Using an attribute that exist worked regarding the warning message.
But I am still not able to get it to work right. Stating the GDX reference with "As starting point" option and "Fix years upto" as None gives error in GAMS compilation. I have attached the lst-file.
The contex for us to use the attribute is to check if results from one stochastic/spines model is feasible in another stochastic/spines model. The only thing that changes between them is the number of SOWs.
Many thanks Lisa for providing the listing file and the run file, and thanks Amit for the help shooting the trouble.
I identified the problem now (which was related to using REG_BDNCAP for a stochastic run without FIXBOH). It will be fixed in the next version (should be available within a week). Meanwhile, you could try adding e.g. SET FIXBOH 1990 (fixing years up to a very old year, which will not have any impact), and it should already work for you.
Veda UI will not let you go any earlier than the first milestone year for FIXBOH. If that is not acceptable, then you will have to declare this FIXBOH in the RUN file.
(01-09-2020, 08:22 PM)AKanudia Wrote: I didn't shoot Antti... just lined up the distance and wind speed information for you
Sorry I meant troubleshooting, for which I appreciate your help. I am not so good at English and so I thought shooting the trouble means the same thing.
Setting FIXBOH to the first milestone year and also setting Fix Years Upto the last milestone year (same as the year for REG_BDNCAP) in the GDX references window did make it work. I was able to get different operational decisions for each of the SOW with the same capacities as the fixed GDX.
Thank you very much for implementing this function and youre help. It will help us alot and save us for even more time .
We are currently using REG_BDNCAP to fix capacities from one run in another model run with other operational details, for example with higher temporal resolution. We are very satisfied with this feature.
We now wish to extend this functionality to allow for investments in selected technologies, like energy storages only, in model runs with higher temporal resolution. Meaning all other capacities, except energy storages, are fixed from a previous model run. Do you know if this has been done previously?
In relation to this, is it possible to make an exception for selected processes in REG_BDNCAP? Or should this be solved by facilitating for new investments in a subRES?
Let me know if anything is unclear.
Your suggestions on how to proceed is highly appreciated.
>is it possible to make an exception for selected processes in REG_BDNCAP?
Well, because there was a related ETSAP project proposal, which was not realized, I did, in fact, implement a mechanism for defining exceptions, as now described also in the documentation. This process-specific exception mechanism is based on using NCAP_BND(r,'0',p,'N') = ± 1, where −1 means that the process capacity will be defined with a lower bound only, and +1 means that the process capacity will be defined with an upper bound only (when using REG_BDNCAP). Although this has its limitations, it seems that this option (with −1) would satisfy your need?
As an aside, may I ask why you have decided not to allow for investments in storage technologies, in model runs with a coarser temporal resolution? Have you been able to identify some distinct problem related to TIMES storage processes when using coarser temporal resolutions?
Tank you very much for the fast reply. It is good news that you already have implemented this feature to the code. We will test this feature out soon.
Regarding storages, we have a hypothesis that the cost-optimal storage capacity depends on the temporal resolution of the model. I do no not know if it is valid, but it will be interesting to test. Other types of capacity that can be tested by this approach is for example investments in renewables and transmission capacities. This methodology is inspired by the features of the Balmorel model.
.
.