Hi,
I'm comparing different scenarios, which differ in the number of TS. Scenario TS1 has 12TS, and scenario TS2 has 288 TS. I have included a peaking equation, so that both scenarios (TS1 and TS2) would take into account the actual peak demand.
These are the peak demands in all scenarios [GW]
Real Peak TS1 TS2
Demand 13.15842 11.35798 11.75629
COM_PKFLX 0.158518 0.119266
Therefore, I have introduced a value for COM_PKFLX value (see above) for the TS in which the peak occurs. Also, a 5% reserve margin is introduced. This is introduced via a scenario file (and a similar scenario file for scenario TS1):
~TFM_INS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TimeSlice |
LimType |
Attribute |
Year |
Attrib_Cond |
Val_Cond |
AllRegions |
BE |
Pset_Set |
Pset_PN |
Pset_PD |
Pset_CI |
Pset_CO |
Cset_Set |
Cset_CN |
Cset_CD |
WIWeeh19 |
COM_PKFLX |
0 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ELC |
|
WIWeeh19 |
COM_PKRSV |
0 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ELC |
|
WIWeeh19 |
COM_PKFLX |
2014 |
|
|
|
0.11926633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ELC |
|
WIWeeh19 |
COM_PKRSV |
2014 |
|
|
|
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ELC |
|
Now, when I look at the different scenarios (with and without the peaking equation), the behavior is quite strange:
Table Name: Capacity Comparison |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active
Unit: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period |
2014 |
2014 |
2014 |
2014 |
2020 |
2020 |
2020 |
2020 |
2030 |
2030 |
2030 |
2030 |
2040 |
2040 |
2040 |
2040 |
2050 |
2050 |
2050 |
2050 |
Attribute |
Process\ScenarioDesc |
TS_1_no_RES |
TS_1_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_2_no_RES |
TS_2_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_1_no_RES |
TS_1_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_2_no_RES |
TS_2_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_1_no_RES |
TS_1_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_2_no_RES |
TS_2_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_1_no_RES |
TS_1_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_2_no_RES |
TS_2_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_1_no_RES |
TS_1_no_peak_no_RES |
TS_2_no_RES |
TS_2_no_peak_no_RES |
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_COAST14 |
0.47 |
0.47 |
0.47 |
0.47 |
0.47 |
0.47 |
0.47 |
0.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_DSLICENew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.367793495 |
|
|
|
3.055845704 |
|
|
|
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_GASCCGT14 |
9.0964 |
9.0964 |
9.0964 |
9.0964 |
7.27712 |
7.27712 |
7.27712 |
7.27712 |
4.244986667 |
4.244986667 |
4.244986667 |
4.244986667 |
1.212853333 |
1.212853333 |
1.212853333 |
1.212853333 |
|
|
|
|
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_GASGT14 |
0.28 |
0.28 |
0.28 |
0.28 |
0.224 |
0.224 |
0.224 |
0.224 |
0.130666667 |
0.130666667 |
0.130666667 |
0.130666667 |
0.037333333 |
0.037333333 |
0.037333333 |
0.037333333 |
|
|
|
|
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_NUC14 |
5.9258 |
5.9258 |
5.9258 |
5.9258 |
5.33322 |
5.33322 |
5.33322 |
5.33322 |
4.345586667 |
4.345586667 |
4.345586667 |
4.345586667 |
3.357953333 |
3.357953333 |
3.357953333 |
3.357953333 |
2.37032 |
2.37032 |
2.37032 |
2.37032 |
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_NUCGenIIIplusNew |
|
|
|
|
2.49610002 |
2.49610002 |
2.504268193 |
2.504268193 |
8.03162693 |
8.03162693 |
8.04588541 |
8.04588541 |
10.75544797 |
10.75544797 |
10.7505638 |
10.7505638 |
13.17746867 |
13.17746867 |
13.17172884 |
13.17172884 |
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_PUMPST14 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
0.02031 |
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_Ren_PVBuilding14 |
2.501 |
2.501 |
2.501 |
2.501 |
1.90076 |
1.90076 |
1.90076 |
1.90076 |
0.90036 |
0.90036 |
0.90036 |
0.90036 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_Ren_WTOffsh14 |
0.4902 |
0.4902 |
0.4902 |
0.4902 |
0.372552 |
0.372552 |
0.372552 |
0.372552 |
0.176472 |
0.176472 |
0.176472 |
0.176472 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VAR_Cap |
EPLT_Ren_WTOnsh14 |
0.997 |
0.997 |
0.997 |
0.997 |
0.75772 |
0.75772 |
0.75772 |
0.75772 |
0.35892 |
0.35892 |
0.35892 |
0.35892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VAR_Cap |
Total |
19.78071 |
19.78071 |
19.78071 |
19.78071 |
18.85178202 |
18.85178202 |
18.85995019 |
18.85995019 |
18.20892893 |
18.20892893 |
18.22318741 |
18.22318741 |
16.75169147 |
15.38389797 |
15.3790138 |
15.3790138 |
18.62394438 |
15.56809867 |
15.56235884 |
15.56235884 |
I have following remarks
1) The total installed capacity is the same for the first couple of periods (probably due to overcapacity existing in the first period(s)).
2) The introduction of the peaking equation seems to have no effect on scenario TS_2. I tested it, with a higher value of COM_PKFLX, and then, the effects can be seen.
3) The total installed capacity is higher in TS_1, then in TS_2 in the later periods, while both scenarios should in principle be exposed to the same peak. As can be seen in the period containing the year 2050, the same plants are installed for all scenarios (and used to provide the electricity demand). The only thing that differs is that in scenario TS_1 with peaking equation, there is some additional investments in the technology with the lowest investment cost (DSLICENew).
4) In the scenarios without peaking equation, I would expect that the installed capacity would be dimensioned to the peak demand, and therefore be somewhat higher in TS2, which is not the case (but this could be due to the pumped storage).
5) I have been experimenting with different values of COM_PKFLX. I checked scenarios without renewables (with low NCAP_PKCNT), and pumped storage plants, and I would expect in those cases that the total installed capacity in the scenario with the peaking equation to be (1+COM_PKFLX) times higher than the total installed capacity in scenarios without the peaking equation. However, this seems not to be the case (but I can't see a trend in the difference from the expected value).
So what concerns me, is that in scenario TS1, the installed capacity is considerably higher than for TS2, while they should be exposed to the same peak (peaking equation).