Forest sink and SHAPE curve

[Neha Jaggeshar]

There you go!  The 2006 vintage is missing completely in the results.
There  are apparently new investments into the process, and all activity is occurring for those new vintages only.  I think that would explain the issue well. I guess you should prohibit new investments to this process. Try setting NCAP_BND(r,'0','ForStock','UP')=2.

I tried setting NCAP_BND(r,'0','ForStock','UP')=2, following which the process would not run (zero output). 

I tried some changes in the upstream flows, from where FOR_Stock input is coming and removed the year tag from NCAP_PASTI. 
I have also removed the NCAP_PASTI from FOR_Stock, wondering if the upstream flows might be conflicting with it. 



These are the results i get - Not sure I made any progress here! Would the upstream flows be influencing those results? Or emissions linked to activity in the shape profile? 

[Antti-L]

> I tried setting NCAP_BND(r,'0','ForStock','UP')=2, following which the process would not run (zero output).

When this happened, was the model nonetheless 1) feasible with optimal solution, and 2) without dummy imports?  If both 1) and 2) were true, are you sure the optimal solution should have had this process active? In other words, is there some economic incentive for using it?  I remember that earlier, you have had similar issues with zero process activities because there was no incentive or constraint making them active.

It is a bit hard for me to guess what is happening in your model without seeing it... but certainly, if you wish to define the emission SHAPE for the 2006 vintage like you originally had, you somehow need to make sure the model uses that vintage (i.e. prevent investing into newer vintages instead).

Of course, if you like, I could also take a look at the model if you provide the full input files for it.

[Neha Jaggeshar]

> I tried setting NCAP_BND(r,'0','ForStock','UP')=2, following which the process would not run (zero output).

When this happened, was the model nonetheless 1) feasible with optimal solution, and 2) without dummy imports?  If both 1) and 2) were true, are you sure the optimal solution should have had this process active? In other words, is there some economic incentive for using it?  I remember that earlier, you have had similar issues with zero process activities because there was no incentive or constraint making them active.

It is a bit hard for me to guess what is happening in your model without seeing it... but certainly, if you wish to define the emission SHAPE for the 2006 vintage like you originally had, you somehow need to make sure the model uses that vintage (i.e. prevent investing into newer vintages instead).

Of course, if you like, I could also take a look at the model if you provide the full input files for it.

Hi Antti, 

I'm attaching the input files, thank you for having a look! 
Now that I am rechecking, I think I may have missed 'UP' for the NCAP_BND, I can't say surely if 1 and 2 were true   I need to try this again

[Antti-L]

Sorry for the confusion about input files, I meant the *.DD and *.RUN files, which are the input files to TIMES.

[Neha Jaggeshar]

I added a small INVCOST for FORStock in this version, which seems to be doing the trick?! Not sure how correct it is though 

[Antti-L]

Ok, then is looks like what I suspected: The incentive was missing. A small cost should be ok as such, but I think you should consider addressing this issue in some other way as well, because otherwise your solutions might be very sensitive to small input data changes (affecting the competing uses of the ForStocked commodity).

[Neha Jaggeshar]

Ok, then is looks like what I suspected: The incentive was missing.  A small cost should be ok as such, but I think you should consider addressing this issue in some other way as well, because otherwise your solutions might be very sensitive to small input data changes (affecting the competing uses of the ForStocked commodity).

Noted! Perhaps trying NCAP_BND(r,'0','ForStock','UP')=2? 

Just to follow up on this comment as well: "...defining several NCAP_PASTI for years 2006, 2012, 2017, 2022, and you have the FORSINKCO2 shape for all of them.  Therefore, you should show the flows and activities by vintage..."  
would it cause any issues if we define NCAP_PASTI for other years?