Minor RTD changes

[TheOneAndra]

Fix #828 #699

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Add an example for fix capacity of asset and still take into account installations costs.
• Complete SOC definitions
• Correct typo in docs/model/assumptions.rst

The following steps were realized, as well (if applies):

• [ ] Use in-line comments to explain your code
• [ ] Write docstrings to your code (example docstring)
• [ ] For new functionalities: Explain in readthedocs
• [ ] Write test(s) for your new patch of code (pytests, assertion debug messages)
• [ ] Update the CHANGELOG.md
• [ ] Apply black (black . --exclude docs/)
• [ ] Check if benchmark tests pass locally (EXECUTE_TESTS_ON=master pytest)

Please mark above checkboxes as following:

• [ ] Open
• [x] Done

:x: Check not applicable to this PR

_{For more information on how to contribute check the CONTRIBUTING.md.}

[TheOneAndra]

All suggestions applied @smartie2076 :)

[smartie2076]

@ciaradunks @Bachibouzouk is this explaination for the sunk cost workaround understandable for you?

[Bachibouzouk]

@TheOneAndra, @smartie2076 - I would structure the narrative differently, stating

1) what is the problem you are trying to tackle (with a specific example to provide a friendly image via a possible usecase, which is currently lacking) 2) why is it a problem 3) what do you do to tackle the problem 4) how good your solution is 5) possible problem associated to your solution

I would also not hide the title "Including sunk costs for previous investments into specific assets" under "Tips & Tricks". I would simply not have "Tips & Tricks" as a title, rather direcly "Including sunk costs for previous investments into specific assets" (shouldn't it be from instead of for?)

[TheOneAndra]

I would structure the narrative differently, stating

1. what is the problem you are trying to tackle (with a specific example to provide a friendly image via a possible usecase, which is currently lacking)

2. why is it a problem

3. what do you do to tackle the problem

4. how good your solution is

5. possible problem associated to your solution

Would result in something like:

Usually, the investments into existing capacities are neglected and assumed to be sunk costs of the system. The existing capacity :code:installedCap as well as the age of the installed asset :code:age_installed are only used to calculate when necessary re-investments take place, and how high the :ref:replacements costs <Cost_calculations> are.

When optimizing a system with pre-existing capacities of certain assets, it can be usefull for the user to implement the installation costs of these assets in the economic evaluation.

With this, it is possible to optimize a system with a specific or a specific minimal capacity of a certain asset and still account for installation costs of the asset at the beginning of the project (in the idea of a greenfield / brownfield optimization). This can work for energy production assets as well as energy conversion assets.

For this, following trick can be applied to the input data of the asset in question, by setting:

• :code:optimizeCap to False

• :code:installedCap to the specific existing capacity

• :code:aged_installed to the lifetime of the asset

Previous investment costs into now pre-existing asset capacities are now taken into account in the economic evaluation of a scenario.

I would also not hide the title "Including sunk costs for previous investments into specific assets" under "Tips & Tricks". I would simply not have "Tips & Tricks" as a title, rather direcly "Including sunk costs for previous investments into specific assets"

That was the original idea but @smartie2076 didn't like it.

[Bachibouzouk]

@TheOneAndra - can you implement the changes you proposed so we can discuss individual sentences within the github interface :) ?

[smartie2076]

I would also not hide the title "Including sunk costs for previous investments into specific assets" under "Tips & Tricks". I would simply not have "Tips & Tricks" as a title, rather direcly "Including sunk costs for previous investments into specific assets"

That was the original idea but @smartie2076 didn't like it.

I think that the list of tips & tricks can get really expansive, so I am not really favouring to have a lot of files and a lot of sections in the example chapter. I would probably say we gather them under that name, and then at the appropriate places reference to the sections, eg. in the input paramater explainations and the cost evaluation assumtions.

[Bachibouzouk]

I think that the list of tips & tricks can get really expansive

I agree. However, right now there is only one tip in "Tips and Tricks", what is the likelyhood that you have more than 2 before the report is submitted? We can leave it as is, the final decision is up to you

[smartie2076]

@TheOneAndra can you follow up with the comments of @Bachibouzouk?

[TheOneAndra]

Changelog updated @smartie2076