search

quintel / etsource

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

Update NSA cost and electricity output attributes of coal and biomass CHP plants with and without CCS #3015

Open kndehaan opened 3 months ago

kndehaan commented 3 months ago

The cost parameters of energy_power_ultra_supercritical_coal and energy_power_ultra_supercritical_ccs_coal should be updated in line with the cost parameters of respectively energy_power_wood_pellets_must_run and energy_power_wood_pellets_ccs_must_run. Additionally, the electricity_output_conversion should be lower for CCS compared to no-CCS (check, not 100% sure if this is already applied to the nodes).

kndehaan commented 3 months ago

In addition to the ultra supercritical coal technology, the cost parameters and electricity output conversion of all biomass CHP (HT/MT) (must-run/dispatchable) (CCS/no-CCS) nodes should be corrected. Currently, the marginal costs of a non-CCS and CCS node are always equal, which is not the case.

kndehaan commented 2 months ago

Updating ultra supercritical coal I have currently updated the NSAs and attributes of energy_power_ultra_supercritical_coal and energy_power_ultra_supercritical_ccs_coal in line with the biomass power plant specs energy_power_wood_pellets_must_run and energy_power_wood_pellets_ccs_must_run, also see commit. Among others the following specs are changed:

@mabijkerk By doing this, do we have to do something with changes in databases, scenarios, etc.?

Updating biomass CHP nodes I have updated the NSAs and attributes of biomass CHP nodes (HT/MT/must-run/dispatchable/CCS), also see commit. Regarding the electricity penalty for CCS, I've followed the method applied in energy_chp_supercritical_ccs_ht_waste_mix where this penalty is applied to the typical_input_capacity (higher input capacity is required for CCS technologies to obtain the same electricity output). The costs of the CCS nodes (excluding additional costs for CCS) are the same as the non-CCS nodes.

One shortcoming, however, is that both non-CCS and CCS nodes have the same value for output.electricty and output.steam_hot_water:

CENTRAL_PRODUCTION(energy_chp_supercritical_waste_mix, electricity_output_conversion)) CENTRAL_PRODUCTION(energy_chp_supercritical_waste_mix, steam_hot_water_output_conversion)

This would mean that one production unit with CCS (112 MW) will produce more electricity on an annual basis than a production unit without CCS (80 MW) with the same number of full load hours, whereas we're actually looking at the same production unit.

What is the best way to solve this issue? For instance:

  1. Use the same value for typical_input_capacity for the node with and without CCS, and make output.electricity and output.steam_hot_water hard coded for the CCS nodes, instead of referring to CENTRAL_PRODUCTION. The CCS nodes should then have a lower output.electricty (and perhaps output.steam_hot_water) as a penalty for the CCS installation. The values for non-CCS cost attributes will differ between the non-CCS and CCS nodes, since costs in the NSA are specified per MWe output.
  2. Use method applied to the biomass power plant nodes: here electricity_output_capacity is used, rather than typical_input_capacity. Also, output.electricity is lower of the CCS node is lower than that of the non-CCS node. Costs in the NSA are specified per MWe output, so the cost attributes are the same for non-CCS and CCS nodes.

@mabijkerk Are there any other feasible options to consider? What is the most preferable option?