Add Primary, Secondary, and Final Energy to the ontology

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

Description of the issue

The distinction between primary, secondary, and final energy and energy carriers is widely used in energy statistics and modelling. It needs to be reflected in the ontology.
Issue #372 proposes to define energy transformations as "a transformation process from the primary energy source X into a secondary energy form."

Ideas of solution

Primary/secondary/final energy would be a subclass of energy (currently at specifically dependent continuant → quality).

Definitions for discussion:

Primary Energy

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

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

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

There is no class for energy carriers but a energy carrier disposition (specifically dependent continuant → realizable entity → disposition). So there could be primary/secondary/final energy carrier dispositions.

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
• I added this issue to the Project 'Issues'. If suitable, I add it to further Projects.
• 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]

I don't think that primary, secondary and final energy consumption are subclasses of the energy carrier disposition but I think that these are energy quantities.

But this issue only deals with primary, secondary and final energy and not the consumptions of these, right?

[akleinau]

There is no class for energy carriers but a energy carrier disposition (specifically dependent continuant → realizable entity → disposition). So there could be primary/secondary/final energy carrier dispositions.

If we directly include them and not the consumption of them as @l-emele asked, I like the idea of having them as disposition or quality because if I understand it correctly these are not really subclasses of energy but "states" of the process of energy consumption/ production?

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

But this issue only deals with primary, secondary and final energy and not the consumptions of these, right?

Both. There's little value in discussing energy without discussing where it comes from and where it goes to.

---

these are not really subclasses of energy but "states" of the process of energy consumption/ production

I have no idea what the state of a process is supposed to be.
Energy carriers are grouped into primary/secondary/final energy carriers, depending on their origin and their use. The production and consumption of these energy carriers is collectively referred to as production/consumption of primary/secondary/final energy.

[l-emele]

these are not really subclasses of energy but "states" of the process of energy consumption/ production

Yes exactly. And an energy carrier can be primary and final at the same time. One example is coal. It is definitely a primary energy carrier as coal occurs naturally. But it can also used as it is in industry, hence it is a final energy carrier. As it does not need to be transformed before the final use, it is not a secondary energy carrier in this case.

So at least the "final energy" is not only dependent on the energy carrier itself, but also on the context of the use.

[l-emele]

I just read the definitions/descriptions from the IPCC:

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)

Now I am asking myself: Are the properties primary and final really properties of the energy? Or rather properties of the energy carriers?

[akleinau]

Yes these definitions definitely mean the energy carriers. They define primary/ secondary fuels and not energy though so we have to decide which (or both) to implement.
Having the fuels definitely makes sense to me, do we need the energy types too?

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

And an energy carrier can be primary and final at the same time. One example
is coal. It is definitely a primary energy carrier as coal occurs naturally.
But it can also used as it is in industry, hence it is a final energy
carrier. As it does not need to be transformed before the final use, it is
not a secondary energy carrier in this case.

But there is a transformation. Coal (primary energy) is available at the coal
mine, while coal (final energy) is used at the power plant, which may be right
next to the mine (think lignite) or across the Pacifc (think Autralian coal
shipped to Japan). This transformation will have losses, e.g. coal falling of
the railway car.
In the context of IAMs, it is common to imply a "virual" transformation like
this and the "same" coal would be referenced twice, as Primary Energy|Coal
and as Final Energy|Solids.

So I'm not suggesting that energy carriers are grouped exclusively into
primary/secondary/final energy in the ontology. And the subdivision could
actually be automatic and orthogonal on energy carrier and energy type. So
each energy carrier could be a primary, secondary, or final energy carrier,
whether they are used or not.

---

Having the fuels definitely makes sense to me, do we need the energy types
too?

Having subdivisions by fuels/energy carriers is not sufficient, since in the
future an increasing share of primary energy will have no energy carrier (wind,
solar).

Energy types on the other hand is what is used by models (IAMs at least) and
energy statistics. So it has to be in the ontology.

[l-emele]

We distinguish between energy carriers (or to be precise energy carrier disposition) and fuels. Wind and solar are not fuels but have the energy carrier disposition.

[l-emele]

We have to distinguish between:

• Primary/final energy carrier
• Primary/final energy consumption (which is related Restructure demand, consumption, load #140)
• Primary energy production

For the v.1.1 release we need only the consumptions.

[akleinau]

We have to distinguish between:

* Primary/final energy **carrier**

* Primary/final energy **consumption** (which is related #140)

* Primary energy **production**

For the v.1.1 release we need only the consumptions.

then we should split this issue into several issues, one for each topic. Consumption should wait for the #140 discussion to be finished

[sfluegel05]

I opened two new issues, one for the consumption part and another for the energy carrier disposition part. The term primary energy production already got implemented in #77
Is there anything else we need for this issue?

[sfluegel05]

Since we are covering this in other issues, I'll close this issue.