Modify plots in documentation notebooks

[tsmbland]

Description

This PR makes a number of changes to improve the plots in the documentation. The main issue was that plots weren't properly displaying total capacity for each technology. As some of the results files contain multiple capacity values for a given technology in a given year (i.e. multiple assets), and these weren't being summed before plotting, the plots were showing a shaded region to represent the variability across assets, rather than the total (summed) capacity. Main changes:

Modify plots for the default run (Fixes #190):

• I've summed the necessary rows to get aggregate capacity data, and switched the plot type to a stacked bar chart
• See the original page here, and the new page here

Modify plots in the tutorial notebooks (Fixes #282):

• Similar to the above
• For example, compare this page in the original version, with this page in the new documentation
• Similar changes across all the tutorials
• Several other cosmetic changes (e.g. better axis labels)

Notes:

• Some of the text describing the figures may be wrong. I'll come back and check this again at a later date, but I expect that the exact content of the figures may change as I work through the models, so better off fixing the text later
• A also re-ran the models, which led to a change in some of the results files. I'm committing these changes here, however we may eventually want to add these to gitignore (see #287)
• The figures in tutorial 8.2 are wrong (only showing one agent), but this is a problem with the underlying model rather than the figures, so I'll fix that in a separate issue (#291)
• Likewise with 8.7 (issue #295)

Key checklist

• [ ] All tests pass: $ python -m pytest
• [ ] The documentation builds and looks OK: $ python -m sphinx -b html docs docs/build

Further checks

• [ ] Code is commented, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [ ] Tests added that prove fix is effective or that feature works

[tsmbland]

@ahawkes I've been working through the notebooks to improve the figures. I'm currently using a mix of stacked bar charts and line graphs for the capacity figures (e.g. this vs this). Should we be more consistent with the type of plot we use, and do you have a preference between bar charts and line graphs (or something else)?

[ahawkes]

Thanks Tom - the stacked bar charts are way better for capacity - thanks for dealing with that.

---

From: Tom Bland @.> Sent: 07 May 2024 12:22 To: EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE_OS @.> Cc: Hawkes, Adam D @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE_OS] Modify plots in documentation notebooks (PR #290)

This email from @.*** originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders listhttps://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx to disable email stamping for this address.

@ahawkeshttps://github.com/ahawkes I've been working through the notebooks to improve the figures. I'm currently using a mix of stacked bar charts and line graphs for the capacity figures (e.g. thishttps://muse-os.readthedocs.io/en/documentation/running-muse-example.html#Visualisation vs thishttps://muse-os.readthedocs.io/en/documentation/user-guide/add-solar.html#Running-our-customised-simulation). Should we be more consistent with the type of plot we use, and do you have a preference between bar charts and line graphs (or something else)?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE_OS/pull/290#issuecomment-2098174008, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC37JLMVJ55OUJEYNB2PXW3ZBC2PPAVCNFSM6AAAAABHFHHZUSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOJYGE3TIMBQHA. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[alexdewar]

This is much clearer. Good work!