09-02-2024, 01:13 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2024, 01:15 AM by [email protected].)
Hi Folks,
Good day!
My extracted results have no attribute regarding cost (Cap_New, Cost_Act, Cost_Flow...)? Yet we have confirmed that the costs parameters are complete. Is there anybody know the potential reason?
09-02-2024, 04:06 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2024, 04:10 AM by Antti-L.)
Potentially you either have no discount rate defined for the base currency (which is mandatory), or you have used multiple currencies but no conversion factors defined to the base currency. Perhaps you could post the SysSettings.xlsx / SysSettings.DD to see what you have there? Normally, the discount rates and currency conversions are all defined there. (And maybe also tell us which currencies you have used for the cost parameters?) The listing file (*.LST) and the QA_Check.LOG file would also be helpful to see, if such are available from the VO run.
Ok, the listing file shows that you do have a lot of costs (OBJ value is 734581973.5751), and so it may be some reporting issue then. But sorry, I have no idea what that issue could be. I can also see that the investment costs appear to be all zero in the reporting routine; again no idea why that is so.
Very sorry that I am not able to help more (without seeing the model it is often very difficult).
12-02-2024, 06:17 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2024, 06:22 PM by kanors-bee.)
Hi Xiao,
We took a look at your model.
To fix the investment cost we introduced a table in BY_TRANS.xlsx
There is a default assumption in Veda i.e. any existing stock will not get new investments. This table will override that assumption.
We also restructured the FI_T tag table in vt_CANReg_IND_V1p1.xlsx, sheet Tech_Dem_Sm. Comm-in and Comm-out are not valid attributes. The following way is the correct way to represent topology.
This should bring down the OBJ value. We have submitted these changes on GitHub and created a pull request from the fork. Please take these changes and let us know if they work for you.
13-02-2024, 02:35 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2024, 02:50 AM by [email protected].)
Hi!
Thank you for the reply!
Excuse me but I got another quick question.
The Cost_IRE attribute of same trade process changes from positive to negative value with time (but the sum of Cost_ire for all processes would be zero), is that normal? (sry the pasted screeshot is confusing so i paste plain text here)
>Cost_IRE attribute of same trade process changes from positive to negative value (but the sum of Cost_ire for all processes would be zero), is that normal?
Yes, of course. Please read the documentation, which tells you that Cost_IRE reports the "Annual implied costs of endogenous trade", based on the trade equation marginals. Therefore, it can change from positive to negative for the same trade process, and the sum of Cost_IRE over all processes and regions is zero. The importer sees a cost equal to the revenue of the exporter, and the sum of the payment and the revenue is zero, because it is just a transfer of funds. This reporting parameter is useful to include when looking at regional costs, to account for the costs/revenues due to imports/exports.
13-02-2024, 05:18 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2024, 05:23 AM by [email protected].)
(13-02-2024, 04:05 AM)Antti-L Wrote: I can briefly comment on the following question:
>Cost_IRE attribute of same trade process changes from positive to negative value (but the sum of Cost_ire for all processes would be zero), is that normal?
Yes, of course. Please read the documentation, which tells you that Cost_IRE reports the "Annual implied costs of endogenous trade", based on the trade equation marginals. Therefore, it can change from positive to negative for the same trade process, and the sum of Cost_IRE over all processes and regions is zero. The importer sees a cost equal to the revenue of the exporter, and the sum of the payment and the revenue is zero, because it is just a transfer of funds. This reporting parameter is useful to include when looking at regional costs, to account for the costs/revenues due to imports/exports.
Thank you. I am wondering if there any potential mistakes implied by the following.
1. some middle-year (like 2030, which is the milestone year too) lacks the results of var_comnet and Var_Ncap data.
[for example, the VAR_COMNET results for AGRCO2 in 2010, 2015, 2025, 2030 are vacant, while the other years' results were specified; similar for Var_Ncap of AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE ]
Region Attribute Commodity Process - 2005 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
AL VAR_Comnet AGRCO2N - 3484 3171 NAN NAN 4190 NAN NAN 2990 2990 2990 2990
Region Attribute Commodity Process - 2005 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_COA 53.55 nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan
AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE nan nan nan nan nan nan nan 0.73 nan nan
AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-AuxiliaryMot_ELE 0.08 nan nan 0.16 nan 0.16 nan 0.16 nan 0.16
AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-Light_ELE 0.32 nan nan 0.63 nan 0.63 nan 0.63 nan 0.63
AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-SpCool_ELE 0.15 nan nan nan nan 0.06 nan 0.06 nan 0.06
AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-SpHeat_COA 81.11 nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-SpHeat_ELE nan nan nan nan 2.62 nan nan nan 2.62 nan
2. [font=Söhne, ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Noto Color Emoji"]Var_Fout for pumped hydropower surges over time after a certain time point.[/font]
Attribute Commodity Process - 2005 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
AL VAR_FOut ELC EEPP_HYDPS nan nan nan 71 20 nan 4934 2118 9883 2744 1822
(13-02-2024, 04:05 AM)Antti-L Wrote: I can briefly comment on the following question:
>Cost_IRE attribute of same trade process changes from positive to negative value (but the sum of Cost_ire for all processes would be zero), is that normal?
Yes, of course. Please read the documentation, which tells you that Cost_IRE reports the "Annual implied costs of endogenous trade", based on the trade equation marginals. Therefore, it can change from positive to negative for the same trade process, and the sum of Cost_IRE over all processes and regions is zero. The importer sees a cost equal to the revenue of the exporter, and the sum of the payment and the revenue is zero, because it is just a transfer of funds. This reporting parameter is useful to include when looking at regional costs, to account for the costs/revenues due to imports/exports.
Hi Antti,
Besides, do you know why the tech I defined in Base-year files (like AuxiliaryMot_ELE) still report some Cap_New in the results?
That would be unnormal, right? following the default that any existing stock will not get new investments.
(13-02-2024, 04:05 AM)Antti-L Wrote: I can briefly comment on the following question:
>Cost_IRE attribute of same trade process changes from positive to negative value (but the sum of Cost_ire for all processes would be zero), is that normal?
Yes, of course. Please read the documentation, which tells you that Cost_IRE reports the "Annual implied costs of endogenous trade", based on the trade equation marginals. Therefore, it can change from positive to negative for the same trade process, and the sum of Cost_IRE over all processes and regions is zero. The importer sees a cost equal to the revenue of the exporter, and the sum of the payment and the revenue is zero, because it is just a transfer of funds. This reporting parameter is useful to include when looking at regional costs, to account for the costs/revenues due to imports/exports.
Hi Antti,
Besides, do you know why the tech I defined in Base-year files (like AuxiliaryMot_ELE) still report some Cap_New in the results?
That would be unnormal, right? following the default that any existing stock will not get new investments.
Best,
Xiao
The default (any existing stock will not get new investments)was overridden when we introduced the table in BY_TRANS (first part of my previous post). The table makes Veda to not follow this assumption. That is why maybe you are seeing Cap_New for Base_year defined tech. Veda default works only when you have new option (techs) available for each tech with a RESID.
Also, we have added a new scenario Scen_TempInvCost.xlsx which contains the following table. This will introduce default investment costs where they have not been provided. Accept the pull request and include this scenario in your next solve. You should start seeing values for Cost_INV in your results after that.
(13-02-2024, 04:05 AM)Antti-L Wrote: I can briefly comment on the following question:
>Cost_IRE attribute of same trade process changes from positive to negative value (but the sum of Cost_ire for all processes would be zero), is that normal?
Yes, of course. Please read the documentation, which tells you that Cost_IRE reports the "Annual implied costs of endogenous trade", based on the trade equation marginals. Therefore, it can change from positive to negative for the same trade process, and the sum of Cost_IRE over all processes and regions is zero. The importer sees a cost equal to the revenue of the exporter, and the sum of the payment and the revenue is zero, because it is just a transfer of funds. This reporting parameter is useful to include when looking at regional costs, to account for the costs/revenues due to imports/exports.
Hi Antti,
Besides, do you know why the tech I defined in Base-year files (like AuxiliaryMot_ELE) still report some Cap_New in the results?
That would be unnormal, right? following the default that any existing stock will not get new investments.
Best,
Xiao
The default (any existing stock will not get new investments)was overridden when we introduced the table in BY_TRANS (first part of my previous post). The table makes Veda to not follow this assumption. That is why maybe you are seeing Cap_New for Base_year defined tech. Veda default works only when you have new option (techs) available for each tech with a RESID.
Also, we have added a new scenario Scen_TempInvCost.xlsx which contains the following table. This will introduce default investment costs where they have not been provided. Accept the pull request and include this scenario in your next solve. You should start seeing values for Cost_INV in your results after that.
Hi!
I understand why there is Cap_New for Base_year defined tech. Taking the AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE tech as defined in BS as an example, I defined the RESID for it's 2020, but VEDA insert the RESID in 2030 is 0 by default (because it's lifetime is 10 years). However, it was indicated in the results that after 2030, the AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE tech would get new-capacity. That means that the model permit new-investment for the techs defined in base scenario, as long as after the year when the RESID decay to zero. But, is that normal ??
13-02-2024, 10:15 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2024, 03:51 AM by [email protected].)
(13-02-2024, 09:21 PM)AKanudia Wrote: Solve your original model (before our modification) and let us know if you understand what is going on.
Thank you Amit!
There is one thing, I am totally confused, about the relationship among Cap_New, VAR_Ncap, and Cost_Inv.
1. Should it be like there co-exists Cost_Inv in accompany with Cap_New? Yet my results showed that there is no Cap_New even with investments into it?
2. Besides, the timeline for Cap_New and Cost_Inv are different..
3. Why VAR_Ncap always less than Cap_New ? is that because of the default user-constraint is LUMPINV rather than INSTCAP?
Region Attribute Commodity Process - 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE 0 0 0.243077573 0.243077573 0.243077573 0.243077573 0.243077573 0.243077573
Region Attribute Commodity Process - 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
AL Cap_New - AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE 0 0 2.673853308 2.673853308 2.673853308 2.673853308 2.673853308 2.673853308
(13-02-2024, 09:21 PM)AKanudia Wrote: Solve your original model (before our modification) and let us know if you understand what is going on.
Thank you Amit!
There is one thing, I am totally confused, about the relationship among Cap_New, VAR_Ncap, and Cost_Inv.
1. Should it be like there co-exists Cost_Inv in accompany with Cap_New? Yet my results showed that there is no Cap_New even with investments into it?
2. Besides, the timeline for Cap_New and Cost_Inv are different..
3. Why VAR_Ncap always less than Cap_New ? is that because of the default user-constraint is LUMPINV rather than INSTCAP?
Region Attribute Commodity Process - 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
AL VAR_Ncap - AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE 0 0 0.243077573 0.243077573 0.243077573 0.243077573 0.243077573 0.243077573
Region Attribute Commodity Process - 2020 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
AL Cap_New - AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE 0 0 2.673853308 2.673853308 2.673853308 2.673853308 2.673853308 2.673853308
Best,
Xiao
Hi good day!
I have tried two ways to try to make it right (try to make the timeline of Cap_inv and Cap_new or VAR_NCAP same, it means only if there were Cap_inv then the Cap_inv exists).
1. I have tried introduced NCAP_STARTYEAR, but the timeline for Cost_Inv and Cap_new still not same, investments still exist before the NCAP_START-YEAR;
2. I have tried introduced NCAP_BND for the start-year 2020 and the lifeend 2035, but the Cost_inv turns out to be all-zero while there still exists Cap_new or Var_NCAP.
Besides, it seems that there exits cap_inv even before the end-life point for an existing tech (for example, AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE). So it indicated that the inserted block which declares the NCAP_BND 0 for all years does not work ?
14-02-2024, 01:07 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2024, 01:09 PM by AKanudia.)
To help you understand the relationship between Cap_New, VAR_Ncap, and Cost_Inv better, I have attached a result table of tech AFM-AuxiliaryEquip_ELE.
You can see that CAP_NEW contains two pieces of information - INSTCAP and LUMPINV, where INSTCAP is same as the VAR_NCAP and LUMPINV is the product of VAR_NCAP and Investment Cost (10, which was supplied by us).
14-02-2024, 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2024, 06:26 PM by Antti-L.)
>INSTCAP is same as the VAR_NCAP and LUMPINV is the product of VAR_NCAP and Investment Cost (10, which was supplied by us)
Close, but not quite. INSTCAP takes into account repeated investments within periods, if such occur. That might possibly explain some of the confusion (about VAR_Ncap being smaller than INSTCAP; I noticed above some INSTCAPs being mentioned as exactly 11×VAR_NCAP, which might suggest such taking place; but just guessing without seeing the model). And LUMPINV includes also the impacts of IDC and hurdle rate, if defined.
Ahh, but maybe the user just summed up INSTCAP and 10 × INSTCAP (LUMPINV)! That would also explain it, but summing them up makes no sense.
