Update vm_emiCdrAll and adjustments to industry emi variables

[tabeado]

Purpose of this PR

This PR updates the total CDR variable vm_emiCdrAll which is necessary for the new implementation of the net negative emissions tax.
As part of this, it changes the following in 37_industry:

• rename v37_emiNonFosNonIncineratedPlastics to vm_emiNonFosNonIncineratedPlastics => needs to be changed with parallel PR in remind2
• added vm_nonFosPlastic_incinCC for simpler code, is used once in 37_industry and in core for calculation of vm_emiCdrAll
• added vm_nonFosNonPlastic_landfilled to avoid renaming of 3 parameters & variables, is used once in 37_industry and in core for calculation of vm_emiCdrAll

Other changes:

• adding v_ccsShare, i.e. the share of captured carbon stored geologically
• improvement of descriptions of in 37_industry and core

#Type of change

• Refactoring
• Minor change (default scenarios show only small differences)

Checklist:

• My code follows the coding etiquette
• I performed a self-review of my own code
• I explained my changes within the PR, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I checked that the in-code documentation is up-to-date
• I adjusted the reporting in remind2 where it was needed
• I adjusted forbiddenColumnNames in readCheckScenarioConfig.R in case the PR leads to deprecated switches
• I checked the log.txt file of my runs for newly introduced summation, fixing or variable name errors
• All automated model tests pass, executed after my final commit (FAIL 0 in the output of make test)
• The changelog CHANGELOG.md has been updated correctly

Further information (optional):

• Runs with these changes are here: /p/tmp/tabeado/remind_CdrVariable/remind
• Comparison of results (what changes by this PR?): see comments

[tabeado]

Test runs for default PB650 settings show deviations in EUR & some in NEU for waste emissions. I can't figure out what change in the calculation would cause this, but maybe you can @JakobBD?

[amerfort]

I liked "CDR from CDR module" as "emissions" kinda suggest that this is all emissions from the module, also including energy related and process emissions. But I don't have too strong opinions.

[tabeado]

But CDR is wrong for dac... I prefer emissions because it's really all actual emissions that are calculated directly in the CDR module (incl. non-captured emi from calcination + energy). Energy-related emissions are not calculated there.

[amerfort]

Ahaha sorry. I restructured this part in my PR, because I want to keep energy related emissions and active removal from the atmosphere separate. So after that it will be CDR from CDR module and not emissions. I'm already so familiar with my restructured version that I didn't realise that it was an inconsistency in the trunk.

[tabeado]

I still think CDR would be misleading, since it is all captured dac emissions, but not all of that is necessarily daccs. My point is not about the FE emissions, but about dac vs daccs

[amerfort]

Oh I totally see your point and honestly, go for whatever you want, my opinion isn't that strong. But "emissions from CDR module" for me implies that it does contain FE or calcination emissions.
How about a longer explanation?
Theoretical max. of removals from CDR module before rerelease from CCU ?

[amerfort]

Thanks! Looks very good to me. After my PR (still the old draft version, will update hopefully tonight) to restructure the accounting of energy related carbon capture in module 33 I will add this super small addition (CDR from FE+CCS in the CDR module) total CDR here too.

[tabeado]

Do you want to add this to this PR / send me the code / add it later?

[amerfort]

Thanks for doing this. The CDR part looks good, but I don't feel confident enough to judge the changes in the Industry module.

[JakobBD]

For the differences in the plots, I don't know, but I'd guess that it could be conopt imprecisions/random deviations in a quite flat optimum. Especially since it only occurs spuriously in a few regions.