LU emissions - Observation and question

[Neha Jaggeshar]

Hello,

I am modeling land-use emissions in my TIMES model and came across something:


Initial approach      : I tagged the emissions using the attribute env_act. In the item details, the emission flows appeared correctly.

However, in the results, there were no values reported for these ENV commodities. I also tried replacing env_act with FLO_EMIS or even individual FLO_EMIS~ attributes, but the results didn’t change. 

Revised approach     : I made a simple change — added the emission commodities under the Comm-OUT column and used a single FLO_EMIS+ column to specify their emission factors. The emissions now show up in the results.

Why does the emission reporting get triggered when using FLO_EMIS+ in the second setup, but not when defined via env_act or explicit FLO_EMIS~ attributes in the first setup?
Any clarification would be appreciated!

Thanks!

[Antti-L]

I just tested with a simple model including your initial process specifications, and I did get the emissions reported in the results, as expected.  Therefore, I am not able to confirm your findings. 

However, I am sure I would be able to explain your issue, if you can provide a reproducible case (*.DD and *.RUN files for a case that reproduces your issue).

[Neha Jaggeshar]

I just tested with a simple model including your initial process specifications, and I did get the emissions reported in the results, as expected.  Therefore, I am not able to confirm your findings. 

However, I am sure I would be able to explain your issue, if you can provide a reproducible case (*.DD and *.RUN files for a case that reproduces your issue).

I tried again and it seems to be working fine now with the env_act method for two of the emission streams (Livestock & Tillage). But I'm having the same issue with the forest part. 
Attaching the files for your reference. 


  Files.zip (Size: 1.43 KB / Downloads: 1)

[Antti-L]

Thanks, but those two files you included (test_forest2.run, test_forest2_ts.dd) are not sufficient for reproducing anything, because the following DD files were missing:

base.dd
ind_ccs.dd
pwr_dh.dd
pwr_electricitystorage.dd
pwr_newtechs.dd
rsd-retrofit.dd
b_sup_dombiopot_seai.dd
rsd_newtechs.dd
b_sys_demands.dd
srv_dc_excessheat.dd
srv_newtechs.dd
b_sys_bio_delivcost.dd
sup_biorefineries.dd
sup_hydrogen.dd
sys_othernewtechs.dd
tra_newvehicles.dd
syssettings.dd
a_sys_sad_40ts.dd
b_sys_forharvestpot.dd

However, as far as I could see, there were only SINKCO2, AGRLUCO2, AGRLUCH4, AGRLUN2O, and AGRTILNO2, so what are you referring by forestry emissions?

[Neha Jaggeshar]

  Forest #2.zip (Size: 214.02 KB / Downloads: 1) Sorry, i upload the wrong folder. By forestry emissions, I mean FORSINKCO2, AGRFORCO2, AGRFORCH4 and AGRFORNO2

[Antti-L]

Thank you for the full set of input files. Please find my explanations below.

I could find FORSINKCO2, AGRFORCH4 and AGRFORNO2 as an emission only from the AFORPLAN and AFORNATREG processes.  But these processes did not have any activity, and so the emissions could also only be zero. Zero flows are, in general, not reported. That is why there are no values reported for these ENV commodities.

To elaborate further, the processes AFORPLAN and AFORNATREG produce the commodities FORPLAN and FORNATREG, respectively. But you have specifically defined the following commodity LIM types:

  'IE'.'FORNATREG'.UP
  'IE'.'FORPLAN'.UP

This means that you have specifically defined those commodities to have free supply: there is no commodity balance generated for them. Based on your modeling approach, any demand for FORPLAN and FORNATREG can therefore be satisfied without any production of these commodities. That explains it all well (those processes are not needed at all and thus have zero activity and zero emissions).

As to the AGRFORCO2 commodity, I could not find any process either producing or consuming it.

[Neha Jaggeshar]

Thank you for the feedback!