Renato-Rodrigues
commented
2 months ago 4.) removed bounds that limited maximum biomass use of solids in ETS sectors to 25%
- I think, these bounds were mostly relevant for global runs and were, I believe, some quick fix to prevent too much cement BECCS in the long-term
- I removed (outcommented) them as this is not as relevant in our (CCS-constrained) EU/Germany net-zero runs and we would like to explore scenarios with low/zero fossil use
Action: Keep or generalize to scenario switch.
is this the code you are referring to in this point?
If yes, here is the related issue: https://github.com/remindmodel/development_issues/issues/103 and these related PRs:
- https://github.com/remindmodel/remind/pull/887/files
- https://github.com/remindmodel/remind/pull/1041
If we follow the sentence included in the original issue:
keep a list of "ugly fixes" that we are not happy with and need to get rid off, so that we don't forget about them and they don't come back to haunt us
My suggestion would be to ask somebody from RSE to run the current model version with this code disabled to see if we can remove this entirely from the code if possible. If this is not the case, an issue should be opened to follow future developments about it, and we should check if we change the formulation to potentially disable it for German and EU specific behavior.
robertpietzcker
aodenweller
Purpose of this PR
This is a PR to compare the current Ariadne branch to the REMIND trunk version. We should discuss this in an upcoming REMIND-EU meeting.
I will describe all relevant changes made throughout 2023 below and we will need to decide whether
a) keep the changes, b) make changes scenario-dependent behind a switch or generalize them for all regions c) discard the changes.
If we chose b), note that we have limited capacities for this and we need to find someone to do it if it needs more work. I would therefore suggest to concentrate on option a) and c) and only consider b) if it is quick to implement. I added my suggestions on each change below but please comment if you have other thoughts.
The merge with the trunk was overall a bit messy. To have a more transparent git history, I would cherry-pick / transfer the changes of a) and b) to separate PRs with less commits. Until those PRs are merged, I will continue working with this version for ARIADNE. However, I would afterwards check out a new trunk version such that changes in category c) will be lost. Preferably, the branch should be kept closer to the trunk in the future.
Changes made during Ariadne Project in 2023
Industry Sector
1) Set minimum specific energy consumption ( FE / production ) per industry subsector to NPi trajectory as this is already quite optimistic specifically for the near-term. [...]
2) Added constraint
q37_BioLimitSubsecto limit near-term substitution of fossils with bioenergy (mostly relevant for 2030):Different versions used: 1.) max. 40%/70% biomass in steel by 2030/2035, 2) limit biomass in steel to 10% for all times (as charcoal-based blast furnaces are not under consideration in Germany).
Discussed earlier with Michaja that this could be integrated into the Trunk but it was postponed as it would require correctly initializing the share for all regions based on IEA input data
3) added constraint to share of solids in primary steel to prevent near-term substitution with gas and liquids (5% / 10% / 25% below 2015 share allowed in 2025 / 2030 / 2035 )
Regarding changes 1)-3), I compiled a few plots to facilitate the discussion: https://cloud.pik-potsdam.de/index.php/apps/onlyoffice/20335781?filePath=%2FShared%2FREMIND-EU_calibration%2FAriadneScenarios%2FAriadne_REMIND_Changes_2023.pptx
I don't think those changes are a perfect solution but they led us to have emissions reductions that are less steep and more cautious in line with the sectoral model FORECAST. I have not managed to understand the differences to FORECAST in detail, though.
Action: I tend to favor generalizing 1.) into a scenario switch that can be activated to have less ambitious energy efficiency assumptions, discarding 2.) and keeping 3.)
4.) removed bounds that limited maximum biomass use of solids in ETS sectors to 25%
Action: Keep or generalize to scenario switch.
Power Sector
5.) Phase-in of flexibility tax for green hydrogen over time (0 before 2025, 25% in 2025, 50% in 2030, 75% 2035, only full electricity price reduction from 2040 on) [discard]
This was used to have more plausible (higher) hydrogen prices in the near-term and not let the model see the full flexibility benefit from early on. It is based on the assumption that power market design is not fully prepared yet to allow for flexible operation. However, as discussed with Falko it is probably better to steer the upscaling via adjustment cost / CAPEX changes of electrolysis as at least for Ger / EU renewable purchase agreements and Day-Ahead Market start to get used for that. Part of these adjustment cost changes implemented already below (see section 9).
Note: this would come on top of my recent changes of the hydrogen modeling which increased hydrogen prices a bit
Action: Tend to discard this.
6.) Added
q32_elh2VREcapfromTestoragain, constraint that requires some minimum electrolysis capacity to be built at increasing VRE shares. We now phase-in this constraint over time so that it is only fully active from 2035.Action: Tend to keep. But no strong opinion.
7.) Doubled
h2turbVREcapratioofp32_storageCapparameter. This doubles the minimum amount of back-up capacity (H2 or gas turbines) needed at certain VRE shares.q32_h2turbVREcapfromTestor), usually binding, in current runs in 2045 at 54 GW (H2+Gas Turbines), see/p/tmp/schreyer/Modeling/remind/ariadne/output/Bal_2024-01-29_16.43.31>. This is about the level that also the Enertile model reaches in the German Langfristszenarien (https://langfristszenarien.de/enertile-explorer-de/szenario-explorer/angebot.php). Others see more like 100 GW needed. I don't have deep knowledge in this field, but I'd think we should not be overly optimistic here without good reason.Action: Keep.
8.) Reduce offshore wind potential in Germany
Action: Discard.
CES Mark-up Cost
9.) Introduced phase-in of CES mark-up cost changes (relative to default) in buildings and industry: linear phase in from 0 to 100% of the long-term change from 2020 to 2040.
enhbto keep total useful energy at similar levels as today in the long-term as this effect does not reduce much the UE in the near-term.Action: Keep.
Hydrogen / Synfuels
9.) Improved Upscaling: Removed some outdated bounds that prevented synfuel production before 2035 and added adjustment cost to both synfuel technologies
Action: Keep.
11.) Some bounds on hydrogen / synfuel production capacities for EU27 based on Adrian's analysis of IEA project data
Action: Discard
12.) Added
cm_elh2_CFscenario switch to change capacity factor of electrolysisAction: Keep.
Germany-specific Bounds
13.) historical and near-term fixings (2020 and 2025)
Action: Keep.
14.) coal phase-out bounds
Action: Keep
15.) Scenario-specific Germany bounds
cm_VREminCap, sets lower bounds on capacities for wind, solar and H2 as specified in the ampel coalition agreement and KSG.Action: Keep (or maybe outdated? I was not there when this was implemented).
Other Switches
16.)
cm_regipol_LUCswitch, user-defined shift of land-use change emissions from Magpie trajectories when employing cm_emiMktTarget with the Grassi offset (LULUCFGrassi option)Action: Keep.
17.)
cm_run_initialCap, "Switch to entable running the InitialCap module in policy runs"Action: Discard. But no strong opinion.
Type of change
(Make sure to delete from the Type-of-change list the items not relevant to your PR)
Checklist:
remind2where it was neededforbiddenColumnNamesin readCheckScenarioConfig.R in case the PR leads to deprecated switchesFAIL 0in the output ofmake test)CHANGELOG.mdhas been updated correctlyFurther information (optional):