update FT to account for Hydrogen and Electricity input #1226
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @GbotemiB for the PR. What was the reason of changing efficiency and efficiency2`? In PyPSA-Eur, efficiencies were similar as it is in PyPSA-earth previously.
efficiency=costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "efficiency"],
efficiency2=-costs.at["oil", "CO2 intensity"]
* costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "efficiency"],
scripts/prepare_sector_network.py
Outdated
| ], # Use efficiency to convert from EUR/MW_FT/a to EUR/MW_H2/a | ||
| efficiency2=-costs.at["oil", "CO2 intensity"] | ||
| * costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "efficiency"], | ||
| / costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "electricity-input"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, I think capital_cost should be multiplication of fixed with efficiency as previously defined.
scripts/prepare_sector_network.py
Outdated
| marginal_cost=costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "VOM"] | ||
| / costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "electricity-input"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The same is true for marginal_cost. Efficiency should be multiplied. @davide-f, can you please comment? Also generally efficiency is used rather than electricity-input.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed the multiplication with efficiency is appropriate because of the unit of measurement used for the calculation.
Regarding this PR, I'm adding a comment below also
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mmm could you explain the proposal?
The referenced link to pypsa-eur refers to the haber-bosch process that converts electricity and hydrogen into ammonia, while here the edited code is Fischer-Tropsch that converts hydrogen and CO2 into oil products.
It feels to me that we are mixing things, could you please check?
Note that fischer trops is also availabel in pypsa-eur with a similar formulations as in -earth:
https://github.com/PyPSA/pypsa-eur/blob/920ffb444497c9767fade5f2a9bdaa457a1b627b/scripts/prepare_sector_network.py#L3610-L3616
scripts/prepare_sector_network.py
Outdated
| marginal_cost=costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "VOM"] | ||
| / costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "electricity-input"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed the multiplication with efficiency is appropriate because of the unit of measurement used for the calculation.
Regarding this PR, I'm adding a comment below also
scripts/prepare_sector_network.py
Outdated
| ], # Use efficiency to convert from EUR/MW_FT/a to EUR/MW_H2/a | ||
| efficiency2=-costs.at["oil", "CO2 intensity"] | ||
| * costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "efficiency"], | ||
| / costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "electricity-input"], |
|
Hi @yerbol-akhmetov @davide-f @danielelerede-oet, I will be closing this PR for now. The purpose of this PR was to add electricity and hydrogen input for FT. But this is no longer needed as the current implementation is sufficient for now. |
|
Hi @davide-f @hazemakhalek @yerbol-akhmetov @danielelerede-oet Here is an explanation. Big thanks to @yerbol-akhmetov |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, @GbotemiB, for the proposal. I agree with using 1 / costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "hydrogen-input"] as an efficiency as hydrogen-input has units of MWh_H2/MWh_FT. So it maps output to input. Note, 1/hydrogen-input is very close to efficiency value in costs. It is interesting how efficiency is estimated and what it refers to?
Another question is: if we use 1 / costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "hydrogen-input"] as efficiency from inpu to output, then should we change costs.at["Fischer-Tropsch", "efficiency"] elsewhere? What do you think @davide-f ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @GbotemiB and @yerbol-akhmetov :D
The proposal is quite neat; I'd advise for a minor release note also.
Regarding the point by @yerbol-akhmetov , I agree that it is advisable to use -input parameters or efficiency, but not a mix of them for consistency.
For reproducibility considerations, I'd be more prone in merging a contribution where we keep using efficiency instead of hydrogen-input for now, for consistency with pypsa-eur and reproducibility considerations.
Using hydrogen-input sounds appealing, but given its potential breaking changes may require some alignment with others.
The potential issue I see is that with this change, the results of the model with the same cost configuration will change because the code selects a different input data.
The current efficiency and the efficiency with hydrogen-input differ by >5% that may have implications; on the other hand, the electricity-input is likely to have a small impact.
Current CI changes only marginally [727049... vs 727069...], but the CO2 constraint is limited so the impact of FT is not big.
Is there a specific need to adopt hydrogen-input here for @yerbol-akhmetov and @GbotemiB ?
I ping also @FabianHofmann as it would be good to keep an alignment with pypsa-eur and @energyLS who worked on -sec PRs about it.
For fabian and -sec modellers, using hydrogen-input and electricity-input seems interesting: the data source of *-input in technology data is newer. Are you aware of reasons for not using it?
Personally, using hydrogen-input and electricity-input seems appealing but need to align before acting here
|
Hello @yerbol-akhmetov @GbotemiB, |
|
Hi @davide-f, We can just use efficiency. |
|
This looks good to me. |
Closes # (if applicable).
Changes proposed in this Pull Request
This PR aims to revise the implementation of FT to account for hydrogen and electricity input. The changes is adapted from pypsa-eur
@ekatef @davide-f @hazemakhalek
Checklist
envs/environment.yamlanddoc/requirements.txt.config.default.yamlandconfig.tutorial.yaml.test/(note tests are changing the config.tutorial.yaml)doc/configtables/*.csvand line references are adjusted indoc/configuration.rstanddoc/tutorial.rst.doc/release_notes.rstis amended in the format of previous release notes, including reference to the requested PR.