Download latest Version of VEDA-FE 4.5.815.

Veda Application Installation guide


UC_table
#1
Hi,

I want to add a user-constriant on total production of some of technologies (PSET: HPL_EH), which belong to a larger group of technologies (HPL,CHP). All of these technologies produce one common commodity (HCE). Enclosed please see the figure and the ~UC_T table. The constriant doesn't work and I get dummy emports. I need to say that I have ealier added a contriant to the model to be sure that HCE will be produced.

Could you please help me with this user-constriant?

Best regards,
AkramS


Attached Files
.docx   Q1_4.docx (Size: 23.52 KB / Downloads: 2)
Reply
#2
If you get dummy imports only when using this constraint, your constraint is infeasible (it cannot be satisfied without dummy imports). Have you checked the constraint parameters in the VEDA Browser?  Can you see there exactly the UC_COMPRD and UC_FLO parameters you have intended to have?  If they are all as intended, but you still get dummy imports due to the constraint, then the problem is in your formulation, and not in the UC specification itself. If the dummy imports appear only in some years, e.g. 2016, your constraint may just be too tight for that historical year.

Looking at your attachment, you indicate in the figure there that the HCE output from the set of HPL_EH processes should be constrained to at least 70% of the total HCE from HPL and CHP processes.  But in your UC constraint you use the EXH* members of the set PP_HPL_EH instead, and you define the total HCE as the HCE output from all processes (because COMPRD(HCE) = total production of HCE from all processes). Thus, at least one can see that your figure is somewhat inconsistent with your constraint, and you may wish to check whether you have made some mistake there (HPL_EH vs. EXH* ∩ PP_HPL_EH, and HPL+CHP vs. all processes).
Reply
#3
Hi Antti,

I realized that I could explain better the problem by correcting my previous attached file. Enclosed please see the better representation of the problem (including TIMES browser screenshot) . Still I have the same question. It seems that something is wrong with my UC-Constraint.

Thank you in dvanve.

AkramS


Attached Files
.docx   Q1_4_1.docx (Size: 41.26 KB / Downloads: 2)
Reply
#4
Well, you did not give answer to my question about whether the constraint is defined as you intended it.

Anyway, using all the information in your screenshot, I added one CHP supply for the HCE commodity, and the processes EXHURBHPC5N, EXHURBHPC6N, EXHURBHPC7N, EXHURBHPC8N into the DEMO model. I also defined some demand for the HCE commodity to require some supply for it. I then defined the constraint UC_UEH-PP_LOW just like you did, and tested the model.

The model and the constraint worked perfectly well! The proportion of the HCE output from the EXH* processes was indeed constrained to at least 70% of the total HCE supply, just as you said you wanted.  And no dummy imports at all.

Consequently, I cannot see anything wrong with the UC constraint: it works perfectly well, and exactly as you specified it.
Reply
#5
Dear Antti,

Thank you for testing the contraint in the DEMO model. I understand that there should be a demand for HCE to be sure that 70% of it can be produced with the PP_HPL_EH processes. In my model I do not have a demand on HCE directly. Please see the attached file for explanation of processes and constraints after HCE production. I have also included the TIMES view of my formulated contriants as your reference. The dummy commodities that my model generate are RESHXC* from 2020 to 2050. I have thought and tried different ways and things but I could not solve the problem. I would be very grateful if you could guid me.

Best regards,
AkramS


Attached Files
.docx   Q1_4_2.docx (Size: 65.05 KB / Downloads: 1)
Reply
#6
Dear Antti,

Now I found the problem. I had made mistake in CAP2ACT for PP_HPL_EH processes (1000 times less than it should be). This led to dummy imports. So no problem with my constraints att all.

Regards,
AkramS
Reply
#7
Great, thanks for the good news!  Smile
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)