Need help with scenario building

[rinahaiges]

Dear VEDA support team ,
I have a few questions that require your urgent feedback as follows:
i)                   I’m attaching the folder for the optimal least cost scenario for your reference. What I’ve done is I’ve included some new renewable technologies on top to the technology as planned by the government (business as usual case), i.e. tidal, offshore wind, geothermal, biogas and solar PV and I have identified their viable annual maximum potential for each source and left it to the model to find the optimal mix. Can you confirm if my understanding and way to derive this scenario is correct? Can you help me improve/ fix the model, because I noticed after running it in VEDA-BE, results for plant capacity for certain new technologies starts from base year 2013 despite only introduced in later years.  (ie, biogas in 2015, solar should appear in 2017, geothermal in 2016,  tidal and wind in 2030 onwards). Could this be because the wrong interpolation codes were applied? Please advise.

 ii)              If I wanted to set an assumption that capacity for certain technology is maintained throughout the study since base year, I just need to add in stock~2050 correct? What is the best approach for this?
iii)                  I just wanted to seek your clarification that Electric Generation by Fuel Group reported by VEDA BE refers to the total primary fuel used to generate electricity, correct? That’s why the figures are more than the electricity generated value.
iv)                If I wanted to include nuclear energy, I just need to include it the same way as I did for renewables, is this correct? Or is it better to use the new techs sheet? I’ll wait for your reply before I do this because nuclear will be introduced in 2030 as well, if I do it now, it will also start to appear beginning 2013.
v)                   For the domestic supply curve share percentage in the energy balance sheet, I wanted to get a clarification on how to derive the exact value for this. What is the difference between step 1 and step 2?
vi)                   If I wanted to include storage (ie. lithium ion batteries) for intermittent technologies such as solar PV how do I model it so that it is linked to solar PV and wind only?
vii)                  If I wanted to add interconnectors (High Voltage Direct Current) into the model can you show how to do this? I’ve calculated the gross cost, if per meter is £100, then 1km would be £100,000. If the total length of the submarine cables is 670km, then total cost would be £67,000,000.
viii)                I’ve tried to prepare user constraint for 20% share of solar penetration into the generation mix (refer attached scenario file) can you confirm if this is correct?  Can you show if I wanted to include other renewables technology like wind share fix at 5% and tidal fixed at 10 %.
iv)                If I wanted to create a user constraint whereby we limit the import of fuels by a certain percentage, how do we do it?

Thank you.

Kind regards,
rina

[Antti-L]

Although I am not really a member of the VEDA support team, please find my answers below:

i) You are defining existing capacities for the biogas, solar, geothermal, tidal and wind plants already in the Base Year, 2013. The reason why they appear already in 2013 is that you have specifically defined them to appear already in the Base Year. If you want to define new capacities installed in e.g. 2020 or 2030, you should not define those capacities as existing stocks in the Base Year, but use e.g. NCAP_PASTI(2030)=X for defining a capacity of X introduced in 2030.  See your sheet NewElc for examples.
ii) Yes, the easiest way to define that the capacity X of a certain technology is still remaining in place in 2050 is to define PRC_RESID(r,2050,p)=X (and if you go for stocks, stock~2050).
iii) Concerning "Electric Generation by Fuel Group" reported by VEDA BE, I don't know how your table has been defined; the BE tables are all user-defined. But in the DEMO model I can indeed see a table with that name, and that table reports the outputs (Var_Fout) of electricity plants. The values are thus electricity outputs. But in that DEMO model table they are by default in PJ, and therefore the values may look 3.6 times too large to some users.
iv) Yes, you can include new nuclear power plants in the same way as other new electricity generation plants.
v) I don't know the difference between step 1 and step 2 in the domestic supply curve share percentages in the energy balance sheet. I think you should address this question to Amit/@Kanors.com, who developed that template.
vi) Concerning storage, which is to be linked to solar PV and wind only, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with it, if you really require that the storage flows must be linked to the solar PV and wind plants only? But if you mean that the storage should only be charged by the output from the solar PV and wind plants, it would easy to define a storage with just Input=ELC, and then add a user constraint limiting the charging flow to be at most equal to the output from the solar PV and/or wind plants in each timeslice.
vii) Concerning interconnectors, it depends on what you want to interconnect. I am not seeing any regional structure in your model, and so it remains unclear how you would like to use the DC interconnectors in the model.  Answering the question correctly would require seeing your design for the model topology in relation to these processes. But anyway, you could use bi-directional trade links for both intra-regional and inter-regional transmission line processes. See an example in the DEMO model.
viii) Concerning the user constraint for a 20% share of solar penetration into the generation mix, I cannot confirm that it is correct. See below for one alternative suggestion that should work.
ix) Concerning a user constraint whereby you limit the import of fuels by a certain percentage, to know how to do it, the formulation of the desired equation should be given in mathematical terms. First, write down the equation in algebraic form, and then, if the equation is linear, or can be linearized, I am sure it can be implemented it in VEDA. But without knowing exactly what you want, it would be just wild guessing…

Small additional note: You'd better not define the same parameter values multiple times within the same template. For example, on the sheet Pri_SOL you are defining ten (10) times the same parameter value ACT_BND('REG1','0','MINSOL1','ANNUAL','UP')=5. Defining each parameter just once is enough.

[rinahaiges]

Although I am not really a member of the VEDA support team, please find my answers below:

i) You are defining existing capacities for the biogas, solar, geothermal, tidal and wind plants already in the Base Year, 2013. The reason why they appear already in 2013 is that you have specifically defined them to appear already in the Base Year. If you want to define new capacities installed in e.g. 2020 or 2030, you should not define those capacities as existing stocks in the Base Year, but use e.g. NCAP_PASTI(2030)=X for defining a capacity of X introduced in 2030.  See your sheet NewElc for examples.
ii) Yes, the easiest way to define that the capacity X of a certain technology is still remaining in place in 2050 is to define PRC_RESID(r,2050,p)=X (and if you go for stocks, stock~2050).
iii) Concerning "Electric Generation by Fuel Group" reported by VEDA BE, I don't know how your table has been defined; the BE tables are all user-defined. But in the DEMO model I can indeed see a table with that name, and that table reports the outputs (Var_Fout) of electricity plants. The values are thus electricity outputs. But in that DEMO model table they are by default in PJ, and therefore the values may look 3.6 times too large to some users.
iv) Yes, you can include new nuclear power plants in the same way as other new electricity generation plants.
v) I don't know the difference between step 1 and step 2 in the domestic supply curve share percentages in the energy balance sheet. I think you should address this question to Amit/@Kanors.com, who developed that template.
vi) Concerning storage, which is to be linked to solar PV and wind only, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with it, if you really require that the storage flows must be linked to the solar PV and wind plants only? But if you mean that the storage should only be charged by the output from the solar PV and wind plants, it would easy to define a storage with just Input=ELC, and then add a user constraint limiting the charging flow to be at most equal to the output from the solar PV and/or wind plants in each timeslice.
vii) Concerning interconnectors, it depends on what you want to interconnect. I am not seeing any regional structure in your model, and so it remains unclear how you would like to use the DC interconnectors in the model.  Answering the question correctly would require seeing your design for the model topology in relation to these processes. But anyway, you could use bi-directional trade links for both intra-regional and inter-regional transmission line processes. See an example in the DEMO model.
viii) Concerning the user constraint for a 20% share of solar penetration into the generation mix, I cannot confirm that it is correct. See below for one alternative suggestion that should work.
ix) Concerning a user constraint whereby you limit the import of fuels by a certain percentage, to know how to do it, the formulation of the desired equation should be given in mathematical terms. First, write down the equation in algebraic form, and then, if the equation is linear, or can be linearized, I am sure it can be implemented it in VEDA. But without knowing exactly what you want, it would be just wild guessing…

Small additional note: You'd better not define the same parameter values multiple times within the same template. For example, on the sheet Pri_SOL you are defining ten (10) times the same parameter value ACT_BND('REG1','0','MINSOL1','ANNUAL','UP')=5. Defining each parameter just once is enough.

[AKanudia]

I sincerely thank Antti for this post on this thread.

Rina, Google "stepwise linear supply curve" and see if that helps with your question (v).

[anadeveza]

I have a question that relates to item ii).

I can see from VBE that the capacity of HYDRO_ELC process decay over the life time. However, I would like to keep the STOCK inserted in the base year to all years of the life time of all processes (no decayment). I am trying to imput this rule via ~TFM_UPD (fist trying only for RNW set). My doubt is how to express this rule. In special, what to insert in columnAllRegions, since easch region has a different STOCK in the base year. The attached image shown my attempt.

Could you help me with this?

Thanks,
Ana

[AKanudia]

send a screen shot of VFE Browse, with this process and Attribute=PRC_RESID. Show all regions in rows or columns

[anadeveza]

send a screen shot of VFE Browse, with this process and Attribute=PRC_RESID. Show all regions in rows or columns

Here is my VEDA Browse for this specific process.

[Gary]

set the 2053 PRC_RESID = to the 2013 value for each plant you want to have the RESID Capacity remain constant over the planning horizon

[anadeveza]

set the 2053 PRC_RESID = to the 2013 value for each plant you want to have the RESID Capacity remain constant over the planning horizon