IEA-ETSAP Forum

Full Version: 10 Fatal Error Storage Process
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi, I am new with VEDA-TIMES and I am trying to change an existing model. I had the following fatal error and warning related to the same process after I changed the input and output commodity for RHUNSTGH01, among other changes.  *** Process with missing or mismatched CG/PRC_ACTUNIT  *10 FATAL ERROR   -  No way to identify PCG:   R=BE           P=RHUNSTGH01  *** Empty Group in FLO_SUM/FLO_FUNC/FLO_SHAR  *01 WARNING       -     R=BE           P=RHUNSTGH01   CG=HEAT The RHUNSTGH01 process is defined (~FT_Process) and the characteristics are well declared (~FI_T) could you tell me what else can I check? what does this error mean?
The first error is directly related to the primary group (PCG). For some reason, it is not getting defined correctly, and so I suggest to check the ~FI_Process table. The second error is related to the HEAT commodity group, which appears in some FLO_SUM/FLO_FUNC/FLO_SHAR attribute defined for the process. If this is a storage process, there should not be any such attribute defined, unless you have defined auxiliary storage flows.  Anyway, apparently HEAT is neither a commodity in the topology, nor it is a commodity group containing any commodity in the topology, thus the error about an "empty" group. If you need a quick help-out, please provide the model input files (*.DD and *.RUN), for reproducing the model run with errors. Then it would be easy to point out exactly the problems and remedies to them.
The error is not appearing now even though I have not made any change. I have attached the .DD and .RUN files in case you can check if there is an anomaly.  Thanks.
Good!  Smile I tested it and got no such warnings.  All seemed fine with the PCG definition, and no HEAT appearing anywhere!  Mysterious... The only thing that draw my attention is the huge investment costs for RHUNSTGH01: 20888888 . Will the model ever invest in it? Or is it just to prevent investments into it (NCAP_BND would be better)?
About the big investment cost, yes, it is meant to be a big number for now Wink . About the HEAT commodity, indeed I am trying to replace it with RHUN (and delete HEAT from the whole model), then, I deleted HEAT from ~FI_Comm and I replaced all related inputs/Outputs with RHUN but it seems it is still declared somewhere.