Inconsistency in emission variables about piaminterfaces HOT 5 CLOSED

Yes, if the summations are then correct I approve!

from piaminterfaces.

I don't really know. Emissions|CO2|Energy and Emissions|CO2|Industrial Processes should definitively add up to Emissions|CO2|Energy and Industrial Processes, so if that's not the case something is wrong. However, I can't say where the mistake is, that depends on the definition of vm_emiTeMkt. If that excludes emissions from synthetic fuels, then these would be added with the Carbon Management variables. @Renato-Rodrigues or @fschreyer might know more

from piaminterfaces.

Emi|CO2|+|Energy include CCU flows, see here, while vm_emiTeMkt does not. So, I would say the NGFS mapping is wrong. You do not need to add carbon usage to the energy emissions variable as it is already contained / taken care of (not all CCU is accounted under energy; we account CCU at the CO2 provider).

from piaminterfaces.

NGFS mapping

This is actually the AR6 mapping, but as far as I can see the REMIND AR6 submissions don't have this inconsistency. So something must have changed more recently (but also not super recently, as our NGFS runs are from summer 2023).

The AR6 mapping and the part of the reporting that Felix and I linked have not been changed in the last 2 years, so I have to admit, I don't understand what's going on. Did any other project recently use the AR6 mapping?

from piaminterfaces.

Thanks Felix! If there are no objections (@strefler @amerfort ?) I will remove the Carbon Management variables from the summations. Originally, they were added by Silvia, almost 3 years ago to avoid inconsistencies (see here ) but it seems our reporting changed at some point.

from piaminterfaces.