CHP modelling
#9
(22-04-2019, 06:09 AM)Antti-L Wrote: Ok, thanks.  
It was easy to see what the problem was: Your CHP processes do not have any electricity output. You would have seen it easily from the QA_Check.log, where these warnings were given:

*** Found CHP processes without electricity in the PG
*01 WARNING       -     R=BE           P=EPLT_CHPBIOnew
*01 WARNING       -     R=BE           P=EPLT_CHPENnew
*01 WARNING       -     R=BE           P=EPLT_CHPGTnew

As you have no outputs defined to be electricity, it should be obvious that the CHP parameters cannot work: How do you suppose the NCAP_CHPR could work without any output being defined to be electricity?

Sure, these processes have a commodity named ELC as an output, but you have to define that commodity as an electricity commodity if you want to use the CHP parameters. You can do that in the ~FI_Comm table, by putting ELC in the Ctype column.

I tested your model with that correction, and the CHPR ratios then worked as expected.

But you have other problems with your CHP parameters. I can see that you have changed the efficiencies from your earlier version, and that your new CHP parameters no longer make sense.

1) You are now apparently defining electrical efficiencies (28%−60%), while in your earlier Subres file you apparently defined total efficiencies (they were 96%−110%). But you are still defining NCAP_CEH=1, which should only be used if you define the efficiencies in terms of total power+heat output!  Did you read the documentation (Table 18)?
2) Even if you remove the NCAP_CEH=1 specifications, your new efficiencies still don't look sensible. Example: You define an efficiency of 60% for EPLT_CHPGTnew in 2050, and CHPR=1.47. So, your total efficiency would be 0.6*(1+1.47)=1.482.  I think such a high efficiency is not possible for a CCGT CHP plant.

Because your costs seem to be per electrical capacity, I would recommend to remove the NCAP_CEH=1 parameters, but you should also correct your electrical efficiencies (and/or your CHPR). Dividing your original efficiencies (which were between 96% and 110%) by (1+CHPR) would be seem to be a good starting point.


Now it's working alright. Thanks for your patience and your suggestions on inputting the efficiency.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
CHP modelling - by MohammedAbiAfthab - 19-04-2019, 09:23 PM
RE: CHP modelling - by Antti-L - 19-04-2019, 10:50 PM
RE: CHP modelling - by MohammedAbiAfthab - 20-04-2019, 11:46 AM
RE: CHP modelling - by Antti-L - 21-04-2019, 12:15 AM
RE: CHP modelling - by MohammedAbiAfthab - 21-04-2019, 10:52 PM
RE: CHP modelling - by Antti-L - 22-04-2019, 01:06 AM
RE: CHP modelling - by MohammedAbiAfthab - 22-04-2019, 02:27 AM
RE: CHP modelling - by Antti-L - 22-04-2019, 06:09 AM
RE: CHP modelling - by MohammedAbiAfthab - 22-04-2019, 04:25 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)