Topic: MACC for TurkeySubscribe | Previous | Next
Lasse Ohlsen 3/22/2016
371 Views Dear Community,
I am new to LEAP. Just wanted to ask if its possible to calculate the MACC for Turkey by help of the Excel tool, which is also part of the GHG Mitigation Screening Exercise? I know that the country from the exercises is a fictive one, but it has quite some similarities with Turkey according to my understanding. I read somewhere that the Excel tool is based on GACMO (which is rather complicated I must admit). For my master thesis I have the task to conduct a GHG Mitigation Assessment of the Turkish energy sector, but I couldn't find a comprehensive model yet. Can you please tell me how I can use the Excel tool for my thesis? I understood the exercise (also the LEAP part) perfectly. It's just that I can't find a starting point because such an assessment involves so many variables.
All the best,
Lasse
Taylor Binnington 3/23/2016
362 Views Hi Lasse,
I think that the most important lessons from the GHG Mitigation Excel tool (found here http://www.energycommunity.org/default.asp?action=42) can be taken form its methodology, not necessarily its technical structure. Key elements of conducting a mitigation assessment are:
a) Quantification of the cost of each option, relative to a baseline,
b) Quantification of the GHG abatement potential of each option, relative to a baseline.
There are subtleties in the choice of baseline to which costs and mitigation are compared. For an overview, I suggest a review of this document (specifically section 3.10.1):
http://unfccc.int/resource/cd_roms/na1/mitigation/Resource_materials/Greenhouse_Gas_Mitigation_Assessment_Guidebook_1995/chap03.pdf
You may be able to repurpose our Excel document for Turkey, by replacing some of the numerical assumptions with more appropriate local data. Additional mitigation options can be added in new worksheets (perhaps by copying and pasting existing worksheets), and incorporated into the MACC itself following the same method laid out in the "Cost Curve" worksheet.
Hope this is useful,
Taylor
Lasse Ohlsen 3/24/2016
Lasse Ohlsen 5/1/2016
213 Views Dear Taylor,
I just wanted to ask which data you used for the Excel Spreadsheet tool (GHG Mitigation Assessment EX)? Is the cost data, etc. fictional or is it simply averaged data from existing cases?
Taylor Binnington 5/2/2016
211 Views Hi Lasse,
The data aren't necessarily fictional - they represent cost estimates based on available technology when the exercise was created a few years ago. But they have not been averaged over a number of real-life case studies.
If you use the data as a starting point, I would strongly recommend updating your costs/technical assumptions with more current sources.
Taylor
Lasse Ohlsen 7/4/2016
75 Views Dear Taylor,
while working with the GHG Mitigation Excel tool, I came across a small issue. Enclosed to this message you can find a screenshot of my Excel workbook for the mitigation option hydropower. It is assumed that ~22,7 GW of capacity will be installed until 2030 (displacing coal-fired power plants). As you can see, I used the formula that was part of the training marterials for my own calculations. I just changed the assumptions - efficiency is 85 percent and the availability fraction equals 0,9. Now here's my actual question: Could it be that the formula for calculating the electricity production in MWh per year is wrong or did I enter the data incorrectly? 210.651.205 MWh per year seem way too much compared to the historical hydro electricity generation in Turkey which amounted to 59.400 GWh in 2013 with a capacity of 22,2 GW. Or is it just that my assumptions are highly unrealistic? To assess the plant's efficiency one needs a factor smaller than 1 (for instance 75%) and ...*0,9/0,85 already equals 1,059?
Thanks in advance for your answer! :)
Best,
Lasse
Emily Ghosh 7/5/2016
68 Views **UPDATED POST**
Hi Lasse,
I believe you may have inputted your assumptions incorrectly into Excel. I was wondering why you had included an efficiency factor? The formula used to calculate Electricity Production is Capacity (MW) x Availability (hours). Therefore, the formula in Excel should be written as:
=B4*8760*0,9
I also think your assumption of 90% availability may be too high. Based on the 2013 values you provided, hydropower was only available for 2676 hours (59.400 GWh/22,2 GW). This is equal to only 31% availability (2676 hrs/8760 hrs).
Hope this helps!
Emily
Lasse Ohlsen 7/6/2016
56 Views Dear Emily,
first of all I want to thank you for your prompt answer! I assume that you mean the capacity factor with availability right?
Kind regards,
Lasse
Emily Ghosh 7/6/2016
55 Views Hi Lasse,
Not a problem!
Also, I was referring to the efficiency factor of 85%. I don't believe it is required to calculate Electricity Production. However, if you think there is a reason why it needs to be included in the calculation, please let us know.
Thanks!
Emily
Lasse Ohlsen 7/8/2016
35 Views Dear Emily,
I just have a last question regarding electricity production calculations in general: Is it correct to say that the capacity factor consists of the availability fraction and process efficiency of a generator?
Best,
Lasse
Taylor Binnington 7/12/2016
33 Views Hi Lasse,
No - the capacity factor is unrelated to the efficiency. I wonder if two concepts are being conflated: the efficiency and the availability of a power plant. Note that sometimes the word "availability" is used to mean "capacity factor": it is the percentage of hours in a year during which the plant could operate at its full capacity, or equivalently, the average percentage of the plant's capacity which is used continuously throughout the year.
Either way, to calculate electricity production you only require the nameplate capacity and the capacity factor (or "availability", as has been used in this thread) for the plant. The MWh of generation per year is then simply (installed MW) * (capacity factor) * (8760 hours per year).
The plant efficiency is required only if you need to convert between the plant's output and input. Since nameplate capacity is, by convention, already given in units of *output* capacity, you do not need it to calculate the electricity output.
Taylor