Wouter Wrote:Dear all,
We face arbitrary VAR_SIN and VAR_SOUT flows for a storage STS process.
In other words, we have both an input and output in the same timeslice.
This effect is described in http://www.etsap.org/docs/TIMES-3.1-Information-Note.pdf
To prevent the undesirable impacts of such arbitrary storage flows, it is recommended to define the commodity only as an output or input of the storage process.
However, this did not work so my question is how I should prevent these flows ?
Kind regards,Wouter
This is a good question, but it is not clear what it implies.
Do you mean that there is a bug, such that the VAR_COMPRD variables still have arbitrary values, even though you define the commodity only as an output or input of the storage process? In that case, could you please provide details on the process description?
On the other hand, if it is not a bug, but the feature does work as designed, then your problem is not related to the undesired impacts described in the Information note. In that case, it is not clear what the undesired impacts are in your case, but there are several possibilities for remedy, e.g.:
-
You could bound the input/output flows by capacity, by
using NCAP_AFC;
- You could bound the maximum output flow to be limited by the activity at the beginning of each Timeslice (by using FLO_SHAR);
- You could offer a new and better design for storage processes, which eliminates your problem.
It would be interesting to know what the undesired impacts are in your case, if they are not related to arbitrary VAR_COMPRD values. Anyway, TIMES is a joint development effort of the ETSAP partners, and so you are invited to share also your solution to the design of storage processes, if you have one.