Topic: Training Ex. 4 (p. 50, 54-56)Subscribe | Previous | Next
Ravita Prasad 4/22/2015
1195 Views Hi Taylor
I have few queries with Training Ex. 4. These are:
1. Ex. 4.3.1 (p. 50) - Efficient lights programm starts in 2012, so why in Technology Performance are we entering the data in Current Accounts for the Final Energy Intensity?
2. Ex. 4.3.7 (p.54) - I have entered the same cost values for Indigenous production and imports for primary and secondary resources. Is this correct?
3. Ex. 4.3.8 (p.55) - I linked the environmental Loading of each fuel in Demand and Electricity Generation module one by one as done in Ex. 1.5. For the Pulp and Paper Industry, heat generated is from wood. To link environmental loading IPCC Tier 1 factor was chosen for biomass fuel not wood. Why is this?
4. Ex. 4.4 (p.55) - After entering all the data from Ex. 4.3.1 to Ex. 4.3.8, the results which I get for Cost-Benefit is a bit different. For Resources, my total value is -0.76 and Imports is 1.72. And these give me different NPV and Cost of avoiding GHGs. Please find attached my Cost-Benefit Results. Can you please tell me where I went wrong? I have gone back to primary and secondary Resources and check the production and import costs. I do not know what else to check.
5. Ex. 4.4 (p.56) - To view the results graphically, I went to results view and go to Costs. Under costs, I see Social Costs, Module Cost Balance, Sales Revenue and Cost of Production. Where do I get the Cumulative Discounted Costs: Mitigation Vs. Reference Scenario as shown on p.56?
Appreciate your assistance.
Regards
Ravita
Cost-benefit results Training Ex 4.xlsx [5]
Taylor Binnington 4/24/2015
1193 Views Hi Ravita,
1. Often it makes sense to assign characteristics to each technology (i.e. energy intensity) in Current Accounts, even though the technology may not yet exist in your model. In the appropriate scenario, you 'turn it on' by entering a nonzero Activity Level. The advantage to doing this is that the Final Energy Intensity will be inherited to other scenarios, in case you want to invoke some efficient lighting in a different scenario.
2. Yes.
3. LEAP simply makes a guess at the most appropriate IPCC factor - feel free to change the TED branch of emission factors to 'Wood' before adding them.
4. It looks like you've identified the Import Cost as where the problem arises. Have you checked to make sure that projections for rising fuel prices have been entered into your scenarios?
5. Click on the 'More' button to the right of the Result selector, in Results view. For more help navigating the results view, please have a look at this help file:
http://www.energycommunity.org/WebHelpPro/Views/Results_Screen.htm
Hope this helps,
Taylor
Ravita Prasad 6/24/2015
1051 Views Hi Taylor
Thank you for your answers. I managed to get all except number 4. I still have differences in my import values. I have checked resources: indigenous costs and import costs in current and ref accounts. In current account values are typed. For ref. Interp function is used to write the 2040 value. Also, I have checked that in Electricity generation, fuel costs refers to indigenous cost in Resource Branch. I have also updated LEAP for the latest version. My cost-benefit summary is attached as Excel file. What am I missing?
Appreciate your help.
Regards
Ravita
Cost benefit results.xlsx [3]
Taylor Binnington 7/2/2015
1047 Views Hi Ravita,
Can you reproduce each of the numbers in the energy balance table for 2040, which is shown on p. 45 of the training materials?
http://www.energycommunity.org/documents/LEAPTrainingExerciseEnglish2014.pdf
This will help you confirm if you have the actual import numbers correct (as an intermediate stage, rather than trying to compare the costs of imports).
Taylor