Adding documentation for economic viability methods #233
Conversation
kaskranenburgQ
force-pushed
the
economic-insights
branch
from
362b9a0 to
f85c8ec
Compare
kaskranenburgQ
force-pushed
the
economic-insights
branch
from
f85c8ec to
db6fc3b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's generally quite clear, I've left a couple of cosmetic suggestions. For the equations we may want to look into using Latex in the docs for consistent sizing or making a more concerted effort to style pngs consistently with the css - I'm not sure if that's something we should spend a lot of time on in the short term
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor thing: The screenshots come through as different sizes
Co-authored-by: louispt1 <[email protected]>
docs/main/economic-viability.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| title: Economic viability of power plants | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The doucmentation is not only about power plants. It does not feel like this title covers the entire scope.
|
I would also update the documentation at the dashboard item concerning profitability of power plants. |
| 4. **Economic viability (€/MWh)** | ||
| Economic viability is calculated by subtracting OPEX and CAPEX from revenue, as shown below: | ||
|
|
||
|  |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The size of this equation is much larger than that of the other equation.
docs/main/economic-viability.md
Outdated
| 2. **OPEX (€/MWh)** | ||
| The OPEX in these tables differs from the regular OPEX calculated in the ETM. Fuel input costs are included. For conventional power plants, fuel and emission costs are added to the OPEX. For technologies using electricity as an input (such as batteries and flexible electricity demand technologies), OPEX is based on the hourly electricity market calculations in the ETM. The OPEX formula is illustrated below: | ||
|
|
||
|  |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This formula seems somewhat misleading, since it is the exact same as for the OPEX in the 'normal' cost methods documentation. You describe in the documentation above this equation that it differs from the 'normal' cost methods - so where in this equation are the fuel and emission costs?
docs/main/economic-viability.md
Outdated
| - **Economic viability of electricity storage technologies** | ||
| - **Economic viability of flexible electricity demand technologies** | ||
|
|
||
| As described in the [Cost methods](cost-methods.md), the ETM separates fuel costs from OPEX and CAPEX for each cost group. To accurately assess the economic viability of power production facilities, fuel costs must be included in the calculations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it is true that fuel costs must be included. I would however rather say that the 'normal' cost method use a systems approach, meaning that fuel and emissions costs are accounted on a system-level and in their own category. These tables use the assets approach.
docs/main/economic-viability.md
Outdated
| - **Economic viability of electricity production technologies** | ||
| - **Economic viability of electricity storage technologies** | ||
| - **Economic viability of flexible electricity demand technologies** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would help to give some example here and link to the documentation "Electricity conversion" and "Electricity storage".
|
|
||
| Some technology categories have more complex cost and revenue structures: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. **CHPs** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to link to the waste output docs here: https://docs.energytransitionmodel.com/contrib/waste-outputs.
| 1. **CHPs** | ||
| CHPs are a special case because they produce both electricity and heat. However, only the revenue from electricity production is considered, as no value is assigned to the heat they generate. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. **Flexible synthetic kerosene production** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to link to the dispatchable kerosene production under "Electricity conversion" here.
| 2. **Flexible synthetic kerosene production** | ||
| Synthetic kerosene production uses both electricity and hydrogen as input carriers. Therefore, fuel cost calculations are based on the input of both carriers. | ||
|
|
||
| 3. **Battery parks & offshore hybrid wind parks** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to link to the always on producers and the hybrid wind here: https://docs.energytransitionmodel.com/contrib/always-on-battery-parks/ and https://docs.energytransitionmodel.com/main/hybrid-offshore-wind
| These plants consist of multiple components. As a result, it is difficult to determine the economic viability of one of the components in the plant. | ||
| For this reason, these have been left out of the tables. | ||
|
|
||
| 4. **Battery electric vehicles** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to link to the costs per sector docs here: https://docs.energytransitionmodel.com/main/cost-overview-per-sector#transport
kaskranenburgQ
force-pushed
the
economic-insights
branch
from
ac41a95 to
97cd8b2
Compare
kaskranenburgQ
force-pushed
the
economic-insights
branch
from
97cd8b2 to
cdb5fa3
Compare
This PR adds documentation for the Economic viability tables.
The cost methods in these tables are different then the regular cost methods.
The regular cost methods are on a system level while the cost methods of the economic viability are on a plant level.
This documentation shows the deviations of these cost methods in respect to the 'regular' cost methods.