Measuring accuracy and computational capacity trade-offs in an hourly integrated energy system model

Abstract Improving energy system modeling capabilities can directly affect the quality of applied studies. However, some modeling trade-offs are necessary as the computational capacity and data availability are constrained. In this paper, we demonstrate modeling trade-offs resulting from the modification in the resolution of four modeling capabilities, namely, transitional scope, European electricity interconnection, hourly demand-side flexibility description, and infrastructure representation. We measure the cost of increasing resolution in each capability in terms of computational time and several energy system modeling indicators, notably, system costs, emission prices, and electricity import and export levels. The analyses are performed in a national-level integrated energy system model with a linear programming approach that includes the hourly electricity dispatch with European nodes. We determined that reducing the transitional scope from seven to two periods can reduce the computational time by 75% while underestimating the objective function by only 4.6%. Modelers can assume a single European Union node that dispatches electricity at an aggregated level, which underestimates the objective function by 1% while halving the computational time. Furthermore, the absence of shedding and storage flexibility options can increase the curtailed electricity by 25% and 8%, respectively. Although neglecting flexibility options can drastically decrease the computational time, it can increase the sub-optimality by 31%. We conclude that an increased resolution in modeling flexibility options can significantly improve the results. While reducing the computational time by half, the lack of electricity and gas infrastructure representation can underestimate the objective function by 4% and 6%, respectively.

[1]  Thiel Christian,et al.  The JRC-EU-TIMES model. Bioenergy potentials for EU and neighbouring countries , 2015 .

[2]  Martin Braun,et al.  Sizing and Improved Grid Integration of Residential PV Systems With Heat Pumps and Battery Storage Systems , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion.

[3]  E. Schmid,et al.  Putting an energy system transformation into practice: The case of the German Energiewende , 2016 .

[4]  André Faaij,et al.  A review at the role of storage in energy systems with a focus on Power to Gas and long-term storage , 2018 .

[5]  Machteld van den Broek,et al.  Least-cost options for integrating intermittent renewables in low-carbon power systems , 2016 .

[6]  William D'haeseleer,et al.  Impact of the level of temporal and operational detail in energy-system planning models , 2016 .

[7]  A. Faaij,et al.  Potential for hydrogen and Power-to-Liquid in a low-carbon EU energy system using cost optimization , 2018, Applied Energy.

[8]  D. Stolten,et al.  A hydrogen supply chain with spatial resolution: Comparative analysis of infrastructure technologies in Germany , 2019, Applied Energy.

[9]  Efstratios N. Pistikopoulos,et al.  A spatial multi-period long-term energy planning model: A case study of the Greek power system , 2014 .

[10]  J. Eom,et al.  The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview , 2017 .

[11]  H. Rogner,et al.  Incorporating flexibility requirements into long-term energy system models – A case study on high levels of renewable electricity penetration in Ireland , 2014 .

[12]  Marco Nicolosi,et al.  The Importance of High Temporal Resolution in Modeling Renewable Energy Penetration Scenarios , 2011 .

[13]  Pierluigi Mancarella,et al.  Unified Unit Commitment Formulation and Fast Multi-Service LP Model for Flexibility Evaluation in Sustainable Power Systems , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy.

[14]  Mark Z. Jacobson,et al.  Temporal and spatial tradeoffs in power system modeling with assumptions about storage: An application of the POWER model , 2016 .

[15]  B. Hobbs,et al.  Capacity vs energy subsidies for promoting renewable investment: Benefits and costs for the EU power market , 2020 .

[16]  E. Delarue,et al.  Representing cross-border trade of electricity in long-term energy-system optimization models with a limited geographical scope , 2020 .

[17]  A. Fattahi,et al.  A systemic approach to analyze integrated energy system modeling tools: A review of national models , 2020, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

[18]  Jürgen Vogt,et al.  Changes of heating and cooling degree‐days in Europe from 1981 to 2100 , 2018 .

[19]  R. Kannan,et al.  Alternative low-carbon electricity pathways in Switzerland and it’s neighbouring countries under a nuclear phase-out scenario , 2016 .

[20]  M. Haller,et al.  Fluctuating renewables in a long-term climate change mitigation strategy , 2011 .

[21]  Ana Estanqueiro,et al.  Impacts of large amounts of wind power on design and operation of power systems, results of IEA collaboration , 2008 .

[22]  Felix Cebulla,et al.  Merit order or unit-commitment: How does thermal power plant modeling affect storage demand in energy system models? , 2017 .

[23]  Brian Ó Gallachóir,et al.  Soft-linking of a power systems model to an energy systems model , 2012 .

[24]  Vítor Leal,et al.  The relevance of the energy resource dynamics in the mid/long-term energy planning models , 2011 .