17-05-2019, 08:58 PM

(17-05-2019, 07:37 PM)Antti-L Wrote: Ok, thanks for the files.Thank you Antti for finding the problem. If I have understood correctly, If I change the ACT_EFF to EFF for the TESTELSR_new, I should be able to see the partial load efficiency losses. I tried this and its working fine now.

It was easy to see where the problem was. The documentation says the following (bold emphasis added):

2.2.1. Endogenous partial load efficiency losses

It should be noted, though, that the endogenous modelling of partial load efficiencies requires that the process has its efficiency modelled through the ACT_EFF parameter (on the shadow side of the process).

3.2.7. Partial load efficiency losses

It should be noted that the modelling of endogenous partial load efficiency losses requires that the

process has its efficiency modelled by the ACT_EFF r,v,t,p,s parameter (on the shadow side), while the

penalty cost approach can be used for any process, regardless of how the process efficiency has been

modelled.

5.4. USAGE NOTES FOR BASIC PARTIAL LOAD EFFICIENCY MODELLING

The ACT_LOSPL(r,y,p,'FX') parameter can only be used for processes that have their efficiency

modelled by the ACT_EFF parameter (on the shadow side). The process efficiency will then be

endogenously modelled according to the actual load level in each timeslice.

You have not defined ACT_EFF on the shadow side. The shadow side is at the opposite of the PCG, and your PCG for the testelsr_new technology is HYGNtcs. You are defining the efficiency on the PCG:

Thus, it is was immediately clear that partial load efficiencies could not be working at all for the technology testelsr_new. I wonder why on earth you are now defining the efficiency on the PCG, while you earlier defined it in the normal way (using EFF in VEDA)? It is very unusual to define ACT_EFF on the PCG, and is meant only for the special case where you have multiple commodities in the PCG, and you want to have different efficiencies for each of the outputs.Code:`PARAMETER ACT_EFF /`

REG1.2030.TESTELSR_new.HYGNtcs.ANNUAL 0.017627

REG1.2015.TESTELSR_new.HYGNtcs.ANNUAL 0.017288462

REG1.2050.TESTELSR_new.HYGNtcs.ANNUAL 0.01798

/;

I tested by fixing the ACT_EFF, by raising the starting point for the losses higher, ACT_LOSPL('UP')=0.8, and the process then worked as expected, having large partial efficiency losses in the night timeslices.

I am sorry. I am a beginner with TIMES and it's been only just more than a month I started working with TIMES.The work I am doing is part of my master's thesis. I have been going through most of the documentation and it's been a little tough for me to understand everything described. Could you kindly explain me what you mean by defining efficiency at the shadow side of a process (as u told opposite of the PCG)? I really didn't understand what it means. According to my understanding, efficiency, as it is output divided by input, I have defined efficiency for the process TESTELSR_new as the amount of HYGNtcs I will get with one unit input of ELC. In an earlier example which you suggested me, the output was HYGN and input was ELC. There you defined an ACT_EFF of 0.66 which I understand is the amount of HYGN we get for one unit input of ELC (here everything was in terms of energy). Could you kindly clarify?

Also, in my earlier post I had mentioned about the problem of defining separate life time of electrolyser stack and electrolyser rest of the system. Could you give me some suggestions?

Thanks and Regards

Abi Afthab