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.
The reason people cite when defending Github usually isn't the repisitory hosting itself, but the extra features like oull request management and issue tracker that also generate massive network effects by enabling the same accounts to participate in all public projects. Github is nore of a social network posing as a development tool.
Also remember "git" is decentralized itself, you're supposed to have your git repo locally too, if PR's, or issues or comments are "alpha" your code shouldn't be affected by it at all
Im personally down to try alpha software usually, i just havent found the need to retrain all my muscle memory to not use GH yet, as much as I hate it's owned by microsoft nowadays.
They also do offer pretty good "free tier" services for CI via Actions that otherwise you'd need to pay yourself
Also, I moved about 10 repos to a private Forgejo installation with pretty average (non-trivial) GH actions workflows. Zero repos has workflows running oob (java, .net, node). The moat is a bit there.
A feature, not a bug. If I go to a website meant to distribute source repos (git, etc), I expect them to be FOSS. Also, the title mentions 'EU Open Sources [...]' so this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Either way, perfect is the enemy of good, and this is good. You can find hypocrisy or lack of perfectionism anywhere.
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.
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
Open models provide much better proof and explain exactly this. They enable policymakers, who are key to grid planning, to make verifiable arguments rather than 'black box' ones. Such verifiable models are much harder to challenge.
Cringe. China and Russia are building energy infrastructure and here we have Europe open sourcing tools to help cope with its self-inflicted bureaucratic burdens instead.
China is building for sure, but Russia? The majority of russia does not have normal roads, full of crappy old trains, and infrastructure which was built in the soviet times. Russia is a joke of a country, oligarchy and kleptocracy rules.
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.
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
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.
What a great present for Russians planning their drone attacks on Europe. Why not open source military bases and personal development too? It's all theoretically could be found in public sources anyway, so why not help Ivan save some time and put it all together. As a EU citizen, I should be able to freely receive access to public infrastructure data by request, but it should not be put online for everyone to see.
And where did they put it? On the biggest US platform.
Someday we'll get there, someday.
They must use https://about.code.europa.eu/
https://code.europa.eu/info/about
https://code.europa.eu/explore/projects/active
If it were "the EU", it would be on https://code.europa.eu
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.
I moved stuff out of github to a private codeberg while walking my dog.
The moat on that is non existant.
The reason people cite when defending Github usually isn't the repisitory hosting itself, but the extra features like oull request management and issue tracker that also generate massive network effects by enabling the same accounts to participate in all public projects. Github is nore of a social network posing as a development tool.
check out tangled https://tangled.org/
Don't forget the little `alpha` tag next to tangled !
If I'm working in software development, the last thing I want to do is trust my coding workflow to an alpha-state platform.
Surely can't be worse than GitHub going down every 15 minutes no?
Also remember "git" is decentralized itself, you're supposed to have your git repo locally too, if PR's, or issues or comments are "alpha" your code shouldn't be affected by it at all
Im personally down to try alpha software usually, i just havent found the need to retrain all my muscle memory to not use GH yet, as much as I hate it's owned by microsoft nowadays.
They also do offer pretty good "free tier" services for CI via Actions that otherwise you'd need to pay yourself
Codeberg is not keen on closed-source repos.
Also, I moved about 10 repos to a private Forgejo installation with pretty average (non-trivial) GH actions workflows. Zero repos has workflows running oob (java, .net, node). The moat is a bit there.
> Codeberg is not keen on closed-source repos.
A feature, not a bug. If I go to a website meant to distribute source repos (git, etc), I expect them to be FOSS. Also, the title mentions 'EU Open Sources [...]' so this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Either way, perfect is the enemy of good, and this is good. You can find hypocrisy or lack of perfectionism anywhere.
does it matter if we have most of our stuff on gh private repos?
it's juste a model from Technical University of Munich not an official model from ENTSOE for TYNDP
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/
What exactly is the issue with that?
He just told you; US platform.
It can be hosted in multiple locations.
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.
> US platform
This is the type of pointless complaint that really go nowhere
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
Open models provide much better proof and explain exactly this. They enable policymakers, who are key to grid planning, to make verifiable arguments rather than 'black box' ones. Such verifiable models are much harder to challenge.
Cringe. China and Russia are building energy infrastructure and here we have Europe open sourcing tools to help cope with its self-inflicted bureaucratic burdens instead.
Yay, sustainability!
China is building for sure, but Russia? The majority of russia does not have normal roads, full of crappy old trains, and infrastructure which was built in the soviet times. Russia is a joke of a country, oligarchy and kleptocracy rules.
Educate me, what’s the point of (open-sourcing) this?
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.
Thanks for actually answering the question. I was curious, too.
Thanks!
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.
People who are interested can look at it and use it. People who aren't interested are free to ignore it.
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.
It’s an honest question, perhaps not worded friendly enough. Forgive my English.
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?
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
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.
All government (funded) software should be at the very least open source.
I think a good example is the Norwegian Meteorological Institute: https://github.com/metno (EEA, though, not real EU, but still)
It's not like all of it is useful for someone else, but it's the principle of it, and allowing people to see what their tax money (sometimes) goes to.
What a great present for Russians planning their drone attacks on Europe. Why not open source military bases and personal development too? It's all theoretically could be found in public sources anyway, so why not help Ivan save some time and put it all together. As a EU citizen, I should be able to freely receive access to public infrastructure data by request, but it should not be put online for everyone to see.