Which model features matter? An experimental approach to evaluate power market modeling choices

被引:21
作者
Siala, Kais [1 ]
Mier, Mathias [2 ]
Schmidt, Lukas [3 ,4 ]
Torralba-Diaz, Laura [5 ]
Sheykhha, Siamak [6 ]
Savvidis, Georgios [5 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Munich, Chair Renewable & Sustainable Energy Syst, Munich, Germany
[2] Univ Munich, Ifo Inst Econ Res, Munich, Germany
[3] Univ Cologne, Inst Energy Econ, Cologne, Germany
[4] Univ Cologne, Dept Econ, Cologne, Germany
[5] Univ Stuttgart, Inst Energy Econ & Rat Energy Use IER, Stuttgart, Germany
[6] Rhein Westfal TH Aachen, Inst Future Energy Consumer Needs & Behav FCN, Sch Business & Econ, EON Energy Res Ctr, Aachen, Germany
关键词
Model comparison; Power system; Optimization; Simulation; Temporal resolution; Spatial resolution; ENERGY; IMPACT; FLEXIBILITY; STORAGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.energy.2022.123301
中图分类号
O414.1 [热力学];
学科分类号
摘要
A novel experimental approach of inter-and intramodel comparisons is conducted with five power market models to give recommendations for modelers working on decarbonization pathways of Europe until 2050. The experiments investigate the impact of model type (optimization vs. simulation), planning horizon (intertemporal vs. myopic), temporal resolution (8760 vs. 384 h), and spatial resolution (28 countries vs. 12 mega-regions). The model type fundamentally determines the evolution of capacity expansion. Planning horizon (assumed foresight of firms) plays a minor role for scenarios with high carbon prices. For low carbon prices in turn, results from myopic models deviate considerably from those of intertemporal models. Lower temporal and spatial resolutions foster wind power via storage and via neglected transmission boundaries, respectively. Using simulation instead of optimization frameworks, a shorter planning horizon of firms, or lower temporal and spatial resolutions might be necessary to reduce the computational complexity. This paper delivers recommendations on how to limit the dis-crepancies in such cases. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   Flexibility in Europe's power sector - An additional requirement or an automatic complement? [J].
Bertsch, Joachim ;
Growitsch, Christian ;
Lorenczik, Stefan ;
Nagl, Stephan .
ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2016, 53 :118-131
[2]  
Bohringer C., 2004, ROLLE ERNEUERBARER E, V21, P123
[3]   European decarbonisation pathways under alternative technological and policy choices: A multi-model analysis [J].
Capros, Pantelis ;
Paroussos, Leonidas ;
Fragkos, Panagiotis ;
Tsani, Stella ;
Boitier, Baptiste ;
Wagner, Fabian ;
Busch, Sebastian ;
Resch, Gustav ;
Blesl, Markus ;
Bollen, Johannes .
ENERGY STRATEGY REVIEWS, 2014, 2 (3-4) :231-245
[4]   A review of computer tools for analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems [J].
Connolly, D. ;
Lund, H. ;
Mathiesen, B. V. ;
Leahy, M. .
APPLIED ENERGY, 2010, 87 (04) :1059-1082
[5]   Soft-linking of a power systems model to an energy systems model [J].
Deane, J. P. ;
Chiodi, Alessandro ;
Gargiulo, Maurizio ;
Gallachoir, Brian P. O. .
ENERGY, 2012, 42 (01) :303-312
[6]   The importance of time resolution, operational flexibility and risk aversion in quantifying the value of energy storage in long-term energy planning studies [J].
Diaz, Gabriel ;
Inzunza, Andres ;
Moreno, Rodrigo .
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2019, 112 :797-812
[7]  
Dorfner J., 2018, [No title captured], DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1228851
[8]  
European Commission, 2020, Polyand perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
[9]  
European Commission Communication com, 2018, EUROPEAN COMMISSION
[10]   EUROPEAN ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND DECARBONIZATION STRATEGIES BEYOND 2030 - A SECTORAL MULTI-MODEL DECOMPOSITION [J].
Foerster, Hannah ;
Schumacher, Katja ;
de Cian, Enrica ;
Huebler, Michael ;
Keppo, Ilkka ;
Mima, Silvana ;
Sands, Ronald D. .
CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMICS, 2013, 4