Upstream emissions

[JulianGeis]

Move the co2 emission tracking from the current state of downstream tracking (downstream emissions: from use of products and end-of-life treatment (e.g. disposal)) to upstream tracking (upstream emissions: from raw materials (coal, oil)

Reason:

• atm technologies which extract co2 from a store to consume it receive money and therefore the capex and the prices to the buses these technologies attend to are influenced (e.g. FT)
• shifting the co2 tracking upstream alters the carriers / technologies which are being affected: now gas, oil and coal are directly restricted and pay higher prices than before

This change should not:

• alter system costs
• alter technology capacity, generation, ....

The only thing that should change are the marginal prices:

• co2 atmosphere should be 0
• oil, coal, lignite and gas prices should increase

ToDO:

• take care of the constraint on German CO2 emissions in the current downstream cap -> constraint German gas/oil/coal/sequestration usage
• remove "co2 atmosphere" bus an all links to it

[JulianGeis]

One diff in 2040 is present for the hydrogen production:

kwargs = {
    'groupby': n.statistics.groupers.get_name_bus_and_carrier,
    'nice_names': False,
}

hydrogen_production = n.statistics.supply(
    bus_carrier="H2", **kwargs
).filter(like=region).groupby(
    ["carrier"]
).sum()

For downstream we have:

upstream:

[JulianGeis]

What have I tested?

• model is running in 3H resolution
• upstream and downstream constraints lead to the same CO2 emissions both if you count them up or downstream
• comparing upstream and downstream models

Comparison of 365H models:

downstream:

• 
• 

-

upstream:

• 
• 
• 

system costs (def=downstream; ue=upstream)

• 

comparison:

• https://tubcloud.tu-berlin.de/f/4049924701

expected difference:

• 
• 
• 
• 

unexpected differences:

[lindnemi]

Seems that the constraint on e-fuel imports/exports might be throwing things off. Possibly we should rewrite it to comply with how e-fuels are accounted in Ariadne, or even remove it altogether

[lindnemi]

A fairly straightforward way to ensure that all e-fuels are actually CO2-neutral would be to add the additional constraint that CO2 Sequestration has to be at least as high as sequestration from fossil sources

[JulianGeis]

When comparing the downstream and upstream models and not restricting the e-fuel import / export (in the downstream constraint), the behaviour in 2040 is very similar. However now there is a difference in the hydrogen trade in 2045:

Hydrogen Trade in 2045

Trade-Secondary-Energy-Hydrogen-Volume

Trade-Secondary-Energy-Hydrogen-Volume-Exports

Trade-Secondary-Energy-Hydrogen-Volume-Imports

Trade-Secondary-Energy-Liquids-Hydrogen-Volume

Trade-Secondary-Energy-Liquids-Hydrogen-Volume-Exports

Trade-Secondary-Energy-Liquids-Hydrogen-Volume-Imports

[github-actions]

Validator Report

I am the Validator. Download all artifacts here.
I'll be back and edit this comment for each new commit.

⚠️ Config changes detected!

Results may differ due to these changes:

diff --git a/config/config.yaml b/config/config.yaml
index 18a70e0..2d2b26c 100644
--- a/config/config.yaml
+++ b/config/config.yaml
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ clustering:
     # 'ES': 0.0408
     # 'IT': 0.0612
   temporal:
-    resolution_sector: 365H
+    resolution_sector: 780H
 
 # docs in https://pypsa-eur.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configuration.html#co2-budget
 co2_budget:
@@ -297,8 +297,6 @@ sector:
   regional_oil_demand: true  #set to true if regional CO2 constraints needed
   regional_coal_demand: true  #set to true if regional CO2 constraints needed
   gas_network: false
-  regional_gas_demand: true
-  H2_retrofit: true
   biogas_upgrading_cc: true
   biomass_to_liquid: true
   biomass_to_liquid_cc: true
@@ -401,7 +399,7 @@ solving:
   mem_mb: 70000 #30000 is OK for 22 nodes, 365H; 140000 for 22 nodes 3H; 400000 for 44 nodes 3H
   options:
     assign_all_duals: true
-    load_shedding: false
+    load_shedding: true
     skip_iterations: true # settings for post-discretization: false
     min_iterations: 1 # settings for post-discretization: 1
     max_iterations: 1 # settings for post-discretization: 1
@@ -632,6 +630,9 @@ must_run_biogas:
   p_min_pu: 0.6
   regions: ['DE']
 
+emissions_upstream:
+  enable: true
+
 transmission_projects:
   new_link_capacity: keep #keep or zero
 

General

Plots comparison

Main branch	Feature branch

Files comparison

	Status	NRMSE	MAE (norm)
csvs/nodal_cfs.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/supply.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/prices.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/nodal_supply_energy.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/nodal_capacities.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/weighted_prices.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/market_values.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/nodal_costs.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/cumulative_cost.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/price_statistics.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/curtailment.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/capacities.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/costs.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/metrics.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/cfs.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/supply_energy.csv	⚠️ Missing
csvs/energy.csv	⚠️ Missing

NRMSE: Normalized (combined-min-max) Root Mean Square Error
MAE (norm): Mean Absolute Error on normalized data (min-max)
Status Threshold: MAE (norm) > 0.05 and NRMSE > 0.3

Model Metrics

Benchmarks

Comparing upstream-emissions (e85823d) with main (e3cabf0).
Branch is 23 commits ahead and 0 commits behind.
Last updated on 2024-10-14 16:33:39 CEST.