Relations of `hydro storage power plant` and `pumped hydro storage power plant`

[l-emele]

Description of the issue

The energy storage function of a hydro storage power plant and pumped hydro storage power plant is not axiomatised.

Ideas of solution

Let's add these two axioms:

• 'hydro storage power plant' 'has function' some 'energy storage'
• 'pumped hydro storage power plant' 'has function' some 'pumped storage'

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]

Hm, when I read the definition of pumped storage, this would also fit to hydro storage power plant: A pumped storage (pumped-storage hdyroelectricity) is an energy storage that uses water from a higher reservoir to generate energy. The label does not resemble very well the definition.

Any why do we need subclasses of energy storage at all? Isn't it enough to simply say: 'pumped hydro storage power plant' 'has function' some 'energy storage' and also 'battery' 'has function' some 'energy storage'? Why do we need to repeat the technical details of how energy stored in the energy storage function? Isn't it enough to have these in the artificial objects and the involved material entities (pumped water) in this case?

[l-emele]

Additionally we should add the axiom 'pumped water' 'has disposition' some 'secondary energy carrier disposition'.

[stap-m]

Additionally we should add the axiom 'pumped water' 'has disposition' some 'secondary energy carrier disposition'.

I directly implemented this in #1243

[l-emele]

See also discussions in #1262

[l-emele]

Discussed today in OEO dev 46. PR #1348 will solve this issue completely.