There is no class Uranium

[akleinau]

Description of the issue

Uranium is included in energy modeling factsheets (#15) but not in our ontology.

Ideas of solution

Add class "PortionOfUranium": PortionOfMatter, with disposition SolidFossilFuels.

Uranium: "Uranium is a PortionOfMatter that has the atomic number 92. It is a silver-grey metal." source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium"

Workflow checklist

• [x] 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 new entry in the ontology should have an annotation
• [x] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words
• [x] class or property names should follow the UpperCamelCase

[l-emele]

Uranium should not be a solid fossil fuel. We defined as an EnergyCarrier that releases energy in form of heat or work, by chemical reaction with other substances. Uranium releases its energy by a nuclear reaction (nuclear fission). Uranium is a not a fuel but it is still an energy carrier. At the November meeting we decided to chose this definition of fuel and to exclude uranium or any other potential nuclear energy carrier (plutonium, thorium).

Regarding the fossil origin of uranium, fossil is currently defined as:

x is fossil if it was created by natural processes lasting thousands or millions of years. In real world, fossils are from biogenic origin some thousands or millions of years ago. However, this is irrelevant in the energy modelling domain.

The definition itself (first sentence) fits to uranium. But the second sentence does not fit to uranium.

And if you look where uranium really originates it is of a different type: Uranium is created in supernovae and neutron star mergers (source: Wikipedia) and was already part of the planetary nebula when the solar system and hence Earth formed.

So I would prefer to improve the definition of fossil than include uranium here: x is fossil if it was created on Earth by geological processes lasting thousands or millions of years. (The second sentence can stay as it is.)

@jannahastings: What do you think?

[l-emele]

Off-topic comment: I'd never thought that I'll finally think about supernovae and solar system formation when creating a energy modelling ontology! :smile:

[jannahastings]

Uranium should not be a solid fossil fuel.

I agree with @l-emele : uranium is not a fossil fuel. It is not a fossil (by reason of origin) and neither is it a fuel by the definition we have given for fuel.

However, uranium is frequently described as a fuel: a nuclear fuel. Therefore, we could consider adding the class 'nuclear fuel' as a different type of energy carrier, it would be a sibling of the class we currently have for 'fuel'.

[akleinau]

ok, so it's no fuel, but its solid, right? so we still give it the state_of_matter "solid"? Which origin do we give it then?

to nuclear fuel, I like the idea and looked for a definition: "Nuclear fuel is an energy carrier used in nuclear power stations to produce heat to power turbines. Heat is created when nuclear fuel undergoes nuclear fission." source of inspiration: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel"

[l-emele]

I am okay with that definition and also with the state of matter. I think we need a new instance of origin here. I first thought of nuclear but that's not the best idea. Any other suggestions?

[jannahastings]

I think we need a new instance of origin here. I first thought of nuclear but that's not the best idea. Any other suggestions?

Mining?

[stap-m]

Coal etc also originates from mining. Mineral?

I agree, that the term 'nuclear fuel' is used a lot and it makes sense that it is not a subclass of fuel. Anyway, I am hesitating with the terms 'fuel' and 'nuclear fuel' both as direct subclasses of 'energy carrier'. It calls for changing the name of 'fuel' into something like 'non-nuclear fuel', which is not very pretty... ?!?

[l-emele]

I think we need a new instance of origin here. I first thought of nuclear but that's not the best idea. Any other suggestions?

Mining?

What about 'uranium ore'? Or is that too specific?

It calls for changing the name of 'fuel' into something like 'non-nuclear fuel', which is not very pretty... ?!?

What about 'combustion fuel' in contrast to 'nuclear fuel'?

[akleinau]

uranium ore would be specific but would make sure every material has just one origin. But there's no one (that I know of) stopping us from using more than one origin per material so we can just use mining (as a less specific description) and add it to coal etc too?

[l-emele]

We already use more than one origin for some fuels, e.g. all biofuels both has_origin value biogenic and has_origin renewable.

[akleinau]

then I think mining makes sense as the a bit more general one?

[stap-m]

Coal etc would also have origin 'mining'. I'd prefer 'mineral'.

I like the proposal 'combustion fuel' by @l-emele.

[l-emele]

Coal etc would also have origin 'mining'. I'd prefer 'mineral'.

That won't solve this, as coal is also a mineral.

[stap-m]

Coal has an amount of minerals, that is true. But it's the organic part, that makes coal a fuel, releasing energy (and CO2).

[akleinau]

I don't see a problem when coal also gets the origin assigned to uranium?

[l-emele]

The idea was to find an origin that differentiates uranium from fossil fuels like coal.

[akleinau]

isn't it differentiated by the fact that it doesn't have the origin 'fossil'?

[l-emele]

Another idea would be has_orgin ore, then we would avoid mineral.

[stap-m]

Ore would fit. It's quite related to mineral. Wikipedia says "Ore is natural rock or sediment that contains desirable minerals, typically metals, that can be extracted from it." I'd prefer another adjective ('fossil', 'renewable', 'biogenic'), but I don't have a better term than ore.

The only way I see at the moment would be to distinct 'combustion fuels' and 'nuclear fuels' other than by origin, e.g. by chemical reaction. I.e. include 'mineral' as origin for both Uranium and organic minerals (coal would have both, origin 'fossil' and 'mineral'). Not sure if this idea is better, though.

[l-emele]

I'd prefer another adjective ('fossil', 'renewable', 'biogenic'), but I don't have a better term than ore.

I thought also about finding a proper adjective but the only one I could think of was ore-ish. 🤣

A differentiation by chemical reaction is difficult as also uranium can chemically react. In fact the uranium used in most commercial power reactors is not metallic uranium but uranium oxide.

[l-emele]

mineralic is not really an origin as it does not point to the source but more a property that is from a different dimension.

From discussions with a colleague I got a new idea: We could define an origin geogenic and then define fossil as a subclass of geogenic. Uranium would then get has_origin geogenic and all fossil fuels stay has_orgin fossil.

At some point in the far future of the ontology we have to discuss on industrial processes like cement or steel production. Then a concept of a geogenic origin will probably be very helpful.

[akleinau]

ok then we just need a definition. "x is geogenic if it is the result of geological processes."?

[akleinau]

I'll see if I get this implemented and will propose a solution for the fossil-geogenic implementation. Thats new because they are instances which makes creating a hierarchy a bit more complicated