I am modelling refinery. Input to the refinery according to balance sheet is more than the output (in PJ), for this reason my efficiency is >1. It seems that Veda disregards that the efficiency is more than one and as the result, model requires more input than balance sheet provides and produces less output than balance sheet provides. attached are the snapshots of the model and the results. Could you please help me figure out what I am doing wrong?
14-06-2022, 10:01 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2022, 10:19 PM by Antti-L.)
>Input to the refinery according to balance sheet is more than the output (in PJ), for this reason my efficiency is >1.
Efficiency is calculated from the shadow group to the activity (where activity=flows in the PCG). If the sum of your inputs is larger than the sum of outputs, and you say that the efficiency >1, I think the PCG should consist of the inputs. However, you do not give information about the PCG or the commodity types.
Nevertheless, looking at your results, it seems to me that your PCG possibly consists of the input flows OILCRD and OILFDS. And you specify ACT_EFF(OILCRD) = 1.00344. Let's see if your results are consistent with this:
• The input flows in the PCG are OILCRD=335.48 and OILFDS=12.01. The efficiency when using OILCRD is defined as 1.00344, and the efficiency when using OILFDS is (by default) 1. Therefore, the sum of the NRG outputs in the shadow group should be 335.48 / 1.00344 +12.01 / 1 = 346.34.
• The sum of the output flows in the shadow group NRG appears to be 145.95 + 65.99 + 5.6 + 9.32 + 17.46 + 39.59 + 25.6 + 29.15 + 0.87 + 6.81 = 346.34, which is equal to the expected amount calculated from the PCG flows.
As you can see, the results are consistent with the assumptions I made, and therefore I am not able to see the problem you described ("model requires more input than balance sheet provides and produces less output than balance sheet provides"). I could not find the balance sheet, but the calculation above does not confirm any discrepancy. Could you please clarify the problem by giving some more information?
Note that if you would wish to specify the efficiency from the full shadow group (NRG outputs) to the activity (PCG inputs), you could define ACT_EFF(NRG) = efficiency.
(14-06-2022, 10:01 PM)Antti-L Wrote: >Input to the refinery according to balance sheet is more than the output (in PJ), for this reason my efficiency is >1.
Efficiency is calculated from the shadow group to the activity (where activity=flows in the PCG). If the sum of your inputs is larger than the sum of outputs, and you say that the efficiency >1, I think the PCG should consist of the inputs. However, you do not give information about the PCG or the commodity types.
Nevertheless, looking at your results, it seems to me that your PCG possibly consists of the input flows OILCRD and OILFDS. And you specify ACT_EFF(OILCRD) = 1.00344. Let's see if your results are consistent with this:
• The input flows in the PCG are OILCRD=335.48 and OILFDS=12.01. The efficiency when using OILCRD is defined as 1.00344, and the efficiency when using OILFDS is (by default) 1. Therefore, the sum of the NRG outputs in the shadow group should be 335.48 / 1.00344 +12.01 / 1 = 346.34.
• The sum of the output flows in the shadow group NRG appears to be 145.95 + 65.99 + 5.6 + 9.32 + 17.46 + 39.59 + 25.6 + 29.15 + 0.87 + 6.81 = 346.34, which is equal to the expected amount calculated from the PCG flows.
As you can see, the results are consistent with the assumptions I made, and therefore I am not able to see the problem you described ("model requires more input than balance sheet provides and produces less output than balance sheet provides"). I could not find the balance sheet, but the calculation above does not confirm any discrepancy. Could you please clarify the problem by giving some more information?
Note that if you would wish to specify the efficiency from the full shadow group (NRG outputs) to the activity (PCG inputs), you could define ACT_EFF(NRG) = efficiency.
Hi, sorry for the confusion, I wrote incorrectly in a rush. The sum of outputs is more than the sum of inputs. In the attached file below you can see how much input and output should be according to the balance sheet. In fact crude oil should only be consumed 333.49 as input and for example, oilnap output should be 39.72. In my current situation more crude oil is consumed and less oilnap is produced. The PrimaryCG of the process SSCDRFLX00 is NRGI. did I answer your questions?
14-06-2022, 11:55 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2022, 01:10 PM by Antti-L.
Edit Reason: members on the shadow side
)
Ok, thanks.
So, your PCG indeed consists of the input flows OILCRD and OILFDS (=NRGI), assuming they are of type NRG (you did not give information on the commodity types). Therefore, the efficiency is calculated from the output NRG flows (=shadow group) to the activity. The efficiency value should therefore be 345.434384 / 346.623939 = 0.996568168. You can specify it by any of the following:
So, your PCG indeed consists of the input flows OILCRD and OILFDS (=NRGI), assuming they are of type NRG (you did not give information on the commodity types). Therefore, the efficiency is calculated from the output NRG flows (=shadow group) to the activity. The efficiency value should therefore be 345.434384 / 346.623939 = 0.996568168. You can specify it by any of the following:
Sorry about the typo: ACT_EFF expects a group, which has members on the shadow side (opposite of the PCG), or the ACT placeholder (for default shadow group). Therefore, you of course cannot use NRGI, because it has no members on the shadow side. Instead, you can use NRGO, NRG, and ACT.
