Veda2.0 Released!


very high EQ_CombalM for CO2
#1
       
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
Reply
#2
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.
Reply
#3
I enable negative emissions (ELCO2 and BIOECO2). Should I include BIOECO2 into constraints?
Victorn
Reply
#4
> 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?
Reply
#5
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
Reply
#6
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.
Reply
#7
User_conFXM has no data for CO2_ALL
Victorn
Reply
#8
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!
Reply
#9
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
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Unreasonable high capacity of technology!! [email protected] 0 1,152 27-09-2021, 01:15 AM
Last Post: [email protected]
  calculating fuel costs using cost_flo and/or eq_combalm iris 4 3,610 05-08-2021, 08:29 PM
Last Post: iris

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)