trevorb1
commented
2 years ago After discussion...
- Thermal plants
- PWRxxxxxxxx00 will be existing plants
- PWRxxxxxxxx01 will be new plants
- Renewable plants
- PWRxxxxxxxx01 will be all plants
Right now only gas are issues, but if its easier to just change all thermal power with this first iteration, we can just change them all
PLEXOS World does not separate out data for gas technologies into open-cycle and combined-cycle power plants, instead its uses a generic GAS identifier. Therefore, in
OPG_powerplant_data.pywe group OCG and CCG based on the size of the power plant. If the facility is <130MW its OCG and if its >130MW its CCG.https://github.com/OSeMOSYS/osemosys_global/blob/2fe6f60166ac6548c8c3dbe3f9cce6fc03dff523/src/osemosys_global/OPG_powerplant_data.py#L145-L153
In doing this we are getting efficiencies that don't accurately represent the technologies (ie. both OCG and CCG are around 40%). Therefore, the higher cost of CCG is not supported by a better efficiency when compared to OCG. To fix this we are proposing adding classification for natural gas technologies (and possible others) to represent existing and future facilities. Existing facilities will still use PLEXOS World efficiency data, whereas new technologies with use efficiencies that better represent OCG and CCG.
In terms of how to name these technologies, that is still up for discussion. We are thinking using the two digit numerical identifier at the end of the name (ie. PWRCCGxxxxx01) to classify as existing/historical (01), future (02), or no change (00). Including the no change category will account for technologies where the historical efficiency is not expected to change (such as renewables remaining at 100%) thereby limiting the amount of techs we introduce into the model. Further discussion needs to happen on the how to implement the naming convention and what technologies to include.