele]

Sorry, I have to object against this proposal. The concepts non-energy use technology and industrial technology are related but not synonyms. In a lot of industrial processes there is non-energy use, the most obvious one are plastics are manufactured from mineral oil (or other carbon containing materials).

But there are also industrial materials which are produced without a non-energy use of fuels. For example, cement production needs a lot of fuels, but all that energy is used to produce the heat in the ovens. None of the fuels are agents in the chemical reaction that forms the cement, so no non-energetic use of fuels in this case.

Further, non-energy use also happens outside the industry. One simple counterexample are the lubricants (Schmierstoffe) used in vehicles: Lubricants are mineral oil products and as such fuels and energy carriers. But those lubricants are not combusted and hence not used to propel the vehicles but instead used to lubricate motors and gears. But driving a vehicle is for sure not an industrial process in the sense that a good will be produced.

So for specific industrial processes and technologies we can add that non-energy use is a part, but not in general.

[stap-m]

I see. Are there, the other way round, non-energy use technologies that are not industrial technologies ( which should be consideres in OEO)?

[l-emele]

Are there, the other way round, non-energy use technologies that are not industrial technologies ( which should be consideres in OEO)?

Yes, see the lubricants example above. I don't know whether we need to include lubricant technology or something like that in the OEO, but at least it shows that non-energy use technology and industrial technologies are not identical, despite having large overlaps.

[l-emele]

@stap-m : Any need further discussion? If not please review and approve the PR.