Fix emissions reporting #530
Conversation
…ste. adjust additional summation checks
mellamoSimon
requested review from
fschreyer,
0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q,
fbenke-pik and
amerfort
…ducts in emissions markets categories
…y work with fixed_shares, it needs to work with industry subsectors realization
| setNames(out[, , "Emi|CO2|+|Energy (Mt CO2/yr)"] | ||
| - out[, , "Emi|CO2|CDR|Industry CCS|Synthetic Fuels (Mt CO2/yr)"] | ||
| - out[, , "Emi|CO2|CDR|BECCS (Mt CO2/yr)"] | ||
| - out[, , "Emi|CO2|CDR|Materials|+|Plastics (Mt CO2/yr)"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@strefler are these energy emissions? I would rather treat Emi|CO2|CDR|Materials|+|Plastics the same way as DACCS or EW. So they should probably be neither included in Emi|CO2|+|Energy nor be deduced from the respective Gross variable here. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a general issue we should discuss in the IAMC emissions group with everybody, that is, accounting of long-term CCU. I tend to be in favor of the convention that carbon stored in materials should be deduced from industry / energy emissions because that is how the IPCC emissions accounting defines energy-related emissions (i.e. only emissions from combustion). But I am happy to discuss further.
| # and it is different to Emi|GHG|+++|Waste | ||
| if (!is.null(vm_plasticsCarbon)){ | ||
| out <- mbind(out, | ||
| setNames(out[, , "Emi|CO2|Energy|+|Waste (Mt CO2/yr)"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not an accounting expert, so I have to ask: The UNFCCC inventories put waste in a separate category, so it is not part of the Energy emissions. But maybe this is the way we agreed on accounting for waste emissions in the Navigate-template/IAMC community. Or is that the emissions of waste used as energy feedstock?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is a very important point! indeed there's another category where we put non-CO2 emissions from waste management (CH4 emissions). But bringing those 2 together via coupling with waste-to-power capacities is a larger task that I think should not be part of this PR.
|
|
||
| ##(ecxl. negative emissions from BECCS and carbon storage of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels) | ||
| ## note Emi|CO2|CDR|... variables are negative. That's why we substract them to get from net to gross emissions. | ||
| if (!is.null(vm_plasticsCarbon)){ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be possible to avoid duplicate code from these if-clauses and simply set all plastics related variables to zero if vm_plasticsCarbon doesn't exist but still add them up? Or would that cause problems somewhere else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe, but I wouldn't include it in this PR. Just trying to make it work, we can make it nicer later.
|
|
||
| # total gross energy emissions | ||
| setNames(out[, , "Emi|GHG|+++|Energy (Mt CO2eq/yr)"] | ||
| - out[, , "Emi|CO2|CDR|Industry CCS|Synthetic Fuels (Mt CO2/yr)"] | ||
| - out[, , "Emi|CO2|CDR|BECCS (Mt CO2/yr)"], | ||
| - out[, , "Emi|CO2|CDR|BECCS (Mt CO2/yr)"] | ||
| - out[, , "Emi|CO2|CDR|Materials|+|Plastics (Mt CO2/yr)"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same as above. Might not be Energy emissions
…d in plastic products)
Small bugfixes and additions to Simon's emissions reporting changes
…dditional summation checks
|
hi, |
|
I still suspect the CDR refactoring is responsible for them, see https://mattermost.pik-potsdam.de/rd3/channels/remind/s44bap551tdcifktignkm4nrpc |
It is responsible at least for the Regarding the two emissions market failures with up to 31 MtCO2/yr, I think they have been there for a longer time and I will take care of them once I find the time. Afterwards, when everything is solved we should make compliance with summation checks mandatory in |
|
Please check and merge mellamoSimon#2 |
fix join message
since that is a separate problem, I think it's better if I first merge this and then that can be fixed in a separate PR. What do you think? |
I think it's a good idea. I'm working on the CDR-related PR :) |
…on for piamInterfaces
|
ok, if I see it correctly, all the direct issues with this PR have been solved, and both the ETS/ESR and the CDR issues will be solved in follow-up PRs, correct? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks fine. Thanks!
Could you maybe post the remaining summation failures that you now get for the emissions variables here, before you merge so we know what is still open.
And also I assume you checked the test for #535 passes now.
|
|
thank you for the reviews! @0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q you sure you used the latest status of this branch for that? I get this differently: |
|
oh, yeah, sorry I was looking at the wrong side of the comparison. That's right then :)
yup, I get |
there's parallel work going on for fixing the remaining inconsistencies |
Fix errors in summations in emissions reporting from feedstock accounting. Some mismatches remain but they will be addressed in other PR (see below).