Closed ekatef closed 4 months ago
As a comment, there is also an effect of i_nom
which may significantly impact the result for the transmission capacity and is determined by the wire design.
E.g. for Al-steel wires *-AL1/*-ST1A
, i_nom
varies between 0.21
and 1.15
across the types which can be used for 100kV
(data taken from pandapower). Not sure there is a way to account for the size types which are really in use in one or another power system. Probably, it may be a good idea to add an empiric coefficient which accounts for an average difference between the i_nom
values calculated according to the line types we assume and real i_nom
values across the power system.
Obviously, that is a purely data-based perspective ideally should can be adjusted according to the real-world operation of the existing power grids.
A quick demonstration of the effect of the linetype definition of the transmision capacity using the notebook by @GbotemiB (thanks for the handy tool!):
"243-AL1/39-ST1A 110.0"
(with i_nom
0.645
kA)"N2XS(FL)2Y 1x120 RM/35 64/110 kV"
(with i_nom
0.366
kA):Thanks katia! It seems this PR is ready, but could you please explain the image you posted? I don't see how much we improve or so.
I believe it is also worth adding a release_note in this case
Thank you, Davide :)
The image was in fact rather a problem statement, not testing results. The point is, the PR is dealing with a part of uncertainty which relates to the voltage mapping, while we need some other approach to deal with the uncertainty linked with definition of the line type. The picture above demonstrates this effect of the linetype. (Sorry for messing things up!)
Testing results for the PR itself are as follows. When looking into data for Norway:
ENTSOe data for an overall transmission capacity are 0.23e6 MVA when using PyPSA-Eur base.nc
network build on ENTSOe data (or 0.27e6 MVA if taking ENTSOe csv directly);
original PyPSA-Earth network has an overall transmission capacity 1.73e6 MVA;
application of this PR reduces the transmission capacity to 1.07e6 MVA;
application of this PR and filtering by the original voltage to match ENTSOe voltage levels (>=300kV) gives 0.55e6 MVA.
So, we are still two times off, but I'd say that is quite an improvement :D
The topology comparison looks like that:
A suggestion on a possible to partially address #862 and #887 to decrease errors introduced by
base.nc
.Changes proposed in this Pull Request
Currently, we are using voltage rebase in
base.nc
which purpose is to map all the voltages to a few "standard" values. However, information on the original voltage is lost during this rebase transformation.The suggestion is: 1) keep the original voltage before mapping the voltage; 2) adjust
num_parallel
for the lines after the voltage rebase to compensate an effect of the voltage increase on the transmission capacity introduced during rebase.Checklist
envs/environment.yaml
anddoc/requirements.txt
.config.default.yaml
andconfig.tutorial.yaml
.test/
(note tests are changing the config.tutorial.yaml)doc/configtables/*.csv
and line references are adjusted indoc/configuration.rst
anddoc/tutorial.rst
.doc/release_notes.rst
is amended in the format of previous release notes, including reference to the requested PR.