Standardized Performance Outputs: Generic Storage & Control #493
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ | ||||||
| from attrs import field, define | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| from h2integrate.core.utilities import BaseConfig, merge_shared_inputs | ||||||
| from h2integrate.core.model_baseclasses import PerformanceModelBaseClass | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| @define(kw_only=True) | ||||||
|
|
@@ -10,26 +10,49 @@ class SimpleGenericStorageConfig(BaseConfig): | |||||
| commodity_units: str = field() # TODO: update to commodity_rate_units | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| class SimpleGenericStorage(PerformanceModelBaseClass): | ||||||
| """ | ||||||
| Simple generic storage model that acts as a pass-through component. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Note: this storage performance model is intended to be used with the | ||||||
| `DemandOpenLoopStorageController` controller and has not been tested | ||||||
| with other controllers. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| """ | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| def setup(self): | ||||||
| self.config = SimpleGenericStorageConfig.from_dict( | ||||||
| merge_shared_inputs(self.options["tech_config"]["model_inputs"], "performance"), | ||||||
| strict=False, | ||||||
| additional_cls_name=self.__class__.__name__, | ||||||
| ) | ||||||
| self.commodity = self.config.commodity_name | ||||||
| self.commodity_rate_units = self.config.commodity_units | ||||||
| self.commodity_amount_units = f"({self.commodity_rate_units})*h" | ||||||
|
Comment on lines
+29
to
+31
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Move to
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. the tech config is not accessbile at the initialize(). I get this error: |
||||||
| super().setup() | ||||||
| self.add_input( | ||||||
| f"{self.commodity}_set_point", | ||||||
| val=0.0, | ||||||
| shape=self.n_timesteps, | ||||||
| units=self.commodity_rate_units, | ||||||
| ) | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| def compute(self, inputs, outputs): | ||||||
| # Pass the commodity_out as the commodity_set_point | ||||||
| outputs[f"{self.commodity}_out"] = inputs[f"{self.commodity}_set_point"] | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| # Estimate the rated commodity production as the maximum value from the commodity_set_point | ||||||
| outputs[f"rated_{self.commodity}_production"] = inputs[f"{self.commodity}_set_point"].max() | ||||||
|
Comment on lines
+44
to
+45
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Is this the best way of getting the rated production? If the set point never reaches the actual maximum of the system, is this a problem and could lead to confusing metrics? Legitimately asking, mostly about the generality of this and if it works well in all cases.
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Idk a better way - but this is just a pass-through component. In this case, it'd be better for this to be done in the
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't think we should determine rated production this way. I think both the storage and the controller need to require the technology rated production like we do with other systems. For storage, the charge and discharge rates and the rated storage capacity should be given at a minimum I think now that we are using the
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Does this mean you want the |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| # Calculate the total and annual commodity produced | ||||||
| outputs[f"total_{self.commodity}_produced"] = outputs[f"{self.commodity}_out"].sum() | ||||||
| outputs[f"annual_{self.commodity}_produced"] = outputs[ | ||||||
| f"total_{self.commodity}_produced" | ||||||
| ] * (1 / self.fraction_of_year_simulated) | ||||||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. I think just dividing will be more clear
Suggested change
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| # Calculate the maximum commodity production over the simulation | ||||||
| max_production = ( | ||||||
| inputs[f"{self.commodity}_set_point"].max() * self.n_timesteps * (self.dt / 3600) | ||||||
| ) | ||||||
|
Comment on lines
+54
to
+56
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. We should calculate the maximum theoretical production based on name-plate capacity based on the user inputs (see comment above), not the actual in the given scenario as is being done here. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| outputs["capacity_factor"] = outputs[f"total_{self.commodity}_produced"] / max_production | ||||||
|
Comment on lines
+47
to
+58
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Tagging @jaredthomas68 and @genevievestarke for special attention to this math to make sure it matches what you expect.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. The capacity factor should be based on rated production in the denominator, not max production. Rated production should be a user input to the system (see previous comment).
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Capacity factors for storage systems (at least batteries), as far as I understand, are typically based on the nameplate discharge rate of the system. cp = total_product_discharged_in_time_period / (name_plate_discharge_rate*time_period_duration) # of course make sure units make senseOf course, the above leads to some fairly low capacity factors, like about 0.167 for a 4 hour battery discharged daily as discussed in the ATB
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. @jaredthomas68 - the |
||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think the test values should change for these code changes. Maybe you can convince me though. As I see it all the changes should be more a matter of where calculations are done and what components connect to what rather than changing any actual calculations.