-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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 multiple versions of carbon-price variables #38
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add multiple versions of carbon-price variables #38
Conversation
In NGFS, we also have sectoral-differentiated carbon prices because we have sector-specific policies.
|
No objections from me, but looking at the NGFS variable, I notice two issues:
I suggest do a follow-up PR (and discuss the two issues there) once this PR is merged (after one week unless there are any objections). |
We weigh by Final Energy because once you go to negative emissions in some sectors, weighing by emissions creates really strange effects such as massive spikes (dividing by ~ zero) and negative carbon prices. Fine to discuss that later. |
Question: Is it really a good idea to have variables that include a part within parantheses? I'm asking because many of our scripts use strings of the format "Variable name (Unit)" and I'm a bit concerned that may mess up some of our scripts :) I couldn't find these variable names in the Navigate / Engage / Elevate template I have, anyway (from May 26, 2023) |
Right, this was added in the openENTRANCE project via openENTRANCE/openentrance#154 per suggestion by @Renato-Rodrigues (after discussion with @robertpietzcker, if I recall correctly). The idea is to have an easy way to compare different computations for carbon price given the caveats of using negative weights. If you think that this is too much of a distraction, I can also remove it and we start a separate PR and discuss there... |
No, that is fine. If Renato proposed it, I have no doubt it is a good idea. And with the parantheses: As this basically affects only postprocessing scripts (we don't need to name it like that in REMIND), no objection to that. |
description: Price of carbon (weighted by regional CO2 emissions) | ||
unit: USD_2010/t CO2 | ||
skip-region-aggregation: true | ||
note: Regional CO2 emissions can turn negative at different points in time, which |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder whether aggregating by Gross Emissions|CO2
would be preferable, avoiding this really counter-intuitive and confusing issue of negative or undefined (division by 0) carbon prices
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure about that, this solution would also deviate from the "standard" solution where the price is weighted by net emissions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is no "perfect" solution. In my view, the version "weighted by final energy" would be the best default setting, as it represents the angle "how large is the energy system for which a carbon price is relevant" (this could also be "primary", but I think final is a bit better), but if one takes a different angle, other aggregations can be more fitting.
If there is a specific angle for which weighting by "gross emissions" would be better, it could be added as well, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, we can always add other aggregation metrics and variables for specific projects. For example, ECEMF uses final-electricity as weight (in addition to other weights) because this has project includes electricity-only models.
This PR adds the carbon-price variables (with different forms of aggregation) as used in the ENGAGE project.
fyi @IAMconsortium/common-definitions-coordination