Hello all, hello also Miguel
A recent paper surveys the energy modeling landscape and might be
of particular interest to this community:
The authors review 54 energy modeling frameworks (or "tools" in their usage) with varying software licensing/business models, comprising:
Some open source frameworks not present would include DESSTinEE, GENESIS (the C++ variant), eomof, OnSSET, OSeMOSYS, SWITCH, and TEMOA (all listed here). The authors relied on knowledge of and survey responses from the various projects for inclusion.
On a legal level, the concept of "open access" — used
several times in the paper but fortunately not in the survey — is
not relevant to software. There is nothing in an "open access"
definition, even under its strongest framing, that is equivalent
to "open source". Indeed even the Creative Commons CC0‑1.0 waiver
was rejected by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) for use with
software when Creative Commons sought approval. Chang et al
used the phrase "open source" in the survey, so the incoming data
should be correct. The weak end of "open access" provides for full
copyright but no paywall (usage as per Peter Suber). (I discussed
that exact definition with Cambridge University after they made
Stephen Hawking's unlicensed thesis public thus at doi:10.17863/CAM.11283
and then described the context as "open access".) Some background
from me on "open" here.
And wikipedia lists the various colors of open
access: gold, green, hybrid, bronze, diamond, and black
(almost as bad as hydrogen in that regard). (Speculating, perhaps
a reviewer ill‑advisedly requested the change from open source to
open access?)
Figure 4 (page 11) summarizes the models based on their licensing
arrangements and is worth studying:
Original caption: Comparison of tool types with user-interface among the 54 surveyed tools. Note that the sum of each bar and the total exceed 54 as some tools can fall under multiple licensing/availability and user interface categories.
It is hard to say which paradigm — open or non‑open— prevails
without information on project uptake and use. But open source
models are surely gaining ground. The concept of "freeware", for
the record, is when one distributes suitably licensed binaries
(usually *.exe files for Windows) at no cost but keeps the source
code private. In any case, the open frameworks listed earlier but
not included in the figure would bump the 14 total on the left to
21.
Continuing on the open/closed theme, Calliope, under the Apache‑2.0 license, was recently used by the National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL) in the United States to underpin a web‑based public engagement process for the state of Hawaii. The process was named "engage" with more here:
I don't think the following will be an issue for our domain, but
the notion of copyleft software licensing, essentially the
GPL family, is falling down badly as software‑as‑a‑service (SaaS)
becomes a common paradigm. For exercises similar to the NREL
project just mentioned, the notion of transparency should prevail
and I imagine the code will need to be available for download and
inspection from a pubic code repository somewhere — to do
otherwise will simply undermine one's public interest credibility.
Regarding model scope (and also covered well by Chang et al),
one challenge that energy modelers might like to consider going
forward is adding negative emissions technologies
(NET) to offset difficult to avoid emissions in other sectors,
primarily agriculture and aviation. Strictly speaking NET are not
related to energy services supply but do they naturally align with
energy systems. German researcher Oliver Geden
has been particularly outspoken on this point, namely that energy
modelers should properly support NET. I understand that IAM
scenarios are stacked full of NETs from 2050 onward and that
energy models typically run to 2050 so maybe this is also a time
horizon or window issue? (Perhaps IAM modelers could comment?)
with best wishes, Robbie
PS: I hope the Chang et al do not mind me pulling out a
single figure and reproducing it here. The diagrams individually
are standalone works under copyright law but the CC‑BY‑NC‑ND‑4.0
license used would also apply equally to the the entire
compilation. The Google Groups server would operate under United
States law, which is quite liberal on fair use. Thanks, in any
case, for the nice paper .. under open access!
-- Robbie Morrison Address: Schillerstrasse 85, 10627 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49.30.612-87617