search

cpmodel / FTT_StandAlone

Future Technology Transformation models
GNU General Public License v3.0
9 stars 1 forks source link

Major update of the FTT models #45

Closed pv-camecon closed 11 months ago

pv-camecon commented 11 months ago
Femkemilene commented 11 months ago

I've linked this PR to one issue. Are there more issues that are solved from this PR?

pv-camecon commented 11 months ago

Response:

  1. Indeed, some files are not used anymore. Is it preferable to delete them now or in the next iteration? Some variables/files will be needed at some point. TDA1 provides information on when historical fleet data ends. TDA2 provides information on when historical cost data ends. We can use this in the future to allow us to update the models in phases. I'll create a separate issue for this.
  2. I'll check MWKA. RK4 improves accuracy which shows especially when there's lots of curvature (ergo it affects solar most). We definitely need to recalibrate. Other workstreams on substitution frequencies would help alot (not in terms of alignment with EEIST but in general), and tweaking LCOE by including WACC.
  3. The settings for what is visible under the various view settings haven't been changed. I believe we should discontinue the various views and just include all variables as I expect this is the one that is predominantly used anyway.
Femkemilene commented 11 months ago
  1. If the TDA1 files are going to be used soonish, we might as well keep them.
  2. Given that this will become the production version, I think we should recalibrate gammas now, at least for the most important regions. Hope our next update will tone down solar a bit (as costs are now for 2020, whereas the model starts in 2019, so we're underestimating costs by a year).
  3. Agree; also saves the fuss of having to maintain multiple lists. Not sure why I'm seeing a weird selection, if this hasn't been changed.
pv-camecon commented 11 months ago
  1. Actually, TDA1 can go. We got the "histend" parameter for each variable which makes TDA1/2 redundant.
  2. Agreed on calibration. On solar, I think Ian has looked/is looking at different substitution frequencies and their effect. I think that might be the bigger effect. Also, we're missing grid expansion costs which would weigh more heavily on VREs. The question is whether that is something that should be part of the decision-making LCOE or whether it should be part of the price formation.

Github is telling me that changes have been requested but I struggle to figure what changes specifically are requested. Can you elaborate?

rhayward1 commented 11 months ago

Let's wait until capacity additions and regulations are fixed before we redo the gamma values. I'm ready to make the pull request and for everyone to take a look, but I need this pull to be approved first, otherwise it's too tangled.

Femkemilene commented 11 months ago

In terms of changes requested, I wanted to make sure the MWKA fault was addressed. I've approved the change for now, as I don't want to hold up on further improvements.

In the future, we may want to make the distinction between a main branch and a production branch. That way, we may be able to work more easily together without approving changes to the main that may give odd results (as in: I don't trust we should have this much solar, and would like to mitigate the problem at least by having correct gamma values).

From: Rosie Hayward @.> Sent: 10 August 2023 15:24 To: cpmodel/FTT_StandAlone @.> Cc: Nijsse, Femke @.>; Review requested @.> Subject: Re: [cpmodel/FTT_StandAlone] Major update of the FTT models (PR #45)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Let's wait until capacity additions and regulations are fixed before we redo the gamma values. I'm ready to make the pull request and for everyone to take a look, but I need this pull to be approved first, otherwise it's too tangled.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/cpmodel/FTT_StandAlone/pull/45#issuecomment-1673324495, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGHDIIYKXONHCIZVRLTIO73XUTVLRANCNFSM6AAAAAA3HUIN2Q. You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: @.***>

rhayward1 commented 11 months ago

I agree, Femke, but part of this was caused by CE having a version which was quite ahead of Git, and me not realising Pim was talking over REFEREE, so I did all my changes in a branch from main which now causes merge conflicts. I think we will be working harder to avoid this in future, so we can do smaller pulls and the code can be diffed. I'm still trying to learn how to use Git so any more training or tips are appreciated!

Femkemilene commented 11 months ago

This massive change should be a one-off. I think future merges will be much easier, but feel free to ask anything 🙂.

From: Rosie Hayward @.> Sent: 10 August 2023 15:45 To: cpmodel/FTT_StandAlone @.> Cc: Nijsse, Femke @.>; Review requested @.> Subject: Re: [cpmodel/FTT_StandAlone] Major update of the FTT models (PR #45)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

I agree, Femke, but part of this was caused by CE having a version which was quite ahead of Git, and me not realising Pim was talking over REFEREE, so I did all my changes in a branch from main which now causes merge conflicts. I think we will be working harder to avoid this in future, so we can do smaller pulls and the code can be diffed. I'm still trying to learn how to use Git so any more training or tips are appreciated!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/cpmodel/FTT_StandAlone/pull/45#issuecomment-1673363672, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGHDII3UPSR7HBARUV67OULXUTX2LANCNFSM6AAAAAA3HUIN2Q. You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: @.***>