Bug fixes in TES-to-Turbine results and CHP heuristic input processing#594
Bug fixes in TES-to-Turbine results and CHP heuristic input processing#594
Conversation
|
@Bill-Becker I think this addresses the issue, at least things seem to work on the REopt.jl side; I'll push a change that points to this feature branch on the API side. The updated test includes the "include_cooling_in_chp_size" parameter now; I ran the all_inputs cleaned up post separately but didn't add that to the test set just in the interest of runtime. |
Thanks Alex. So you were able to get the cleaned all_inputs file to run/solve in this branch? |
|
yes, exactly.
Yes, that's correct - the cleaned all_inputs file builds, solves, and returns results on my end, as well as a case in which we add "include_cooling_in_chp_size" to CHP inputs in a separate test. |
Bill-Becker
left a comment
Bill-Becker
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a few minor comments/questions to respond to.
| absorption_chiller_cop = nothing | ||
| # User can override by explicitly setting include_cooling_in_chp_size = false | ||
| include_cooling_in_size = get(d["CHP"], "include_cooling_in_chp_size", haskey(d, "AbsorptionChiller")) | ||
| if "include_cooling_in_chp_size" in keys(d["CHP"]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The pop!() function handles a default value like the get() function does, so this could be reduced to one line: pop!(d["CHP"], "include_cooling_in_chp_size", haskey(d, "AbsorptionChiller")). If you prefer this more verbose way for clarity, or I'm wrong about that, you can leave it.
| federal_procurement_type = site.federal_procurement_type) | ||
| else # Only if modeling CHP without heating_load and existing_boiler (for prime generator, electric-only) | ||
| chp = CHP(d["CHP"], | ||
| chp = CHP(d["CHP"]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm curious why this wasn't erroring before, unless we never got into this block.
| if "AbsorptionChiller" in p.techs.cooling | ||
| @expression(m, NewBoilertoAbsorptionChillerKW[ts in p.time_steps], sum(value.(m[:dvHeatToAbsorptionChiller]["Boiler",q,ts] for q in p.heating_loads))) | ||
| @expression(m, NewBoilertoAbsorptionChillerByQualityKW[q in p.heating_loads, ts in p.time_steps], sum(value.(m[:dvHeatToAbsorptionChiller]["Boiler",q,ts]))) | ||
| @expression(m, NewBoilertoAbsorptionChillerKW[ts in p.time_steps], sum(m[:dvHeatToAbsorptionChiller]["Boiler",q,ts] for q in p.heating_loads)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was this (and all other related changes below) causing an error when creating the results, or is it just less efficient?
2 participants
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
Fixed
include_cooling_in_chp_sizefrom being included in CHP inputs.Changed
value.isn't called within them.