论文标题
哪种模型功能很重要？一种评估电力市场建模选择的实验方法
Which model features matter? An experimental approach to evaluate power market modeling choices
论文作者
论文摘要
与五个电力市场模型进行了一种新型的实验方法和内部模型比较的方法，以向欧洲脱碳途径的建模者提供建议，直到2050年。该实验研究了模型类型（优化与模拟），计划地平线（Interporial vs. Myopic），近距离分辨率（8760 vs. 384小时）和Spatial Resolution（ME）和Spatial Resolution（ME）和SPATIAIL RESODESS（28. ME）（8760 vs. 384小时）（28. ME）（2 28）（近距离）（8760 vs. 384小时）（28）。模型类型从根本上决定了容量扩展的演变。规划Horizon（假定公司的远见）对于碳价格高的场景起着较小的作用。对于低碳价格，近视模型的产生与跨时期模型的价格大大相差。分别通过存储和被忽视的传输边界来降低时间和空间分辨率。使用仿真而不是优化框架，较短的公司规划范围或较低的时间和空间分辨率是降低计算复杂性的必要条件。本文提供了有关在这种情况下如何限制差异的建议。
A novel experimental approach of inter- and intramodel comparisons is conducted with five power market models to give recommendations for modelers working on decarbonization pathways of Europe until 2050. The experiments investigate the impact of model type (optimization vs. simulation), planning horizon (intertemporal vs. myopic), temporal resolution (8760 vs. 384 hours), and spatial resolution (28 countries vs. 12 mega-regions). The model type fundamentally determines the evolution of capacity expansion. Planning horizon (assumed foresight of firms) plays a minor role for scenarios with high carbon prices. For low carbon prices in turn, results from myopic models deviate considerably from those of intertemporal models. Lower temporal and spatial resolutions foster wind power via storage and via neglected transmission boundaries, respectively. Using simulation instead of optimization frameworks, a shorter planning horizon of firms, or lower temporal and spatial resolutions might be necessary to reduce the computational complexity. This paper delivers recommendations on how to limit the discrepancies in such cases.
