New terms for Carbon Capture and Sequestration, as well as related terms

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

Description of the issue

This originates from OEO Dev Meeting 24.

The concepts of Carbon Capture and Sequestration are not yet represented in the Ontology. This probably needs a lot of discussion to capture all aspects needed by different models (calling on @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-domain-expert-energy-modelling).

Ideas of solution

During the meeting, we identified four terms that will be needed:

• Carbon Capture
• Carbon Sequestration
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration
• Direct Air Capture

Further suggestions and ideas for definitions are welcome.

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 entry in the ontology should have a definition
• [x] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words

[l-emele]

Some first proposals:

• Carbon capture a process that captures carbon dioxide from a gas.
• Direct carbon capture is carbon capture from air.
• Carbon sequestration is a process that stores CO2 in a geological formation.
• Carbon capture and storage is a process that combines carbon capture and carbon sequestration.

[KaiSchnepf]

I think, we should discuss whether to use storage or sequestration. @0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q is using sequestration and @l-emele is using both. I have little experience with domains so my logical solution would be that we prefer one term and use the other as an alternative term. I disagree with the definition of carbon sequestration because it does not include pyrogenic carbon which could be a useful fertiliser in future and is not stored in a geological formation. Another proposal for carbon sequestration: Carbon sequestration is a process that stores carbon dioxide.

Even with the proposed definitions, we have the problem from #866 that carbon is not precise. Probably, it is common sense that carbon capture means carbon dioxide capture.

[l-emele]

I think, we should discuss whether to use storage or sequestration. @0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q is using sequestration and @l-emele is using both. I have little experience with domains so my logical solution would be that we prefer one term and use the other as an alternative term.

That is a question of the proper label which we can solve at the very end.

I disagree with the definition of carbon sequestration because it does not include pyrogenic carbon which could be a useful fertiliser in future and is not stored in a geological formation.

This seems to be a different concept than what I described. Maybe we need a parent concept of carbon sequestration and then two more specific derived concepts.

Another proposal for carbon sequestration: Carbon sequestration is a process that stores carbon dioxide.

This could be a parent concept. So it could be:

• Carbon sequestration is a process that stores carbon or carbon dioxide.
  • X is carbon sequestration that stores CO2 in a geological formation.
  • Y is carbon sequestration that stores pyrogenic carbon. (I am not very familiar with this concept, but I assume you mean this.)

@0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q : Any thoughts?

[KaiSchnepf]

Another proposal for carbon sequestration: Carbon sequestration is a process that stores carbon dioxide.

This could be a parent concept. So it could be:

• Carbon sequestration is a process that stores carbon or carbon dioxide.

  • X is carbon sequestration that stores CO2 in a geological formation.
  • Y is carbon sequestration that stores pyrogenic carbon. (I am not very familiar with this concept, but I assume you mean this.)

Yes, I mean this concept. But this concept also includes the carbon capture which is not included in carbon sequestration. For this reason, we should perhaps also add pyrogenic carbon capture as a subclass of carbon capture. So we could call Y pyrogenic carbon storage. Or we just add a subclass of carbon capture and storage: pyrogenic carbon capture and storage Which fits better? Who has expert knowledge in this field?

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

I disagree with the definition of carbon sequestration because it does not include pyrogenic carbon which could be a useful fertiliser in future and is not stored in a geological formation.

This seems to be a different concept than what I described. Maybe we need a parent concept of carbon sequestration and then two more specific derived concepts.

I'm not sure pyrogenic carbon would be considerer CCS by everyone. I guess it carbon retention times are extremely dependent on land management practices and so forth. At least in the IAMC template, it would not count as CCS, but probably be lumped into afforestation.
Is there a use user of the ontology (@OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-domain-expert-energy-modelling ) currently needing to represent this? If not, I would move to table this issue until a later time and get on with what we do need now.

[l-emele]

I am fine with leaving out pyrogenic carbon and focus on the current needs.

[KaiSchnepf]

So should we implement this:

• Carbon capture is a process that captures carbon dioxide from a gas.
• Direct ~carbon~ air capture is carbon capture from air.
• Carbon sequestration is a process that stores CO2 in a geological formation.
• Carbon capture and storage is a process that combines carbon capture and carbon sequestration.

• I am still confused whether we use storage or sequestration.
• In my research I have often come across the short cut DAC for direct air capture. Should we add it as alternative term? If anybody is using direct carbon capture we could also add it as an alternativ term.
• We should add CCS as an alternative term for carbon capture and storage
• Do we need the terms in oeo-shared or is oeo-physical enough?

[l-emele]

I am fine with either storage or sequestration. But we should be consistent, so use either carbon sequestration and carbon capture and sequestration or carbon storage and carbon capture and storage as labels. Anyway, we should include the respective other terms as alternative terms. And the abbreviations should be alternative terms, too.

@0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q and @stap-m : Any preferences for the labels?

[l-emele]

We also need to describe at least the relations between the processes and CO2.

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

Any preferences for the labels?

Nope.

[l-emele]

Okay, then I suggest that we use storage as main label, simply because it is a bit closes to the definition which contains the word stores.

Regarding:

Do we need the terms in oeo-shared or is oeo-physical enough?

It should be implemented in oeo-physical. If we see later that we need these classes in other modules, we still can shift them.

We also need to describe at least the relations between the processes and CO2.

'has physical input' some 'carbon dioxide' should be the right relation.

[stap-m]

Is this ready for implementation?

[l-emele]

I think so, I can do that.