The CO2-emissions compared to start year should be 0.0% in empty scenario

[MartLubben]

Due to the calculation per hour of import of electricity for the future year we have sometimes more imported electricity in the future year than in the start year.

This can result in quite a large increase in CO2 in the start year without a user touching any slider.

This can be quite confusing. Could it be an option to add the volume of calculated import in the (empty) future to the start year? We also have import now, and with the ETM we have quite a good guess how big it is.

@ChaelKruip @antw @jorisberkhout @AlexanderWirtz @michieldenhaan @marliekeverweij I am curious what you think.

[AlexanderWirtz]

Could it be an option to add the volume of calculated import in the (empty) future to the start year? We also have import now, and with the ETM we have quite a good guess how big it is.

Not an option, I’m afraid. The actual imports come from ETDataset and the Extended Energy Balance. The higher imports in the future are a result of the way imports are handled by merit (a fixed, low price) as opposed to real market circumstances.

The better solution is to allow merit to use a price curve for imported electricity.

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Jan 2019, at 11:15, MartLubben notifications@github.com wrote:

Due to the calculation per hour of import of electricity for the future year we have sometimes more imported electricity in the future year than in the start year. [image: screen shot 2019-01-02 at 11 08 44] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33415156/50587653-0b04a500-0e7f-11e9-8880-f14dfb6c8e88.png

This can result in quite a large increase in CO2 in the start year without a user touching any slider. [image: screen shot 2019-01-02 at 11 08 29] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/33415156/50587678-21aafc00-0e7f-11e9-80fc-c626e52b09c1.png

This can be quite confusing. Could it be an option to add the volume of calculated import in the (empty) future to the start year? We also have import now, and with the ETM we have quite a good guess how big it is.

@ChaelKruip https://github.com/ChaelKruip @antw https://github.com/antw @jorisberkhout https://github.com/jorisberkhout @AlexanderWirtz https://github.com/AlexanderWirtz @michieldenhaan https://github.com/michieldenhaan @marliekeverweij https://github.com/marliekeverweij I am curious what you think.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/quintel/etmodel/issues/2921, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAS1U-P9iAUj4OStKabSlavqb9vJzGxAks5u_IawgaJpZM4ZmcPN .

[ChaelKruip]

I agree with @AlexanderWirtz that this is currently not feasible. Closing.

[MartLubben]

Not an option, I’m afraid. The actual imports come from ETDataset and the Extended Energy Balance. The higher imports in the future are a result of the way imports are handled by merit (a fixed, low price) as opposed to real market circumstances.

@AlexanderWirtz For regional scenarios with only wind and sun, we do not have the influence of merit in real life. Do we? Also we don't have the energy balance of a region. We need to do an estimate. In this case and in many other regional scenario's it is possible to do a better estimate than the sum of the yearly volumes.

@ChaelKruip I still feel that this issue is not closed. Maybe we don't have a solution yet, but it is very relevant for workshops that in the starting situation nothing (major) is changed. Maybe wait for @michieldenhaan to come back.

[marliekeverweij]

I agree with @MartLubben that this is an issue to tackle, because now the CO2-emissions in the start year are not realistic. So currently the CO2-difference item in the dashboard doesn't make sense for many regions. I see a few options how to solve this:

1. Add imported electricity to the start year (by adding a demand to the energy_import_electricity node through ETLocal) What should the import in the start year then be? The ETM calculates the necessary imported electricity by using merit. So we could open a fresh scenario for a dataset and see how much import there is in the future! Note: this only works when there are not dispatchable energy plants in your dataset! (but even when there are dispatchable energy plants we could do a little sum I think: imported electricity (start year) = imported electricity (future year) - produced electricity dispatchables (present year)

2. Allocated no CO2 emissions to imported electricity (however, we are actually happy with this feature!)

3. Also run merit in the start year: this would solve it all! However, then the produced electricity volumes generated by merit should match the Energy Balance in the start year and this will be a challenge! But an interesting challenge though. And I do not know the technical implications of running merit twice! What would this be, @antw?