15-10-2021, 04:18 PM
> Do you think the network storage is represented correctly in the attached file given the points above and the parameters I assumed for the storage in the file, table E29:F37?
Well yes, it looks correct to me, given the points you mentioned.
> In the second file, I try to model storage options available for investments. I hope that the "conventional" storage options, i.e., accumulator tanks and the underground storage (rows 8-10) are represented correctly. Would you agree?
For these, you have not defined the capacity bounding the input/output flows in any way. The capacity is thus bounding only the amount of energy stored. If that's as intended, I agree.
> The input data and assumptions (L52:S67) are still being verified but I am wondering if this way of representing building storage is correct?
I am not able to see the commodity characterization, and so cannot see the full picture. The RHAPA, RHAPB, RHAPC, RHAPE etc. commodities are apparently demand commodities? And you say that they represent "heat at the building side". So, is your demand actually space heat, and not the volume of heated space by building class? Anyway, obviously they should be on the DAYNITE level for the storage processes to work. As far as I can see, many of these "Buildings Thermal Energy Storage (BiTES)" processes have neither capacity-related costs nor capacity bounds in the Subres, and I think that might be problematic, especially as most of them have zero losses. For such cases (e.g. STGRHABiTES101), is there anything bounding the technology operation? If there are no capacity-related costs or bounds, there would be no capacity variable, and so the activity would not be bounded by any capacity, and it seems there are no activity costs or losses either. So it looks like the storage activity could take arbitrary values? Likewise, the input and output flows are not bounded by anything, and STG_EFF=1, meaning that also the input and output flows (in the same commodity) could seemingly take arbitrary values without affecting the objective function?
However, those that have investment costs defined look ok to me.
Well yes, it looks correct to me, given the points you mentioned.
> In the second file, I try to model storage options available for investments. I hope that the "conventional" storage options, i.e., accumulator tanks and the underground storage (rows 8-10) are represented correctly. Would you agree?
For these, you have not defined the capacity bounding the input/output flows in any way. The capacity is thus bounding only the amount of energy stored. If that's as intended, I agree.
> The input data and assumptions (L52:S67) are still being verified but I am wondering if this way of representing building storage is correct?
I am not able to see the commodity characterization, and so cannot see the full picture. The RHAPA, RHAPB, RHAPC, RHAPE etc. commodities are apparently demand commodities? And you say that they represent "heat at the building side". So, is your demand actually space heat, and not the volume of heated space by building class? Anyway, obviously they should be on the DAYNITE level for the storage processes to work. As far as I can see, many of these "Buildings Thermal Energy Storage (BiTES)" processes have neither capacity-related costs nor capacity bounds in the Subres, and I think that might be problematic, especially as most of them have zero losses. For such cases (e.g. STGRHABiTES101), is there anything bounding the technology operation? If there are no capacity-related costs or bounds, there would be no capacity variable, and so the activity would not be bounded by any capacity, and it seems there are no activity costs or losses either. So it looks like the storage activity could take arbitrary values? Likewise, the input and output flows are not bounded by anything, and STG_EFF=1, meaning that also the input and output flows (in the same commodity) could seemingly take arbitrary values without affecting the objective function?
However, those that have investment costs defined look ok to me.