European Commission recommends open source tools for hydrogen-related cost-benefit analysis

[Tom Brown]

Hi all,

This may be of interest to some of you (particularly current or
potential PyPSA users, since it's also a plug for PyPSA :-)):

The European Commission via the JRC (Joint Research Centre) has
recommended using open-source tools in its recently published
cost-benefit analysis methodologies for candidate hydrogen and
electrolyser projects:

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/Hydrogen_CBA_metyhodology_FINAL.pdf

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/Electrolysers_CBA_metyhodology_FINAL.pdf

This methodology is required by the 2022 revised TEN-E legislation:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/869/oj

To directly quote:

"While ENTSO_G is free to select any modelling tool for the assessment
of the benefits of candidate hydrogen projects, it is recommended, when
possible and relevant, the use of an open source tool (for instance,
PyPSA [5]) to foster transparency."

and

"While project promoters are free to select any modelling tool for the
assessment of the benefits of their candidate electrolyser projects, it
is recommended, when possible and relevant, the use of an open source
tool (for instance, PyPSA [4]) to foster transparency."


This is in line with the recommendations on transparency from the new
European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change on the CBA in TEN-E:

https://climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/reports-and-publications/towards-a-decarbonised-and-climate-resilient-eu-energy-infrastructure-recommendations-on-an-energy-system-wide-cost-benefit-analysis


"Transparency of market and network models and calculations is key to
ensuring public scrutiny of
political investment decisions based on the TYNDP outputs and is
successfully encouraged in some
American and European jurisdictions (National Grid, 2023; RMI, 2020).
The traditionally closed and
proprietary nature of energy system planning at national levels is no
longer fit for purpose, given the
interconnected market fundamentals and the need for rapid reductions in
GHG emissions and
integration of wind, solar and storage technologies (Morrison, 2018;
Pfenninger et al., 2018). The FAIR
(findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles for data
management, endorsed by among
others the European Commission in the Horizon Europe programme, could
inspire reflection on how
to make the models and calculations more transparent (CSEI, 2022; EC,
2016b; Wilkinson et al., 2016).

"The Advisory Board therefore recommends the following:

"The market and network models used by ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G to calculate
projects’ relative costs
and benefits should be made as accessible as possible based on existing
good practice across the
world in line with the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and
reusable) principles. The models
could be uniformly applied by ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G and made available to
non-TSO project
promoters for the CBA calculations."




It would be great if we could converge on open models and standards for
the assessment of new energy infrastructure projects, particularly as
the system becomes more and more interlinked and subject to uncertainty.

And sorry for the acronym salad, not my fault :-).


Best wishes,

Tom






--
Tom Brown (he/him)
Professor of Digital Transformation in Energy Systems
Institute of Energy Technology
Technische Universität Berlin

Group website: https://www.tu.berlin/en/ensys
Personal website: https://nworbmot.org/

Visitor Address:
Einsteinufer 25 (TA 8)
10587 Berlin

[Robbie Morrison]

Hi Tom, all

On 31/05/2023 19.07, Tom Brown wrote:

This may be of interest to some of you (particularly current or potential PyPSA users, since it's also a plug for PyPSA :-)):

Certainly PyPSA has significant airplay in this particular iteration, but the evident high level interest in open analysis that this represents is a very major step forward.

And well done to the PyPSA crew of course for creating such useful tooling, underpinning data, and a supportive milieu.

...

It would be great if we could converge on open models and standards for the assessment of new energy infrastructure projects, particularly as the system becomes more and more interlinked and subject to uncertainty.

Yes of course.  But I can sense (at least) two elephants in the room.  The first.  There will doubtless be some natural rationalization in the framework/supporting‑data space as projects grow and mature at different rates and as some gain greater viability than others for a variety of reasons.

And the second elephant.  The need to actively develop those domain‑wide open standards — ranging from informal to explicit — covering collective issues like semantics, workflows, common scenarios, research data management practices, community curation, supporting infrastructure, cross-model comparisons, archiving and repeatability protocols, and so forth.  That very general set of processes needs to be rather more directed, engaged, and supported than left to develop organically.

Berlin‑based Reiner Lemoine Institute (RLI), with their Open Energy Platform and friends, has made excellent progress on a number of these dimensions, but now is probably the time for greater community buy‑in and involvement on these overarching issues.  Indeed, some kind of community summit might be in order?  With a wider range of stakeholders and more focus than would normally be present at an openmod workshop.

And on that note, the Brussels‑based Collaborative Research for Energy SYstem Modelling (CRESYM) will host the next openmod workshop in 2024 and intends to broaden the scope as one of their objectives — either bridging to industry or to the policy world (as I understand it) and this choice then impacting on the location of the event.

further thoughts anyone, Robbie

-- 
Robbie Morrison
Address: Schillerstrasse 85, 10627 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49.30.612-87617

[Robbie Morrison]

Hi all

It looks like its gonna be a long road to open with the European Commission.

I just attempted to download this Commission document that Tom Brown cited earlier:

• https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/Hydrogen_CBA_metyhodology_FINAL.pdf

And got this:

So now off to talk to the Commission to see if I can rectify the problem, on the presumption that public access was indeed intended ..

[Peter Fairley]

JRC re-released those docs in updated form. No change to the 'open' language: 

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/Hydrogen_CBA_metyhodology_UPDATED.pdf
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/Electrolysers_CBA_metyhodology_UPDATED.pdf 

Peter Fairley ⚡ Journalist
US +14152300075 / Canada & Signal +12505146248 / pe...@fairley.ca / @pfairley / portfolio

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, but what we know for sure that just ain't so." - Samuel Clemens, or Josh Billings, or Will Rogers ...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "openmod initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openmod-initiat...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openmod-initiative/453357ff-a60b-de5e-70ea-d19b7f3873a9%40posteo.de.