02-09-2023, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2023, 06:18 PM by Antti-L.)
The quality of your image is not too good, looks like taken with a camera outside the computer. I'd suggest to use the Snipping Tool or equivalent for capturing better quality screenshots directly by the computer.
Anyway, it looks as if you have "EMIS GHG PRC" under both CSet_Set and Cset_CN. I don't see what that "EMIS GHG PRC" might be referring to, and how you expect it to match both commodity names (CSet_CN) and commodity sets (CSet_Set). Maybe you can clarify?
(02-09-2023, 06:16 PM)Antti-L Wrote: The quality of your image is not too good, looks like taken with a camera outside the computer. I'd suggest to use the Snipping Tool or equivalent for capturing better quality screenshots directly by the computer.
Anyway, it looks as if you have "EMIS GHG PRC" under both CSet_Set and Cset_CN. I don't see what that "EMIS GHG PRC" might be referring to, and how you expect it to match both commodity names (CSet_CN) and commodity sets (CSet_Set). Maybe you can clarify?
Thank you for your reply. I've tried to use the Snipping Tool to capture the screenshot, hope it looks clearer now.
My intention for this constraint is to set a lower bound for this CSet_Set : EMIS GHG PRC (total emissions in process sector) to be higher than 9MtCO2e, and put it under Cset_CN is so that the program picks it up that this is the item for the constraint.
Is it the right way? please correct me where I understand it wrong.
02-09-2023, 11:11 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2023, 11:59 PM by Antti-L.)
I am sorry but I still don't understand what this "EMIS GHG PRC" actually is. Is it the name of a VEDA-specific commodity set, and does it have several members? I doubt that names containing blanks (spaces) can be used as names of commodity sets (or commodities), but the VEDA developers may confirm.
Anyway, you are requiring that bothCSet_CN and CSet_Set should be "EMIS GHG PRC". That does not make sense to me. And even if "EMIS GHG PRC" might work as a CSet_Set name, the specification would only make sense if it contains only a single commodity (representing those "total emissions in process sector"), and then CSet_CN should be *, or, alternatively, just put the commodity name into CSet_CN and leave CSet_Set empty. However, it seems I'd better leave this to the VEDA experts, as I don't know whether names of the VEDA-specific commodity sets (or commodity names) can contain spaces or not.
Thank you for your reply, I've tried to just put the commodity name into CSet_CN and leave CSet_Set empty, and it worked. The model gave 8.8MtCO2e for EMIS GHG PRC, however when I export the full results, everything seems collapsed.
I couldn't think of any conflict constraints. I'm wondering if you have any insights why this could happen or what I can try?
>The model gave 8.8MtCO2e for EMIS GHG PRC, however when I export the full results, everything seems collapsed.
You indicated earlier that you want to define a minimum emissions bound of 9MtCO2e for the process emissions in 2050, and you thus defined COM_BNDNET(2050,LO) = 9000, which is simple and straightforward as such. But if you are then getting in the results 8.8MtCO2e, your model is obviously not working: It would be basically impossible to get a feasible solution with 8.8MtCO2e, if you have defined a lower bound of 9MtCO2e. So, perhaps your solution was infeasible, or maybe "EMIS GHG PRC" is not a valid commodity name for those process emissions after all?
I've tried to just put the commodity name into CSet_CN and leave CSet_Set empty as you suggested, and then check EMIS GHG PRC in the results (not used in the constraint).
Also I found that the sum of emissions in each sector doesn't equal to the total emission. E.g. (EMIS GHG AGR + EMIS GHG ELC + EMIS GHG HYG + EMIS GHG IND + EMIS GHG NEU + EMIS GHG PRC + EMIS GHG RES + EMIS GHG SER + EMIS GHG TRA + EMIS GHG UPS ) doesn't equal to GHGTOT, It seems it happens in all scenarios.
I'm wondering what might be the reason for this? I think I might need to sort this out first before going back to the process emissions.
>I found that the sum of emissions in each sector doesn't equal to the total emission. I'm wondering what might be the reason for this?
The obvious reason is that you are aggregating the emissions inconsistently. Either one of them or even both of them may be wrong, and so you should just fix the modeling errors, which shouldn't be too difficult. One source of inconsistencies could be GWP factors, if such are used for the non-CO2 GHG emissions.
Thank you for your reply. What I did was to 'Get Data' on these commodity sets: EMIS GHG AGR, EMIS GHG ELC ,EMIS GHG HYG, EMIS GHG IND , EMIS GHG NEU , EMIS GHG PRC, EMIS GHG RES , EMIS GHG SER , EMIS GHG TRA , EMIS GHG UPS, and then add them up. For the GHGTOT, what I was was to 'Get Data' on this Commodity.
I'm wondering where might I have missed and caused the inconsistency? Would these commodity sets & commodity be based on the same GWP factors?
Hi Antti-L, I've got the sum of the emissions from each sector match up with the GHGTOT, I found that actually if I use the VAR_COMNET attribute instead of VAR_FOUT they would add up correctly.
I've gone back focusing on the process emissions, I found that the negative emissions in the process sector were from DACCS, which we wouldn't want to include in our modelling, so I turned off the DACCS processes by assigning a late starting year. It worked on the emissions side but then the nuclear capacity increased from 1.2GW to 576GW by 2050 which is very odd. I'm wondering what might cause this change?
> the nuclear capacity increased from 1.2GW to 576GW by 2050 which is very odd.
> I'm struggling with this issue, I'm wondering if you have any insights on this?
No, sorry. This problem is clearly a highly model-specific issue, and I have basically no insights on the behaviour of the UKTM model. In my models, nuclear capacity (or any other generation capacity) has never increased in such an odd way.
I guess you should investigate it by looking at the constraints of your model somehow involving nuclear capacity...
Thank you for your reply Antti-L, there isn't any constraint involving nuclear capacity at the moment, I have tried this to a base scenario (removing all the scenario constraints), and only include this no DACCS constraint, and it had the same reaction - that nuclear increased dramatically
I'm wondering where I could try to investigate in this case?
