The UK 2050 Calculator Web Flash Excel Wiki
Register or sign in
This is a wiki Anyone can contribute, therefore we don't vouch for its accuracy.

Bug 32 Bioenergy imports incorrectly calculated

Bug fixed in version 3.6.0 (see the history of published versions of the 2050 calculator)

With thanks to Rich Dionne:

I think I have found a bug in the 2050 Pathways spreadsheet that also manifests itself in the web tool. I have been unable to post on your wiki, so I thought I would send you an e-mail on the potential issue.

The problem appears in how bio-fuel imports are handled. I will try to demonstrate with 2 example pathways from the web tool, with links below. In the first example, which has no issues, look at the sankey "Flows" view and notice the very low solid biofuels import, amounting to only 4 TWh/y. This level corresponds to a "CCS Power Stations" input setting of 1.4. Notice also on the "Map" view the size of the "biocrops" box, which is appropriately sized.

Pathway 10e…111

In example 2 below, which demonstrates the problem, look at what happens when I drop the "CCS Power Stations" input setting to 1.1. When you look again at the "Flows" view, the solid biofuels import has disappeared, as you would expect; however, the gray "Solid" box no longer balances inputs and outputs, with 328 TWh/y coming in but only 175 TWh/y coming out. In addition, if you look at the "Map" view, you see that the "biocrops" box has completely disappeared. This is obviously incorrect, as there is still 140 TWh/y of liquid biofuels import coming in.

Pathway 10b…111

What I believe is happening occurs in the supporting spreadsheet at tab "V.b", the "Bioenergy imports" tab. On row 89, the "Area Covered" formulas, refer to rows 78-80 (which can contain negative biofuels import data), but I believe it should refer to rows 83-85 (always >= 0). Also, the "Outputs" formulas on rows 107-110, also refer to rows 78-80, but I believe they should again refer to rows 83-85.

I hope I've explained adequately, and I hope this helps. Of course, I could be completely incorrect. Please let me know if you have any comments / questions, or if I can help in any other way.

Best Regards,

Richard Dionne