Open trevorb1 opened 9 months ago
Check PyPSA-Eur implementation. They use the carrier
tag for type
, and currently doesn't use type
I fixed the aggregation of CCGT and OCGT into gas
within #56 ... but leaving this isssue open since we'll want to add more detailed info on generator "types"
Feature Request
Currently, costs are assigned at a per carrier level, rather than at a per generator type level.
For example, costs are collected for both
CCGT
andOCGT
; however, when inputted into the model they are aggregated into a singlegas
technology. It would be good to properly assign generators using thegenerator.carrier
asgas
, andgenerator.type
as eitherccgt
orocgt
.While we probably don't want to go overboard on the amount of types in the model, ones like
ccgt
andocgt
are probably worth separating.Separating coal into a tech with and without CCS is also discussed in this comment
Suggested Solution
Not necessary a solution, but here are some examples of where the
ccgt
andocgt
are being aggregated into a singlegas
technologyhttps://github.com/PyPSA/pypsa-usa/blob/6f37e32de0b19b349e6ba134e1bcfa0f48e5b93a/workflow/scripts/add_electricity.py#L223-L231
https://github.com/PyPSA/pypsa-usa/blob/6f37e32de0b19b349e6ba134e1bcfa0f48e5b93a/workflow/scripts/add_electricity.py#L1597-L1615
Additional Info
No response