Non-sequestered HVC Waste Allocation According to Population

[toniseibold]

Changes proposed in this Pull Request

This PR entangles the naphtha for industry links.
So far, these links included the production of HVC (and therefore meeting the load naphtha for industry) that is linked to process emissions as well as the waste handling of HVC at its end of life.
In this PR those two processes are separated to make the code easier to comprehend and distribute the emissions from HVC waste in a more logical sense:

• a total of non-sequestered HVC waste volume is calculated
• depending on the spatial resolution of the naphtha demand it is added as a European or bus region specific store
• In case of bus region resolution the waste volume is distributed according to the population (underlying assumption: every European citizen contributes equally to the HVC waste volume without country specific differences)
• The non-sequestered HVC must either be burned without energetic utilisation or can be used in waste CHPs (with or without CC)

Test
workflow runs locally with the different config settings

• waste_to_energy: true/false
• waste_to_energy_cc: true/false
• regional_oil_demand: true/false

Results

• total CO2 emissions from non-sequestered HVC (in case of waste_to_energy: false and waste_to_energy_cc: false: 60.43 Mt
• total carbon content of naphtha for industry load: 71.18 Mt
• remaining process emissions: 10.80 Mt from naphtha for industry links
  Store energy content
  

Checklist

• I tested my contribution locally and it works as intended.
• Code and workflow changes are sufficiently documented.
• Changed dependencies are added to envs/environment.yaml.
  not applicable
• Changes in configuration options are added in config/config.default.yaml.
  not applicable
• Changes in configuration options are documented in doc/configtables/*.csv.
  not applicable
• Sources of newly added data are documented in doc/data_sources.rst.
  not applicable
• A release note doc/release_notes.rst is added.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR separates the handling of HVC waste from process emissions and distributes non-sequestered HVC waste based on population, improving code clarity and logical emissions allocation. Key changes include:

• Separating HVC waste processing from process emissions and introducing distinct calculations for non-sequestered HVC.
• Adding a store for population-distributed non-sequestered HVC and updating links to reflect the new distribution logic.
• Updating plotting configuration with a new color for non-sequestered HVC.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
scripts/prepare_sector_network.py	Separates HVC waste handling, adds store/link for population-based distribution, and updates efficiency parameters.
config/plotting.default.yaml	Adds a color code for non-sequestered HVC to support visual differentiation.

Files not reviewed (1)

• doc/release_notes.rst: Language not supported

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

scripts/prepare_sector_network.py:4649

• Replacing 'efficiency2' with 'efficiency' changes the parameter passed to the link; please confirm that this update is intentional and that it captures the intended scaling for CO2 intensity without omitting adjustments from non-sequestered or process emissions.

efficiency=costs.at["oil", "CO2 intensity"]

scripts/prepare_sector_network.py:4615

• [nitpick] Appending the suffix directly to the index may lead to duplicated labels if the index already contains ' non-sequestered HVC'; consider verifying that the index values are consistently unique.

HVC_potential.index = HVC_potential.index + " non-sequestered HVC"

[lindnemi]

Great, PR! I would suggest to go two steps further:

Step 1 (could be done in this PR): Decouple non-sequestered HVC completely from the oil_demand and instead of using the non_sequestered_hvc_locations as buses, always use nodes as buses. Would simplify the code and intuitively makes more sense to me. What are your thoughts on this @toniseibold , @fneum ?

Step 2 (separate PR): Decouple the waste sector from the industry sector. With the decoupling of process emissions from naptha for industry, that should be relatively straightforward.

General remark: We might have to be a bit careful with potential double counting in "municipal solid waste" and "non-sequestered HVC"

[toniseibold]

@lindnemi I moved the the locations of non-sequestered HVC to the spatial variable as suggested.

[lindnemi]

The location of the non-sequestered HVC is now much cleaner and follows the style of the other oil carriers more closely.

However, what I suggested, was to decouple the HVC waste entirely from the oil_sector, i.e., to always use full spatial resolution of HVC waste by assigning them to all nodes, regardless if options['regional_oil_demand'] is True or False.

Since there is going to be a second PR for decoupling the waste sector from the overall industry sector, I leave it up to you if you want to implement the decoupling from regional_oil_demand already here or in the follow up PR.

Otherwise the PR looks good (Caveat: I only looked at the code, but didn't run it, let me know if you need a second person to run it, i will have time tomorrow)