search

quintel / etmodel

Professional interface of the Energy Transition model.
https://energytransitionmodel.com/
MIT License
25 stars 12 forks source link

Chart: total investment costs of power production contains double legend item and has very low informative value #1015

Closed markquintel closed 11 years ago

markquintel commented 12 years ago

See below. In addition I think that this chart contains very little information. I suggest we rethink what the message of this chart is, and if possible, enrich the information. @cjlaumans does this chart have anything todo with merit order or rentability calculation? @AlexanderWirtz @dennisschoenmakers please weigh in.

cjlaumans commented 12 years ago

This chart was made upon request of @wmeyers for Watt Nu.

cjlaumans commented 12 years ago

And regarding its informative value, I think it is quite interesting and don't agree with the assessment that it has little value. It's interesting to see that for future scenarios, in particular those with high shares of renewability that the investment costs can be very high. This is I think this could easily be a topic for debate among politicians because it says how much needs to be invested to achieve a certain goal.

To improve the informative value an option would be to split the costs to technology instead of lump sum.

wmeyers commented 12 years ago

I think the double legend is not the error, it's that the 2 lines in the chart are always on the same height. The red line shows how much of the investment is needed to fill the demand of the country itself, the rest of the investment is basically investment for export. Of course this value is different for present and future.

Solution would be to rename the legend items to 'present' and 'future' and maybe call them 'required for domestic production' and fix the query for the present.

I don't think this chart takes into account variability etc, so that could still be misleading.

I agree with @cjlaumans that the chart is useful.

ChaelKruip commented 12 years ago

I like the suggestions of @wmeyers for changes to the chart. Not Deploy critical though, removing milestone "Deploy August 2012"

markquintel commented 12 years ago

I agree with @cjlaumans that a good way to enrich the information in this chart is to split the total cost. I suggest to split by renewable versus non-renewable technologies, in this way it becomes clear that a scenario with renewables has a high investment cost.

cjlaumans commented 12 years ago

Splitting in terms of renewable and non-renewable seems like a good idea. The queries are really easy:

SUM(V(G(electricity_production),"initial_investment_total * sustainability_share"))

SUM(V(G(electricity_production),"initial_investment_total * (1-sustainability_share)"))

The current query is equivalent to the sum of these 2 since it doesn't use the term sustainability share.

ChaelKruip commented 11 years ago

I cannot find this chart. @markquintel @wmeyers help me out please...

pzac commented 11 years ago

The double legend issue has been fixed a while ago. The chart belongs to the overview group

wmeyers commented 11 years ago

It's the chart top right when you click on "change chart". I think the chart seems to have low informative value, because its unclear what it does: it shows the total investment needed for electricity production during the running time of the model, instead of per year. I'm not sure how to make that better... Maybe for now close the issue, unless you have a good idea how to improve!

dennisquintel commented 11 years ago

Issue closed for now.