Veda2.0 Released!


Storage output without capacity deployment
#1
Hello.

I have a storage (STG, DAYNITE) process STGPROC that takes in commodity S1 and outputs commodity S2. S2 should be used by a PRE process in the Sector_Fuels sheet, where it is used to make ELC, and emissions are tagged on to the ELC output. S2 can only be made by STGPROC in the entire model.

I'm noticing that STGPROC is generating S2 using S1 without any capacity of STGPROC being deployed (nothing in the table Var_Cap n STGPROC), which is then being used to generate electricity. I have noticed this with another process on a couple of other occasions. I am not sure what is going wrong, and how to fix this. Could you please suggest a fix?

Thanks.
Reply
#2
As far as I can tell, having an output flow but no capacity for a storage process can occur only if
1) You have not defined any capacity-related parameters (e.g. investment costs), or
2) You have modelled the capacity only in terms of the maximum storage level, and no storage operation takes place.

Of course, in the second case (when the capacity represents the maximum amount that can be stored) no capacity is needed if no storage operation takes place (i.e. no energy is getting stored).  Storage capacity is in that case needed only when something is actually stored in the storage.

If you want that capacity should be required even when nothing is stored, you should consider defining the capacity also (or exclusively) in terms of the output level (using NCAP_AFC / NCAP_AFCS). Alternatively, you could also consider bounding the output flow in each timeslice in proportion to the amount stored in the beginning of that timeslice, which would then require having storage capacity accordingly.
Reply
#3
Thank you, it was #2, and defining NCAP_AFC(and only NCAP_AFC) for output commodities fixed my problem - the model is working exactly as I would like. But now my model's solve time has increased, from 11 min to 2h 45min. Two questions:
1. Is it fine if I don't define NCAP_AFC for the input commodity at all? Will it be set to 1 by default?
2. Do you have any tips to reduce the solution time? Is reducing the GAMS ITERLIM a good idea?

Thanks.
Reply
#4
1) It is fine. If the input/output commodities are different, and you define NCAP_AFC for the output only, the input flow will not be bounded by the constraint.
2) If you have not been bounding the storage level by the capacity, and neither have defined activity costs, defining an availability factor also for the storage level (by NCAP_AFC(ACT) as explained in the doc) would prevent arbitrarily large storage levels and might thereby improve solution performance.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Help modeling storage technologies Abdulaziz 5 798 23-07-2024, 02:07 PM
Last Post: Abdulaziz
  how to define the capacity or stock for storage? guozhi1305 6 2,022 08-05-2024, 05:47 PM
Last Post: guozhi1305
  Ratio between output commodities seb 31 64,359 01-07-2022, 04:06 PM
Last Post: vincedh
  About RNW capacity guozhi1305 4 2,884 19-05-2022, 08:13 AM
Last Post: guozhi1305
  Storage Interpeting In and Out flows vangelis 15 20,325 23-07-2021, 11:38 AM
Last Post: zheng
  Questions on storage and CAP_BND srchlela 2 2,676 18-05-2021, 05:21 PM
Last Post: srchlela
  User constraint for minimum storage activity Anjali 4 4,182 15-01-2021, 07:38 PM
Last Post: Anjali
  Solar lower costs impact capacity constraints LucasD 10 9,156 18-12-2020, 03:04 PM
Last Post: AKanudia
  Levelised cost of Storage Anjali 3 4,763 03-05-2020, 11:32 PM
Last Post: Antti-L
  Vintages for storage processes - unable to understand experience ach 0 1,921 24-04-2020, 02:28 AM
Last Post: ach

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)