Ok, lets see what you have in the QA check.log and explain the warnings:
Code:
****** TIMES -- VERSION 4.7.1 ******
************** QUALITY ASSURANCE LOG **************
*** Delayed Process but PASTInvestment
*01 WARNING - Delay is ignored: R=US P=E_MR_HDPE
*01 WARNING - Delay is ignored: R=US P=E_MR_LDPE
*01 WARNING - Delay is ignored: R=US P=E_MR_PET
*01 WARNING - Delay is ignored: R=US P=E_MR_PP
*01 WARNING - Delay is ignored: R=US P=Mech_recycling_existing
*** Inconsistent sum of fixed FLO_SHAREs in Group
*07 SEVERE ERROR - R=US P=Chem_recycling_CCS V=2025 CG=Chem_recycling_CCS_ENVO SUM=0.44000
*07 SEVERE ERROR - R=US P=Chem_recycling_CCS V=2025 CG=Chem_recycling_CCS_NRGO SUM=0.56000
*07 SEVERE ERROR - R=US P=Dissolution_HDPE V=2025 CG=Dissolution_HDPE_NRGI SUM=0.70337
*07 SEVERE ERROR - R=US P=Dissolution_LDPE V=2025 CG=Dissolution_LDPE_NRGI SUM=0.71699
*07 SEVERE ERROR - R=US P=Dissolution_PP V=2025 CG=Dissolution_PP_NRGI SUM=0.74451
[...]
*** RPC in TOP not found in any ACTFLO/FLO_SHAR/FLO_FUNC/FLO_SUM
*01 WARNING - R=US P=Bioethanol_dehydration C=ETHYCO2 IO=OUT
*01 WARNING - R=US P=ELCRERNW_Solar C=ELCCO2 IO=OUT
*01 WARNING - R=US P=ELCRERNW_Wind C=ELCCO2 IO=OUT
*01 WARNING - R=US P=ELCTENG00 C=ELCCO2 IO=OUT
The first set of warnings is harmless, and only tells you that the START year (2021) you have defined for the E_MR_HDPE, E_MR_LDPE, E_MR_PET, E_MR_PP and Mech_recycling_existing processes are not effective in the sense that the existing capacity is in any case allowed to operate. These "delay ignored" warnings are
legacy QA checks implemented already in the very first versions of TIMES, and remain kept in place, albeit they may not seem too informative.
The second set or warnings concerns your
FLO_SHAR definitions, which are found to be erroneous. You have apparently defined erroneously the FLO_SHAR parameters for the ETHYCO2 output of Chem_recycling_CCS, and the the warning thus tells that your FLO_SHAR for ETHYCO2 is inconsistent and is automatically relaxed (removed) by TIMES, and likewise, the FLO_SHAR parameters for the NRGO group of that process are inconsistent and are automatically relaxed by TIMES. The errors can be easily verified from the input data.
Similarly, your FLO_SHAR parameters for the inputs to the Dissolution_HDPE and Dissolution_LDPE processes are found to be inconsistent, which is easy to see from your input data. Again, the shares are automatically relaxed by TIMES. And likewise, your FLO_SHAR parameters for the inputs to the Dissolution_PP process are found to be inconsistent, which is again easily verified from your input data.
These warnings about the FLO_SHAR inconsistencies are given for each milestone year, and in your case the errors are identical for each year (therefore omitted from the listing above).
Finally, at the bottom of the QA_Check.log you can see warnings about
free flows, i.e. process flows that are explicitly defined in the topology, but are not tied to any other flows of those processes ("
RPC in TOP not found in any ACTFLO/FLO_SHAR/FLO_FUNC/FLO_SUM"). Such free flows should basically not exist for any normal processes, unless some modeling tricks are being used. In your case, these warnings signify modeling errors: You have defined CO2 flows for the Bioethanol_dehydration, ELCRERNW_Solar, ELCRERNW_Wind and ELCTENG00 processes, without defining any emission factor, which would define those flows in proportion to the process activity or main flows, and therefore the flows are free to take any non-negative value (and may thus have randomly either a zero or some positive value in the results).
Concerning the
FFCO2 emissions flow of the MINETH process, that's a slightly different case, because the MINETH process is a
trade process. With that process, you have defined
imports of FFCO2 from the "mining" region, without any costs (in addition to the imports of ETHANE, which does have a cost/price). Therefore, the FFCO2 import flow is again a
free flow that can take any non-negative value. But the QA checks do not cover this error, because it cannot be identified so easily: Any commodities in the topology of trade processes are
trade flows unless explicitly defined as auxiliary flows, and CO2 can of course also be traded. However, apparently you did not intend to model imports of FFCO2, did you?
In summary, you have
several modeling errors, which are all easily verified from your input data, and most of them can be immediately seen by looking at the
QA_Check.log file.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? 