search

OpenEnergyPlatform / ontology

Repository for the Open Energy Ontology (OEO)
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
106 stars 19 forks source link

potentials should get included in the oeo #481

Closed akleinau closed 3 years ago

akleinau commented 4 years ago

Description of the issue

Potentials are described in the oeo scenario factsheets but not in the ontology and should be included: theoretical, technical, economic, developable potential

Current state of discussion (11/11/20)

There are two fundamentally different ideas:

1. Implement potential as a disposition.

For this, we have the following classes and relations:

2. Implement has potential as an object property.

Why should we chose the disposition- or the object-property-solution?

Workflow checklist

I am aware that

l-emele commented 4 years ago

Wikipedia defines potential as: Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.

The WBGU has in this document detailed descriptions of potentials (Box 3.1-1).

0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q commented 4 years ago

Pointing out the obvious: potentials come in two flavours, stocks (e.g. mineral resources and reserves) and flows (e.g. annual electricity production), measured in Joules and Watts.

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

I like the descriptions from that WBGU document. Slighly changed from that source a definition for a generic potential could be: A potential identifies the upper limitof the energy available from a certain source.

stap-m commented 4 years ago

I also like the WGBU clarification. But I think its not the theoretical potential, but the technological and economical potentials that are relevant for our models. I.e., there is more energy available than usable: A potential identifies the upper limit of energy usable from a certain source.? And maybe implement two subclasses technological potential and economical potential?

The characteristic of potentials of being "upper limit / maximum value" seems to be corresponding to the concept of the "capacities" classes. This could help for the classification.

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

I like the definition with "usable". I agree that the subclass theoretical potential is not needed. Maybe we could also add sustainable potential as a 3rd subclass.

akleinau commented 4 years ago

theoretical, technical, economic and developable potential are directly listed in the factsheets I have (SzenDB Szenarienraster excel sheets) so they should either get changed too or we should implement them

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

okay...it also not a disadvantage to have more subclasses. just a tiny bit more work ;-)

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

So the definitions for the subclasses could be (slighly changed from WGBU report):

Theoretical potential: The theoretical potential is a thype of potential that identifies the physical upper limitof the energy available from a certain source. Technological potential: The technological potential is a type of potential derived from the theoretical potential, taking account of the annual efficiency of the respective conversion technology and the additional restrictions regarding the area that is realistically available for energy generation. Economic potential: The economic potential is a type of potential that identifies the proportion of the technological potential that can be utilized economically (based on economic boundary conditions). Developable potential: The developable potential is a type of potential that describes the fraction of the economic potential that can be developed under realistic conditions (regulations, environmental and social restrictions). source

l-emele commented 4 years ago

I agree with @stap-m's general definition for potential and @Vera-IER's definitions for the potential subclasses.

stap-m commented 4 years ago

For sustainable potential WGBU proposes: "This potential of an energy source covers all aspects of sustainability, which usually requires careful consideration and evaluation of different ecological and socio-economic aspects. The differentiation of the sustainable potential is blurred, since ecological aspects may already have been considered for the technological or economic potential, depending on the author." Is this too vague for an ontology? 😕 Anyway, I think this woud be a nice completion.

Since theoretical potential is not really usable, change the def of potential to: A potential identifies the upper limit of energy available or usable from a certain source.?

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

Yes I think we can add the sustainable potential to complete the list of potentials. To make it Arestotalian we could write: The sustainable potential is a type of potential that takes into account all aspects of sustainability, which usually requires careful consideration and evaluation of different ecological and socio-economic aspects. The differentiation of the sustainable potential is blurred, since ecological aspects may already have been considered for the technological or economic potential, depending on the author.

And changing the general potential def like @stap-m proposed sounds also good to me.

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

Can we relate all these potential terms to wind energy solar energy hydro energy? And it would also be nice to relate it to biomass, but I didn't found a class biomass in the OEO...

stap-m commented 4 years ago

And it would also be nice to relate it to biomass, but I didn't found a class biomass in the OEO...

We have biofuel.

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

Okay let's relate it to biofuel then. What would be a nice object property to relate them? Maybe is connected to? And where can we place potential in the OEO? Under quantity value?

l-emele commented 4 years ago

I would not limit the potential to energy, so I propose: A potential is a quantity value identifies the upper limit of a quantity available or usable from a certain source.

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

Sounds good to me. Just correcting a typo: A potential is a quantity value that identifies the upper limit of a quantity available or usable from a certain source.

sfluegel05 commented 4 years ago

If we define potential is a quantity value we can use has quantity value: biofuel has quantity value some theoretical potential. Is theoretical potential the right term to go with? I used it here because all the other potentials are dependent on other factors beside the fuel itself. And is there a reason to stop at biofuel? I would suggest to do this relation for fuel in general.

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

Is theoretical potential the right term to go with?

For wind and solar energy we can relate all potential terms to them, but for biofuels I would exclude the theoretical potential. Biofuels are already the product of a conversion process of biomass, so I would relate technological potential (and the ones below) to biofuels.

And is there a reason to stop at biofuel?

Yes. For fossil energy forms the term energy reserves is used instead of potential.

l-emele commented 4 years ago

For fossil energy forms the term energy reserves is used instead of potential.

For fossil there is also the term energy resources: https://www.hartenergy.com/opinions/energy-terms-reserves-vs-resources-121086

But let's keep focused: this issue is neither about resources nor about reserves. If these terms are needed please create a separate issue.

Vera-IER commented 4 years ago

I forgot that a potential can also be related to geothermal heat to complete the list of renewable energy potentials.

l-emele commented 4 years ago

I forgot that a potential can also be related to geothermal heat to complete the list of renewable energy potentials.

A potential can be related to any energy carrier.

sfluegel05 commented 4 years ago

So for biofuel we get (has quantity value some technological potential) or (has quantity value some developable potential) or (has quantity value some economic potential) or (has quantity value some sustainable potential) which means that a biofuel has to have at least one potential that is not a theoretical potential. This got a little long but I didn't find a more elegant way to say this. Is that what we want to express?

Relating potential to forms of energy like wind energy or geothermal heat could be tricky because they are currently object of restructuring (#522)

stap-m commented 4 years ago

[...] Is that what we want to express?

Actually, biofuel can have all kinds of potential: in theory, you can cut all trees and burn them. Thechnologically and economically, you can't cut all trees, but a share. And from the sustainable point of view, you better to keep some more... to oversimplify it. So, it's rather and than or.

l-emele commented 4 years ago

Potentials are not limited to energy (carriers) and fuels but to a lot of different types of classes. For example there are also potentials for carbon capture and storage (CCS) see e.g. here.

Vera-IER commented 3 years ago

Yes true, but CCS is not a part of the ontology yet, right? Shall I open a issue for that? I think it would be good to have CCS and especially BECCS processes in the OEO. Regarding the potentials I think its most important to relate potentials to the renewable energy forms (wind, solar, hydro, biofuel, goethermal), because these assumptions influence the energy model results strongly and are often harmonized between different models when working together.

l-emele commented 3 years ago

We need the potential concept for the fact sheets. In there it is not limited to the energy potentials.

Vera-IER commented 3 years ago

If we relate potential to the renewable energies now, it's not limited to those ones right? I mean we still have this generic definition of potential - if someone wants to add another relation in the future it would not be problematic, no?

0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q commented 3 years ago

Regarding the potentials I think its most important to relate potentials to the renewable energy forms (wind, solar, hydro, biofuel, geothermal), because these assumptions influence the energy model results strongly and are often harmonized between different models when working together.

The same is true for fossil resources. The economic potential of natural gas from hydraulic fracturing (to name one example) has a huge influence on model results in certain regions.

If we relate potential to the renewable energies now, it's not limited to those ones right?

Only if you put the term "energy" into every single definition.

Quoting myself:

Pointing out the obvious: potentials come in two flavours, stocks (e.g. mineral resources and reserves) and flows (e.g. annual electricity production), measured in Joules and Watts.

All current definitions seem intended at flows (like solar radiation), yet are formulated such that they apply only to stocks.

A potential identifies the upper limit of energy usable from a certain source.

To calculate the upper limit of energy usable from solar radiation, you would have to integrate over the life time of the sun (approx. 5 billion years). You want power (Watts), not energy (Joules).

stap-m commented 3 years ago

To calculate the upper limit of energy usable from solar radiation, you would have to integrate over the life time of the sun (approx. 5 billion years).

Huge theoretical potential... 🌞 @0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q if you don't agree with the definition, a suggestion for a precise definition would be helpful.

The latest version is: A potential is a quantity value that identifies the upper limit of a quantity available or usable from a certain source.

stap-m commented 3 years ago

The latest version is: A potential is a quantity value that identifies the upper limit of a quantity available or usable from a certain source.

Maybe quantity or rate, istead of just quantity? quantity value should include both, depending on the unit.

stap-m commented 3 years ago

@jannahastings you proposed to connect an "entity in reallity" to quantity values, https://github.com/OpenEnergyPlatform/ontology/issues/434#issuecomment-648837549. Does this make sense for potentials, too? E.g. being a quality? The same question could also be raised for capacity-subclasses of quantity value, btw. E.g. wind energy _hasquality (technical potential _has_quantityvalue (potenial has value 40 and has unit GW))

Also, we need relations, that refer the potentials to areas (any ideas what else?), e.g. technical potential of wind energy in Germany. We have covers, but it just refers to models and publications.

jannahastings commented 3 years ago

I think the examples of potentials are very complex, but ultimately, they are still the potentials OF something, and that something is the entity in reality that they should be related to. They are attributes of some material (the source). Future-pointing attributes such as these in BFO are not qualities but are called dispositions or (more broadly) realizable dependent continuants. Given the above discussion, I would agree with the above formulation except for that relation, so instead:

wind energy _hasdisposition (technical potential _has_quantityvalue (potenial has value 40 and has unit GW))

Could we use the property _isabout to link the potential to Germany? Or something slightly more complex such as _isabout some ( _locatedin Germany) ?

l-emele commented 3 years ago

I think the examples of potentials are very complex, but ultimately, they are still the potentials OF something, and that something is the entity in reality that they should be related to.

That is also my understanding.

Could we use the property is_about to link the potential to Germany? Or something slightly more complex such as is_about some ( located_in Germany) ?

Is the potential always dependent to some kind of region? I think so, but I am not sure after this a bit confusing discussion.

Vera-IER commented 3 years ago

Is the potential always dependent to some kind of region? I think so, but I am not sure after this a bit confusing discussion.

Yes I agree. For some renewable energies the potential is even given by the available land area (for example suitable rooftop area for PV or agricultural land area for biomass cultivation). I would like the property refers to the most to link potentials to regions. But this property does not exist yet, should we look for an existing ones?

0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q commented 3 years ago

Is the potential always dependent to some kind of region?

Yes. Potentials without geographic references are useless. If an explicit reference is missing, it is implied (usually "global" or what ever region the report/paper/data base is focused on).

sfluegel05 commented 3 years ago

@jannahastings you proposed to connect an "entity in reallity" to quantity values, #434 (comment). Does this make sense for potentials, too? E.g. being a quality? E.g. wind energy _hasquality (technical potential _has_quantityvalue (potenial has value 40 and has unit GW))

What exactly would be the entity in reality here? wind energy is (currently) a quality. So can a quality be an entity in reality or is "reality" limited to material entities? In that case, maybe air could be a good replacement for wind energy.

jannahastings commented 3 years ago

So can a quality be an entity in reality or is "reality" limited to material entities?

Qualities are entities in reality :-). In fact so are processes etc., any of the major categories we classify things beneath. The distinction I was trying to make (I think) was between quantity values and the entities that they are quantities of.

stap-m commented 3 years ago

Could we use the property is_about to link the potential to Germany? Or something slightly more complex such as is_about some ( located_in Germany) ?

The relation should finally refer to values/instances. This could be a country but also less specific spatial regions, maybe just coordinates?! I don't know what's the best way here: relate it via is about to spatial region or directly create a data property? Btw, this is related to #475

sfluegel05 commented 3 years ago

I think it would be nice to relate it to instances and then give these instances a specific location. That would make it possible to specify a location in different ways (or even give no concrete location and just say is about Germany).

sfluegel05 commented 3 years ago

In the last dev-meeting we agreed to use an external ontology for geographical term, so I think a relation is about some spatial region for potentials should be enough.

To summarize the discussion so far: We have the following classes: potential: A potential is a disposition that identifies the upper limit of energy usable from a certain source. theoretical potential: A theoretical potential is a type of potential that identifies the physical upper limit of energy usable from a certain source. technological potential: A technological potential is a type of potential derived from a theoretical potential, taking account of the annual efficiency of the respective conversion technology and the additional restrictions regarding the area that is realistically available for energy generation. economic potential: An economic potential is a type of potential that identifies the proportion of the technological potential that can be utilized economically (based on economic boundary conditions). developable potential: A developable potential is a type of potential that describes the fraction of the economic potential that can be developed under realistic conditions (regulations, environmental and social restrictions). sustainable potential: A sustainable potential is a type of potential that takes into account all aspects of sustainability, which usually requires careful consideration and evaluation of different ecological and socio-economic aspects. The differentiation of the sustainable potential is blurred, since ecological aspects may already have been considered for the technological or economic potential, depending on the author.

Additionally, we have some relations: wind energy, solar energy, geothermal heat: has disposition some theoretical potential, has disposition some technological potential, has disposition some developable potential, has disposition some economic potential, has disposition some sustainable potential biofuel: has disposition some technological potential, has disposition some developable potential, has disposition some economic potential, has disposition some sustainable potential potential: is about some spatial region

Is there anything missing?

l-emele commented 3 years ago

As we discussed above, potential is not limited to energy. It is more generic.

stap-m commented 3 years ago

This should be reflected in the defs. @l-emele any suggestions? From my side, the relations are ok for the moment. We can still add the disposition to more classes later.

akleinau commented 3 years ago

this issue has 42 comments. Maybe it is a good idea to define an upper limit like 30 comments, after which an issue should be discussed in a dev meeting as it got too complex?

Vera-IER commented 3 years ago

To make the definitions more general, we could change this part "the upper limit of energy usable" into "the upper limit of a usable commodity" in the definitions. So for example the potential def would be: A potential is a disposition that identifies the upper limit of a usable commodity from a certain source.

l-emele commented 3 years ago

Do we have already a definition for commodity? I don't think so.

Vera-IER commented 3 years ago

Not yet, but it's already planned to include commodity it in #339.

sfluegel05 commented 3 years ago

I like the change to commodity. Is this ready for implementation then?

0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q commented 3 years ago

theoretical potential: A theoretical potential is a type of potential that identifies the physical upper limit of energy usable from a certain source.

What's the theoretical potential of solar energy for some geographic area then? The irradiation of that area?
That's not a commodity, because that would imply it can be bought and sold. How do you sell sunshine? Same for wind, hydro, and geothermal (flows as opposed to stocks).

It would work from technological potential on down, because that implies some transformation (and commodification), but not for theoretical potential.

Vera-IER commented 3 years ago

I see your point. Do you have an idea for a better wording? Or shall we use a combination of energy and comodity?: A potential is a disposition that identifies the upper limit of energy usable or of a commodity usable from a certain source.

stap-m commented 3 years ago

What about smth like usable entity instead of energy / commodity?