Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix geothermal heat potentials #1516

Open
wants to merge 21 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

amos-schledorn
Copy link
Contributor

@amos-schledorn amos-schledorn commented Jan 27, 2025

The current geothermal heat potentials from Manz et al. 2024 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148124001769) are likely inflated because we use those before Manz et al mapped them to what they assume to be future district heating areas (different from PyPSA-Eur but urban areas).
This was discovered in correspondence with the authors.

Changes proposed in this Pull Request

  • This update uses an Excel output from Manz et al rather than a geopackage. The new data has already been mapped to future district-heating areas.
  • The new data is provided on LAU-region level which heavily simplifies the spatial matching. That allows us to drop the OnshoreRegion class and do a simple matching. LAU region geo data is now retrieved for this rule.
  • In preparation for integrating further heat sources, the previous generic mapping of any ISI heat potentials (i.e. those computed by Manz et al.) has been replaced by a dedicated geothermal potential calculation. In this process, some unneeded config settings have been dropped.

Open issue

  • LAU regions might sometimes be mapped incorrectly to onshore regions. I suggest tracking this in a separate issue

Checklist

  • I tested my contribution locally and it works as intended.
  • Code and workflow changes are sufficiently documented.
  • Changes in configuration options are added in config/config.default.yaml.
  • Changes in configuration options are documented in doc/configtables/*.csv.
  • Sources of newly added data are documented in doc/data_sources.rst.
  • A release note doc/release_notes.rst is added.

Testing

Config

scenario:
  clusters:
    - 40
  planning_horizons:
    - 2030

countries: ['DE']

foresight: overnight

clustering:
  temporal:
    resolution_sector: 365h


sector:
  heat_pump_sources:
      urban central:
      - air
      - geothermal

Results

As expected, geothermal heat utilisation decreases:

Master

image

Feature

image

@amos-schledorn amos-schledorn marked this pull request as draft January 27, 2025 10:06
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 27, 2025

Validator Report

I am the Validator. Download all artifacts here.
I'll be back and edit this comment for each new commit.

❗ Run failed!

Download 'logs' artifact to see more details.

  • master failed in: no_logs_found
  • fix-isi-heat-potentials failed in: no_logs_found

Model Metrics

Benchmarks Image not available Image not available Image not available

Comparing fix-isi-heat-potentials (c92487d) with master (c61f1a3).
Branch is 4 commits ahead and 0 commits behind.
Last updated on 2025-01-27 12:11:01 CET.

@amos-schledorn amos-schledorn marked this pull request as ready for review January 27, 2025 11:52
Copy link
Member

@fneum fneum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good as far as I can see. Once @cpschau gives the go, can be merged.

The one thing I request: For mock_snakemake we now move all downloads to dedicated retrieve* rules (#1274). This should be done for the storage() inputs here as well.

Copy link
Contributor

@cpschau cpschau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nothing to object code-wise, so it can be merged after retrieval of input sources is outsourced. Positive correlation of geothermal with other p2h links seems plausible.

@amos-schledorn amos-schledorn requested a review from fneum February 12, 2025 11:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants