Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Question]: What should Cap_Size be set to for generators? #800

Open
NLaws opened this issue Dec 1, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

[Question]: What should Cap_Size be set to for generators? #800

NLaws opened this issue Dec 1, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@NLaws
Copy link
Contributor

NLaws commented Dec 1, 2024

Question

Cap_Size is used in many places in the source code, and it appears to default to 1, but the documentation only mentions it in relation to maintenance and fuel. It seems like Cap_Size should be documented in the inputs section. What are its units? When should it be specified? Should it be equal to the Existing_Cap_MW in general?
Screenshot 2024-12-01 at 11 31 11 AM

Additional context

No response

@NLaws NLaws added the question Further information is requested label Dec 1, 2024
@NLaws
Copy link
Contributor Author

NLaws commented Dec 14, 2024

@lbonaldo or @sambuddhac ☝️ ?

@cfe316
Copy link
Collaborator

cfe316 commented Dec 15, 2024

Hi Nick,

For almost anything* it doesn't matter, you can leave it as 1 or set it to a 'realistic' value like 100 (for 100 MW), if it's a typical power plant or something. Most of the time* it's only used for internal scaling of variables; the result should cancel out. If you want to prove it to yourself, try two different values and see where it makes a difference.

It's supposed to represent the capacity of a single 'plant unit' of the resource under consideration. Where it does matter I will describe below:

  1. If you're using integer unit commitment (UCommit=1). Plants can be built/retired (might need to check that part) or turned off/on only in these increments. If you're using linearized unit commitment, (UCommit=2) the value will cancel out and not be relevant to the problem, in a mathematical sense. It will affect the output in a minor way:
    in all cases, Cap_Size is used in files (start.csv, commit.csv etc) that describe how many plants for a given resource turned on / stayed on / etc during each time step. For example, to get the total number of MW that turned on in a step from start.csv you'll multiply the number in that file by Cap_Size.

  2. If you're using the PiecewiseFuelUsage module for thermal plants, Cap_Size matters for those resources. I'm not familiar enough with the module to explain it without looking at the details. I would naively guess you are not using that module, though. If you are, let's explore further.

It seems like Cap_Size should be documented in the inputs section.

Fair!

What are its units?

Megawatts.

When should it be specified?

It's required to sensibly use UCommit=1, or if you're using the PiecewiseFuelUsage functionality. Otherwise it essentially just makes the output prettier.

Should it be equal to the Existing_Cap_MW in general?

No.

It can interact with Existing_Cap_MW (and the minimum and maximum capacity fields) if you're using integer unit commitment. For example if you set Min_Cap_MW==Max_Cap_MW then it had better be an integer multiple of Cap_Size or the problem will be infeasible.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants