Ontology: Solar and wind energy are classified incorrectly

[sfluegel05]

Description of the issue

The classes solar energy and wind energy are classified as subclasses of has disposition some renewable fuel. That doesn't match the definition of has disposition (a relation between an independent continuant and a disposition) since solar / wind energy is a specifically dependent continuant and renewable fuel a portion of matter.

Ideas of solution

• delete the _Subclass Of has disposition some renewable fuel_
• add a new class renewable energy and make solar energy and wind energy its subclasses

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]

I agree that neither solar energy nor wind energy should be classified as has disposition some renewable fuel as these are no fuels and hence no renewable fuels either.

Introducing a class renewable energy makes sense.

What do other members of @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-domain-expert-energy-modelling think?

[stap-m]

Introducing a class renewable energy makes sense.

We have #224, where the structure ans other subclasses of energy are discussed. We should discuss renewable energy there, I guess.

The def of energy carrier disposition is _An energy carrier disposition is a disposition of an object or object aggregate that contains energy for conversion as usable energy._ and neither wind energy nor solar energy are object (aggregates). Anyway, both are kind of _energy carriers_, since they _contain energy for conversion as usable energy_.
This issue is therefore also related to #407, where the def of energy carrier is discussed.

[l-emele]

As discussed bilateral with @stap-m we move all energy (carrier) related issues to v.1.3 as this needs more discussion in a dev meeting.

[stap-m]

We could add an equivalent class renewable energy carrier instead of a class renewable energy. With the relations:

• has disposition some energy carrier disposition
• has origin renewable

Thus, air and photon sould be related respectively. Would that solve the problem?

[sfluegel05]

I agree, this would make clear which energy carriers are renewable. As a definition I suggest _A renewable energy carrier is an energy carrier that has a renewable origin._

[stap-m]

Can we implement this?

[l-emele]

I think so.