-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
merge industry subsector structuremappingIO files back into originals #448
Comments
|
I guess I should know but to be honest, I never understood why we have stationary in the model and so I don't know what this is supposed to be. From REMIND code I understand that |
It is sufficient to know that it is used somewhere in REMIND. |
It is the only realisation that is used and operational. |
Ouch. |
@robinhasse "stationary" is the aggregate of buildings, industry, services, etc... everything that is not moving. That was a aggregate used many years ago, when we did not want to increase the number of ces-nests too much. As it is: such things keep on living in code after they were abandoned. Anyways... |
Thanks, Nico. It is not just a renaming. We used to only have |
@robinhasse did I understand correctly that this increased the number of primary inputs into the overall CES-tree? If so, I recommend to strongly evaluate whether this is really necessary. Every CES-nest and -branch makes the model more difficult to calibrate. |
@nicobauer, you are about two and a half years late with that admonition. And the calibration can deal with that just fine. |
but is there actually a "heat pump electricity" input for 2005 in REMIND? because how would you get such a value if IEA doesn't tell you how electricity for residential splits into the different uses? or is there some buildings-related adjustment on the IEA numbers that splits the elec going into buildings by a 10%/90% split into heat pump / other elec? so it seems to me that (after checking it is correct) this part would need to be transferred into a new "structuremapping_IO_merged" - or how is your process proposal for this, Michaja? I would think creating a third "merged" mapping will best allow us to determine if it really produces all the right output when the two old instances are replaced by the new merged one. |
My plan is to recreate the output of the |
could you briefly think about this and confirm/correct, @robinhasse ? |
|
Hm, I had thought the original question if/whether in your list I see |
If that is the case, it applies to the |
Ok, I understand. Is there any further support I can offer for anything in this issue, or is it mainly "finding time" ? |
Nothing right now. |
pushing this up again - is there any progress? if not - what are the chances this advances over the next week, and how can they be increased? |
This is not going to be finished next week, and the chances of changing that are zero (short of Joshua 10:13). |
thanks for the info. (and I wanted to write "weeks", not "week", but given your reply on the other issue I guess the answer remains the same |
But to forward this issue in general:
@robertpietzcker are |
Running
calcOutput("IO", subtype = "output", file = "f04_IO_output.cs4r")
once withstructuremappingIO_outputs.csv
and once withstructuremappingIO_outputs_Industry_subsectors.csv
as the mapping file yields two results:f04_IO_output.csv
f04_IO_output_Industry_subsectors.csv
Differences where
outputs
andsubsectors
have different values are limited toDifferences where
outputs
has values, butsubsectors
does not:Differences where
subsectors
has values, butoutputs
does not:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: