IRENA's modelling summary doesn't mention open modelling


I was a bit disappointed to see in IRENA’s recent summary of energy modelling:

That open modelling issues were not mentioned at all. I will write to the authors, since I think this is important for countries just starting with the integration of renewables.


I agree; thanks for taking action. At least OSEMOSYS is mentioned in the tool-table…


That omission is interesting. Michael Taylor from IRENA, based in Bonn (but originally from Australia), spoke at the Open Power System Data (OPSD) workshop on 21 November 2016 in Berlin, Germany. IIRC, he noted that his views were personal not official, but he was very supportive of open models and open data. Perhaps you could write to him or alternatively, contact him before drafting your letter. Not only is it open models that need coverage, it is open data too.

Regarding the question of writing on openmod issues. Do we need some process for endorsement by the openmod community. Long ago, I worked with a New Zealand NGO called the Sustainable Energy Forum (SEF) and they had some quite good protocols for developing letters, press releases, and submissions that were sent out under their name. Do we need something similar?


I was just going to write in a personal capacity, not representing the openmod community. I also think we should develop some protocols for communication under the openmod name. In previous lobbying work:!topic/openmod-initiative/PuMALSyfYL4!topic/openmod-initiative/40Hlnpt_gEw

we’ve just sent things out with a list of signees, but it would perhaps carry more weight if the whole community can be said to be behind it.


I wrote to IRENA and gave them a link to the wiki model list . They said they’re considering how to keep their report up-to-date and have taken the point on the advantages of open modelling (transparency, reproducability, flexibility, customisability, control, etc.). Hopefully that also means they’ll mention it in the next iteration of the report.