Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Myopic path unfeasible with default config file due to oil balances #945

Closed
martavp opened this issue Feb 20, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Myopic path unfeasible with default config file due to oil balances #945

martavp opened this issue Feb 20, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@martavp
Copy link
Member

martavp commented Feb 20, 2024

With the current default config file, Fischer-Tropsch is installed in 2040 (due to the combination of the assumptions for exogenous use of oil in land_transport in shipping together with the stringent co2_limit for that year).

In 2050, the minimum operation requirement of Fischer-Tropsch produces a certain amount of oil that is higher than the oil demand (since land transport and shipping are assumed to be fully electrified/converted to methanol by 2050).

A simple fix could be to make min_part_load_fischer_tropsch=0 in the default config file or we change the other default assumptions for oil demand in land transport and shipping. I think a working default config for the myopic option is always good for new users.

This is similar to the issue fixed in https://github.com/PyPSA/pypsa-eur/pull/791/files
Maybe you have some thoughts on this @lisazeyen ?

@martavp martavp added the bug label Feb 20, 2024
@lisazeyen
Copy link
Contributor

One option is to set the min_part_load_fischer_tropsch to zero. I was at a conference where they were basically saying that the process is as flexible as an electrolysis. The other options is to allow Fischer-Tropsch to be built back (not to fix the capacity) and add some extra costs at the end for stranded assets. One of our master students @daniel-rdt was implementing that I think here https://github.com/daniel-rdt/pypsa-eur/tree/feature/FT_build_back

@daniel-rdt
Copy link

Yes, I added it here: https://github.com/daniel-rdt/pypsa-eur/blob/32261a51f6edae3ed229a6d74aaf160fd1c02774/scripts/add_brownfield.py#L101-L113
You would also have to add a config option to specify the percentage of installed capacity that you want to allow to be build back. I did not include the stranded assets costs though but calculated them manually after

@fneum fneum added this to the v0.11.0 milestone May 12, 2024
@fneum
Copy link
Member

fneum commented May 13, 2024

I reduced the FT min part load to 50% in 27a6f619 as a compromise, which should be sufficient to make feasible but retain the sunk cost of FT capacity. I was a bit reluctant to follow @daniel-rdt and change the capital_cost to a negative value which creates inconsistencies when building total system costs. Let me know if this is not sufficient.

@fneum fneum closed this as completed May 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants