-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add "dynamic" italian scenario & add new flow cap rate limit #19
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a nice idea, but I would rename this to "constrained", not dynamic.
A dynamic problem has its characteristics evolve over time. In this case all we want is to constrain it. This is also why I am arguing for a constant growth rate.
@@ -198,6 +198,20 @@ constraints: | |||
final_step: | |||
- expression: get_val_at_index(timesteps=-1) | |||
|
|||
limit_flow_cap_new_max_rate: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This constraint is problematic since it will disallow the installment of technologies that do not have initial capacity at 0. The solution other models use is to add a "seed" value that sets an allowed max initial install.
See here: https://temoacloud.com/temoaproject/Documentation.html#temoa_rules.GrowthRateConstraint_rule
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I catch this below (where: investsteps=get_val_at_index(investsteps=0) AND flow_cap_initial > 0
). If there is no initial flow cap, there is no constraint in the first timestep.
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ techs: # Color scheme is Tol Qual Muted + some extras | |||
|
|||
# RSE, 2015 values | |||
cost_flow_cap.data: 1451 # EUR2010/kW | |||
cost_om_annual.data: 38 # EUR2010/kW/yr | |||
cost_om_annual.data: 38 # EUR2010/kW/yr= |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
accidental keystroke?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's start by setting the growth rate to be the same constant (0.5?) for everything.
These values are often used by modellers to "tune" results, and there is no agreed measurement for them. They are neither physical or economical "properties" of anything, and they may mask formulation issues (e.g., EoH, extreme discounting).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure
Agreed the naming is murky. I'd argue that the "stationary" model is also "constrained" though. It sets a progressively lower available initial capacity per investment step. Maybe I expunge the |
That would work. We should ensure that the base case is not dynamic in that sense. |
Since so much of the underlying data remains the same for a "stationary" vs "dynamic" italian model, it seems to make sense to rely on the same model, just with scenarios to add in additional functionality.
This PR adds in a "dynamic" scenario, which involves setting a maximum rate of capacity expansion for certain technologies. This stops massive jumps in technology capacity between investment steps, although setting the rates to something sensible will require some research.