Ontology: we have to distinguish between primary/secondary/final energy consumption

[sfluegel05]

Description of the issue

This comes from #390
We need to distinguish between consumption of primary, secondary or final energy.

Ideas of solution

We can implement primary / secondary / final energy consumption as subclasses of consumption(_The process of using something and thereby reducing its amount._)

Related definitions mentioned so far:

Primary fuels: Fuels which are extracted directly from natural resources. Examples are: crude oil, natural gas, coals, etc.
Secondary fuels: Fuels manufactured from primary fuels. Examples are: cokes, motor gasoline and coke oven gas, blast furnace gas.
(Glossary of the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories)

Primary Energy is energy that is contained in fuels within the biosphere and natural reserves, or captured from natural energy flows, in a suitable form for use. Inert matter removed from the extracted fuels and quantities re-injected, flared or vented are not included.
— adapted from United Nations. _International Recommendations for Energy Statistics_. 154 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energystats/methodology/ires/ (2018), paragraph 5.10

Secondary Energy is energy that has been converted from primary energy or a different form of secondary energy.
— adapted from United Nations. _International Recommendations for Energy Statistics_. 154 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energystats/methodology/ires/ (2018), paragraph 5.10

Final Energy is energy that is delivered to energy consumers for their use.
— adapted from United Nations. _International Recommendations for Energy Statistics_. 154 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energystats/methodology/ires/ (2018), paragraph 5.22

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

[l-emele]

First we should agree on which concepts we are talking. I think we need the following two concepts;

• The total energy consumption in a geographical region (e.g. a country). This is often labeled as _primary energy consumption_ or _gross inland (energy) consumption_. See Eurostat glossary.
• The energy as delivered to and consumed by the end users (which are e.g. households, industry and transport) within a geographic region. This is concept is usually labeled _final energy consumption_. See Eurostat glossary.

[l-emele]

Some suggestions for definitions that are in line with Eurostat's definition:

• _Final energy consumption is a quantity value that describes the amount of energy delivered to and consumed by end users._
• _Gross inland consumption is a quantity value that describes the total energy consumption in a geographical region (e.g. a country)._
• _Primary energy energy consumption is a quantity value that describes the total energy consumption in a geographical region excluding the non-energetic use of fuels._

[stap-m]

We should define these classes as subclasses of consumption, which is a process. Then, we can relate them via _has quantity value_ to smth like an energy amount value or power rate value, which can be used for other purposes aswell.

[sfluegel05]

The definitions rewritten as subclasses of consumption:

• _Final energy consumption is the consumption of energy delivered to and consumed by end users._
• _Gross inland consumption is the total consumption of energy in a geographical region (e.g. a country)._
• _Primary energy consumption is the total consumption of energy in a geographical region excluding the non-energetic use of fuels._

[Vera-IER]

Nice definitions!
I would add the alternative term gross inland energy consumption to gross inland consumption (both are used).
And I think the relationship to the energy amount value is helpful and sufficient. This class doesn't exist yet, right?

[sfluegel05]

No, energy amount value doesn't exist yet.
How about _An energy amount value is a quantity value that describes an amount of energy._?

[Vera-IER]

Maybe we can add some words to the definition:
_An energy amount value is a quantity value that describes a measured or calculated amount of energy for a specific one-dimensional temporal region._

[l-emele]

I prefer @sfluegel05's proposal as the inclusion of temporal region in the definition is an unnecessary restriction. An example: If a mass of 1 kg is 1 m above the ground it has a potential energy of 9,81 J, so the energy amount value is 9.81 J. I don't see how that is related to a temporal region.

[Vera-IER]

Okay, let's take Simon's proposal. I was just thinking about energy consumption.

[stap-m]

"an energy amount is an amout of energy" is not really a robust definition. I thought about _An energy amount value is a quantity value that describes a quantity of energy._ which isn't much better though. Does anybody have an idea how to replace the second "amount" in the def? If not, let's take it anyway.

[l-emele]

We had a similar problem for the length value. Finally, we defined it as: _Length value is a quantity value that has a length unit as unit._

Following that structure we could define: _An energy value is a quantity value that has an energy unit as unit._

[Vera-IER]

Should we also include the relationship energy amount value has unit energy unit?

And I noticed that the units I use the most (PJ and TWh) are not included in the energy unit subclasses. Should we include more possible units? If yes I can open a seperate isssue for that.

[l-emele]

Should we also include the relationship energy amount value has unit energy unit?

Yes, of course. That directly follows from that definition.

And I noticed that the units I use the most (PJ and TWh) are not included in the energy unit subclasses. Should we include more possible units? If yes I can open a seperate isssue for that.

That is definitely worth its own issue.

[Vera-IER]

This issue is ready for implementation, isn't it?

[l-emele]

I think so.

[Vera-IER]

I can implement. The question is where? consumption is implemented in OEO social and I would implement energy amount value in OEO physical. If I implement the subclasses of consumption in OEO social, the relation to has quantity value energy amount value is not possible.

[sfluegel05]

energy amount value seems to me like something that should belong in oeo-physical. So I would suggest to move consumption to oeo-shared, since it may be used in different modules.