IEA-ETSAP Forum

Full Version: Change the fuel share over time (as a scenario)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi,  Currently, I use today's Sweden blended share for both diesel and gasoline. Yet, I would like that these shares, would increase, over time (as a scenario). How could thsi be done? Best, /M
How do you define the today's share in the model?  Using FLO_SHAR perhaps, or...? You should be able to define the future shares in the same way, but as a time-series projection for the future years, in a regular scenario file.
(23-10-2023, 07:27 PM)Antti-L Wrote: [ -> ]How do you define the today's share in the model?  Using FLO_SHAR perhaps, or...? You should be able to define the future shares in the same way, but as a time-series projection for the future years, in a regular scenario file.
This is how I define today (the share does not change in the base case for both gasoline and diesel, contrarily to biogas) /M
Ok, thanks for the info. So, you are defining the blending shares at the vehicle technologies? That would make things somewhat complicated, assuming the vehicle technologies are vintaged, because FLO_SHAR is then vintage-dependent as well. Because of that, the input shares would remain constant over the lifetime of each vintage, and would be able to change only vintage-wise. Currently there is basically no other option for defining non-vintaged shares for vintaged technologies than by user constraints. I would be inclined to suggest moving the blending to fuel technologies upstream of the vehicle technologies. That would make it easy for defining the share projections independently of the vehicle vintages.  But of course, with user-constraints it would also be reasonably easy to model even with such vehicle-level blending.
Hi, Thanks for your answer. Two questions: 1. How could I then define the fuel share, if not at the vehicle technology? 2. If keep the blending share to be defined at the vehicle technology, how then I could use user-constraints scenario, in this very case? Thanks, /M
Actually, according to your picture, it seems that your vehicles might not be vintaged after all, and if they are not vintaged, then the solution would be very easy: Just define the scenario-specific input share projections in a regular scenario file, using a TFM_INS / TFM_INS-TS table. But anyway, you seem to have three types of fuel blends: gas, diesel, and gasoline  blend. So, you could introduce a process for making each of these blends, with the corresponding two inputs and one blended output fuel. Then just replace those vehicle input fuels  representing the blending components with the corresponding blended fuel. The blending processes would be something like:   ● Gas blending: Inputs:  TRABG, TRANG ; Output: TRAGASBL   ● Diesel blending: Inputs: TRADS, TRABIO ; Output:  TRADSTBL   ● Gasoline blending: Inputs: TRAGS, TRAETH ; Output:  TRAGSLBL Then it would be straightforward to define the current and future blending shares for these three blending processes. According to my experience, this is a very common way of modeling such blended road transport fuels. The small drawback in this approach is that the GHG emissions would need to be accounted at the blending processes, but usually that is not any significant issue. The advantages are the simpler vehicle processes, and easiness of adding some additional blending components (e.g. electrofuels) as well. From your picture, it also seems that your blending shares may be all fixed shares.  If that would be sufficient, then there is also a way of defining non-vintaged share projections at the vehicle processes, by using process parameters. However, if fixed shares are not sufficient but the shares should be flexible, user constraints could indeed always be used for the modeling of non-vintaged blending shares at vintaged vehicle technologies, when such are deemed necessary. But for now, as there are several aspects of your modeling approach I don't know, I am not going to try giving detailed instructions for using these two other options right now. If you can clarify the questions above (are the processes actually vintaged, do you need other than fixed shares, do you in fact need blending at the vehicle technologies?), I could try and give some more help later, if needed.
Looking at your picture again, I see you are defining multiple EFF parameters for the vehicle technologies.  Please note that EFF does not represent a commodity-specific efficiency, and so only one of your multiple values will survive, and the resulting EFF is then applied to the whole input group. I guess you meant to define commodity-specific input efficiencies, and if so, you should better use CEFF-I instead of EFF.
(24-10-2023, 06:24 PM)Antti-L Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at your picture again, I see you are defining multiple EFF parameters for the vehicle technologies.  Please note that EFF does not represent a commodity-specific efficiency, and so only one of your multiple values will survive, and the resulting EFF is then applied to the whole input group. I guess you meant to define commodity-specific input efficiencies, and if so, you should better use CEFF-I instead of EFF.
Can I then simply replace CEFF-I by EFF as done in the figure attached? /M
Yes, what you have in the Figure (CEFF-I) looks fine to me.