Skip to content
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

Technology lifetime different depending on the year? #2

Open
khainsch opened this issue Feb 16, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Technology lifetime different depending on the year? #2

khainsch opened this issue Feb 16, 2021 · 5 comments
Labels
base scenario help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@khainsch
Copy link
Member

We found that in the current data model, the technology lifetime differs for different years. In GENeSYS-MOD, lifetime is set once per technology and does not change.
My question would be how other frameworks handle this and what a possible solution would be. Possible points to consider:

  • How relevant is lifetime in 2016? Since capacity expansion should not be required in 2016, 2030 becomes the first period where lifetime becomes relevant.
  • There is only one Technology which has a lifetime of <20 years (Batteries in 2016). That means, that all other technologies will serve for 2 Periods (2030 and 2050), even batteries since the lifetime in 2030 is 25 years.
  • The only difference would be in the potential calculation of salvage values / discounting the value of the technologies.

Would like to hear some opinions, in theory it would be possible to adapt the paramter into GENeSYS-MOD but maybe we find a different solution.

@khainsch khainsch added help wanted Extra attention is needed base scenario labels Feb 16, 2021
@chrwm
Copy link
Member

chrwm commented Feb 18, 2021

From the discussion 18.02.21, the following was noted:

  • urbs, Balmorel can adjust the lifetime of technologies for each year

If you, @khainsch, have big problems implementing an adjustable lifetime per year, we make the decision in the further process to set a constant lifetime for each technology or not

@StefanieBuchholz
Copy link

Has this been settled or forgotten?
From my memory I think we handled it by providing capacities for each year - but I am not sure if there is still an issue?

@jonasVano
Copy link

I think from my side this is settled. we have only one parameter for every technology

@sonercandas
Copy link

from my side too

@chrwm
Copy link
Member

chrwm commented May 25, 2021

From my memory I think we handled it by providing capacities for each year - but I am not sure if there is still an issue?

The issue regarding the capacities was clarified. For 2030 and 2050 initial installed capacities for the energy system have been provided.

However, in terms of lifetime, we should summarise how everyone then implements lifetime per technology.
Options:
A. Only implement 1 lifetime per technology from: 2016 (or) 2030 (or) 2050 (e.g. A 2016)
B. Implement a different lifetime for each year, as given in the input files (results in using 3 different lifetimes per technology)

Please edit this comment to state your implementation:
Balmorel: B
GENESYS-2: B
GENeSYS-MOD:
oemof:
urbs:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
base scenario help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants