You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Most final-energy variables (in ENGAGE, NAVIGATE and other projects) have a split by sector, secondary energy carrier, and primary energy from which that secondary energy carrier was produced, e.g., "Final Energy|Industry|Gases|Biomass“. However, in practice, the source of the secondary-energy carrier cannot be known exactly after the fuel is blended into the transmission system, e.g., electricity in the grid or methane molecules in a pipeline. Including all these combinations leads to an enormous number of variables that only offer spurious precision. Therefore, this sub-categorization was not carried over into this new variable list.
This issue is aimed to discuss whether (and which) secondary- and final-energy variables should have information about the source of the energy source.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think this information (are the liquids used in a specific sector sourced from fossil or biogenic origin) can be important for any study focusing on the EU or sub-levels, where you have different policies targeting eg industry and transport - thus the shares probably will be different across sectors.
This can also happen with grid-based carriers like gases, hydrogen or heat, as you may have unconnected/partially connected grids.
So I would make this split part of the variable tree, so that for projects where this information is needed it can easily be supplied and doesn't have to be redefined/discussed again, but to me the variables that detail this on sectoral level would clearly be variables of low priority that I usually would not request teams to report. (only the overall split - so FE|Liquids|Biomass, but not how this splits up into Transport/industry/buildings)
I agree that we should rather include these splits in the template and projects can decide not to report them, compared to having different projects reinvent wheels. Maybe we can add a "tier" marking stating which variables are crucial and which might be left out.
Most final-energy variables (in ENGAGE, NAVIGATE and other projects) have a split by sector, secondary energy carrier, and primary energy from which that secondary energy carrier was produced, e.g., "Final Energy|Industry|Gases|Biomass“. However, in practice, the source of the secondary-energy carrier cannot be known exactly after the fuel is blended into the transmission system, e.g., electricity in the grid or methane molecules in a pipeline. Including all these combinations leads to an enormous number of variables that only offer spurious precision. Therefore, this sub-categorization was not carried over into this new variable list.
However, @Renato-Rodrigues objected to this exclusion in #34 (comment).
This issue is aimed to discuss whether (and which) secondary- and final-energy variables should have information about the source of the energy source.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: