SPINES, S_COM_FR

[Mohammadreza.ahang@ntnu.no]

Hi VEDA experts,

I'm new in this forum, sorry if my problem is not challenging enough  .
I'm using SPINES option and my model has three sources of short term uncertainties include solar, wind, and hydropower. There are 21 scenarios with different values for S_COM_FR and S_NCAP_AFS. Once, I run the model and look at the results, these stochastic attributes don't be activated and the outflow is distributed equally among 21 scenarios.

• I checked the equivalent deterministic model and I can see COM_FR and AF are working properly, therefore timeslices are defined correctly.  
  


• I know that I should define COM_FR and AF before including S_COM_FR and S_NCSP_AFS. 
  

So, any solution?

Best,
Reza

   

[Antti-L]

I am not a VEDA expert, but I just tested with a simple model using the experimental SPINES feature. I defined both S_COM_FR and S_NCSP_AFS. I checked the equations, and S_COM_FR and S_NCSP_AFS were taken into account as expected in the equations.  This test was done with TIMES v4.3.4.  Which version is yours?

Hence, I am not seeing the problem: SPINES with S_COM_FR and S_NCAP_AFS appears to work as expected. Perhaps you can provide more information as to why you have the problems you described?

[Mohammadreza.ahang@ntnu.no]

I am not a VEDA expert, but I just tested with a simple model using the experimental SPINES feature. I defined both S_COM_FR and S_NCSP_AFS. I checked the equations, and S_COM_FR and S_NCSP_AFS were taken into account as expected in the equations.  This test was done with TIMES v4.3.4.  Which version is yours?

Hence, I am not seeing the problem: SPINES with S_COM_FR and S_NCAP_AFS appears to work as expected. Perhaps you can provide more information as to why you have the problems you described?

Thank you Antti, I believe that your comments are so helpful for me. 
I'm using TIMESV433. My model has two stages with 21 scenarios. I defined SPINES attributes (e.g. SW_START, SW_SUBS, and SW_SPROB) in SysSettings file and then I used Scenarios file to define COM_FR for the deterministic model and S_COM_FR for each scenario. I selected SPINES from Control Panel and ran the model. If I did this process correctly, so I have some modelling issues causing this problem. All 21 scenarios have the same commodity flow in each timeslice!
I read some threads about COM_FR attribute, as you mentioned there, the same problem in deterministic model will come up once Timeslices are not defined properly. In my model with SPINES I don't have any idea why S_COM_FR doesn't work. I tried to attach .VD file to this mail but I couldn't add it here.
Please let me know if you need any file or more information.

Best,
Reza

[Antti-L]

Sorry, but I cannot really see what's in your model (other than the S_NCAP_AFS for EE-RENEW-WIND in a single timeslice FAH01), so helping looks difficult.

But in your screenshot you show only one year (period). You should be looking at the results for periods later than the first period. The first period is supposed to be history, and you normally don't have any uncertainty in the past history, only the future is uncertain. (And the model base year calibration would also likely fail with an uncertain past).

So, are you not seeing any impact in the later periods?

[Mohammadreza.ahang@ntnu.no]

Sorry, but I cannot really see what's in your model (other than the S_NCAP_AFS for EE-RENEW-WIND in a single timeslice FAH01), so helping looks difficult.

But in your screenshot you show only one year (period). You should be looking at the results for periods later than the first period. The first period is supposed to be history, and you normally don't have any uncertainty in the past history, only the future is uncertain. (And the model base year calibration would also likely fail with an uncertain past).

So, are you not seeing any impact in the later periods?

The uncertainties in the model are short term uncertainties, which start from 2016. I don't see any impact during later periods as well.

[Pernille.S]

Sorry, but I cannot really see what's in your model (other than the S_NCAP_AFS for EE-RENEW-WIND in a single timeslice FAH01), so helping looks difficult.

But in your screenshot you show only one year (period). You should be looking at the results for periods later than the first period. The first period is supposed to be history, and you normally don't have any uncertainty in the past history, only the future is uncertain. (And the model base year calibration would also likely fail with an uncertain past).

So, are you not seeing any impact in the later periods?

The uncertainties in the model are short term uncertainties, which start from 2016. I don't see any impact during later periods as well.

[Mohammadreza.ahang@ntnu.no]

Sorry, but I cannot really see what's in your model (other than the S_NCAP_AFS for EE-RENEW-WIND in a single timeslice FAH01), so helping looks difficult.

But in your screenshot you show only one year (period). You should be looking at the results for periods later than the first period. The first period is supposed to be history, and you normally don't have any uncertainty in the past history, only the future is uncertain. (And the model base year calibration would also likely fail with an uncertain past).

So, are you not seeing any impact in the later periods?

Dear Antti,

Pernille has suggested new name for scenarios because I was naming scenarios by their names e.g. "Scenario01". In the new version of my model scenarios are identified by sequential integers starting from 1. The good news is that S_COM_FR does work but I will investigate more and if I find something strange I will let you know. 
Thank you.


Best,
Reza