cmutel
commented
8 years ago This will take some time to parse - it is not immediately apparent how these situations would be allowed by the ecoeditor validation, at least to me.
@ecoinvent Want to take a first shot at figuring this one out?
From email exchange with IFU Hamburg:
@cmutel:
Treatment of waste packaging paper, municipal incineration (CH)
So, there are two locations for this activity - GLO and CH. The CH one is weird - it is aggregated, and has no byproducts. It also has zero production volume, as it is outdated technology. Its filename is 8a8ec2a0-ee9c-43c6-8558-db5d0fe2ab65_8d7c013a-5aca-44d7-8fc4-193844d2953a.spold.
The GLO one is a normal recyclable dataset, with production volumes and electricity and heat byproducts, and everything works fine. Its filename is 02d3f35d-5261-40d0-91ad-abfa1107f542_8d7c013a-5aca-44d7-8fc4-193844d2953a.spold.
My question: In the release, the CH process disappears, and I don't know where this would happen, or by what criteria. It isn't the zero PV, as there are plenty of treatment datasets with zero PV in one location and some PV in other locations which are both present in the release.
IFU Hamburg (Ingo Meinshausen):
the CH DS was removed because no eligible by-product was found to replace the moved recycable reference product. To be eligible the by-product must have a non-zero amount and a non-Waste cut-off classification.
Dear Chris,
Thanks! Do you know about others place where such deletions occurred? Quite a few actually:
Please let me know if there a log message above you'd need further explanations for.
Is there a log? Yes, look for "NoCoproductEligibleToReplaceMovedRecycableRefProd" in the warnings.