It is actually an model that has been developed in collaboration with entso-e by Open Energy Transition. You can read more about it here: https://open-tyndp.openenergytransition.org/
I guess if the github UI becomes critical to their continued development or PR then they expose themselves to a potential rug pull by github/microsoft.
I do not know much about the project so I can not tell if that is concern or if there is some other concern at play here or if those concerns apply to this project or not.
Those are the types of details I wanted to see in the comment.
Git repos are distributed by design. I bet all the contributors have at least 1 branch (probably closer to an average of 3) of this project on at least 1 computer that they own.
1. Run the analyses themselves to help them understand it
2. Provide feedback and even improvements
3. Simply trust that the project is run in good faith because there's transparency
The EU is demanding that the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) implement this ten-year power infrastructure plan transparently. Unfortunately, this modelling has so far been carried out using an expensive, proprietary tool (PLEXOS Energy Exemplar). The results were not easily reproducible. However, with the new model based on PyPSA-Eur, a transparent Ten-Year Network Development Plan can be created.
This is a repo build using the PyPSA python framework. PyPSA is an open-source Python framework for optimizing modern power systems with renewable energy, storage, and multi-sector coupling.
The repo linked “seeks to complement the tools currently used in the TYNDP cycles, especially for Scenario Building (SB) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). This approach is designed to enhance transparency and lower barriers to stakeholder participation in European energy planning. Beyond Europe, the project aspires to demonstrate the viability of open-source (OS) frameworks in energy planning, encouraging broader global adoption.
To build trust in and ensure reproducibility with the new open-source toolchain, the project first focuses on replicating key figures from the 2024 TYNDP cycle, before aligning with the current 2026 TYNDP cycle. This process involves developing new features within the open-source domain to address existing gaps, integrating tools for data interoperability and dynamic visualizations, and publishing best practices to encourage the adoption of open energy models.”
Why this report is shared appears to be an application of PyPSA for others to reference and become inspired by its implementation.
Why it’s open source I think is clear from the above paragraph. Open source standards make it drastically easier to harmonise and collaborate while allowing as much engagement as possible to scrutinise the framework.
There's a very expensive process for resource planning the electrical grid that is highly modeling dependent. Most electricity grids are planned with a least cost expansion modeling approach. A small number of incumbent vendors provide expensive closed source tools to do this. There are quite a few open tools in this space, but open energy transition is building consensus around pypsa and pypsa-eur as equivalent top of class models (better in a lot of ways) to use for various IRPs.
Thanks, definitely positive they’re moving towards open and freely accessible modeling tools. I can see the benefits for students and budget-constrained institutions.
Nice. Better energy grid seems like an easy win for Europe. It has enough diversity of sources that just connecting it cleverly can get you crazy efficiency.
e.g. Right now the UK grid is running on just over 80%+ renewable. But when the wind isn't cooperating french nuclear helps.
Broad reliance on renewables just doesn't work without interconnects across large geo regions
Someday we'll get there, someday.
I guess if the github UI becomes critical to their continued development or PR then they expose themselves to a potential rug pull by github/microsoft.
I do not know much about the project so I can not tell if that is concern or if there is some other concern at play here or if those concerns apply to this project or not.
Those are the types of details I wanted to see in the comment.
The moat on that is non existant.
https://code.europa.eu/info/about
https://code.europa.eu/explore/projects/active
What's the downside of open-sourcing this?
We should commend bureaucracies on the rare instance that they open-source their software, not ridicule them for it.
Let’s zoom in on your reply, the people who are interested and look at it and use it. What will they be able to do with it?
The repo linked “seeks to complement the tools currently used in the TYNDP cycles, especially for Scenario Building (SB) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). This approach is designed to enhance transparency and lower barriers to stakeholder participation in European energy planning. Beyond Europe, the project aspires to demonstrate the viability of open-source (OS) frameworks in energy planning, encouraging broader global adoption.
To build trust in and ensure reproducibility with the new open-source toolchain, the project first focuses on replicating key figures from the 2024 TYNDP cycle, before aligning with the current 2026 TYNDP cycle. This process involves developing new features within the open-source domain to address existing gaps, integrating tools for data interoperability and dynamic visualizations, and publishing best practices to encourage the adoption of open energy models.”
Why this report is shared appears to be an application of PyPSA for others to reference and become inspired by its implementation.
Why it’s open source I think is clear from the above paragraph. Open source standards make it drastically easier to harmonise and collaborate while allowing as much engagement as possible to scrutinise the framework.
e.g. Right now the UK grid is running on just over 80%+ renewable. But when the wind isn't cooperating french nuclear helps.
Broad reliance on renewables just doesn't work without interconnects across large geo regions