Conversation
… for testing the production methods
…gs crude oil nodes
* Add molecule node examples * Create 35 molecule nodes for emissions accounting * Create groups for all emission molecule nodes * Minor corrections --------- Co-authored-by: robindesmit-quintel <robin.desmit@quintel.com>
* Rake import emissions task * Update the layout of groups in files with emission groups. * Add emissions_csv config file for the data export * Add other emission methods to the data export and include all the sectors and subsectors. * Simplify GHG column to use ghg_carrier method and round numeric columns to 6 decimal places * Add documentation for emissions export yml file * Minor rebasing corrections --------- Co-authored-by: louispt1 <louisparkestalbot1@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: robindesmit-quintel <robin.desmit@quintel.com> Co-authored-by: Kyra de Haan <kyra.dehaan@quintel.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the mocule graph, the energy sector nodes are now a bit scattered, this also applies to the industry sector nodes. In the energy graph we nicely group all nodes. Should we do this for the molecule graph nodes as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a consideration between distinction per sector or distinction per modelling type. Currently, we placed the static modelling (molecule nodes that read from emissions.csv) at the bottom and dynamic modelling is at the top. If we group per sector, the static modelling of energy and industry sector will be right next to the dynamic modelling.
Since the molecule nodes are somewhat 'strange' exceptions in the modelling, I don't find it too strange that they are at the bottom. But if we want to apply the graph design of grouping sectors together, then it makes sense to move some of the molecule nodes.
I don't have a strong preference. @mabijkerk what about you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer sector clustering. It does not have the highest priority but perhaps @robindesmit-quintel can pick this up?
| transform: "(value * 1e-6).round(6)" | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| rows: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This data-exports seems to be alphabetically sorted on Group, does that makes sense? Isn't there given order that we can follow that matches more with UNFCC, EU, PBL...? Something like Energy, Industry, Transport, Households, Services, Agriculture...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's follow follow IPCC:
Energy
Industry
National transport
Buildings
Households
Agriculture
Other
LULUCF
Waste
International transport
@robindesmit-quintel could you pick this up?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Still not 100% convinced about these being called non_energetic. The client also brought this up: non-energetic/energetic is a distinction from the energy balance that does not always match with combustion/non-combustion emissions. Good to discuss together or check in with an expert?
| - Group: emissions_international_transport_international_aviation | ||
| Sector: International transport | ||
| Subsector: International aviation | ||
| - Group: emissions_international_transport_international_navigation | ||
| Sector: International transport | ||
| Subsector: International navigation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These other GHG values need to be dependent on the sliders settings bunkers_allocated_percentage_aviation and bunkers_allocated_percentage_shipping.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that this should apply both to present and future year!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@noracato the molecule nodes in these groups contain the other_ghg value that is read from the emissions.csv. But actually these values that end up in the user output should depend on the inputs mentioned by Mathijs. Is there a way that we can process this in the data export?
Note that this already goes correctly for the energy nodes within this group; the energy nodes will have a demand and calculated emissions if the inputs are set to > 0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@noracato you can ignore my request above, it's a modeller's thing that I will look into.
5 participants
Context
This PR adds a new direct emissions method to the model, together with a detailed data export containing all greenhouse gas emissions of a scenario.
Implemented changes
emissionsemissions.csvfile to ETSource using a rake task.emissions.csv, specified for co2 and other_ghgRelated
Goes with pull requests:
Checklist