-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 129
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
Adding support for exogenously defined waste incineration CCS shares and disabling feedstock emissions with unknown fate accounting #1631
Conversation
…emical feedstock emissions with unknown fate in total anthropogenic emissions (off by default)
Thank you Renato for the development. I suggest that we use the values below. My reasoning is: that reported costs for CCS at the CO2 concentration level of incineration plants should be between 100-200 USD/tCO2, well below typical carbon prices for PkBudg650 policy runs. So we can go with the technical maximum capture rate of 90%. PkBudg1050 seems to be in the same ballpark that CCS costs in the latest successful validation runs, so I think .5 is a good guess to start with (basically we cannot say much here). My sources could be better (rn I'm using figures compiled by the "global CCS institute") but we can tweak the values after we get new runs.
if you agree, I will add them to the scenario config file. |
I committed the changes to the scenario config files that had defined @LaviniaBaumstark as Simon said, this is the first try to try to parametrize these values for the validation runs. After this PR is merged and the runs are completed, Simon can double check if they make sense with the resulting waste emissions observed in the validated scenarios. @orichters I tried to include the same changes to the NGFS scenario config so your runs are compatible with the assumptions of the new waste emission formulation. Could you check the scenario config to see if I missed anything? I only added the waste CCS parametrization to the runs that had |
thank you for implementing this so quick! |
@orichters @RahelMA could you please check, if this switch needs to be added to scenario_config_ELEVATE4p4.csv ? Thanks |
I would suggest in the ELEVATE config to add the specification used for NPi to the two |
Thanks! |
@orichters
|
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.
did you run make test
?
Yes I did, although this does not guarantee everything, as one of these switches is only active in ambitious policy runs. |
Purpose of this PR
Type of change
Checklist:
FAIL 0
in the output ofmake test
)Todo:
@mellamoSimon
e.g.:
2050.GLO 0.82050.GLO 0.92050.GLO 0.652050.GLO 0.9cm_feedstockEmiUnknownFate
feature works for both situations, with it set tooff
and set toon