Add subclasses of `energy` and `energy carrier`

[KaiSchnepf]

Description of the issue

We have a few xxx energy carrier disposition which do not have the corresponding xxx energy carrier and/or xxx energy.

Ideas of solution

We should discuss whether the oeo needs the missing terms listed:

• combustible energy, combustible energy carrier or combustible energy carrier disposition because there is a mistake in the current definition of combustible energy carrier disposition
• conventional energy / conventional fuel, conventional energy carrier
• nuclear energy / nuclear energy carrier
• final energy
• primary energy
• secondary energy

Workflow checklist

• [ ] I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution
• [ ] I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository
• [ ] The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

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

[stap-m]

The def of combustible energy carrier disposition should rather read A combustible energy carrier disposition is an energy carrier disposition of material entities to release energy from a material entity in form of heat or work, by chemical reaction with other substances.

The combustible energies don't make sense to me. It's not the energy beeing combustible, but the energy carrier.

conventional energy seems to be missing, because conventional is defined as an origin of energies. Thus, onventional energy carrier could be defined equivalently to renewable energy carrier:

• A conventional energy is an energy that has conventional origin.
• conventional energy equivalent to energy and ('has origin' some conventional)
• A conventional energy carrier is an energy carrier that has a conventional energy carrier disposition.

We could add nuclear energy carrier if we want, I'm dispassionate here. Further, we already have nuclear binding energy.

[KaiSchnepf]

The def of combustible energy carrier disposition should rather read A combustible energy carrier disposition is an energy carrier disposition of material entities to release energy from a material entity in form of heat or work, by chemical reaction with other substances.

I just recognized that the definition of nuclear energy carrier disposition has the same mistake as conventional energy carrier disposition. new def: A nuclear energy carrier disposition is an energy carrier disposition used in nuclear power stations to produce heat for steam turbines. Heat is created when the nuclear fuel undergoes nuclear fission.

The combustible energies don't make sense to me. It's not the energy beeing combustible, but the energy carrier.

If we have a combustible energy carrier disposition, we should have a combustible energy carrier, I assume. Def: A combustible energy carrier is an energy carrier that has the disposition combustible energy carrier disposition. or: A combustible energy carrier is an energy carrier that has a combustible energy carrier disposition. I prefer the second version, which you also used. Does it cover sufficiently the axiom 'has disposition'? If yes, we should also redefine the other definitions

We could add nuclear energy carrier if we want, I'm dispassionate here. Further, we already have nuclear binding energy.

I would suggest to add it otherwise oeo is not fully consistent.

[KaiSchnepf]

primary / secondary / renewable energy carrier do not follow oeo rules because they have two parent classes in the asserted view:

I think, it is because of the 'equivalent to'. We should change for primary energy carrier and equivalent for the other two: 'material entity' 'energy carrier' and ('has disposition' some 'primary energy carrier disposition')

[l-emele]

This issue touches a lot of different things, so just a few thoughts:

We could add nuclear energy carrier if we want, I'm dispassionate here.

We already have nuclear fuel (A nuclear fuel is a fuel that realises its fuel role in processes that release energy in the form of heat or work by undergoing nuclear fission.). Are there any nuclear energy carriers that are no fuels?

If we have a combustible energy carrier disposition, we should have a combustible energy carrier, I assume.

We already have a class for that, it is called combustible fuel. All combustible energy carriers are combustible fuels. We might add combustible energy carrier as alternative term.

[KaiSchnepf]

We could add nuclear energy carrier if we want, I'm dispassionate here.

We already have nuclear fuel (A nuclear fuel is a fuel that realises its fuel role in processes that release energy in the form of heat or work by undergoing nuclear fission.). Are there any nuclear energy carriers that are no fuels?

For energy purposes, I think it is enough. I thought about the Russian-American agreement of Megatons to Megawatts where a nuclear energy carrier (of a weapon) was used to produce nuclear fuel. This agreement covered up to 10% of the electricity production in the States.

[l-emele]

nuclear fuel is defined as: A nuclear fuel is a fuel that realises its fuel role in processes that release energy in the form of heat or work by undergoing nuclear fission. The uranium or plutonium in nuclear weapons also fulfill this definition. A nuclear explosion is a form of heat or work and it is caused by nuclear fission. Hence, uranium and plutonium are inferred correctly as nuclear fuel:

[KaiSchnepf]

Alright, I agree. Finally, we should discuss, if we want to implement final energy, primary energy and secondary energy.

[l-emele]

How would you use and define these concepts? For me, I only final energy consumption etc. are relevant.

[KaiSchnepf]

My general understanding was, that we need a xxx energy/fuel if we use xxx energy carrier (disposition). If this is incorrect, because it is a kind of doubling, we do not have to discuss further. Possible use cases:

1. 'final energy consumption' 'has physical input' some 'final energy' because consumes is an 'alternative term' for has input
2. equivalent for primary energy consumption: 'primary energy consumption' 'has physical input' some 'primary energy'

We could cover both cases with the equivalent xxx carrier, I suppose.

[l-emele]

NOTE FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PRIMARY ENERGY PRODUCTION IS CURRENTLY A SUBCLASS OF LIQUID AIR PRODUCTION, WHICH IS WRONG. PRIMARY ENERGY PRODUCTION SHOULD BE A SUBCLASS OF PRODUCTION, EQUIVALENT TO THE DEFINITION.

Please open new issues if you spot errors like this.

[KaiSchnepf]

My general understanding was, that we need a xxx energy/fuel if we use xxx energy carrier (disposition). If this is incorrect, because it is a kind of doubling, we do not have to discuss further. Possible use cases:

1. 'final energy consumption' 'has physical input' some 'final energy' because consumes is an 'alternative term' for has input
2. equivalent for primary energy consumption: 'primary energy consumption' 'has physical input' some 'primary energy'

We could cover both cases with the equivalent xxx carrier, I suppose.

Do we need it and should revise it? Otherwise, I would propose that we could close this issue.

[l-emele]

I agree with closing this issue. In the discussion no one came up with a real need. We can reopen this issue or create a new issue if we later find that something important is missing.