Review, update and document aggregate carriers

[mabijkerk]

In the ETM, the nomenclature used for aggregate products is not homogenous. See for example the following charts:

There are a few issues with this:

• A relatively simple issue is heterogenous labels: network gas or network gas (natural and green gas), oil or oil and derivatives
• More structural is how network gas should be allocated and queried in the first place: we cannot show this as a primary product, because it does not exist as a primary product. In the final demand charts however, we only show network gas. This makes comparisons difficult, especially if you want to assess the amount of biomass used
  • This product should be revisited entirely, because network gas is not a widely used definition, see: https://github.com/quintel/etmodel/issues/3534
  • This also applies to waste, which consists of a biogenic and non-biogenic part
• Additionally, there is no documentation for which products we attribute to the aggregate products
  • In some place we allocate coal gas and cokes to the carrier 'Coal', but in some places we show them explicitly
  • This is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the labels reflect this difference. We could for example decide that the aggregate product is always 'Coal and derivatives'. This way, users would know that the label 'Coal' represent coal alone
  • We should then add documentation that tracks which products are used in the ETM and how these are attributed to aggregate products
  • This documentation should also include how we attribute energy balance products to the ETM products, which happens here, so for example that 'Coal gas' consists of 'Coke oven gas', 'Blast furnace gas' and 'Other recovered gases'
• Finally, we might consider adding product groups to GQL
  • Always specifying the proper products in each query is error-prone
  • We might create a method that allows us to query for example the input_of_coal_and_derivatives, which would then automatically query cokes, coal_gas, etc. using a config

Notifying @ChaelKruip

[mabijkerk]

In addition, the charts in the Transition Paths tool have yet another classification of aggregate products:

[mabijkerk]

This is not only an issue that is related to the frontend, but also to our dataflows. See for example https://github.com/quintel/etlocal/issues/392

Notifying @redekok for the dataflows prject

[mabijkerk]

Current working proposal for labels of fossil fuels:

• Coal and coal products, Kool en koolproducten. Note: we include coal gas, for Eurostat this means that we actually use the product group Coal and manufactured gases.
• Natural gas, Aardgas. Note: we sometimes include LNG and the natural gas share in CNG, and sometimes only use natural gas. This difference is useful in queries but not reflected in the label. This issue needs to be addressed.
• Oil and oil products, Olie en olieproducten. Note: Eurostat uses Oil and petroleum products (excluding biofuel portion), CBS uses aardoliegrondstoffen en -producten.

We need to work towards a hierarchy of labels, like Eurostat has, that has different levels of detail. Different charts can then mix and match different levels for different carriers, depending on the detail required - as long as it is MECE. Current working proposal for some critical points:

• Waste mix. split between biogenic waste and non-biogenic waste. Use non-biogenic waste as a separate carrier. Note: this applies at least to conversion and primary demand, but for final demand one might choose to opt for the 'end-user' approach who receive the actual waste mix. This issue needs to be addressed.
• Network gas. split between greengas and natural gas. Note: this applies at least to conversion and primary demand, but for final demand one might choose to opt for the 'end-user' approach who receive the actual mix in network gas. This issue needs to be addressed.
• Geothermal, solar thermal, ambient heat. Show individually.
• Biogas, wood pellets, bio-ethanol, greengas, biodiesel, bio-kerosene, biogenic waste. Show collectively as biomass products.

Notifying @DorinevanderVlies

[mabijkerk]

This effort should also be continued in gqueries that are used in inputs. For example in the input investment_costs_combustion_coal_plant:

- query = 
    UPDATE(
        V(
            energy_chp_ultra_supercritical_coal,
            energy_power_supercritical_coal,
            energy_power_combined_cycle_ccs_coal,
            energy_power_combined_cycle_coal,
            energy_power_ultra_supercritical_lignite,
            energy_power_ultra_supercritical_oxyfuel_ccs_lignite,
            energy_power_ultra_supercritical_ccs_coal,
            energy_power_ultra_supercritical_coal,
            industry_chp_ultra_supercritical_coal
        ), initial_investment, USER_INPUT()
    )

We might be able to add functions as in capacity_production.rb.

[mabijkerk]

Current working proposal:

• Kool en koolproducten / Coal and coal products
• Aardoliegrondstoffen / Crude oil
• Aardolieproducten / Oil products
• Biomassaproducten / Biomass products
• Non-biogeen afval / Non-biogenic waste
• Aardgas (gasvorming) / Natural gas (gaseous)
• LNG / LNG
• Uraniumoxide / Uranium oxide
• Elektriciteit / Electricity
• Waterstofdragers / Hydrogen carriers
  • Waterstof / Hydrogen - Note: this is gaseous
  • Vloeibare waterstof / Liquid hydrogen
  • LOHC / LOHC
• Ammoniak / Ammonia
• Warmte / Heat

To do/discuss:

• [ ] Aggregation
• [ ] Nomenclature for biomass products - Note: the current proposal is not commonly used and should be changed
• [ ] Distinction between final demand (network gas, diesel mix, waste mix etc.) and primary demand (natural & green gas, diesel & biodiesel, biogenic & non-biogenic waste etc.) aggregation
• [ ] Add carrier names to this overview
• [ ] Add mapping from Eurostat carriers
• [ ] Use carrier query groups such as carrier_group_natural_gas.gql
• [ ] Nomenclature for natural gas: with or without propane, with or without LNG, with or without green gas etc.