potentials should get included in the oeo

[akleinau]

Description of the issue

Potentials are described in the oeo scenario factsheets but not in the ontology and should be included: theoretical, technical, economic, developable potential

Current state of discussion (11/11/20)

There are two fundamentally different ideas:

1. Implement potential as a disposition.

For this, we have the following classes and relations:

• potential: A potential is a disposition that identifies the upper limit of a usable entity from a certain source.
• theoretical potential: A theoretical potential is a type of potential that identifies the physical upper limit of a usable entity from a certain source.
• technological potential: A technological potential is a type of potential derived from a theoretical potential, taking account of the annual efficiency of the respective conversion technology and the additional restrictions regarding the area that is realistically available for energy generation.
• economic potential: An economic potential is a type of potential that identifies the proportion of the technological potential that can be utilized economically (based on economic boundary conditions).
• developable potential: A developable potential is a type of potential that describes the fraction of the economic potential that can be developed under realistic conditions (regulations, environmental and social restrictions).
• sustainable potential: A sustainable potential is a type of potential that takes into account all aspects of sustainability, which usually requires careful consideration and evaluation of different ecological and socio-economic aspects. The differentiation of the sustainable potential is blurred, since ecological aspects may already have been considered for the technological or economic potential, depending on the author.
• wind energy, solar energy, geothermal heat: has disposition some theoretical potential, has disposition some technological potential, has disposition some developable potential, has disposition some economic potential, has disposition some sustainable potential
• biofuel: has disposition some technological potential, has disposition some developable potential, has disposition some economic potential, has disposition some sustainable potential
• potential: is about some spatial region

2. Implement has potential as an object property.

• Basic idea: Processes are related to quantity values via has potential
• has potential: A relation between a process and the upper limit of its usable output.
• Subrelations like has technological potential can be implemented analogous to the subclasses above

Why should we chose the disposition- or the object-property-solution?

• linking potentials to material entities (1) doesn't work for cases like solar/wind/geothermal energy or CO₂ storage, potentials always belong to a process, e.g. the potential to produce electricity from wind (see potentials should get included in the oeo #481 (comment))
• CO₂ storage: There are different views how this works with potentials:
  • The CO2 storage potential is the upper limit of CO2 input into the geological formation the potential is given for. The output of the CO2 storage process would be the (unintentional) leakage of CO2 from the storage site back into the atmosphere. (see potentials should get included in the oeo #481 (comment))
  • The CO2 that is stored is an output of the process of storing CO2 (see potentials should get included in the oeo #481 (comment))

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]

Wikipedia defines potential as: Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.

The WBGU has in this document detailed descriptions of potentials (Box 3.1-1).

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

Pointing out the obvious: potentials come in two flavours, stocks (e.g. mineral resources and reserves) and flows (e.g. annual electricity production), measured in Joules and Watts.

[Vera-IER]

I like the descriptions from that WBGU document. Slighly changed from that source a definition for a generic potential could be:
A potential identifies the upper limitof the energy available from a certain source.

[stap-m]

I also like the WGBU clarification. But I think its not the theoretical potential, but the technological and economical potentials that are relevant for our models. I.e., there is more energy available than usable: A potential identifies the upper limit of energy usable from a certain source.? And maybe implement two subclasses technological potential and economical potential?

The characteristic of potentials of being "upper limit / maximum value" seems to be corresponding to the concept of the "capacities" classes. This could help for the classification.

[Vera-IER]

I like the definition with "usable".
I agree that the subclass theoretical potential is not needed. Maybe we could also add sustainable potential as a 3rd subclass.

[akleinau]

theoretical, technical, economic and developable potential are directly listed in the factsheets I have (SzenDB Szenarienraster excel sheets) so they should either get changed too or we should implement them

[Vera-IER]

okay...it also not a disadvantage to have more subclasses. just a tiny bit more work ;-)

[Vera-IER]

So the definitions for the subclasses could be (slighly changed from WGBU report):

Theoretical potential: The theoretical potential is a thype of potential that identifies the physical upper limitof the energy available from a certain source.
Technological potential: The technological potential is a type of potential derived from the theoretical potential, taking account of the annual efficiency of the respective conversion technology and the additional restrictions regarding the area that is realistically available for energy generation.
Economic potential: The economic potential is a type of potential that identifies the proportion of the technological potential that can be utilized economically (based on economic boundary conditions).
Developable potential: The developable potential is a type of potential that describes the fraction of the economic potential that can be developed under realistic conditions (regulations, environmental and social restrictions). source

[l-emele]

I agree with @stap-m's general definition for potential and @Vera-IER's definitions for the potential subclasses.

[stap-m]

For sustainable potential WGBU proposes: "This potential of an energy source covers all aspects of sustainability, which usually requires careful consideration and evaluation of different ecological and socio-economic aspects. The differentiation of the sustainable potential is blurred, since ecological aspects may already have been considered for the technological or economic potential, depending on the author."
Is this too vague for an ontology? 😕 Anyway, I think this woud be a nice completion.

Since theoretical potential is not really usable, change the def of potential to: A potential identifies the upper limit of energy available or usable from a certain source.?

[Vera-IER]

Yes I think we can add the sustainable potential to complete the list of potentials. To make it Arestotalian we could write:
The sustainable potential is a type of potential that takes into account all aspects of sustainability, which usually requires careful consideration and evaluation of different ecological and socio-economic aspects. The differentiation of the sustainable potential is blurred, since ecological aspects may already have been considered for the technological or economic potential, depending on the author.

And changing the general potential def like @stap-m proposed sounds also good to me.

[Vera-IER]

Can we relate all these potential terms to
wind energy
solar energy
hydro energy?
And it would also be nice to relate it to biomass, but I didn't found a class biomass in the OEO...

[stap-m]

And it would also be nice to relate it to biomass, but I didn't found a class biomass in the OEO...

We have biofuel.

[Vera-IER]

Okay let's relate it to biofuel then.
What would be a nice object property to relate them? Maybe is connected to?
And where can we place potential in the OEO? Under quantity value?

[l-emele]

I would not limit the potential to energy, so I propose: A potential is a quantity value identifies the upper limit of a quantity available or usable from a certain source.

[Vera-IER]

Sounds good to me. Just correcting a typo:
A potential is a quantity value that identifies the upper limit of a quantity available or usable from a certain source.

[sfluegel05]

If we define potential is a quantity value we can use has quantity value:
biofuel has quantity value some theoretical potential.
Is theoretical potential the right term to go with? I used it here because all the other potentials are dependent on other factors beside the fuel itself.
And is there a reason to stop at biofuel? I would suggest to do this relation for fuel in general.

[Vera-IER]

Is theoretical potential the right term to go with?

For wind and solar energy we can relate all potential terms to them, but for biofuels I would exclude the theoretical potential. Biofuels are already the product of a conversion process of biomass, so I would relate technological potential (and the ones below) to biofuels.

And is there a reason to stop at biofuel?

Yes. For fossil energy forms the term energy reserves is used instead of potential.

[l-emele]

For fossil energy forms the term energy reserves is used instead of potential.

For fossil there is also the term energy resources: https://www.hartenergy.com/opinions/energy-terms-reserves-vs-resources-121086

But let's keep focused: this issue is neither about resources nor about reserves. If these terms are needed please create a separate issue.

[Vera-IER]

I forgot that a potential can also be related to geothermal heat to complete the list of renewable energy potentials.

[l-emele]

I forgot that a potential can also be related to geothermal heat to complete the list of renewable energy potentials.

A potential can be related to any energy carrier.

[sfluegel05]

So for biofuel we get (has quantity value some technological potential) or (has quantity value some developable potential) or (has quantity value some economic potential) or (has quantity value some sustainable potential) which means that a biofuel has to have at least one potential that is not a theoretical potential. This got a little long but I didn't find a more elegant way to say this. Is that what we want to express?

Relating potential to forms of energy like wind energy or geothermal heat could be tricky because they are currently object of restructuring (#522)

[stap-m]

[...] Is that what we want to express?

Actually, biofuel can have all kinds of potential: in theory, you can cut all trees and burn them. Thechnologically and economically, you can't cut all trees, but a share. And from the sustainable point of view, you better to keep some more... to oversimplify it.
So, it's rather and than or.

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

I disagree. In my understanding the output of the CO2 storage process would be the (unintentional) leakage of CO2 from the storage site back into the atmosphere.

1. I think this discussion is moot in the context of this issue, since the more specific potentials don't work for CCS for other reasons.

2. As a general point:
   That depends on how the process boundaries are defined, and that's completely arbitrary. Our model (REMIND) uses four different processes for modelling CCS (in addition to energy conversion processes with carbon capture):

        ccscomp         "compression of co2"
        ccspipe         "transportation of co2"
        ccsinje         "injection of co2"
        ccsmoni         "monitoring of co2"

Fugitive CO₂ emissions in that setup result from the ccsmoni process.

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

We could also think about handing over this topic to our steering committee as this is the original purpose of the OEO-SC.

Or discuss it at the next dev-meeting first, as originally proposed. Afterwards we can still forward it to the SC, if needed.

I'd propose to close this issue now and reopen it at the next meeting.

What's the point here? I didn't have the impression that discussing an issue with lots of people who haven't read through the issue before is particularly effective or efficient.

I don't think that we are talking past one another and struggle with ambiguities that are cleared up more easily in direct communication. In my view we had a couple of proposals that all were rejected because they didn't give a proper definition of potentials that fulfils all requirements. Having a dozen people chew the fat about it will most likely not yield a solution either.

As for the steering committee, what would be their assignment here? There's no decision to be made or dispute to settle. So they should come up with a working solution, because we couldn't? If so, more power to them. But I think that's not the case.

[sfluegel05]

I tried to summarize the discussion so far in the first comment. Maybe this helps for a discussion in the dev-meeting.

[l-emele]

Definition proposals from OEO dev meeting 11:

• A flow potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of an input or output value of a process in an n-dimensional region per time unit. For example the wind flow potential of Germany is the amount of energy available to wind power plants in Germany.
• A stock potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of a stock value of a source or sink in an n-dimensional region. An example is the coal potential of Germany that is the amount of coal available in the soil in Germany.

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

I can't help but notice that no @OpenEnergyPlatform/oeo-general-expert-formal-ontology was assigned to this issue, and I think one should be.

• A flow potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of an input or output value of a process in an n-dimensional region per time unit. For example the wind flow potential of Germany is the amount of energy available to wind power plants in Germany.

• What's with the n-dimensional region? There's no such thing in the ontology. Should it be?
  I guess it's supposed to be spatial region. Is there any instance in which potentials are not defined over an area, but either for a point, a line, or a volume? Fossil resources and CO₂-storage could be defined for different strata, but is anybody doing it? And if so, wouldn't it be more straight-forward to include this in an annotation (or some such) to the potential, like all those strings attached to technological potential and so on?
• This is a differential quotient, not an average, so it should read "per unit time", not "per time unit".
• "Wind flow potential"? I'd say wind energy potential.

• A stock potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of a stock value of a source or sink in an n-dimensional region. An example is the coal potential of Germany that is the amount of coal available in the soil in Germany.

• Coal is by definition not in the soil. "… available for production in Germany" will do.
• This presupposes that the stock value of "the amount of coal available […] in Germany" is included in the ontology, in order to attach the quantity value, right?

[l-emele]

* What's with the _n-dimensional region_?  There's no such thing in the ontology.  Should it be?
  I guess it's supposed to be `spatial region`.

Yes, it should be a spatial region. I forgot yesterday the precise label of that region class.

Is there any instance in which potentials are not defined over an area, but either for a point, a line, or a volume? Fossil resources and CO2-storage could be defined for different strata, but is anybody doing it? And if so, wouldn't it be more straight-forward to include this in an annotation (or some such) to the potential, like all those strings attached to technological potential and so on?

Spatial region has currently the subclasses zero-dimensional region (a point), two-dimensional region (an area) and three-dimensional region (a volume). This is why I called this yesterday n-dimensional, A one-dimensional region covering a line is currently missing, but if needed we can definitely create one. But that is topic for a different issue.

* This is a differential quotient, not an average, so it should read "per unit time", not "per time unit".

Right.

* "Wind flow potential"?  I'd say `wind energy potential`.

That is about the label of potential subclasses of potential. There are more than one way to find a proper label. One is to derive it from the parent label, that would be the wind flow potential, the other way is to use a label that is close a term that is used in the domain like wind energy potential. Important: the two options are not exclusive, we can e.g. label the class wind flow potential and additionally give the class the alternative term wind energy potential. One example in our ontology is the class wind rotor which can also be found by its alternative term wind turbine.

• A stock potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of a stock value of a source or sink in an n-dimensional region. An example is the coal potential of Germany that is the amount of coal available in the soil in Germany.

* Coal is by definition not in the soil.  "… available for production in Germany" will do.

* This presupposes that the stock value of "the amount of coal available […] in Germany" is included in the ontology, in order to attach the quantity value, right?

To me, this term available for production would imply something like a technological potential, but the example is about a potential in general. What about ... amount of coal available below the surface of Germany.?

[stap-m]

I'd exclude the example from the def. There is an annotation "example of usage", where the example can be included.
And let's remove the terms "value" from the def.
I adjusted as follows:
A flow potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of an input or output of a process in a spatial region of reference per unit time.
A stock potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of a stock of a source or sink in a spatial region of reference.

And I'd rather not implement a class wind energy/flow potential. We have relations for that.

[l-emele]

I'd exclude the example from the def. There is an annotation "example of usage", where the example can be included.
And let's remove the terms "value" from the def.
I adjusted as follows:
A flow potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of an input or output of a process in a spatial region of reference per unit time.
A stock potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of a stock of a source or sink in a spatial region of reference.

I agree.

And I'd rather not implement a class wind energy/flow potential. We have relations for that.

Good point. Procedural suggestion: We implement the potential classes and then close this issue.

For the application of these classes we should create a separate issue. Also we should keep in mind that we decided yesterday that concrete realisations of potentials (like wind energy potential in Germany) will be individuals. I forgot that, too, when writing my last comment.

[Vera-IER]

Procedural suggestion: We implement the potential classes and then close this issue.

Do you mean by potential classes only the flow potential and the stock potential or also their subclasses like theoretical/technical/economic flow potential and so on?

[l-emele]

Procedural suggestion: We implement the potential classes and then close this issue.

Do you mean by potential classes only the flow potential and the stock potential or also their subclasses like theoretical/technical/economic flow potential and so on?

Also these subclasses but not things like wind energy potential.

[Vera-IER]

I summed up the subclasses for flow potential and slighly addjusted their definitions:
flow potential: A flow potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of an input or output of a process in a spatial region of reference per unit time.
subclasses:
theoretical flow potential: A theoretical flow potential is a type of flow potential that identifies the physical upper limit of an input or output of a process in a spatial region of reference per unit time.
technological flow potential: A technological flow potential is a type of a flow potential derived from a theoretical flow potential, taking account of the annual efficiency of the respective conversion technology and the additional restrictions regarding the area that is realistically available for energy generation.
economic flow potential: An economic flow potential is a type of flow potential that identifies the proportion of the technological potential that can be utilized economically (based on economic boundary conditions).
developable flow potential: A developable flow potential is a type of flow potential that describes the fraction of the economic potential that can be developed under realistic conditions (regulations, environmental and social restrictions).
sustainable flow potential: A sustainable flow potential is a type of flow potential that takes into account all aspects of sustainability, which usually requires careful consideration and evaluation of different ecological and socio-economic aspects. The differentiation of the sustainable potential is blurred, since ecological aspects may already have been considered for the technological or economic potential, depending on the author.

If you agree to the definitions, we would need to do the same for stock potential, right?
Then implement them and open a new issue for the relations sounds good to me.

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

Spatial region has currently the subclasses zero-dimensional region (a point), two-dimensional region (an area) and three-dimensional region (a volume). This is why I called this yesterday n-dimensional, A one-dimensional region covering a line is currently missing, but if needed we can definitely create one. But that is topic for a different issue.

Nope, I didn't "see things." It's there.

ontology/src/scripts/iao/iao.owl

Lines 2529 to 2539 in 062f910

	<owl:Class rdf:about="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000026">
	<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000006"/>
	<owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000028"/>
	<obo:BFO_0000179>1d-s-region</obo:BFO_0000179>
	<obo:BFO_0000180>OneDimensionalSpatialRegion</obo:BFO_0000180>
	<obo:IAO_0000112 xml:lang="en">an edge of a cube-shaped portion of space.</obo:IAO_0000112>
	<obo:IAO_0000600 xml:lang="en">A one-dimensional spatial region is a line or aggregate of lines stretching from one point in space to another. (axiom label in BFO2 Reference: [038-001])</obo:IAO_0000600>
	<obo:IAO_0000602>(forall (x) (if (OneDimensionalSpatialRegion x) (SpatialRegion x))) // axiom label in BFO2 CLIF: [038-001] </obo:IAO_0000602>
	<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/bfo.owl"/>
	<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">one-dimensional spatial region</rdfs:label>
	</owl:Class>

But my point is that potentials will only be defined over areas, never over points, lines, or volumes. At least I can't think of any useful application for those. So the definitions would be more specific and less ambiguous if they were defined over an area instead of any spatial region.

flow potential: A flow potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of an input or output of a process in a two-dimensional spatial region of reference per unit time.
stock potential: A stock potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of a stock of a source or sink in a two-dimensional spatial region of reference.

And could we please include the alternative terms point, line, area, and volume for the spatial regions? What was good enough for Euclid should also be good enough for BFO. ;)

flow potential: A flow potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of an input or output of a process in a reference area per unit time.
stock potential: A stock potential is a quantity value that describes the upper limit of a stock of a source or sink in a reference area.

[l-emele]

EDIT: Just two counter examples: You can definitely give a wind energy potential for Germany in the atmosphere up to a height of 200 m. So this is a 3-dimensional region. Also the worldwide coal potential has a 3-dimensional reference region as the Earth is a 3-dimensional object and the coal potential is definitely not limited to the coal lying on the Earth's surface.

The consensus in the dev meeting was n-dimensional, not 2-dimensional. Let's stick with that consensus.

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

You can definitely give a wind energy potential for Germany in the atmosphere up to a height of 200 m. So this is a 3-dimensional region. Also the worldwide coal potential has a 3-dimensional reference region as the Earth is a 3-dimensional object and the coal potential is definitely not limited to the coal lying on the Earth's surface.

Sure, one can. But nobody does – as far as I know. But who cares about usability …

[l-emele]

Just one further example, this time from literature.

Global geothermal technical potential is comparable to global primary energy supply in 2008. For electricity
generation, the technical potential of geothermal energy is estimated to be between 118 EJ/yr (to 3 km depth) and
1,109 EJ/yr (to 10 km depth).

Source: Executive Summary of Chapter 4 of the IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate
Change Mitigation, page 404.

The IPCC provides here a geothermal technical potential for spherical shells which are 3-dimensional regions.

[stap-m]

Then let's stick with spatial region and implement.