MATTER Results

MATTER Results

ll energy carriers are expressed in PJ/Year (1 PJ = 1 PetaJoule = 10¹⁵ Joule). All material flows are expressed in Mt/year (1 Mt = 1 Megatonne = 10 ⁶ metric tonnes). Note that the tables indicate the units in GJ and t (i.e. the format of the model input data, all flows are multiplied by 10⁶ for conversion to PJ and Mt). A comparison of the flows and capacities for the base case and the emission reduction cases shows the impact of emission penalties.

The MARKAL output is organised in a number of tables. Each table contains dedicated information. The following (standard MARKAL output) tables are available:

Table 1: Scenario indicators (aggregates for the whole time period of 90 years)
DEMAND: Annual demand for product, material, and energy services
Table 2: Summary (aggregated annual physical flow data and monetary data)
Table 3: Primary energy supply
Table 4: Energy output of each supply technology at gate
Table 5: Fuel consumption by demand sector
Table 6: Useful energy from each demand device
Table 7: Installed capacities
Table 8: Production and use of energy carriers and materials (annual flows in physical units)
Table 9: Shadow prices of energy carriers and materials
REDC: Reduced costs of demand devices (used for analysis of cost-effectiveness)
Table 25: Technology cost
Table 27: Annual environmental effects (for various indicators)

The use of MARKAL output

For professional use, MARKAL output files are loaded into MUSS (Markal User’s Support System). This system facilitates the handling of input data and the analysis of results, e.g. the automatic production of customised graphs that characterise the model results. Basically the same unprocessed model results are available in the tables that are linked to this site.

Two tables will be discussed in more detail in order to show the possibilities: Table 8 and Table 9. These two tables have been selected because they are the key tables for analysis of material flows and for analysis of the cost price consequences of GHG penalties.

Production and use of energy carriers and materials (annual flows in physical units) TABLE 08

Data from this table characterise the use of energy carriers, materials, waste materials, products, and waste products ("flows"). An overview of all flow types and all process types can be found in the report "MATTER 1.0 A MARKAL Energy and Materials System Model Characterisation" (report no. ECN-C-98-065, which can be downloaded from the list of publications that is linked to this site). In table 8, the use of these flows is listed. The total use is listed per flow and the use is listed per process. Looking at the base case, this information can be used for:

dynamic energy and material flow analysis: how will material flows change (both direction of flows and quantity of flows) due to changing demand, changing process technology, changing resource prices, changing waste handling costs etc.
analysis of the future total use of certain flows
flow changes during future decades (2000-2050)
change in the sectoral distribution of the use of energy carriers and materials
technological change in energy and materials conversion processes

Comparison of material flows in a certain year for the base case and for the emission reduction cases shows:

changing energy and material flows due to GHG penalties. This can be further broken down into substitution, increased efficiency etc.. However this type of analysis requires insight into the model structure and it requires detailed information regarding the process input parameters that cannot be found in table 8. This type of information can be found in the background reports (see the list of publications).
changing process technology due to GHG emission reduction, including fuel switch, selection of processes with increased efficiency etc.

Examples of analyses that you can do with these data are discussed in the papers, e.g. "The MARKAL systems engineering model for waste management" and "Biomass for greenhouse gas emission reduction (BRED)". Both papers are available in the list of publications that is linked to this site.

Shadow prices of energy carriers and material TABLE 09

This table shows the marginal costs (also called shadow prices) of all energy carriers, materials, products, and waste materials. The shadow prices for energy carriers are expressed in ECU per GJ (equivalent to million ECU per PJ). The price for materials and waste materials is expressed in ECU per tonne (equivalent to million ECU per tonne). The price for products and waste products is expressed in ECU per unit of physical production that is indicated in the flow name.

These shadow prices represent the price that would arise in an ideal market where supply and demand are balanced in a competitive equilibrium, given the system configuration and the constraints imposed on the model. Prices for energy carriers are always higher than or equal to zero. Prices for waste can be lower than zero (meaning that you have to pay in order to get rid of your waste).

A well calibrated model will show shadow prices that change gradually over time. Very drastic changes from one period to the next period can indicate that the model is not well calibrated. Another interpretation is that very rapid changes occur from one to the next time period. In both cases, it is an indication that closer attention to this model section is warranted. Looking at the prices in table 9 for the base case, more calibration is warranted. Especially the shadow prices in the starting year need further calibration. This feature is caused by model bounds that fix production capacity and/or energy and material flows to the actual values from statistics. However if the production exceeds the demand in the model, prices drop to zero. Another feature that can distort shadow prices is the residual capacity from the period before 1990. A high residual capacity implies low investments in new capacity, hence the capital costs are low and the shadow prices are low. Often the physical energy and material flows are for the early periods not affected by the shadow prices (because they are fixed by the bounds), thus the fluctuating shadow prices have in this case no consequences. The general conclusion from this discussion is that shadow prices can contain valuable information for model calibration and for analysis, but care is required in order to avoid wrong conclusions.

Comparison of shadow prices in the base case and shadow prices in the emission reduction case indicates the impact of GHG penalties on product prices. The price change is an indicator for the sensitivity of product prices for GHG emissions and it is an indicator for the flexibility of the system to reduce emissions through technological change. All technological emission reduction options that can reduce emissions at costs below the penalty level are introduced. These options reduce the impact of penalties on product prices (compared to the situation where the penalties would be applied to the emissions in the base case systems configuration). This type of information can be compared to the price changes that are calculated with econometric models that generally not include technological change effects in their analysis of the impact of financial instruments. The different price impact is a measure for the cost mitigation effect that is achieved through technological change.

The changing shadow price can also be used for the analysis of e.g. carbon leakage. The price in the cases with emission penalties can be compared to the production costs of foreign producers for the Western European market. If the shadow price is higher, this suggests that carbon leakage may occur. If the shadow price is lower, this suggests no problems regarding foreign competition for introduction of GHG penalties.

The change in shadow prices can be used to explain the changing material flows in Table 8. Combination of the shadow prices of physical inputs, capital expenditures (investments, fixed and variable costs in the MARKAL input tables), and the value of the physical outputs will indicate the cost-effectiveness of processes. If the value of the products exceeds the value of inputs and capital costs, the process is profitable.