[NEMO-devel] Result difference

[Yusak Tanoto]

Hi Dr. Ben,

Thank you for your suggestion. I will use it later on.

Sorry if my question is not clear. I already understand about the hallfame
and fitness as you informed me previously.

It is about the difference between:
Jamali-PV: [*15.409046732884701, *1.7222013518375101, 8.3462172104824983,
*15.538314391372536*, 10.556889362917959, *8.7746846991700274,
*13.08950232073305,
8.0203929213724301, 11.047838934170874, 9.2266373469077383, 0,
16.541477118404561, 10.100857070020616, 20.518031615710981,
11.997746175400911, 12.387589958041254, 5.7491295143515693,
18.775730807261123, 7.6424579331404816, 2.0118168520321245, 0,
2.1059111519489067, 0, 10.465303019230809, 0, 1.8352937636816455, 0,
2.3753121109034288, 0, 2.4158953576921229, 0, 0, 0.34389522814178952,
2.9917206278015609, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]

and
polygon *1 PV* (JAVA:1), *4.00 GW *supplied 6.087 TWh, CF 17.4%, capcost
$3,292,000,000, opcost $94,434,706, LCOE $50
polygon 2 PV (JAVA:2), 1.72 GW supplied 2.73 TWh, CF 18.1%, capcost
$1,417,371,712, opcost $40,702,818, LCOE $48
polygon 3 PV (JAVA:3), 8.35 GW supplied 13.32 TWh, CF 18.2%, capcost
$6,868,936,764, opcost $197,289,741, LCOE $48
polygon *4 PV* (JAVA:4), *2.00 GW* supplied 3.196 TWh, CF 18.2%, capcost
$1,646,000,000, opcost $47,278,229, LCOE $48
polygon* 6 PV* (BALI:6), *2.00 GW* supplied 3.25 TWh, CF 18.6%, surplus 0.0
TWh, capcost $1,646,000,000, opcost $47,300,172, LCOE $47
and also for Hydro, etc

I put PV limit in the poligons.py as

pv_limit = [None, 4, 9, 9, 2, 11, 2]

then I also use self.setters in generators.py in order to limit capacity of
other technologies, such as coal, geothermal, hydro, gas, and biomass.

self.setters = [(self.set_capacity, capacity,polygons.coal_limit)]

and adding for example for geothermal:
geothermal_limit = 10

in polygons.py.

When I de-activate the self.setters (not for PV) then the results back
to normal for the scenario using wildcards or using polygon, I mean
same again between
the summary of GW and the breakdown below for other gens. However,
difference are still there for PV.


I'm just curious if I ignore this difference then probably it may
affect the simulation result.


So I'm now thinking on how to provide build limit for geothermal and
hydro as I considered these two gens as fueled type gen.

Cheers,

Yusak


2017-09-28 12:55 GMT+10:00 Ben Elliston <bje at air.net.au>:

> Hi Yusak
>
> First, rather than sending huge amounts of output to the list, can you
> consider using a web service like pastebin.com and sending a link
> instead? Thanks.
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 09:35:54AM +1000, Yusak Tanoto wrote:
>
> > I just realized that I have experienced results difference between what
> is
> > listed right after the iteration finished (Jamali-PV = [.........]) and
> the
> > following breakdown after running 100 iterration, although the simulation
> > satisfy the reliability constraint (unserved energy 0.002 and LOLP
> 0.274).
>
> > 95      15      51.3926         51.3826
> > 96      15      51.3702         51.3702
> > 97      15      51.4275         51.3702
> > 98      15      51.4273         51.3702
> > 99      15      51.6488         51.3702
>
> If I understand correctly, you are asking why the result for iteration
> #99 is higher than the final result.  This is because the CMA-ES
> algorithm does not guarantee that each generation will always be
> better than the previous.  It often explores more widely and can
> produce a poorer solution than the overall best.  That is what the
> "hallfame" (Hall of Fame) column shows you -- the all-time best. In
> this case, that is $51.3702/MWh.
>
> Cheers, Ben
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/nemo-devel/attachments/20170928/0ef12360/attachment.html>