I think that my attribute AFA is being dismissed...
#1
Hi, 

In my model, I consider both existing cars and future investment options. To both of them, I specify the AFA (that differs for the existing cars according to the engine, while for the new investments I use the municipality average - and thus, AFA for new cars are defined as an scenario as I do for occupancy rate and efficiency). 

Yet, when I look at my results I just noticed that my AFA for new cars is always constant at around 60% of the maximum AFA, while for the existing cars I see that they drive 0.44% higher than the AFA. (I divide the var_fout(dtcar in my case) by (var_cap*occupancy rate)).

I feel that I am doing something wrong, but not able to figure out what. Any help?

(I attached some images of my vt, my subres, my AFA scenario, and my results).

Thanks,
/M


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
               
Reply
#2
Well, if I look just at the first row of your "results" (TCANBELCAV), the ratio of "Maximum annual" to "Results" is 1.59. This happens to be the PRC_ACTFLO value you have used for the existing cars. However, that parameter seems to be missing for the new cars, which would thus fully explain the "around 60%" issue. Concerning the 0.44% issue, I think it actually looks like a 0.044% issue (based on your table), which could be caused by rounding 1.5907 to 1.59 in your calculations.
Reply
#3
(20-02-2024, 04:21 AM)Antti-L Wrote: Well, if I look just at the first row of your "results" (TCANBELCAV), the ratio of "Maximum annual" to "Results" is 1.59. This happens to be the PRC_ACTFLO value you have used for the existing cars. However, that parameter seems to be missing for the new cars, which would thus fully explain the "around 60%" issue. Concerning the 0.44% issue, I think it actually looks like a 0.044% issue (based on your table), which could be caused by rounding 1.5907 to 1.59 in your calculations.

Hi, 

I do consider ACT_FLOW for new cars, but in a scenario file (considering that it changes according to my municipalities), as I attached bellow. But maybe the scenario is not working, as it makes sense with the difference of 60%. 

So what could potentially be wrong?


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#4
You are missing the CG index. PRC_ACTFLO(r,y,p,cg) expects a commodity or a commodity group for the CG index. You could put DTCAR into CSet_CN.
Reply
#5
(20-02-2024, 03:39 PM)Antti-L Wrote: You are missing the CG index.  PRC_ACTFLO(r,y,p,cg) expects a commodity or a commodity group for the CG index. You could put DTCAR into CSet_CN.

Now it works! Super thanks. 

For the efficiency (CEFF-I), I also will need a CSet_CN, right? As I am assuming in the attached picture.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)