Posts: 22
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Hi,
I'm working on a Net Zero CO2 by 2050 Scenario using the EPA US 9 Region TIMES model. When running the model, I get very high EQ_CombalM for CO2 (no dummies). I am wondering if there is a chance to find out why CO2 marginal costs are so high.
Victorn
Posts: 1,869
Threads: 25
Likes Received: 39 in 32 posts
Likes Given: 11
Joined: Jun 2010
03-12-2022, 12:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2022, 06:57 PM by Antti-L.)
Such high CO2 marginal costs should of course only occur if you have imposed some very tight constraint on CO2 emissions
and your model runs out of any options for reducing those emissions at lower costs.
I don't know which kind of constraint you may have imposed on the emissions, but one possible explanation for running out of options for reducing them is that you have forgotten to enable negative emissions. See this earlier thread for some info on that issue:
Using negative CO2 emissions.
Note also that if you are using VEDA2, those ~ImpSettings options shown in your picture are ignored.
Posts: 22
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
I enable negative emissions (ELCO2 and BIOECO2). Should I include BIOECO2 into constraints?
Victorn
Posts: 1,869
Threads: 25
Likes Received: 39 in 32 posts
Likes Given: 11
Joined: Jun 2010
> Should I include BIOECO2 into constraints?
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps you can elaborate? Are you asking about including BIOECO2 in your CO2 constraints? If so, answering your question may require in-depth knowledge of your model, e.g., how the different CO2 emissions components are aggregated together. I am not familiar with the EPAUSRT9 model, but perhaps you could contact the model developers, if you are not one yourself?
Posts: 22
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
The model developers said that I shouldn't include BIOECO2 (I don't understand why). I'll make a run with including BIOECO2 into CO2 emissions commodities and will let you know.
Victorn
Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2021
One thing you should look at are the marginal costs of your User Constraints.
This can be done by looking at the Attribute User_conFXM. High costs here indicate that the User_Constraint is hard to fulfil and causes extra costs. If you look at the specific periods for which you get high EQ_CombalM, this should give you a hint whch UC might be responsible.
Posts: 22
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
User_conFXM has no data for CO2_ALL
Victorn
Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2021
Sorry if I was not very precise here, I meant looking at ALL User Constraints. If you then sort from large to small, you should get all the problematic ones.
Let's say you at some point have certain restrictions on carbon neutral technologies like EVs, solar panels or Hydrogen.
Conversly, you could have UCs that force certain commodities (e.g. natural gas) in the system, even if it is a tiny percentage, this will cause costs to skyrocket.
Hope this helps!
Posts: 22
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Thank you! I think that I already got rid of all UCs after 2020, but this is a good chance to double check. Thanks a lot!
Victorn