-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
Set FE|Non-energy use variables to zero if they have negative values #461
Conversation
Could this adjustment cause problems with the variables not summing up as indicated by the plus notation? If so, are we ok with that? (the reporting would yield a warning in this case as we now have summation checks based on plus notation) Or should instead the calculation of this variable be done in a different way? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Due to they way they are calculated, some variables […] could become negative.
Then we should fix how these variables are calculated.
Can you give a specific example (including gdx file) where a variable is computed as having a negative value?
This is one example: Also, as it is a temporary calculation, this fix was thought as also just a temporary fix to avoid negative values in our project reportings.
That is true, I didn't think about it. Another argument for a different calculation. |
Is that required for a project now? |
Yes, we would prefer to not have the negative FE values in our Ariadne reporting. I had some time today to look deeper into the calculations and I am not sure about a solution that would avoid the possibility of getting negative values. From my understanding, we load the data from the reference run and scale it up here. The next step makes sure that the non-energy FE per carrier is not bigger than the regular FE per carrier, but as all non-energy is part of the chemicals subsector maybe should we instead compare against Any opinion @0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q ? Alternatively, keeping my current dirty fix might be a pragmatic solution until we soon have the proper feedstock implementation. Consistency in our variables is nice, but if that means they add up to negative FE values... |
Due to they way they are calculated, some variables like
FE|w/o Non-energy Use|Industry|Chemicals|Liquids|+|Hydrogen (EJ/yr)
could become negative. This is avoided by setting them to zero in case they are< 0
.