[NEMO-devel] Is this a bug?
Yusak Tanoto
yusak.tanoto at gmail.com
Thu Sep 14 16:41:56 AEST 2017
Hi Dr. Ben
I developed a scenario with PV as a candidate as follows and I found that
PV capacity is existed in the simulation results but with no energy
supplied (only surplus) and no LCOE, so there would be large unused energy.
#yusak add JAMALI-PV with polygon
def jamali_pv(context):
result = []
for poly in range(1, 7):
result.append(generators.Black_Coal(poly, 0, label='polygon %d
Black_Coal' % poly))
for poly in range(1, 7):
result.append(generators.OCGT(poly, 0, label='polygon %d OCGT' % poly))
for poly in range(1, 7):
result.append(generators.CCGT(poly, 0, label='polygon %d CCGT' % poly))
#for poly in range(1, 7):
#result.append(generators.Diesel(poly, 0, label='polygon %d
Diesel' % poly))
for poly in range(1, 7):
result.append(generators.Geothermal2(poly, 0, label='polygon
%d Geothermal2' % poly))
for poly in range(1, 7):
result.append(generators.Hydro(poly, 0, label='polygon %d
Hydro' % poly))
for poly in range(1, 7):
result.append(generators.PumpedHydro(poly, 0,1000,
label='polygon %d PumpedHydro' % poly))
for poly in range(1, 7):
result.append(generators.PV1Axis(poly, 0,
configfile.get('generation', 'pv1axis-trace'),
poly - 1,
build_limit=polygons.pv_limit[poly],
label='polygon %d PV' % poly))
context.generators = result
polygon 3 PumpedHydro (JAVA:3), 0.78 GW
supplied 0.03433 TWh, CF 0.5%, capcost $3,555,962,795,
opcost $37,602,927, LCOE $7833, ran 123 hours
polygon 4 PumpedHydro (JAVA:4), 0.00 GW
supplied 0 TWh, ran 0 hours
polygon 5 PumpedHydro (JAVA:5), 2.00 GW
supplied 0.01144 TWh, CF 0.1%, capcost $9,154,000,000,
opcost $96,800,000, LCOE $60522, ran 37 hours
polygon 6 PumpedHydro (BALI:6), 2.00 GW
supplied 0.001403 TWh, CF 0.0%, capcost $9,154,000,000,
opcost $96,800,000, LCOE $493403, ran 8 hours
*polygon 1 PV (JAVA:1), 0.00 GW supplied 0 TWh
polygon 2 PV (JAVA:2), 0.04 GW supplied 0 TWh, surplus 0.1
TWh, capcost $30,476,905, opcost $425,655 polygon 3 PV
(JAVA:3), 2.02 GW supplied 0 TWh, surplus 3.2 TWh, capcost
$1,449,516,607, opcost $20,244,645 polygon 4 PV (JAVA:4), 2.50
GW supplied 0 TWh, surplus 4.0 TWh, capcost $1,790,997,772,
opcost $25,013,935 polygon 5 PV (JAVA:5), 0.34 GW
supplied 0 TWh, surplus 0.6 TWh, capcost $245,586,521, opcost
$3,429,979 polygon 6 PV (BALI:6), 3.32 GW supplied 0
TWh, surplus 5.4 TWh, capcost $2,374,415,086, opcost $33,162,221*
Timesteps: 8760 h
Demand energy: 166.6 TWh
Unused surplus energy: 13.2 TWh
Timesteps with unused surplus energy: 4732
No unserved energy
No Loss of Load
Score: 82.64 $/MWh
Total emissions: 70.64 MtCO2
Done
polygon 1 Geothermal2 (JAVA:1), 1.38 GW
supplied 12.13 TWh, CF 100.0%, capcost $5,918,042,682,
opcost $198,052,914, LCOE $48, ran 8,760 hours
polygon 2 Geothermal2 (JAVA:2), 0.15 GW
supplied 1.271 TWh, CF 100.0%, capcost $620,053,353, opcost
$20,750,673, LCOE $48, ran 8,760 hours
polygon 3 Geothermal2 (JAVA:3), 2.00 GW
supplied 17.52 TWh, CF 100.0%, capcost $8,546,000,000,
opcost $286,000,000, LCOE $48, ran 8,760 hours
polygon 4 Geothermal2 (JAVA:4), 2.00 GW
supplied 17.46 TWh, CF 99.7%, capcost $8,546,000,000,
opcost $286,000,000, LCOE $48, ran 8,756 hours
polygon 5 Geothermal2 (JAVA:5), 0.77 GW
supplied 6.661 TWh, CF 99.0%, capcost $3,281,744,283,
opcost $109,826,686, LCOE $48, ran 8,689 hours
polygon 6 Geothermal2 (BALI:6), 2.00 GW
supplied 17.15 TWh, CF 97.9%, capcost $8,546,000,000,
opcost $286,000,000, LCOE $49, ran 8,656 hours
polygon 1 Hydro (JAVA:1), 2.00 GW
supplied 15.68 TWh, CF 89.5%, opcost $80,000,000, LCOE $5,
ran 8,416 hours
polygon 2 Hydro (JAVA:2), 2.00 GW
supplied 11.58 TWh, CF 66.1%, opcost $80,000,000, LCOE $6,
ran 7,023 hours
polygon 3 Hydro (JAVA:3), 0.60 GW
supplied 2.532 TWh, CF 48.0%, opcost $24,077,864, LCOE $9,
ran 4,552 hours
polygon 4 Hydro (JAVA:4), 0.00 GW
supplied 0 TWh, ran 0 hours
polygon 5 Hydro (JAVA:5), 2.00 GW
supplied 5.606 TWh, CF 32.0%, opcost $80,000,000, LCOE $14,
ran 3,908 hours
polygon 6 Hydro (BALI:6), 2.00 GW
supplied 1.129 TWh, CF 6.4%, opcost $80,000,000, LCOE $70,
ran 1,495 hours
polygon 1 PumpedHydro (JAVA:1), 0.00 GW
supplied 0 TWh, ran 0 hours
polygon 2 PumpedHydro (JAVA:2), 0.00 GW
supplied 0 TWh, ran 0 hours
polygon 3 PumpedHydro (JAVA:3), 0.06 GW
supplied 0.002553 TWh, CF 0.5%, capcost $283,623,022,
opcost $2,999,203, LCOE $8401, ran 48 hours
polygon 4 PumpedHydro (JAVA:4), 0.78 GW
supplied 0.00541 TWh, CF 0.1%, capcost $3,551,330,561,
opcost $37,553,943, LCOE $49646, ran 34 hours
polygon 5 PumpedHydro (JAVA:5), 0.00 GW
supplied 0 TWh, ran 0 hours
polygon 6 PumpedHydro (BALI:6), 0.00 GW
supplied 0 TWh, ran 0 hours
*polygon 1 PV (JAVA:1), 4.44 GW supplied 0 TWh, surplus 6.8
TWh, capcost $3,181,657,027, opcost $44,436,550 polygon 2 PV
(JAVA:2), 0.00 GW supplied 0 TWh polygon 3 PV
(JAVA:3), 4.69 GW supplied 0 TWh, surplus 7.5 TWh, capcost
$3,360,305,785, opcost $46,931,645 polygon 4 PV (JAVA:4), 0.00
GW supplied 0 TWh polygon 5 PV (JAVA:5), 0.71 GW
supplied 0 TWh, surplus 1.2 TWh, capcost $510,190,867, opcost
$7,125,570 polygon 6 PV (BALI:6), 0.00 GW supplied 0
TWh*
Timesteps: 8760 h
Demand energy: 166.6 TWh
Unused surplus energy: 15.4 TWh
Timesteps with unused surplus energy: 4616
No unserved energy
No Loss of Load
Score: 65.59 $/MWh
Total emissions: 42.8 MtCO2
Done
To check it, I developed another scenario with PV but this time using
wildcard and it ran well.
#yusak add JAMALI-PV without polygon
def jamali_pvnopolygon(context):
black_coal = generators.Black_Coal(polygons.wildcard, 0)
ocgt = generators.OCGT(polygons.wildcard, 0)
ccgt = generators.CCGT(polygons.wildcard, 0)
diesel = generators.Diesel(polygons.wildcard, 0)
hydro = generators.Hydro(polygons.wildcard, 0)
pumpedhydro = generators.PumpedHydro(polygons.wildcard, 0, 1000)
geothermal2 = generators.Geothermal2(polygons.wildcard, 0)
pv = generators.PV1Axis(polygons.wildcard,
0,configfile.get('generation', 'pv1axis-trace'),polygons.wildcard - 1,
build_limit=polygons.pv_limit[polygons.wildcard],
label='polygon %d PV' % polygons.wildcard)
context.generators = [black_coal] + [ocgt] + [ccgt] + [diesel] +
[hydro] + [pumpedhydro] + [geothermal2] + [pv]
Cheers,
Yusak
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/nemo-devel/attachments/20170914/d9559ebb/attachment.html>
More information about the nemo-devel
mailing list