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

Investment cost of underground natural gas storage too low by a factor of ~7 #154

Open
1 task done
koen-vg opened this issue Nov 6, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
1 task done
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@koen-vg
Copy link
Contributor

koen-vg commented Nov 6, 2024

Checklist

  • I am using the current master branch or the latest release. Please indicate:

Describe the Bug

The gas storage investment cost uses the wrong data field. We set:

def add_gas_storage(data):
    # [...]
    investment = gas_storage.loc['Total cost, 100 mio Nm3 active volume'].iloc[0]

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the "Total cost, 100 mio Nm3 active volume" field simply tells us the cost of the natural gas needed to fill the the 100mio storage cavern. Actually using the "Specific investment [MEUR/MWh]" field gives a value that is about 7 times higher.

The documentation for the add_gas_storage function helpfully tells me that "add gas storage tech data, different methodolgy than other sheets and therefore added later". Could someone chip on why the methodology is different for gas storage? To me it looks like we clearly need to drop the manual investment cost part of that function. Maybe the charger/discharger parts of the function should remain, but gas storage itself could be added just like e.g. hydrogen underground storage is added (no special treatment needed)?

@koen-vg koen-vg added the bug Something isn't working label Nov 6, 2024
@koen-vg
Copy link
Contributor Author

koen-vg commented Nov 12, 2024

Alternatively, maybe I was too quick to judge here, and the point is that there is basically no cost to establishing the actual storage volume apart from the cost of the buffer gas; the "real" capital cost is in the "charger" (injection) and "discharger" (withdrawal).

If that's the case, I will say I was prompted to open this issue because of how pypsa-eur adds gas storage, where injection/withdrawal costs are ignored. Maybe this should be an issue at pypsa-eur instead?

@lisazeyen maybe you can help me here? It looks like maybe you added this code originally? Thanks in advance for any help!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant