Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

function to map/aggregate the regional electricity data to the exiobase classification #3

Open
jakobsarthur opened this issue Mar 25, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@jakobsarthur
Copy link
Contributor

This function relies on the concordances between the ENTSO electricity data and EXIOBASE classification as well as the regional mapping between the two datasets (although the latter should be relatively straightforward).

The ENTSO regional electricity data needs to be mapped/aggregated to the exiobase regions. Secondly the electricity production processes need to be mapped to the EXIOBASE classification.

output: a exiobase-region X exiobase-electricity-source matrix* with the updated electricity mixes.

*The format does not need to be a matrix, but can be different (e.g. list of dictionaries, pandas dataframe, etc), in coordination with the function that injects the data into the exiobase SUTs.

@jakobsarthur jakobsarthur added waiting for input data The input data for this issue is not available yet and removed waiting for input data The input data for this issue is not available yet labels Mar 25, 2019
@jakobsarthur
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmutel I just got the latest data (from the slack channel)) but I don't quite understand what's inside. The names seem not quite correct any more, as now both activities and products are called just e.g. ['AT', 'Biomass'] or ['AT', 'Geothermal '] or ['AT', 'Grid'].
Furthermore the use and supply tables are exactly the same (!) and have dimensions 672x672 again
This is mostly (that the supply and use are the same is a problem) not a problem but it would be good to know the final format

@cmutel
Copy link

cmutel commented Apr 1, 2019

Sorry, I didn't have a chance to look at the data before sending it, and was pretty zonkered, so it is not surprising that there were some errors. I also might have just sent the wrong files. I will look into it tonight.

@jakobsarthur
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok, Thanks 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants