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 c_budgetCO2from2020 values.

@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.
Lavinia, could you check if I missed adding the switch cm_wasteIncinerationCCSshare to some config file or run?

@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 c_budgetCO2from2020 defined, but if you have policy scenarios that use other alternative carbon pricing method, these should be added also to those, e.g. if it is a ambitious scenario use for now 2050.GLO 0.9, and if it is a less ambitious scenario, corresponding to around the PkBudg1050 case, you can use 2050.GLO 0.5. You can also control this per region basis, but I don't think this will be that important for now.

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 ELV_CurPol* runs, something used for NDC to all ELV_NDC2030* runs and something that suits a 1.5°C scenario to ELV_NPi2020_700* and something corresponding to 2°C for the ELV_LTS* runs.

Thanks!

I would suggest in the ELEVATE config to add the specification used for NPi to the two ELV_CurPol* runs, something used for NDC to all ELV_NDC2030* runs and something that suits a 1.5°C scenario to ELV_NPi2020_700* and something corresponding to 2°C for the ELV_LTS* runs.

@orichters
Here is the current setup based on your suggestions. Please let me know if it is ok:

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.