Ontology: The term EnergyProduction is not a good definition

[MGlauer]

Energy can not be produced. Therefore the term EnergyProduction should be reconsidered.

Ideas:

• Change it to EnergyTransformation
• Add a proper definition that reflects the intended meaning

[Bachibouzouk]

Following this new term, we could also define different types of energies, i.e. ElectricalEnergy, MechanicalEnergy, NuclearEnergy, ChemicalEnergy

[han-f]

EnergyProduction should be renamed to EnergyTransformation and should be moved under Transformation.

Definition Transformation: A process that takes some input(s) and creates some output(s)

[l-emele]

In the November meeting we discussed that EnergyProduction can be defined similar to EnergyTransformation which transforms an EnergyCarrier from its natural state to the first technically usable state. (Exact phrasing to be discussed.)

[akleinau]

So:
EnergyProduction: a transformation which transforms an energy carrier from its natural state to the first technically usable state.

subclasses:

• solar photovoltaic (delete?)
• tide wave ocean
• nuclear energy production: rename to nuclear energy transformation
  
  
  
  • fission
  
  
  • fusion
  
  

[stap-m]

From the 6th oeo developer meeting:

• Energy production is renamed as energy transformation
• classification: process
• Def: Energy transformation is a process in which a certain type of energy as input results in one or more other types of energy as output.

[stap-m]

Delete the subclasses temporarily and rework them after the release?

[l-emele]

An energy transformation can have more than one inputs, e.g. in a heat pump you have electricity and low temperature heat as input and high temperature heat as output.

[stap-m]

Good point.
Energy transformation is a process in which one ore more certain types of energy as input result in other types of energy as output.?

[han-f]

Maybe:
Energy transformation is a process in which one ore more certain types of energy as input result in one or more other types of energy as output?

[stap-m]

A was just wondering if the complete transformation from one type of energy into one other type (i.e. without losses, which can be seen as "other types") is an idealized transformation. At least for the domain for our domain..

[han-f]

I was interpreting other type simply as being of a different nature than the input. In this case this would also work for a "complete transformation". However, do transformations without losses exist? (I gathered that transfers of energy could occur without losses in principle but also transformations? Wouldn't that be equal to a conversion factor equal to 1?)

[l-emele]

I was interpreting other type simply as being of a different nature than the input. In this case this would also work for a "complete transformation".

An energy transformation can also be from one kind of energy to the same kind of energy. One example is a (electric) transformer which transforms electric energy with voltage A to electric energy with voltage B.

However, do transformations without losses exist? (I gathered that transfers of energy could occur without losses in principle but also transformations? Wouldn't that be equal to a conversion factor equal to 1?)

Transformations to heat can be almost ideal with a efficiency of almost 100%. I am not sure whether processes exist that have exactly 100%. This is equal to the question whether processes exist that have exactly one energy output.

[stap-m]

A transformer also has losses, so strictly speaking: there is more than one output and thus, the transformed current from voltage A to voltage B doesn't stay the same. But I see that the word other in the def is ambiguous, as well as type of energy (which btw is also part of the def of energy converting device).

Energy transformation is a process in which one ore more certain types of energy as input result in certain types of energy as output.?

[stap-m]

Nice. If you agree on deleting the subclasses, I'd start implementing.

[l-emele]

I still think that we need _energy production_ as subclass of _energy transformation_. With the definition above: _a transformation which transforms an energy carrier from its natural state to the first technically usable state._

The energy production related to a lot of quantities like _primary energy production_ or gross _production of electrical energy_.

[l-emele]

What about:
_Energy production is an energy a transformation which transforms an energy carrier from its natural state to a technically usable state._

This issue is related to #372 .

[stap-m]

I see that such a subclass might be needed. Can't we call it energy generation and label energy production as synonym? From my point of view, this term hurts a little less...

Furthermore, the other subclass needed on the same level would be energy transfer.

[l-emele]

I see that such a subclass might be needed. Can't we call it _energy generation_ and label _energy production_ as synonym? From my point of view, this term hurts a little less...

I see your point and won't refuse if you insist. But two things to consider: The _generation_ fits well with secondary fuels like _electricity generation_ and _heat generation_. But for primary fuels the _generation_ term sound a bit awkward: I've never heard something like _coal generation_ or _natural gas generation_, almost everyone calls that _coal production_ or _natural gas production_. Additionally it _generation_ is easier to misunderstand: Something like _coal generation_ might be confused with _(electricity) generation from coal_.
(I am not arguing for including all those subclasses, but considering this might help.)

@jannahastings : What do you think as a native speaker (considering that you are not a domain expert)? What do other @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-domain-expert-energy-modelling think?

Furthermore, the other subclass needed on the same level would be _energy transfer_.

Good idea. Do you have a proposal for a definition?

[jannahastings]

@jannahastings : What do you think as a native speaker (considering that you are not a domain expert)?

From the perspective of pure language use, _energy production_ sounds fine to me. Of course, I think the objection is rather semantic, that energy is not actually produced, so the label seems to belong to a class that doesn't really exist. But I would be OK with that (or equally with _energy generation_ as alternative) if it is given the right definition. For me the definition is more important than the label.

I am a bit confused by this:

But for primary fuels the _generation_ term sound a bit awkward: I've never heard something like _coal generation_ or _natural gas generation_, almost everyone calls that _coal production_ or _natural gas production_.

Since coal and natural gas are not themselves types of energy, I don't quite see the connection here?

[l-emele]

You're right. I've mixed here something up and that is very common in energy modelling and energy statistics: We treat often the production of a fuel (i.e. digging it out of the soil) as equal to the production of the energy contained in the fuel.

But maybe that is the solution here:

• We could define _xyz production_ (exact label to be specified) as the process of making a fuel (or even broader: a portion of matter) available for further processing.
• We could define _xyz generation_ (exact label to be specified) as a process where energy is released.

[stap-m]

• We could define xyz production (exact label to be specified) as the process of making a fuel (or even broader: a portion of matter) available for further processing.

Maybe primary energy production? It refers mainly to non-renewable fuels I guess. But this term seems to be broadly used for the excavation of e.g. coal, oil etc.

[l-emele]

Maybe primary energy production?

Sounds good. So it is related to #390.

It refers mainly to non-renewable fuels I guess. But this term seems to be broadly used for the excavation of e.g. coal, oil etc.

At least the growing and harvesting of biomass to get useful biofuel _can_ be abstracted as primary energy production.

[stap-m]

You're right, biomass could/should be included.
I am not sure how to classify it. It is an energy tranformation in a very broad sense. On the other hand, isn't it a (quite diverse) process itself?
Primary energy production is a process that recovers/ harvests non-renewable fuels and solid biomass for its use as energy carrier. ?

[MGlauer]

But does Primary energy production really exclude renewable sources? The related wikipedia article includes renewables. Why not define the term primary energy (carrier?) and define primary energy production as an energy transformation that yields some primary energy (carrier?)? It seems unintuitive to me that the term Primary energy production imposes restrictions on the source of the energy (other than them not being primary).

[stap-m]

I agree, but other renewable primary energies like solar radiation or wind flow can not just be "harvested" without the direkt convertion/transformation into another kind of energy (kinetic, thermal, eletric energy).

[MGlauer]

I agree, but other renewable primary energies like solar radiation or wind flow can not just be "harvested" without the direkt convertion/transformation into another kind of energy (kinetic, thermal, eletric energy).

Well, question is, whether we define these processes to be atomic. The definition that "there is a process that converts sunlight into usable energy" does not claim that this process does not involve smaller subprocesses.

And another layman's question: Is there a way to harvest the energy from coal into energy that does not involve the transformation into "kinetic, thermal, eletric energy"? How is this different from the energy transformation done in e.g. a solar pool heater?

[Vera-IER]

For the fossil fuels there are at the beginning the mining processes (e.g. mining of lignite or crude oil), than there are some conversion processes (washing of coal or convertion of crude oil in refineries) and than they can be used in a energy power plant and transformed into some kind of energy. For biomass its quite similar, there is the harvesting, the biorefinery and the usage of the bioenergy carrier, but solar and wind energy can be used/transformed directly without the preprocessing steps.

[stap-m]

I am not sure how to classify it. It is an energy tranformation in a very broad sense. On the other hand, isn't it a (quite diverse) process itself?
*Primary energy production is a process that recovers/ harvests non-renewable fuels and solid biomass for its use as energy carrier. *

What do you think @Vera-IER @l-emele ?

[Vera-IER]

Instead of "primary energy production" I like these terms more:

• mining of primary energy: is a process that recovers/harvests non-renewable energy carriers and biomass plants in its natural state.

• conversion of primary energy: is a process in a refinery that converts the primary energy carriers from their natural state into fuels.

Energy production and energy generation are in my point of view synonyms which refer to a statistical data point, e.g. in 2019 in Germany, XY TWh electricity were generated/produced.

[stap-m]

I agree that the "processing" of primary energy carriers has subprocesses. But do we need them?

If yes: the term "mining" does not really catch the biomass part. Then we'd need another process "harvesting".
For the refinery process: why not call it "conversion of primary energy of primary energy carriers"?

[Vera-IER]

From an energy system model perspective we need mining/harvesting and conversion processes for primary energy carriers. But I know that my energy system model has too many processes... I know that they cannot be all included into the OEO.

[stap-m]

We could implement Primary energy production with the three subclasses mining, harvest, refinery:

• primary energy production as subclass of process: Primary energy production is a process that prepares raw material for its use as primary energy carrier.
• primary energy carrier mining as subclass of primary energy production: primary energy carrier mining is a primary energy production process that recovers non-renewable energy carriers from its natural site.
• primary energy carrier harvest as subclass of primary energy production: primary energy carrier harvest is a primary energy production process that collects solid biomass from its natural site.
• primary energy carrier refinery as subclass of primary energy production: primary energy carrier refinery is a primary energy production process that converts non-renewable fuels and solid biomass from raw material into primary energy carriers / fuels.

[l-emele]

I don't understand the concept of primary energy carrier refinery. By all definitions I know of the outputs of refineries are _secondary_ fuels and for a good reason: There are two primary energy production processes: The extraction of crude oil and the harvesting of biomass. Then there are two energy transformations in parallel: Refining of crude oil to mineral oil products (e.g. gasoline or diesel fuel) and conversion of (raw) biomass into liquid biofuel (e.g. bio-ethanol or bio-diesel). In the end the mineral oil products are blended with liquid biofuel products.

[l-emele]

Eurostat defines (indigenous) production as:
_Any kind of extraction of energy products from natural sources within the concerned state to a usable form is called indigenous production. It takes place when the natural sources are exploited, for example extraction in coal mines and crude oil fields or generation of electricity in hydro power plants. Transformation of energy from one form to another, such as electricity or heat generation in thermal power plants, or coke production in coke ovens, is not primary production._

Especially for petroleum products:
_Primary production covers natural gas liquids and other products obtained on production, purification and stabilisation of natural gas and which can be consumed without refining. By definition the production of refineries is not primary production and in Eurostat’s energy statistics is presented as Transformation output._

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/38154/4956233/RAMON-CODED-ENERGY-20150212.pdf/4814055b-de02-404a-b8e0-909fb82cbd54

[Vera-IER]

Thank you for posting this eurostat definition - I had a partly wrong definition in my mind. So this refinery/conversion process does not belong in this discussion (and could be a subclass of energy transformation).

[akleinau]

We could implement Primary energy production with the three subclasses _mining_, _harvest_, _refinery_:

* `primary energy production` as subclass of `process`: _Primary energy production is a process that prepares raw material for its use as primary energy carrier._

* `primary energy carrier mining` as subclass of `primary energy production`:  _primary energy carrier mining is a primary energy production process that recovers non-renewable energy carriers from its natural site._

* `primary energy carrier harvest` as subclass of `primary energy production`:  _primary energy carrier harvest is a primary energy production process that collects solid biomass from its natural site._

* `primary energy carrier refinery` as subclass of `primary energy production`:  _primary energy carrier refinery is a primary energy production process that converts non-renewable fuels and solid biomass from raw material into primary energy carriers / fuels._

@stap-m, @l-emele so implement this without the primary energy carrier refinery class?

[l-emele]

@stap-m, @l-emele so implement this without the primary energy carrier refinery class?

In my view yes. @stap-m : Do you agree?

[akleinau]

this got stale so I'll implement