Hi,
Something bizar is happening in a testcase I'm experimenting with to test some features for a bigger model.
The test model consists of a exogenous demand for electricity, and a limited amount of generating technologies: coal fired plants, and gas turbines.
Characteristics of both technologies, as well as the IRE processes providing the respective fuels are given below:
TechName |
*TechDesc |
Comm-IN |
Comm-OUT |
CUM |
COST |
EFF |
STG_EFF |
STG_LOSS |
CEFF-I |
Stock~2010 |
Stock~2020 |
Stock~2030 |
Stock~2040 |
Stock~2050 |
Stock~2060 |
AFA |
FIXOM |
VAROM |
Life |
CAP2ACT |
*Technology
Name |
Technology Description |
Input Commodity |
Output Commodity |
Reserves Cumulative Value |
Extraction cost or Import Price or
Export Price |
Efficiency |
Cyclic efficiency of storage
device |
Annual Storage loss (as a
fraction of storage content) |
Commodity Input Efficiency |
Existing Installed Capacity |
Existing Installed Capacity |
Existing Installed Capacity |
Existing Installed Capacity |
Existing Installed Capacity |
Existing Installed Capacity |
Annual Availability Factor. |
Fixed O&M Cost |
Variable O&M Cost |
Lifetime of Process |
Capacity to Activity Factor |
EPLT_COAST10 |
|
COA |
ELC |
|
|
0.36 |
|
|
|
17 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
17 |
1 |
|
|
80 |
31.536 |
EPLT_GASGT10 |
|
GAS |
ELC |
|
|
0.39 |
|
|
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
80 |
31.536 |
DMD_ELC |
|
ELC |
ELCDEM |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
1 |
|
|
100 |
31.536 |
IMP_COA |
|
|
COA |
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMP_GAS |
|
|
GAS |
|
99999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPLT_PUMPST |
|
ELC |
ELC |
|
|
|
0.95 |
0 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
The demand for each TS is given below. I use 12 TS: 4 SEASONAL (SU, FA, WI, SP) and 3 DAYNITE TS (D, P, N)
CommName |
Demand |
SUD |
FAD |
WID |
SPD |
SUP |
FAP |
WIP |
SPP |
SUN |
FAN |
WIN |
SPN |
*Demand
Commodity Name |
Demand Value |
Load Curve by time
slice |
|
|
ELCDEM |
315.36 |
0.1 |
0.125 |
0.15 |
0.125 |
0.06 |
0.075 |
0.09 |
0.075 |
0.04 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Check |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G_YRFR |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Demand per TS in Baseyear [PJ] |
31.536 |
39.42 |
47.304 |
39.42 |
18.9216 |
23.652 |
28.3824 |
23.652 |
12.6144 |
15.768 |
18.9216 |
15.768 |
|
Average power per TS in baseyear [GW] |
10 |
12.5 |
15 |
12.5 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
15 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
As the average power per TS in combination with the stock of existing plants indicates, only in the WIP TS, the demand can't be met without using the extremely expensive gas turbine and the storage device. As expected, the results show that in this TS, the pumped storage is activated to it's maximal potential (limited in flow through an external scenario file), and some help from the GT is needed. As expected, the GT is used as little as possible in this TS (see results below).
|
Period |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
2010 |
Attribute |
Process\TimeSlice |
FAD |
FAN |
FAP |
SPD |
SPN |
SPP |
SUD |
SUN |
SUP |
WID |
WIN |
WIP |
EQ_CombalM |
- |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
11.11111 |
22756.41 |
VAR_FIn |
DMD_ELC |
39.42 |
15.768 |
23.652 |
39.42 |
15.768 |
23.652 |
31.536 |
12.6144 |
18.9216 |
47.304 |
18.9216 |
28.3824 |
VAR_FIn |
EPLT_PUMPST |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
VAR_FOut |
EPLT_COAST10 |
39.42 |
15.1412 |
23.652 |
39.42 |
15.1412 |
23.652 |
30.9092 |
12.6144 |
18.9216 |
47.304 |
19.9216 |
26.8056 |
VAR_FOut |
EPLT_GASGT10 |
|
0.6268 |
|
|
0.6268 |
|
0.6268 |
|
|
|
|
0.6268 |
VAR_FOut |
EPLT_PUMPST |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.95 |
However, for some unclear reason, the GT is also used in other TS, where to Coal Plant should have no problem of delivering the demand. It is remarkable that the output of the Gas turbine is identical for all TS in which it is used. The price (EQ_Combal.M) also indicates that an additional unit of demand could be delivered by the coal plant (11.11= 4/0.36). Anyone who can explain these bizar results?
Some additional remarks:
I would expect the price in the WIP to reflect the cost of producing an additional unit of electricity with the gas plant (99999/0.39), but this is not the case.
The price of using the gas plant (99999/0.39) exceeds the cost of the dummy variables, yet, these are not used. Why could this be?