Carbon modelling improvements #3311
Conversation
kndehaan
force-pushed
the
carbon-modelling
branch
from
5b8e3b5 to
e860f91
Compare
kndehaan
changed the title
inputs/demand/industry/industry_chemicals_other_biomethanol_non_energetic_share.ad
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...supply/fuel_production/chemical_refineries/industry_useful_demand_for_chemical_refineries.ad
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Nice to have would be to add a mixer for bio-ethanol and gasoline in the passenger plane section. 
|
|
For the newly added carrier, should we check whether they should be added to some of the carrier costs sliders? 
|
| useable_heat,0.0,0.0, | ||
| water,0.0,0.0, | ||
| wet_biomass,0.0,0.0, | ||
| wet_biomass,0.0,0.00556,0.112 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dry, wet and oily biomass now have costs and (potential) emission factor. Does this impact system costs and CO2 emissions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added as must-have in PR review outcomes list, to validate this.
| V( | ||
| INTERSECTION( | ||
| INTERSECTION( | ||
| G(co2_emissions_refinery_products), | ||
| SECTOR(industry) | ||
| ), | ||
| USE(non_energetic)), | ||
| "demand * weighted_carrier_co2_per_mj * (1 - free_co2_factor)" | ||
| ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see why this addition to the query would be necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seemed complete to not only have the industry non-energetic nodes in there from G(co2_emissions_primary) but also those from G(co2_emissions_refinery_products). But to do this, it should be corrected with the free_co2_factor. However, in the current modelling the result will always be zero.
So we could remove it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added as nice-to-have in PR review outcomes list to remove this part of the query
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kndehaan I would put this up as must-have.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we typically only refer to primary demand of an "imported" carrier for carriers that have no inherent carbon content, like imported ammonia, electricity or hydrogen. For these carriers we have an explicit version imported_ammonia etc. For methanol this is not the case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added as nice-to-have in PR review outcomes list, to correct this.
| @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ | |||
| industry_final_demand_for_chemical_wood_pellets, | |||
| industry_final_demand_for_chemical_crude_oil, | |||
| industry_final_demand_for_chemical_naphtha, | |||
| industry_final_demand_for_chemical_bionaphtha, | |||
| industry_final_demand_for_chemical_steam_hot_water, | |||
| primary_co2_emission), | |||
| -MV(industry_chemicals_fertilizers_captured_combustion_co2, demand) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this query include CCS of refineries and chemical (other). Should it also include fertilizers processes emissions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addiitonally, I don't see where the non-energetic emissions of the industry that we do calculate come into this CO2 sheet. Finally, I'm not sure if there are some changes to CCS in the energy that we need to include in this CO2 sheet, co2_sheet_industry_energy_sector_all_emissions.
More generally, the CO2 sheet queries should be reviewed and updated. That is already a known issue, #3217, so perhaps we should pick it up outside of this project?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that the CO2 sheet queries should be reviewed and updated, best to pick this up outside of this project.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The queries that were originally part of this query are different from the two queries they have been replaced with. This can lead to mismatches.
...les/co2_sheet/transport/co2_sheet_transport_total_international_navigation_co2_emissions.gql
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ | |||
| transport_ship_using_electricity, | |||
| transport_ship_using_hydrogen, | |||
| transport_ship_using_ammonia, | |||
| transport_ship_using_methanol_mix, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't methanol be added to the section of this query that applies the refinery products method?
...ies/investment_table/energy_production_synthetic_kerosene_delta_in_investment_cost_table.gql
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We now only use the sankey_overview right? Should we still keep these sankey queries?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think some of the queries in this folder are still used. This would required an investigation of which queries are still used and a properly relocating the queries to the appropriate folder.
kndehaan
force-pushed
the
carbon-modelling
branch
from
1211a55 to
befe2ee
Compare
|
@mabijkerk regarding to open comments that require a response:
|
…in transport and bunkers
This PR adds improved carbon modelling to the ETM. Changes include:
Currently, the update of the following user output is still ongoing (an can be skipped for now in reviewing):
Goes with: