- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 50
Fix Mode inconsistencies in water.infra #405
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
- M1 was erroneously more efficient than Mf
- Value of 0.8 inp means 1 unit water for 0.8 units of input
- Circular logic
- Minor change to values ommitted.
Unreasonable expectation for first model year here.
- desal act bound lo causes infeasibilties.
Harcoded heuristic for kinkyear.
- Input level at water_avail_basin - Input commodity surfacewater_basin - output level water_supply - output commodity freshwater
- Input level at water_avail_basin - Input commodity surfacewater_basin - output level water_supply - output commodity freshwater
consolidate return logic
Now water return flows follow a single path: cooling techs -> water_return commodity -> reg_to_basin tech -> surfacewater_basin
Bound = histroical cap at last historical year.
- Code was very messy
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.
Just leaving some comments.
Still need to look at water_for_ppl and water_supply. probably tomorrow
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.
Would it make sense to make the text both for R11 and R12? it looks like it's mostly checking data
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.
same, basically. can we make sure also previous cases, which are not necessarily discontinued, also work as expected?
could we text both global and country cases? if the data is available, it should work
| "input", | ||
| technology=rows["tec"], | ||
| value=rows["value_mid"], | ||
| value=rows["value_high"], | 
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.
Just double check if this was a sensitivity you did or intentional
| # which is the only explanation as to how the model solved. | ||
| for _, rows in df_elec.iterrows(): | ||
| if rows["tec"] in techs: | ||
| # Check if this is a dummy technology (for distribution techs) | 
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.
Could you please add a description to this function, clarifying that it is about electricity only?
|  | ||
| # putting a lower bound on desalination tecs based on hist capacities | ||
| df_bound = df_hist[df_hist["year"] == firstyear] | ||
| df_bound = df_hist[df_hist["year"] == 2025] # firstyear dataabsent | 
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.
please double check. firstmodelyear should be populated.
Preferibly we don't want hard-coded numbers.
It is also used two more times in this same script.
Add growth up for extract surface water
9bcc5af    to
    ffd146e      
    Compare
  
    | "technical_lifetime", | ||
| technology="extract_surfacewater", | ||
| value=50, | ||
| value=30, | 
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.
was this just to test the 2060 bug or you want to keep this value?
Reduce growth act up for extract surface water to 0.2
13d1502    to
    8ca0a1c      
    Compare
  
    Add assertions to test
Fix for issue #404
This PR fixes the issues outline in #404:
How to review
PR checklist