Non-binding constriant
#2
Welcome to the ETSAP TIMES Forum!

On the basis of my quick look at your constraint, it looks like it is defining a constraint on the minimum use of RESHXC101, RESHXC102, RESHXC103 by the RHB* processes, in proportion to the total commodity production of these three commodities. Thus, it would not be too binding if those RESHX* commodities are in fact being mostly used by those RHB* processes.

But the constraint would become clearer to me if you could post a screenshot of the UC_FLO and UC_COMPRD attributes generated by VEDA-FE for this constraint (from the Browser).

As your question actually appears to be more related to VEDA-FE than to TIMES, you might also consider posting such questions on the VEDA Forum.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Non-binding constriant - by AkramS - 13-02-2019, 04:27 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by Antti-L - 13-02-2019, 05:06 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by AkramS - 13-02-2019, 05:35 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by Antti-L - 13-02-2019, 05:45 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by AkramS - 13-02-2019, 05:56 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by Antti-L - 13-02-2019, 06:53 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by AkramS - 13-02-2019, 07:11 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by Antti-L - 13-02-2019, 07:27 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by AkramS - 13-02-2019, 08:36 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by Antti-L - 13-02-2019, 08:57 PM
RE: Non-binding constriant - by AkramS - 14-02-2019, 01:10 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)