I am getting the error of IO=OUT for 3 technologies with the same commodity. This commodity/technology declaration is made at the same time as several other technologies with the same commodity, but I don't get the IO-OUT error for those other technologies. I am attaching the QAcheck log and the BaseTrans file. Where do I look to resolve this issue? What is this error message telling me? All of these technologies are used in the same way. All, via this declaration, can output either ELC or RNWELC2. One difference that I see is that the EURN* technologies, which have the error, have only ELC "starred" as the PCG in Items Detail while the other technologies have both ELC and RNWELC "starred."
28-01-2022, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2022, 04:01 PM by Antti-L.
Edit Reason: typo
)
I assume you refer to the warnings about flows that do not seem to be tied to anything:
*** RPC in TOP not found in any ACTFLO/FLO_SHAR/FLO_FUNC/FLO_SUM
*01 WARNING - R=R1 P=EURNALWR15 C=RNWELC2 IO=OUT
*01 WARNING - R=R1 P=EURNALWRO C=RNWELC2 IO=OUT
*01 WARNING - R=R1 P=EURNALWRR C=RNWELC2 IO=OUT
[...]
These are warnings, not errors. However, any warnings for IO=OUT may signify serious modeling errors, and should be checked, because if a process has an output not tied to other process flows or activity, it could basically take any value.
I am not able to see your model, and so I don't know whether you have defined any relation between the RNWELC2 outputs and other flows of the EURNAL* processes. But clearly, the RNWELC2 flows are not in the Primary Commodity Group (as you noted yourself), because if they were, such warnings would not be issued.
You say that "All, via this declaration, can output either ELC or RNWELC2." If you mean that the electricity output of the process should consist of ELC and RNWELC2 in flexible proportions, such that the sum of these flows should be the total electricity output, then you should apparently include RNWELC2 in the PCG.
Sorry, I failed to give explicit direct answers your questions:
>What is this error message telling me?
The warning tells you to be alerted to the fact that the flow in question does not appear to be tied to any other flows or the activity of the process. The QA routine checks whether the flow is involved in the PCG, or in any process efficiencies, input/output transformation, or FLO_SHAR parameters. But if nothing is found, the warning is issued so that you are aware of a potentially serious modeling error. If the flow indeed does not have any relation to other flows or activity, it would be free to take any arbitrary value, and such may be particularly problematic for output flows (a free supply). For input flows that would less dangerous, because it would mean arbitrary additional consumption, and such would normally be eliminated by the optimization.
>Where do I look to resolve this issue?
You should first check all the process transformation attributes and determine whether it is a modeling error or intentional that the flow is seemingly not tied to anything (in some cases such a flow can be meaningful due to its relations being defined in some other ways, e.g. with user constraints). But if you conclude that it is a modeling error, then just define the missing process transformation (e.g. with some transformation parameters or by adding the flow to the PCG) that will make the flow correctly represented (i.e. as intended by the modeller).
After a meeting with Carol: EURN* processes had "ELC" declared as the PCG. As Antti suggested, RNWELC2 needed to be included in the PCG. We created a user-defined CG with ELC and RNWELC*, and declared that as the PCG for EURN*.
This was not needed for the other processes as PCG was being created by Veda, and the commodity introduced via TOPINS was automatically included in the PCG.
Ok, the resolution sounds fine, assuming that it was indeed intended that the PCG should have two commodities in flexible proportions.
But for other users, considering to model something like "renewable electricity certificates", which the additional commodity here also seemed to resemble, I would, in general, not suggest adding such into the PCGs of electricity generation processes, for several reasons:
● Multiple commodities in the PCG disables the capacity from contributing to the peak equation;
● Multiple commodities in the PCG increases model size: It directly adds new equations and also prohibits model reduction that would otherwise be done;
● I think such certificates can be conveniently modelled by using FLO_EMIS, without any need for changing the PCG or using TOPINS.
Note that the contribution to the peak equation by capacity can nonetheless be restored by using PRC_PKAF (with optional overriding NCAP_PKCNT).
RNWELC has been added to the PCG in order to identify the source of electricity for Hydrogen production. For example, in certain scenarios, only solar/wind/nuclear would qualify to supply electricity for hydrogen production.
But if PRC_PKAF is activated for Wind, then the entire AF would be used as the peak contribution factor - we can't set it to a lower value, right?
Oh, but if it is needed for ensuring that only solar/wind/nuclear would qualify, it sounds pretty much like a certificate, where the supply-demand balance could be modelled without changing the PCGs. Sorry, but then I don't quite see the motivation for modeling it in that way (putting it into the PCG).
As I said, contribution to the peak equation by capacity can nonetheless be restored by using PRC_PKAF (with optional overriding NCAP_PKCNT). So, NCAP_PKCNT does define the factor, when used.
