Veda2.0 Released!

Compound Annual growt rate constraint under stochastic mode
Dear all, 

I am facing some trouble understanding one of my results: 
I have a dynamic constraint on the annual growth rate of power plants capacities (CAGR= 1%). The constraint I am imposing is of type t, t+1 ( var_cap(t) * growth(t) >= var_cap(t+1) -1). please see the attached file for more detail on the constraint. 

Furthermore, I am running the stochastic version of TIMES with two stages. The second stage starts at 2040 and has 2 SOWs. The only thing that is different between SOW1 et SOW2 is that NCAP_COST(year in 2037-2052) of CCUS techs is lower under SOW2. 

My problem: the growth rate of power capacities in all the regions of my model between 2035 and 2040 appears to be way higher than the imposed constraint. I don't know if this is related to the fact that I am defining SOWs. If it's the case, could you provide any help regarding the way one should modify dynamic constraints under the stochastic version of TIMES?

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
And here's the weird result I get: installed power capacity in France   Confused
Also I attached and excel file of slack variables values (user_con) and the shadow price (user_confxm) of the constraint of installed capacity annual growth rate. Except for 2010, user_con is always at -1 which is the seed value of my dynamic constranint. Altough, the shadow prices of year 2040 and 2050 (second stage of the model) are higher in sow 2 (in which we assume lower prices for CCU and in which we have higher installed power capacity). I also checked the dummy imports. there are none for this consraint.

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)

.xlsx   marginals_slack.xlsx (Size: 57.36 KB / Downloads: 3)
Thanks very much for reporting about this issue.

I checked the GAMS implementation, and the issue turned out to be a caused by a very old bug under the stochastic mode, but concerning only dynamic constraints of type (t,t+1). The RHS bound is in this case taken from period t, which may not have the SOWs that t+1 does. In your case, the issue arises with the constraints t=2035, which are defined for both SOW, because the constraints involve also t+1=2040. The RHS bound is defined correctly for SOW=1 because t=2035 includes that SOW=1, but the RHS bound is not defined for SOW=2, because t=2035 does not include SOW=2.  This oversight will be fixed in the next version of TIMES.

The issue does not appear if using (t,t–1) constraints, which can therefore be used as a workaround. As far as I can see, any (t,t+1) constraint can be expressed as a (t,t–1) constraint (for example, I have myself practically always been using (t,t–1) constraints).
Thank you Antti for you reply. I am looking forward to installing the next version of TIMES   Rolleyes
Just a last quick question: Is the way I am imposing the t,t-1 formulation of the dynamic constraint right (please see attached file)

Best Regards, 

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
You must then put GROWTH on the RHS, so change the UC_ATTR column header to UC_ATTR~RHS.
Thank you Antti. I've just tested it myself and it worked just fine.
Have a great day
The new TIMES v4.5.3 (just released), should fix the problem with (t,t+1) dynamic constraints under multi-stage stochastic.
Thank you very much Antti for the update!

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)