• 564 views | 3 messages Discussion: LEAP
    Topic: Query on OSeMOSYS input data generated by LEAP Subscribe | Previous | Next
  • David Christopherson 11/28/2012

    2071 Views

    Hello again,

    I have recently been looking in detail at the source code for OSeMOSYS and the .txt files that are used as an input for the model. As part of this, I was recently examining the OSeMOSYS input data generated by LEAP when it was asked to produce results for the Optimization Exercise Area in the LEAP tutorial.

    In this data set, the Total Energy Demand is defined by a single branch (electricity) and is set to go from 0 to 200 thousand GW-h between 2010 and 2020. In the OSeMOSYS input file, if I am correct, this data should is stored under the 'SpecifiedAnnualDemand' parameter in units of PetaJoules. Since the conversion between these two units is 1 thousand GW-h = 3.6 PJ, I anticipated this entry to read:

    ------

    param SpecifiedAnnualDemand default 0 :=
    [*,*,R1]: F1 :=
    2011 72
    2012 144
    2013 216
    2014 228
    2015 360
    2016 432
    2017 504
    2018 576
    2019 648
    2020 720

    ------

    However, the entry instead reads...

    ------

    param SpecifiedAnnualDemand default 0 :=
    [*,*,R1]: F1 :=
    2011 80
    2012 160
    2013 240
    2014 320
    2015 400
    2016 480
    2017 560
    2018 640
    2019 720
    2020 800

    ------

    ... suggesting a conversion factor of 4 had been used.

    Is this a error in the input file or have I just mis-interpreted the .txt file?

    I am using LEAP version: 2012.0.0.25.

    Many Thanks,

    David.
  • Manuel Welsch 11/29/2012
      Best Response

    2063 Views

    Dear David,

    Great that you are looking into the details of the OSeMOSYS-LEAP interlinkages.

    In the OSeMOSYS set-up for LEAP, the SpecifiedAnnualDemand is the total demand for electricity. Therefore, LEAP adds the transmission losses to this demand.

    E.g., for 2010, a total demand of 80 PJ -10% losses results in the final energy demand of 72 PJ. The conversion factor is therefore 3.6, as it should be.

    Best regards,
    Manuel
  • David Christopherson 12/4/2012
      Best Response

    2047 Views

    Interesting! Thanks for the swift response.

    David.