You don't need several processes for time-dependent emission factors, or for allowing more flexibility in later periods. But it's all up to you of course, and I am sure you know best what is good for your model ...
I cannot see any FIX shares in 2025. All you shares for NFM109 were SHARE-I-UP~2025 in the your post above. And I cannot see any interpolation options either, so I see nothing weird.
(27-01-2021, 03:09 PM)Antti-L Wrote: You don't need several processes for time-dependent emission factors, or for allowing more flexibility in later periods. But it's all up to you of course, and I am sure you know best what is good for your model ...
I cannot see any FIX shares in 2025. All you shares for NFM109 were SHARE-I-UP~2025 in the your post above. And I cannot see any interpolation options either, so I see nothing weird.
Please see actuall situation in attached.
In result is only one fuel. But In SubRES file there are 3 fuels with FIX value.
In that latest screenshot you show results for the milestone years 2035, 2045 and 2050. And you also show that you have defined Share-I~FX~2030 and Share-I~FX~2040. So, you have no share bounds defined for the years 2035, 2045 and 2050, for which you show the results.
27-01-2021, 07:14 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2021, 07:18 PM by JozefO.)
(27-01-2021, 04:00 PM)Antti-L Wrote: In that latest screenshot you show results for the milestone years 2035, 2045 and 2050. And you also show that you have defined Share-I~FX~2030 and Share-I~FX~2040. So, you have no share bounds defined for the years 2035, 2045 and 2050, for which you show the results.
I have defined SHARE-I~FX for year 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050.
FIRST RUN. Please see attached PRICESFUEL. pic. And in RESULT got missing new fuel mix technology NFM-MARTIN- please see attached pic. MISSING.
SECOND RUN. Please see attached FUELPRICE0 pic. And RESULT showing me only period 2050 with LMB and MET fuel. Next is missing.
I have fixed SHARE-I for all period for new tech. But getting relly weird RESULTS. It is doing this because of fuel prices or why ? If i defined FIXED value for all period model should used fuel despite its Prices, right ?
27-01-2021, 07:58 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2021, 07:59 PM by Antti-L.)
Ok, so now you have SHARE-I~FX for years 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050.
And the results you show for NFM-MARTIN are fully consistent with those fixed shares. In 2050 you have equal amounts of LMB and MET, and zero HC, just like your fixed shares impose. And in all other years you have no activity, and thus no inputs at all.
So, I can see nothing weird there. The results are fully consistent with the fixed shares you have defined. Why your activities (and thus inputs) of NFM-MARTIN are all zero in 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045, is something only you can tell.
Q: "If i defined FIXED value for all period model should used fuel despite its Prices, right ?" A: No, if there is no activity for NFM-MARTIN, then that process should of course not use any fuels. Any fixed share of zero is zero.
(27-01-2021, 07:58 PM)Antti-L Wrote: Ok, so now you have SHARE-I~FX for years 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050.
And the results you show for NFM-MARTIN are fully consistent with those fixed shares. In 2050 you have equal amounts of LMB and MET, and zero HC, just like your fixed shares impose. And in all other years you have no activity, and thus no inputs at all.
So, I can see nothing weird there. The results are fully consistent with the fixed shares you have defined. Why your activities (and thus inputs) of NFM-MARTIN are all zero in 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045, is something only you can tell.
Q: "If i defined FIXED value for all period model should used fuel despite its Prices, right ?" A: No, if there is no activity for NFM-MARTIN, then that process should of course not use any fuels. Any fixed share of zero is zero.
Hi Antti. Thank you for your patience. Yesterday i was trying to figure out what is wrong. But model ignore some of my commands.
28-01-2021, 07:45 PM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2021, 07:46 PM by Antti-L.)
NCAP_TLIFE stands for Technical Lifetime of new capacity. If the process does not have any capacity, it has no effect. Processes have capacities only if they have some capacity-related parameters (other than lifetime), such as investment costs, capacity bounds, or residual capacities. Your results indeed indicate that your process CHPF75 has no capacity, and therefore the lifetime of 11 has no effect whatsoever.
As I said before, I would suggest using ACT_BND=zero for "shutting down" your old fuel mix processes, if you consider using such processes useful. Such ACT_BNDs would need interpolation options as well.
You may of course wonder why there is no capacity even if NCAP_TLIFE is specified (but no other capacity-related parameters). It is because of the problem that if there are no costs or bounds on the capacity, the capacities could actually take any arbitrary values up to infinity, without any cost impact. And therefore the capacity results could become very confusing. In the very early days of TIMES all processes did have capacities, but users did not like that, due to getting confused by seeing strange capacity results.
@JozefO, I suggest you share screen shots of the input data in Browse, with appropriate indexes dragged down to the rows area, instead of Excel files. Make sure you *don't* make any scenario selection, so that *all* input information is visible.
I fully trust Antti's ability to spot errors in Veda syntax that you present, but there might be surprises lurking in other files.
I have said this several times before, but users can save a lot of time and energy if they start interacting with input data in Veda browse (shortcut F7) rather than in Excel files.
29-01-2021, 02:08 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2021, 03:28 PM by JozefO.)
(29-01-2021, 08:07 AM)AKanudia Wrote: @JozefO, I suggest you share screen shots of the input data in Browse, with appropriate indexes dragged down to the rows area, instead of Excel files. Make sure you *don't* make any scenario selection, so that *all* input information is visible.
I fully trust Antti's ability to spot errors in Veda syntax that you present, but there might be surprises lurking in other files.
I have said this several times before, but users can save a lot of time and energy if they start interacting with input data in Veda browse (shortcut F7) rather than in Excel files.
Hello Antti and Amit Thank you very much.
I did what Antti said. I used ACT_BND = 0 for that technology CHPF75, for years, 2030 35 40 45 50. And New technology appeared in final result. Just for curiousity, if i add a column with attribute STOCK and actuall amout of fuel consumption for that fuel technology CHPF75, then it is possible to use LIFE to stop working ?
In BROWSE new fuel mix technology NFM-MARTIN, almost every attribute (only START year is in empty column ) are under the year 2018. Is it OK ? It seems it's working with that but just asking.
And my last notice, in result is a flat line of used FUELMIX in CHP technology and also emitted emissions related to that consumed fuel are same up to 2050 (differences are only between 2018 -2020 because of higher AFA factor ). CHPR is set as UP and HEAT demand has its own commodity projection and Electricity should be just secondary commodity. HEAT is primary commodity that is why has every HEAT its own demand projection.
If fuel consumption is calculated = EFF x electricity commodity production. Why is consumed fuel flat line, because produced electricity is not ?
(29-01-2021, 02:08 PM)JozefO Wrote: I did what Antti said. I used ACT_BND = 0 for that technology CHPF75, for years, 2030 35 40 45 50. And New technology appeared in final result.
No, you did not actually do what I said. I suggested to define ACT_BND for a single year and use an interpolation option. It is much better practice that way.
(29-01-2021, 02:08 PM)JozefO Wrote: Just for curiousity, if i add a column with attribute STOCK and actuall amout of fuel consumption for that fuel technology CHPF75, then it is possible to use LIFE to stop working ?
If you mean to use the TIMES attribute PRC_RESID(r,y,p) (aka "stock"), it defines the amount of existing capacity available in year y for technology p. Therefore, you would need to define it for at least two years: the Base year and the last year when the capacity is available. And then of course LIFE has no impact on the capacity availability, because it is unknown when the capacity has been built. So the answer is NO, you cannot use PRC_RESID+LIFE to stop it working as you intended. But it would indeed stop working if you would define PRC_RESID(r,y,p) appropriately, and if you prevent investing into new capacity.
(29-01-2021, 02:08 PM)JozefO Wrote: In BROWSE new fuel mix technology NFM-MARTIN, almost every attribute (only START year is in empty column ) are under the year 2018. Is it OK ? It seems it's working with that but just asking.
Sure that is OK. Most process parameters are by default fully inter-/extrapolated.
(29-01-2021, 02:08 PM)JozefO Wrote: CHPR is set as UP and HEAT demand has its own commodity projection [...]
If fuel consumption is calculated = EFF x electricity commodity production. Why is consumed fuel flat line, because produced electricity is not ?
I cannot see any NCAP_CHPR parameter defined.
But it never holds that Fuel consumption = EFF x electricity commodity production.
Nonetheless, in reality, flexible CHP processes indeed have the property of constant fuel consumption over a range of mixes of output electricity and heat. See the documentation, Part II, Section 4.1 Combined heat and power.
