Include subclasses of GasFiredPowerUnit

l-emele commented 4 years ago

Description of the issue

We need some subclasses of GasFiredPowerUnit.

Ideas of solution

I do not yet have proper labels, but some first ideas of definitions.

Gas-fired power unit that contains a gas turbine, amongst other parts.
Gas-fired power unit using steam turbine, amongst other parts.
Gas-fired power unit using combined cycle that contains one or more gas turbines and a steam turbine, amongst other parts.
Gas-fired power unit using a reciprocating engine (synonym: piston engine), amongst other parts.

ReciprocatingEngine would be a new subclass of EnergyConvertingDevice.

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] I added this issue to the Project 'Issues'. If suitable, I add it to further Projects.
[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

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

from my perspective there are several levels of subclasses of GasfiredPowerUnit:

level: Is it a:
- public power plant
- autoproducer power plant
level/branching: does the power plant contain: -gas turbine -steam turbine -combined cycle
level/branching: Does the power plant produce: -only electricity -heat and electricity (CHP plant) -only heat
level/branching for CHP plants:
- backpressure operation
- condencing cycle operation

@l-emele : I like your defintions of what I call 2nd level categorization. I don't know if my comment is out of the scope of your issue and if it should be an issue by itself?

l-emele commented 4 years ago

Thank you for your input.

Your first level has to do with ownership and operation of power plants and consumption of the produced electricity and heat. That is something we currently not have reflected in the ontology. However, I think that this are more properties of the power plants than subclasses. Also this affects not only the gas-fired power plants but all power plants as e.g. also for coal power plants it can be distinguished between public and autoproducer power plants.

Regarding your third level: At least following our current definition of power plants (A Powerplant is an aggregate of PowerGeneratingUnits that feeds electric energy into an electric grid. see #306) a heat only plant is not a power plant.

Regarding CHP and operation modes: That is something that is again something not gas fired power plant specific, but applies to other power plants, too. Operation mode is a concept that we definitely need in our ontology. Those operation modes apply only to steam turbines (including combined cycle) but not to gas turbines, right?

@stap-m : What do you think?

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

Yes the ownership (autoproducer or public) can be applied to all power plants, also to the renewable ones. From my energy model perspective I have a group of processes which are public power plants in the electricity sector and than I have a group of processes representing the autoproducer plants in the industry sector. (In the Eurostat energy balance there is also this differenciation, which is my main input source.) If the ownership is set as a property, can I than still assign different values to the different properties, for example autoprocer gas plant has the capacity X and public gas plant has the capacity Y?

Yes you are right operation mode can be applied to all combined heat and power (CHP) plants (including biogas, coal, lignite, municipal waste, industrial waste, mineral oil, wood). And yes operation mode applies only to steam turbines and combined cycle.

stap-m commented 4 years ago

Thank you for the input @Vera-IER. It is very helpful to get new point of views. We should definitely reflect those questions in the oeo.

Regarding ownership: I think this is even more a topic for powerplants than power generating units?! We maybe could realize this by a class ownership and a property is_owned by (or something like that). @akleinau what do you think?

If the ownership is set as a property, can I than still assign different values to the different properties, for example autoprocer gas plant has the capacity X and public gas plant has the capacity Y?

As I understand it, this refers to powerplant individuals, that won't be part of the oeo, but can be described by metadata connected to the oeo. So I guess, this should be no problem.

Edit: @Vera-IER can you open a separate issue for the owenership discussion?

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

Yes I opened the issue #314 for the ownership discussion.

l-emele commented 4 years ago

For the 0.0.1 we do only the first subhierarchical level. All details below go into a later release.

akleinau commented 4 years ago

the first level is the ownership discussion, so we implement #314 instead of this for first release?

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

So now we continue with the thermal power plant types? -gas turbine -steam turbine -combined cycle Mayby we could include those types not only for gas fired power plants but also for coal, biomass etc. ?

l-emele commented 4 years ago

The relevant class here is probably the power generating units and not the power plants. A power plant is a collection of one or more power generation units but the units do not have to be identical. E.g. one gas fired power unit with combined cycle and a second gas fired power unit with a (single) gas turbine at one site still form a gas fired power unit.

The different units should get different has part relations. Some suggestions for definitions:

gas turbine gas fired power unit: A gas turbine gas fired power unit is a power unit that contains a gas turbine, among other parts. Relation: 'has part' some 'gas turbine'.
steam turbine gas fired power unit: A steam turbine gas fired power unit is a power unit that contains a steam turbine, among other parts. Relation: 'has part' some 'steam turbine'.
combined cycle gas fired power unit: A combined cycle gas fired power unit is a power unit that applies the combined cylcle process. It contains a gas turbine and a steam turbine, among other parts. Relations: 'has part' some 'gas turbine' and 'has part' some 'steam turbine' and applies_technology some 'combined cycle process'.

The labels are a bit awkward (especially the gas turbine gas fired power unit) and we could probably find better labels. But more important than the label is to get the concept and especially the definition of the concept right.

combined cycle process is something we have not yet defined, but I think it would be a subclass of energy transformation, so this is related to #372.

For coal power generating units we don't need subclasses as there are only coal plants with steam turbines (at least as I know). I think the same holds true for solid biomass power units (that we did not yet include in the OEO). But to let this issue not grow too much let's focus on the gas fired power units only and create a separate issue for coal and biomass if needed.

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

Yes you are right. For solid biomass and coal we just need the relation to steam turbine or since it is just an additional information, I don't know if we need this relation at all. The biogas power unit could have the same power unit types as the natural gas power unit in the future. For the oil power unit, I have also the distinction between gas and steam turbine in my model. Should I open new issues for these two power units? However I think, that it's not really a priority to work on futher subclasses of oil and biogas power units now.

I think since the gas and steam turbines are a subclass of "energy converting device", the combined cycle power unit type should be also there as a subclass of energy converting device?

l-emele commented 4 years ago

No, the combined cycle power unit has a couple of energy converting devices (gas turbine, steam turbine, generator) but it is a power generating unit. Maybe we need an intermediate class device between artificial object and energy converting device. I'll create a separate issue.

l-emele commented 3 years ago

Parts of the topics in this issues are implemented, but not everything. But the last discussion contribution is more than a year ago, the issue has been moved a lot between milestones without any action and since the last discussion contribution the OEO has evolved a lot. What was not implemented might not be needed at this stage.

So I suggest that we close this issue now and create a new one, if we find out later that we need some more subclasses.

OpenEnergyPlatform / ontology