Limit new investments

[demar]

Hi, 

How can I limit the investment in a new technology in a given to be at least the same or more than the previous year?

Investment in technology a (t+1) >= Investment in technology (t)

Thanks,
/Maria

[Antti-L]

I suspect that you may be thinking about a dynamic bound on new capacity installed (VAR_NCAP). As you can read from the documentation, dynamic bounds on VAR_NCAP are easy to define, example below for a TCARNELC process, which requires that VAR_NCAP(t) ≥ VAR_NCAP(t−1).
     

Dynamic constraints on investment costs are also possible, but would be more complex.

[demar]

I suspect that you may be thinking about a dynamic bound on new capacity installed (VAR_NCAP). As you can read from the documentation, dynamic bounds on VAR_NCAP are easy to define, example below for a TCARNELC process, which requires that VAR_NCAP(t) ≥ VAR_NCAP(t−1).
 

Dynamic constraints on investment costs are also possible, but would be more complex.

What does it really mean the year 2025 in this dyanmics bound? I am personally always afraid of using dynamic bounds or any user constraint tables... If I want to be aplied in all years, shouldn't I leave the year "empty"?

Many thanks
/Maria

[Antti-L]

The year 2025 simply means here that the UC_NCAP data point is defined for that year. And because the default IE option for dynamic bounds is 5, it will be extrapolated forwards to the end of the model horizon. I would suggest to specify there the starting year you want, i.e. the first year t for which the constraint VAR_NCAP(t) ≥ VAR_NCAP(t−1) should be generated. But yes, you could leave it empty as well, and VEDA would then fill in the default year for you.

Dynamic constraints can only be formulated either by genuine UC constraints (a bit more complex) or with dynamic bounds. The latter is quite simple to use, as you can see.  You can use that same name ("MINGRO" in the example) for all dynamic bounds of the same bound type, i.e. LO.

I tested my example with one of the demo models, and it worked well. However, note that any UC_T table in a scenario also needs a control tag above it, e.g.  ~UC_Sets: R_E: AllRegions.  I omitted that in my picture because in my test scenario there was already another UC_T table, and so I did not need it there.