15-07-2022, 04:09 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2022, 04:14 AM by Antti-L.)
The link to the latest release is there now (see post above).
To force any retirements to be also refitted, use (for the host process prc):
● PRC_REFIT(r,prc,prc) = 2; (or a positive even integer value, i.e. zero modulo 2)
To enable the salvage value for the host process, use:
● NCAP_FDR(r,y,prc) = eps; (zero value in a VEDA template)
The zero NCAP_FDR means the standard salvage value (no functional depreciation). Any other positive value can also be used for enabling the salvage value, but then the value would be smaller than standard. NCAP_FDR is by default inter/extrapolated, and so any single year y is sufficient. Note that in my test I used the original 410 as the retrofit investment cost for the ATRNH3_CCS_retrofit process, and PRC_REFIT=-1 for the this retrofit option, like you originally had.
BTW: You seem to be defining many identical FLO_SHAR bound values for all milestone years, which could be easily avoided by just defining the value for a single year, and using an IE option (bounds are by default not inter/extrapolated, but the user can request such by specifying an IE option).
(15-07-2022, 04:09 AM)Antti-L Wrote: The link to the latest release is there now (see post above).
To force any retirements to be also refitted, use (for the host process prc):
● PRC_REFIT(r,prc,prc) = 2; (or a positive even integer value, i.e. zero modulo 2)
To enable the salvage value for the host process, use:
● NCAP_FDR(r,y,prc) = eps; (zero value in a VEDA template)
The zero NCAP_FDR means the standard salvage value (no functional depreciation). Any other positive value can also be used for enabling the salvage value, but then the value would be smaller than standard. NCAP_FDR is by default inter/extrapolated, and so any single year y is sufficient. Note that in my test I used the original 410 as the retrofit investment cost for the ATRNH3_CCS_retrofit process, and PRC_REFIT=-1 for the this retrofit option, like you originally had.
BTW: You seem to be defining many identical FLO_SHAR bound values for all milestone years, which could be easily avoided by just defining the value for a single year, and using an IE option (bounds are by default not inter/extrapolated, but the user can request such by specifying an IE option).
Hi Antti,
For updating the new released version of TIMES, do I need to delete the current TIMES file folder or just put the new version file folder into under VEDA folder?
I am not a VEDA expert, but under VEDA Run Manager, you can specify the "GAMS root". Under that, you can have any number of TIMES source code folders, if you like. The folder name perhaps must start with GAMS_SrcTIMES, but you could add e.g. GAMS_SrcTIMESv464 there. All the code files should be extracted directly in such a folder under the VEDA "GAMS Root". And then in Run Manager, you can select the source code folder you want to use.
You can also maintain just a single GAMS_SrcTIMES folder, updating the code manually there.
Anyway, I think VEDA can also automatically fetch new releases from the Github repository. Have you tried it Tools → Update TIMES code? Then just point "Source TIMES" to the new folder...
(15-07-2022, 05:04 AM)Antti-L Wrote: I am not a VEDA expert, but under VEDA Run Manager, you can specify the "GAMS root". Under that, you can have any number of TIMES source code folders, if you like. The folder name perhaps must start with GAMS_SrcTIMES, but you could add e.g. GAMS_SrcTIMESv464 there. All the code files should be extracted directly in such a folder under the VEDA "GAMS Root". And then in Run Manager, you can select the source code folder you want to use.
You can also maintain just a single GAMS_SrcTIMES folder, updating the code manually there.
Anyway, I think VEDA can also automatically fetch new releases from the Github repository. Have you tried it Tools → Update TIMES code? Then just point "Source TIMES" to the new folder...
Hi Antti,
I can automatically update the TIMES code and change the GAMS root to the new code. However, I am not sure whether I modify the CCS retrofit excel correctly cause I still cannot get the same results as yours. Can you check the CCS retrofit excel for me to see if it is correct? Thanks!!
15-07-2022, 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2022, 06:46 AM by Antti-L.)
I am not sure what you mean, but in my test run (with the results shown), I used :
● NCAP_COST(ATRNH3_CCS_retrofit) = 410 (investment cost as you originally had)
● PRC_REFIT(ATRNH3,ATRNH3) = 2; (force retrofits for any ATRNH3 retirement)
● PRC_REFIT(NGNH3,NGNH3) = 2; (force retrofits for any NGNH3 retirement)
● PRC_REFIT(ATRNH3,ATRNH3_CCS_retrofit) = -1; (retrofit option)
● PRC_REFIT(NGNH3,NGNH3_CCS) = -1; (retrofit option)
● NCAP_FDR(ATRNH3) = 0;
● NCAP_FDR(NGNH3) = 0;
If you still don't get the same solution as I did, then I think you must have changed something in your model, and so please provide me with the *.DD and *.RUN files again, plus the listing file *.LST.
I just tested running it again, and the results are again verified to be as I showed earlier.
(15-07-2022, 06:14 AM)Antti-L Wrote: I am not sure what you mean, but in my test run (with the results shown), I used :
● NCAP_COST(ATRNH3_CCS_retrofit) = 410 (investment cost as you originally had)
● PRC_REFIT(ATRNH3,ATRNH3) = 2; (force retrofits for any ATRNH3 retirement)
● PRC_REFIT(NGNH3,NGNH3) = 2; (force retrofits for any NGNH3 retirement)
● PRC_REFIT(ATRNH3,ATRNH3_CCS_retrofit) = -1; (retrofit option)
● PRC_REFIT(NGNH3,NGNH3_CCS) = -1; (retrofit option)
● NCAP_FDR(ATRNH3) = 0;
● NCAP_FDR(NGNH3) = 0;
If you still don't get the same solution as I did, then I think you must have changed something in your model, and so please provide me with the *.DD and *.RUN files again, plus the listing file *.LST.
I just tested running it again, and the results are again verified to be as I showed earlier.
(15-07-2022, 06:57 AM)Antti-L Wrote: The listing files shows that you are using TIMES v4.6.0.
You were supposed to use the new TIMES v4.6.4. Please upgrade now, thanks, or in VEDA, point VEDA to the new version, v4.6.4.
Haha, that's embarrassing. Actually I forgot to choose the new version in the case setting. Anyway, now the result look good to me. Thanks for your help very much!!!
