Open felixfrischmuth opened 2 years ago
Thanks @felixfrischmuth for opening this I think we should have both Gas|OCGT|w/ CHP|w/o CCS: and Gas|OCGT|w/ CHP knowing that Gas|OCGT|w/ CHP=Gas|OCGT|w/ CHP|w/o CCS:+Gas|OCGT|w/ CHP|w/ CCS: but also keep Gas|OCGT|w/o CCS for cases where the distribution between w/ CHP and w/o CHP is not known (which would also mean that Gas|OCGT|w/o CCS=Gas|OCGT|w/ CHP|w/o CCS:+Gas|OCGT|w/o CHP|w/o CCS @danielhuppmann what do you think? (we need to have the segmentation witn/without CHP for CS4)
@sandrinecharousset @danielhuppmann, before I can upload our final data for CS4, we need to update the nomeclature here. We have to decide which is the most consistent way to do this with CHP plants.
@sandrinecharousset @danielhuppmann, before I can upload our final data for CS4, we need to update the nomeclature here. We have to decide which is the most consistent way to do this with CHP plants.
@felixfrischmuth we have already defined the CHP units in a PR a few months ago: see definitions/variable/tag_electricity_input_types.yaml
THis is what is defined:
This tag_list is used for most variables linked to technologies generating electricity
Hallo,
I noticed that the topic of CHP power plants is missing in the nomenclature. The tag_electricity_input_types.yaml includes a bunch of different technologies, which could be extended about CHP units. E.g. the Gas power plants could be extanded like this:
This could be done for every gas, biomass, biogas or coal fired power plant.
Before I do a pull request, I wanted to hear about this from you. How to do this the best way? Because there is the question about CCS. E.g.
Should this be extended as well with CHP? E.g.
Best, Felix