Constraint not taken into account

[Sebastien]

Hi,

I'm sorry to disturb, but I am trying to test constraints on DEMO model, and model reactions are weird : the constraints appear in VEDA-FE, they are correctly declared in .DD GAMS scenario, but the results in VEDA-BE do not respect it. Here are my constraints:



I am trying to represent Energy efficiency technologies, one block influencing several demand at once with different efficiencies (for different savings on different end-uses. Sensors are here to consume electricity, that's it). Normally it is on residential, I'v put it on cars because I needed two demands of the same kind. Do you see what is wrong here? Maybe it is not the constraint, but the rest seems to work correctly...

Thank you for your help!

Sebastien

[Antti-L]

It seems that you may you have forgotten to define the RHS bound values for the UC constraints.

In TIMES, all user constraints need to have an RHS bound value specified (UC_RHSxxx) in order to be effective. I cannot see any bound values defined for your UCs: you only define an interpolation option 3 for the UC_RHSRTS values. But this option does nothing if you have no UC_RHSRTS bound values defined. Maybe you should use the option 2 instead, which will fill the UC_RHSRTS with zero for those time periods that have no UC_RHSRTS specified, i.e. for all periods in your case?  Does this suggestion make sense to you?

[EDIT:] Moreover, note that the RHS coefficients can only be used in dynamic constraints. You are defining UC_FLO~RHS coefficients for the second set of constraints, but I cannot see any definition for the constraints to be dynamic. So, it seems to me that your constraints are meant to be static, and in that case you should remove the ~RHS and change the sign of these coefficients.

[Sebastien]

Thank you Antti! You are right, this coefficient 2 is exactly what I was looking for... Actually, at first I had put only the bound, then since it was not working (maybe it was, but only for 2000, and then I missed it) I put the extrapolation INSTEAD... I won't do that again! For the UC_FLO~RHS, I tried something and forgot to put it back right... Thanks for the reminder.
The constraint seems to be working fine now. I mean, the model doesn't invest AT ALL in the techs involved, so as to respect it... Not exactly what I was looking for :-), but I can try to settle this myself.

Anyway, thank you for your quick and valuable answer!

Sebastien