search

quintel / etsource

Data source for the Energy Transition Model
https://energytransitionmodel.com/
MIT License
12 stars 8 forks source link

Changing refinery heat options should not change costs #1780

Open michieldenhaan opened 6 years ago

michieldenhaan commented 6 years ago

As discussed here: https://github.com/quintel/etsource/issues/1386#issuecomment-397301382 Refinery heat costs should not be taken into account in the total cost calculation to avoid double counting.

However, simply removing all refinery heaters from the cost_traditional_heat group is not sufficient to achieve this, because of the following. For gas and oil we take into account transport losses. As a result, total costs are lower when using (e.g.) biomass heaters in the Refinery sector than when using gas or oil heaters, as we still have to 'pay' for the losses of getting the gas/oil to the sector. This is the reason that the Mechanical Turk fails (https://semaphoreci.com/quintel/mechanical_turk/branches/master/builds/1813). The difference is very small tho (less than 0.1 billion in NL 2015).

The cost difference between using biomass heaters and hydrogen heaters is much larger: 4 billion. The reason for this is that hydrogen fuel costs are not part of the cost_traditional_heat category but are included in the hydrogen_production category. Removing the hydrogen burner from the cost_traditional_heat group hence only means that burner investment costs are excluded from the cost calculation, not hydrogen fuel costs.

Using district heating increases costs as well (compared to using biomass heaters). The difference is around 0.9 billion in an NL 2015 base scenario, but depends on the sources of the district heating network.

I do not see a quick solution for this problem. Adding a 'Refinery cost correction' query to the total cost calculation is quite tedious and not very elegant.

My proposal is to disable the Mechanical Turk test for now and plan a meeting about a long term solution soon. Would like to hear your opinions @ChaelKruip and @AlexanderWirtz.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

This issue has had no activity for 60 days and will be closed in 7 days. Removing the "Stale" label or posting a comment will prevent it from being closed automatically. You can also add the "Pinned" label to ensure it isn't marked as stale in the future.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 years ago

This issue has had no activity for 60 days and will be closed in 7 days. Removing the "Stale" label or posting a comment will prevent it from being closed automatically. You can also add the "Pinned" label to ensure it isn't marked as stale in the future.