Veda2.0 Released!


Dummy Imports
#1
Question 
Hi guys, first i wish u happy new year. 
I m trying to create single "steelworks" facility and the main problem is creating constant dummy import for demand of steel, despite the fact that there is enought capacity and even the price of the technology is cheaper. And also there is no constant using of fuels through the time horizon. 
What do you think about it ?


Please see attached my model. 

Thank you.
Reply
#2
Well, as you should know by now, dummy imports signify that your model is, in fact, infeasible.  The only purpose of the dummy import processes is to make it somewhat easier to diagnose such infeasibilities, as compared to using the infeasibility finders of solvers.

However, maybe you don't find it easy enough? To make it a bit easer, I suggest to define the ACT_COST for IMPNRGZ lower than for demands/materials.  Please try setting ACT_COST(IMPNRGZ)=999 (I see it was 99999), and then run again. You should then see more clearly what is causing the infeasibilities.

BTW: Assuming that the model is for Slovakia, I have seen no statistics showing any indication of new crude steel capacity in Slovakia in 2018, even though you define new investment into steel production capacity of 6.96 million tonnes in 2018, with a lifetime of 40 years (so it would still be in place in 2050). Can you confirm this new capacity? (For curiosity, this would be nice to know.)
Reply
#3
(03-01-2021, 04:44 AM)Antti-L Wrote: Well, as you should know by now, dummy imports signify that your model is, in fact, infeasible.  The only purpose of the dummy import processes is to make it somewhat easier to diagnose such infeasibilities, as compared to using the infeasibility finders of solvers.

However, maybe you don't find it easy enough? To make it a bit easer, I suggest to define the ACT_COST for IMPNRGZ lower than for demands/materials.  Please try setting ACT_COST(IMPNRGZ)=999 (I see it was 99999), and then run again. You should then see more clearly what is causing the infeasibilities.

BTW: Assuming that the model is for Slovakia, I have seen no statistics showing any indication of new crude steel capacity in Slovakia in 2018, even though you define new investment into steel production capacity of 6.96 million tonnes in 2018, with a lifetime of 40 years (so it would still be in place in 2050). Can you confirm this new capacity? (For curiosity, this would be nice to know.)

Hi Antti, yes i know dummy imports signify something "bad" with model.

( I have set ACT_COST for IMPNRGZ as you said. Now Dummy imports is only in produced electricity. And weird is that in this technology is consumed only HC ( fuel) (Hard coal) others are missing. )

Back to Steel Capacity NCAP_PASTI = 6.96 tonnes per year. I was told its needed to have a reserved capacity for technology. Because one year could be produced 4.5 million tonnes of steel another year 4.6 million tonnes and even  6.5 and if capacity of technology is lower than expected demand Times will create a new Capacity. And it is not desirable thing in our case. Lifetime of steelworks is set 40 year for on single reason. We model emissions with 3 different scenarios. First is (BAU) Business as usual. The first scenario assumes a lifespan until 2050 without any measures. The only condition is the expected production of steel. Second scenario (with existing measures) WEM is a different one. Here we set a lifetime of technology and change in production of own electricity and heat. And other measures which decrease a emissions . Last scenarion (With additional measures) WAM is quite a "Sci-fy" with no availibe technology (for now ), or costly. For now i can not say a real lifetime of steelworks or new investment into steel production, it was only mine suggestion. If i´ll know more we can discuss it Smile .
 
Soo capacity of steel production should be little bit higher than real produced steel, don´t you think ?  Its bad to use reserved capacity ?
Reply
#4
(03-01-2021, 06:22 PM)JozefO Wrote: I have set ACT_COST for IMPNRGZ as you said. Now Dummy imports is only in produced electricity. And weird is that in this technology is consumed only HC ( fuel) (Hard coal) others are missing.
Right, so you have infeasibility in the electricity balance. Your electricity supply is insufficient for satisfying the demand. But there is nothing weird in the technology consuming only HC (Hard coal), as long as you are allowing it all to be HC in your model.
Reply
#5
(05-01-2021, 06:53 PM)Antti-L Wrote:
(03-01-2021, 06:22 PM)JozefO Wrote: I have set ACT_COST for IMPNRGZ as you said. Now Dummy imports is only in produced electricity. And weird is that in this technology is consumed only HC ( fuel) (Hard coal) others are missing.
Right, so you have infeasibility in the electricity balance. Your electricity supply is insufficient for satisfying the demand. But there is nothing weird in the technology consuming only HC (Hard coal), as long as you are allowing it all to be HC in your model.

Hi Antti, you was right. Problem was in electricity supply. But attribute Share-I~FX~0 for share of fuels with I/E Rule number 2 did not work.
Its working only for year Share-I~FX~2018 , (ANT 30% HC 20% COKE 40% NG 10%) but other milestone years does not follow specified rule (number 2). Share of fuels should by constant until 2050 but it is not. 

Any idea what is the issue here ?
Thank you.
Reply
#6
Hmm... I think you posted your model earlier, but I cannot see it any longer. So I cannot look at it.

Anyway, you say that "Share-I~FX~0 for share of fuels with I/E Rule number 2 did not work."  As you should know, the I/E rule 2 means that the share will be set to zero outside the interpolation range.  And so, the share will be forced to zero in all other years, if you specify it only for a single year.  I am quite sure it also works that way.

Therefore, can you explain in more detail, what exactly you mean by saying that it "did not work"?  Are you not seeing that the share is zero in all years > 2018 (assuming you specify a non-zero value only for 2018)?
Reply
#7
(11-01-2021, 03:22 PM)Antti-L Wrote: Hmm... I think you posted your model earlier, but I cannot see it any longer. So I cannot look at it.

Anyway, you say that "Share-I~FX~0 for share of fuels with I/E Rule number 2 did not work."  As you should know, the I/E rule 2 means that the share will be set to zero outside the interpolation range.  And so, the share will be forced to zero in all other years, if you specify it only for a single year.  I am quite sure it also works that way.

Therefore, can you explain in more detail, what exactly you mean by saying that it "did not work"?  Are you not seeing that the share is zero in all years > 2018 (assuming you specify a non-zero value only for 2018)?

OK let me try to clarify. 

Sahre of input fuels in 2018 is:  

Share-I~FX~2018
ANT- 20%
COKE- 10 %
NG- 20%
HC- 30%
CCOAL- 20%

We need to model work with constant share of fuels for all timehorizon. 

2019 same share of fuels Share-I~FX~2019
ANT- 20%
COKE- 10 %
NG- 20%
HC- 30%
CCOAL- 20%

2020 same share of fuels Share-I~FX~2020
ANT- 20%
COKE- 10 %
NG- 20%
HC- 30%
CCOAL- 20%

And so on... until 2050.


It is the only way to input these "shares" by adding new column, attribute Share-I~FX~ (every milestone year) 2020, 2025, 2030,... ? Or should i just use another I/E rule ?
Here, please see attached .
Thank u Antti.


Attached Files
.xlsx   VT_SK_TEST-STL-Emistable.xlsx (Size: 53.91 KB / Downloads: 2)
Reply
#8
If you want constant input shares, then you can just define a value for 2018 and use the I/E option 3 (the I/E option should be defined for all of the input commodities that have the input share defined for 2018). Please see the documentation for the descriptions of the I/E options.
Reply
#9
(11-01-2021, 04:10 PM)Antti-L Wrote: If you want constant input shares, then you can just define a value for 2018 and use the I/E option 3 (the I/E option should be defined for all of the input commodities that have the input share defined for 2018). Please see the documentation for the descriptions of the I/E options.

It is working. Thank you very much Antti Smile


First run i defined by I/E Rule 3 only  HC. It looked like this.

Share-I~FX~2018 ----- Share-I~FX~0
HC -        20%                     3
NG -        20%                   empty          
COKE -    10%                    empty           
CCOAL -  30%                    empty   
ANT -      20 %                  empty  

But second run i defined I/E rule 3 for all fuels and working fine.
Share-I~FX~2018 ----- Share-I~FX~0
HC -        20%                    3
NG -        20%                    3          
COKE -    10%                     3        
CCOAL -  30%                     3
ANT -      20 %                    3

For curiosity.
What if after milestone year 2025 one or two more fuels are planning to input to this FUEL mix. Lets say HFO-Heavy fuel oil and LPG ? 
It´s able to create new technology with all fuels and its shares plus HFO and LPG in "scenario files", define starting year of the technology  and table with emission factors for these fuels ?
Reply
#10
(11-01-2021, 07:52 PM)JozefO Wrote: It´s able to create new technology with all fuels and its shares plus HFO and LPG in "scenario files", define starting year of the technology  and table with emission factors for these fuels ?
Yes, right. You can create any number of new technologies in TIMES and VEDA, with various mixes of input fuels and shares, and different starting years, emission factors etc. by scenario.
Reply
#11
(17-01-2021, 04:42 AM)Antti-L Wrote:
(11-01-2021, 07:52 PM)JozefO Wrote: It´s able to create new technology with all fuels and its shares plus HFO and LPG in "scenario files", define starting year of the technology  and table with emission factors for these fuels ?
Yes, right. You can create any number of new technologies in TIMES and VEDA, with various mixes of input fuels and shares, and different starting years, emission factors etc. by scenario.

Hello Antti, it is possible to have table ~PRCCOMEMI with emissions factors for every fuel mix in every VT_file_? 
And i still have a VAR_ActM - Marginals process in result. Model work fine without Dummy Import of energy or Demand but Process Activity- MArginals is still here (Please see attached) . What does it means ?

Thank you


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)