FEC to PEC conversion (obsolete, not in use anymore)

For H2 and synthetic fuels, a conversion from electricity with an efficiency coefficient is chosen, assuming the national energy mix for electricity generation. Once the relevant market has grown in significance, this will be adapted to account for more ways to produce hydrogen, in all its colours.

The energy quantities of primary energy carriers necessary to generate one energy unit of electricity or heat are described in one vector each. The user has the opportunity to alter this vector in the global parameters. If this is not done, these vectors are calculated taking into account dedicated electricity or heat generation, as well as cogeneration (CHP). For all dedicated electricity and heat generation sources, the total input quantities from the six primary energy carriers are divided by the total transformed energy output.

In the case of cogeneration, the complexity lies in the allocation of the inputs to the two different outputs. Among the different methods that are used in such cases, an “equivalence number method” has been chosen. This is mainly due to the fact, that this approach does not require additional exogenous values or assumptions. It is merely assumed that the average (national) efficiency of dedicated electricity and heat generation is improved proportionally for both energy carriers when generated in a cogeneration process in order to reach the CHP’s higher efficiency.

These two components are weighted with the share of energy generated by dedicated and cogeneration power plants with the final to primary energy carriers conversion vectors as result. The input values stem from the Eurostat complete energy balances and from the EU Reference Scenario 2020.

This approach has been discontinued for several reasons. First and foremost, the vectors combining generation mix and plant efficiency were not tangible. On the one hand, hardly any user had these kind of figures at hand. Moreover, the fact that the coefficients of this kind of generation mix wouldn’t add up to 1 also caused some confusion. Another reason was the fact that the necessary data was not the future and instead needed several assumptions to be calculated from similar values. Finally, the approach was not in line with the general philosophy of the MICATool to keep things and changing parameters as simple and straight-forward as possible.

The corresponding equations of the former calculation are shown below:

A. Total primary energy saving for several years for each primary energy carrier:

\(\Delta E_{{\rm P}, pe, ss, a, y} = \Delta E_{{\rm P_{con}}, pe, ss, a, y} + \Delta E_{{\rm P_{map}}pe, ss, a, y}\)

\(\Delta E_{{\rm P}, pe, ss, a, y} =\) Total primary energy savings

\(\Delta E_{{\rm P_{con}}, pe, ss, a, y} =\) Converted primary energy saving from electricity and heat generation

\(\Delta E_{{\rm P_{map}}pe, ss, a, y} =\) mapping of \(\Delta E_{e, ss, a, y}\) to primary energy carriers

B. Primary energy saving for a given id_primary_energy_carrier, id_action_type and year:

\(\Delta E_{{\rm P_{con}}, pe, ss, a, y} =k_{{\rm heat}, pe, y} \cdot \Delta E_{{\rm heat}, ss, a, y} + k_{{\rm elec}, pe, y} \cdot (\Delta E_{{\rm elec}, ss, a, y} + k_{{\rm h2}, y} \cdot \Delta E_{{\rm H2}, ss, a, y})\)

\(\Delta E_{{\rm P_{con}}, pe, ss, a, y}\): Conventional primary energy saving for primary energy carrier \(pe\) and year \(y\) for heat and electricity

\(k_{{\rm heat}, pe, y}\): Coefficient for heat (id_parameter = 20)

\(k_{{\rm elec}, pe, y}\): Coefficient for electricity (id_parameter = 21)

\(k_{{\rm H2}, pe, y}\): Coefficient for H2 and synthetic fuels (id_parameter = 22)

\(\Delta E_{{\rm elec}, ss, a, y} =\) Final energy saving for electricity (= \(\Delta E_{e, ss, a, y}\) for e=1), follows from here

\(\Delta E_{{\rm heat}, ss, a, y} =\) Final energy saving for heat (= \(\Delta E_{e, ss, u, y}\) for e=7), follows from #24

\(\Delta E_{{\rm H2}, ss, a, y} =\) Final energy saving for hydrogen and synthetic carburants (= \(\Delta E_{e, ss, a, y}\) for e=8), follows from here

C. Import script for coefficients

\(k_{{\rm heat}, pe, y} = \begin{cases} \frac{E_{{\rm in, heat}, pe, y} + \tau_{{\rm CHP, heat}, y} \cdot E_{{\rm in, CHP}, pe, y}}{E_{{\rm out, heat}, y} + E_{{\rm out, CHP}, heat, y}} \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, CHP, heat}, y} \neq 0\\ \frac{ E_{{\rm in, heat}, pe, y} }{ E_{{\rm out, heat}, y} } \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, CHP, heat}, y} = 0 \quad{\rm and} \quad E_{{\rm out, heat}, y} \neq 0\\ 0 \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, CHP, heat}, y} = 0 \quad{\rm and} \quad E_{{\rm out, heat}, y} = 0\\ \end{cases}\)

\(k_{{\rm elec}, pe, y} = \begin{cases} \frac{E_{{\rm in, elec}, pe, y} + \tau_{{\rm CHP, elec}, y} \cdot E_{{\rm in, CHP}, pe, y}}{E_{{\rm out, elec}, y} + E_{{\rm out, CHP}, elec, y}} \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, CHP, elec}, y} \neq 0\\ \frac{ E_{{\rm in, elec}, pe, y} }{ E_{{\rm out, elec}, y} } \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, CHP, elec}, y} = 0 \quad{\rm and} \quad E_{{\rm out, elec}, y} \neq 0\\ 0 \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, CHP, elec}, y} = 0 \quad{\rm and} \quad E_{{\rm out, elec}, y} = 0\\ \end{cases}\)

The figures from Eurostat’s NRG balances for main activity producer (MAP) and autoproducer (AP) need to be merged:

\(E_{{\rm in, heat}, pe, y} = TI\_EHG\_MAPH\_E_{pe, y} + TI\_EHG\_APH\_E_{pe, y}\)

\(E_{{\rm out, heat}, y} = TO\_EHG\_MAPH_{{\rm heat}, y} + TO\_EHG\_APH_{{\rm heat}, y}\)

\(E_{{\rm in, elec}, pe, y} = TI\_EHG\_MAPE\_E_{pe, y} + TI\_EHG\_APE\_E_{pe, y}\)

\(E_{{\rm out, elec}, y} = TO\_EHG\_MAPE_{{\rm elec}, y} + TO\_EHG\_APE_{{\rm elec}, y}\)

\(E_{{\rm in, CHP}, pe, y} = TI\_EHG\_MAPCHP\_E_{pe, y} + TI\_EHG\_APCHP\_E_{pe, y}\)

\(E_{{\rm out, CHP}, heat, y} = TO\_EHG\_MAPCHP_{heat, y} + TO\_EHG\_APCHP_{heat, y}\)

\(E_{{\rm out, CHP}, elec, y} = TO\_EHG\_MAPCHP_{elec, y} + TO\_EHG\_APCHP_{elec, y}\)

Until now, the nrg_bal codes TI_EHG_MAPH_E, TI_EHG_MAPCHP, etc. are not mapped in our data import for id_parameter.

=> Since we do not need the energy data as parameters, but only the coefficients, we can hard code those relations in the import script for the coefficients.

During the import, the siec codes for the energy carriers need to be mapped a) for the inputs: according to the already existing mapping mapping__siec__energy_carrier for id_primary_energy_carrier b) for the outputs: according to the id_final_energy_carrier (or use the only existing entry)

The energy usage share of CHP plants for the generation of electricity and heat (source) follows from an equivalence number (\(\tau\)) method:

\(\tau_{{\rm CHP, heat}, y} = \frac{\sigma_{{\rm I/O, heat}, y} \cdot E_{{\rm out, CHP, heat}, y}}{\sigma_{{\rm I/O, heat}, y} \cdot E_{{\rm out, CHP, heat}, y} + \sigma_{{\rm I/O, elec}, y} \cdot E_{{\rm out, CHP, elec}, y} }\)

\(\tau_{{\rm CHP, elec}, y} = \frac{\sigma_{{\rm I/O, elec}, y} \cdot E_{{\rm out, CHP, elec}, y}}{\sigma_{{\rm I/O, elec}, y} \cdot E_{{\rm out, CHP, elec}, y} + \sigma_{{\rm I/O, heat}, y} \cdot E_{{\rm out, CHP, heat}, y}}\)

The result might be NaN for the case that both outputs are zero. However, that case is already handled in the equation for the coefficient.

The input/output-ratios \(\sigma\) follow from:

\(\sigma_{{\rm I/O, elec}, y} = \begin{cases} \frac{\sum_e E_{{\rm in, elec}, e, y}}{E_{{\rm out, elec}, y}} \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, elec}, y} \neq 0\\ \frac{\sum_c \sigma_{{\rm I/O, elec}, y, c}}{n_c} \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, elec}, y} = 0\\ \end{cases}\)

\(\sigma_{{\rm I/O, heat}, y} = \begin{cases} \frac{\sum_e E_{{\rm in, heat}, e, y}}{E_{{\rm out, heat}, y}} \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, heat}, y} \neq 0\\ \frac{\sum_c \sigma_{{\rm I/O, heat}, y, c}}{n_c} \quad{\rm for} \quad E_{{\rm out, heat}, y} = 0\\ \end{cases}\)

\(c\) represents regions with \(E_{out, ...} \neq \textrm{0}\) (\(n_c\) being their number)