Carbon Budgets Excluding Processes using UC_FLO

[JGlynn]

Hi Amit, Antti, Mauri, All,

I'm trying to create a carbon budget constraint using UC_CUMFLO so that I can exclude international shipping from the commodity TRACO2N where all Transport CO2 emissions are aggregated, alongside all other sector carbon emissions.

It seems that this works fine, but I cannot figure out how to defineFree the FLO_CUM attribute to enable net negative values towards the end of the model horizon as would be typical when we use COM_BNDNET to set aggregate commodity budgets.

Is it possible to defineFree negative FLO_CUM values?

please see attached the relevant scenario files I've been using to test this.

I'd appreciate any guidance from your collective wisdom.
All the best,
James

[Antti-L]

If you define VAR_COMNET free, VAR_CUMCOM(NET) will also be automatically free. So, you can just use UC_CUMCOM for total CO2 and exclude the international shipping by using UC_CUMFLO.

But no, it is not possible to define Free negative FLO_CUM values.  And you don't need such.

You can of course define non-free negative bounds for any VAR_CUMFLO variables, by using FLO_CUM. But again, I don't think you need any such here.

BTW: I don't really understand why you are defining all the VAR_COMNET for each sectoral CO2 emissions free. Do you really have CO2 sinks e.g. in the transport sector, so that TRACO2N can get negative?  Would that mean that you have maybe cars or ships acting as CO2 sinks?

[Antti-L]

Assuming the total CO2 emissions are represented by TOTCO2, and that the international shipping CO2 emissions are produced by processes TNA*, the budget constraint can be illustrated as in the following picture:

   

[JGlynn]

Assuming the total CO2 emissions are represented by TOTCO2, and that the international shipping CO2 emissions are produced by processes TNA*, the budget constraint can be illustrated as in the following picture:

Perfect Antti! 
you're a legend. thanks
I'll try that out.

regards the definingfree the TRACO2 and other sectors without NETS options. of course you are correct, this doesn't make sense. I'll remove them
This model is not one I typically work on. I'm just helping a colleague out.

All the best,
James