Remove intelligent control input sliders from scenarios

[kndehaan]

This PR solves quintel/etmodel#4490 by removing the intelligent control lighting inputs in the scenarios

Goes with:

• ETSource: Remove intelligent control input sliders from scenarios #3413
• ETModel: Remove intelligent control lighting nodes and inputs etmodel#4491
• ETEngine: Remove intelligent control input sliders from scenarios etengine#1583
• ETDataset: https://github.com/quintel/etdataset/pull/1079

[mabijkerk]

Now that we have removed the two intelligent control sliders, the electricity demand for lighting can go up slightly in some scenarios. We can of course communicate this clearly in the release notes but I'm also wondering if we can do something to further improve this.

Currently, the slider "Electricity per building" in "Development of demand" affects both appliances demand and lighting demand.

The description "Electricity per building" might be somewhat confusing for users. In households it is split into its components:

Should we do the same for buildings and split the slider into one for appliances and one for lighting? This might make even more sense since appliances in the buildings sector do not only use electricity. What do you think @kndehaan?

[kndehaan]

I understand what you're getting at. I like the idea of making the sliders more explicit so users understand that they specifically set a demand development expectation for appliances for example.

I'm however not sure about what 'real life' situation the slider for lighting would represent. Will more lighting be used per building (e.g. longer opening hours) or will less lighting be used, which migh be the result of light saving measures (behaviour, intelligent light control). For lighting, its intention is more difficult to grasp compared to such sliders for use of electrical appliances or cooling.

In the context of reducing complexity of sliders, I would not introduce a slider for lighting explicitly. I would be in favour though of replacing the electricity per building slider with a slider specifically for appliances. That would however not solve your raised point:

Now that we have removed the two intelligent control sliders, the electricity demand for lighting can go up slightly in some scenarios. We can of course communicate this clearly in the release notes but I'm also wondering if we can do something to further improve this.

[mabijkerk]

For now the conclusion is to maintain both the efficiency and demand sliders. They model different drivers: the first is whether the technology gets improved, the second whether its use increases. We therefore should take the following steps:

• Split electricity per building slider into lighting and appliances
• Review and update texts where necessary
• Write a migration to adjust for the changed sliders

As a next step, we can review the buildings appliances section as indicated in quintel/etmodel#4467.

[kndehaan]

Splitting the electricity per building slider is also addressed in this issue.

[kndehaan]

@mabijkerk nice work on the inputs for appliances efficiency and development of demand! Works as it should.

[kaskranenburgQ]

Overall looking good!
One question:

Should the node 'buildings_useful_demand_light' also have the node group 'useful_demand_electric'?

I see that other useful demand nodes like 'buildings_useful_demand_for_appliances' have this nodegroup.
Sidenote: This is not correct since the appliances node also has input from nodes that convert useful demand from other carriers.

I also see that this query group is only used in old sankey queries.

Perhaps it's better to merge this PR and open a separate issue to retire this query group?

[kndehaan]

I intentionally did not add the useful_demand_electric group as I also saw that this group is only used in outdated, unused Sankey queries. Good point to make an issue about this to remove this outdated group and queries. I will do that.

[EDITED] Issue opened here: #3416

[kaskranenburgQ]

LGTM!