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

Add near-term electricity demand to buildings in CHA #635

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 21, 2025

Conversation

robinhasse
Copy link
Contributor

@robinhasse robinhasse commented Feb 21, 2025

Electricity demand in CHA in 2025 is to low. We want to tackle this in EDGE-B but need a hot fix now. I increase the non-specified electricity demand that we add to the buildings demand by 2EJ/yr in the near future.

Looking at it I realised again that we should really look into what we do with stationary. The non-specified electricity demand in CHA has continuously increased over the last year reaching 1.75 EJ/yr in 2020. The very old numbers in stationary are only based on observations until 2010 and assume a decline from there. In convertStationary, we overwrite history with recent IEA data and the linearly transition back from the last IEA period (this is where I added 2 EJ/yr) to the projection until 2035. Where I added demand, I shifted the transition to start from 2025 instead of 2020 and extend until 2055 to make the peak less pronounced.

But it is clear, that our very ld projection does not continue observed historic trends.

Hopefully, we can add demand in EDGE-B and remove this hotfix in about 2 weeks from now.

grafik
please ignore the historic deviation of some (partly removed) scenarios. This likely results from using an outdated cache.

Copy link
Contributor

@robertpietzcker robertpietzcker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can't say anything about the R-code, but the results look consistent with expected 2025 demand!
this quick fix will ensure that in the next calibration, the demand is reasonable, and hopefully in 2-3 weeks a more explicit solution will allow us to remove the quick fix

Copy link
Contributor

@ricardarosemann ricardarosemann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks ok, thanks!

@robinhasse robinhasse merged commit 6a61117 into pik-piam:master Feb 21, 2025
1 check passed
@robinhasse robinhasse deleted the plusTwo branch February 21, 2025 14:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants