Closed unndreay closed 3 years ago
It turned out that the losses are still different from the other models. This is due to another dimension of the flows the losses are derived from and another calculated percentage for each region compared to the other models.
Via an energy balance I could affirm that the dimension of the flows and losses seems to be OK for oemof in comparison to the other models.
I am not sure if this is true for the actual transmission capacities and the accounting of losses. The capacities are given as net transfer capacities while the model accounts the loss to the gross capacities. This results in different percentages of loss than with the other models.
Via an energy balance I could affirm that the dimension of the flows and losses seems to be OK for oemof in comparison to the other models.
I am not sure if this is true for the actual transmission capacities and the accounting of losses. The capacities are given as net transfer capacities while the model accounts the loss to the gross capacities. This results in different percentages of loss than with the other models.
I am not sure if I got you right, but I checked quickly: The capacities in oemof.tabular's Link are set on the output side, so they are indeed net capacities.
The capacities are given as net transfer capacities while the model accounts the loss to the gross capacities. This results in different percentages of loss than with the other models.
This (of course) does not affect the percentages. It only depends on the denominator which has to be the gross flow to get the correct results (correct for oemof, not for the other ones).
I think we can merge this as soon as we get positive feedback from the partners.
Use cases 2d and 10 reported wrong transmission losses. The error seems to be in the preprocessing calculation.