Veda2.0 Released!


Unexpected emissions
#1
Hi,

I am conducting a net-zero emission scenario for ethylene production. The result in terms of ethylene production by technologies seems good to me. There is no production from "Bioethanol dehydration" process technology. However, when I check the output of emissions ("ETHYCO2"), there are emissions from this process technology in several years (2034-2036) and then the emissions are gone for this technology. Also there are some upstream emissions ("FFCO2") from "MINETH" process, which I didn't put any emission factor for this process under this scenario.

You can find my model's file here. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e25nsrh6kac0s...uaDga?dl=0.

Looking forward to your reply and explanation.

Thanks,

Enze
Reply
#2
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.
Reply
#3
(12-04-2023, 06:56 PM)Antti-L Wrote: 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.
Hi Antti,

Thanks for your response. I will look at my FLO_SHAR for those process technologies. Yeah, I don't want to model imports of FFCO2 for this case, but I will model it for another case that include the emissions for this trade flow. So I guess I should constrain the emission by using "ETHYCO2" instead of "TOTCO2".

Thanks,

Enze
Reply
#4
> So I guess I should constrain the emission by using "ETHYCO2" instead of "TOTCO2".

Why so? Huh  How did you arrive at that conclusion? 

I tried to explain to you that the ETHYCO2 flow from Bioethanol dehydration (which you asked about) was due to your modeling error. I think you should just fix that modeling error, and then that random flow will no longer appear.  Unless you for some reason want to keep those random free flows (which make no sense to me), there is absolutely no need to constrain ETHYCO2 instead of TOTCO2.

The fix would be extremely easy: Either remove that process flow, or define a zero emission factor for it.
Reply
#5
(13-04-2023, 03:03 AM)Antti-L Wrote: > So I guess I should constrain the emission by using "ETHYCO2" instead of "TOTCO2".

Why so? Huh  How did you arrive at that conclusion? 

I tried to explain to you that the ETHYCO2 flow from Bioethanol dehydration (which you asked about) was due to your modeling error. I think you should just fix that modeling error, and then that random flow will no longer appear.  Unless you for some reason want to keep those random free flows (which make no sense to me), there is absolutely no need to constrain ETHYCO2 instead of TOTCO2.

The fix would be extremely easy: Either remove that process flow, or define a zero emission factor for it.
Yeah, I did fix the problem you mentioned. There is no emissions from bioethanol dehydration. But the FFCO2 emissions are still there in MINETH process, which I don't want to model it in this case. So I guess I should not constrain the TOTCO2. Here is the QA.Check.log. The processes in the second set of warning were not used in the model. 
              ****** TIMES -- VERSION 4.6.7 -- Restart (v4.6)  ******
              **************  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


*** RPC in TOP not found in any ACTFLO/FLO_SHAR/FLO_FUNC/FLO_SUM
*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
Reply
#6
As I tried to explain, you should define FFCO2 as an auxiliary flow (Comm-Out-A), and not Comm-Out.
Reply
#7
(13-04-2023, 03:29 AM)Antti-L Wrote: As I tried to explain, you should define FFCO2 as an auxiliary flow (Comm-Out-A), and not Comm-Out.
Okay, that makes sense. I've done as what you suggested and it works!! 

Thanks,

Enze
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Technology emissions (upstream emissions) Burcu U. 0 179 08-02-2024, 10:05 PM
Last Post: Burcu U.
Exclamation Error: Unexpected GAMSCMEX return code jskrzypek 4 761 13-12-2023, 09:54 PM
Last Post: jskrzypek
  Setting lower bound on sectoral emissions UKTM User 14 2,776 15-09-2023, 02:40 PM
Last Post: UKTM User
  Growth on CO2 emissions LucasD 1 694 21-11-2022, 06:06 PM
Last Post: Antti-L
  Negative emissions LucasD 2 902 10-11-2022, 06:38 PM
Last Post: LucasD
  Sector specific zero emissions LucasD 1 1,209 12-03-2022, 10:11 PM
Last Post: Antti-L
  Grandfathering concept on CO2 emissions MikkelBosack 7 5,819 31-05-2021, 06:40 PM
Last Post: MikkelBosack
  Modeling upper bound for cummulative emissions qzaus 3 2,684 09-04-2021, 09:45 PM
Last Post: Antti-L
  Unexpected commodity groups in new VEDA BSR 4 3,780 09-04-2021, 03:26 PM
Last Post: BSR
  Using negative CO2 emissions in a constraint clenox 4 4,116 14-01-2021, 04:07 AM
Last Post: clenox

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)