Posts: 61
Threads: 23
Joined: Sep 2018
Dear all,
TIMES objective function is the minimization of costs, which means the model will choose the cheapest process under the resource endowment constraints? For example, there are several process in the power sector such as coal power, natural gas, oil, wind and PV. Among them, coal power is the cheapest, which means coal power will be the only process? This is “winner take all”, should we avoid it and how to do?
Also, I think efficiency and AFA influence the cost of every process, so if we only take into the cost into consideration, it is not correct to project the share of every process. And if we take into policy intervention such as tax and carbon bound, the results seems not very reasonable because the model will choose PV or wind without fossil energy. When we set bounds or growth for the process, does it intervene the results? I am eager to know how to ensure every process have new activity in future without growth setting in scenarios.
It puzzled me for a long time. Thank you very much.
Look forward to your reply.
Zhi Guo
Posts: 1,747
Threads: 21
Joined: Jun 2010
Below I try to answer the first question, and give a comment on your extreme results:
> TIMES objective function is the minimization of costs, which means the model will choose the cheapest process under the resource endowment constraints?
Answer: As described in the documentation, the TIMES model computes a partial equilibrium on the energy markets, by essentially assuming competitive markets, unless the modeler voluntarily imposes regulatory or other constraints on some parts of the energy system, in which case the equilibrium is (partially) regulated. The result is a supply-demand equilibrium that maximizes the net total surplus (i.e. the sum of producers’ and consumers’ surpluses), while satisfying a number of constraints. TIMES may however depart from perfectly competitive market assumptions by the introduction of user-defined explicit constraints, such as limits to technological penetration, various resource endowment constraints, constraints on emissions, exogenous oil price, etc. Market imperfections can also be introduced in the form of taxes, subsidies and hurdle rates.
> And if we take into policy intervention such as tax and carbon bound, the results seems not very reasonable because the model will choose PV or wind without fossil energy.
Comment: In the many papers employing TIMES models that I have seen, the results have, in general, been including a large variety of technologies also under ambitious policy interventions such as carbon taxes and budgets, with CCS and NETs (carbon capture and negative emission technologies) smoothing the transition away from fossil energy, towards a net zero carbon economy. So, I think your results would represent a rather unusual extreme case.
Posts: 61
Threads: 23
Joined: Sep 2018
(07-03-2022, 11:27 PM)Antti-L Wrote: Below I try to answer the first question, and give a comment on your extreme results:
> TIMES objective function is the minimization of costs, which means the model will choose the cheapest process under the resource endowment constraints?
Answer: As described in the documentation, the TIMES model computes a partial equilibrium on the energy markets, by essentially assuming competitive markets, unless the modeler voluntarily imposes regulatory or other constraints on some parts of the energy system, in which case the equilibrium is (partially) regulated. The result is a supply-demand equilibrium that maximizes the net total surplus (i.e. the sum of producers’ and consumers’ surpluses), while satisfying a number of constraints. TIMES may however depart from perfectly competitive market assumptions by the introduction of user-defined explicit constraints, such as limits to technological penetration, various resource endowment constraints, constraints on emissions, exogenous oil price, etc. Market imperfections can also be introduced in the form of taxes, subsidies and hurdle rates.
> And if we take into policy intervention such as tax and carbon bound, the results seems not very reasonable because the model will choose PV or wind without fossil energy.
Comment: In the many papers employing TIMES models that I have seen, the results have, in general, been including a large variety of technologies also under ambitious policy interventions such as carbon taxes and budgets, with CCS and NETs (carbon capture and negative emission technologies) smoothing the transition away from fossil energy, towards a net zero carbon economy. So, I think your results would represent a rather unusual extreme case.
Thank you very much.
