Plots #84
Plots #84
Conversation
jaredthomas68
requested review from
johnjasa,
mariya-koleva,
kbrunik and
elenya-grant
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
examples/01-green-hydrogen.ipynb
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@johnjasa can you remind me, did you say something about not pushing results in Jupyters?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe you are right @kbrunik. @RHammond2 I pushed these results since there were new figures in the example. What is the correct/accepted approach on this?
| @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ def visualize_plant( | |||
| onshorex = 50 | |||
| onshorey = 50 | |||
|
|
|||
| wind_buffer = np.min(turbine_x) - (onshorey + 2 * rotor_diameter + electrolyzer_side) | |||
| wind_buffer = np.min(turbine_x) - (onshorey + 3 * rotor_diameter + electrolyzer_side) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We needed a larger buffer so I called the buffer by an extra rotor diameter to avoid overlap in the wind/solar farms
greenheart/tools/eco/utilities.py
Outdated
| @@ -889,10 +892,10 @@ def add_turbines(ax, turbine_x, turbine_y, radius, color): | |||
| i = 0 | |||
| for x, y in zip(turbine_x, turbine_y): | |||
| if i == 0: | |||
| elable = "Electrolyzer" | |||
| elabel = "Electrolyzer" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if we want to change this to "H$_2$ Electrolyzer" or "PEM Electrolyzer" since we are working on additional types of electrolysis (iron, alkaline, etc)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. I've changed it to "H$_2$ Electrolyzer" in all instances for now but am open to further changes.
| label="Solar Array", | ||
| hatch=solar_hatch, | ||
| ) | ||
| if design_scenario["wind_location"] != "offshore": |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be an if statement for "pv_location"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, there are different plots to add solar to depending on if wind is onshore or offshore. Convoluted and should be fixed, but I think that making this plot more clear/robust should wait for another PR.
| # ax[ax_index_wind_plant].autoscale() | ||
| ax[ax_index_wind_plant].set(aspect="equal") | ||
| # ax[ax_index_wind_plant].xaxis.set_major_locator(ticker.\ | ||
| # MultipleLocator(np.round(point_range_x*0.5, decimals=-3))) | ||
| # ax[ax_index_wind_plant].yaxis.set_major_locator(ticker.\ | ||
| # MultipleLocator(np.round(point_range_y*0.5, device_spacing=-3))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here and in a few spots below here, do you intend to keep these commented lines on purpose?
|
Looking at the generated plots, I think there's a small error in the Also, is the battery power in the correct units here? Seeing tens of GW spikes is throwing me off. 
|
|
Non-blocking nitpick: at hour 0 there's a vertical line for net dispatch; is this meaningful or sort of a plotting artifact? is it easy to remove if it's spurious? |
Include plotting functionality for greenheart output
This PR provides a few plotting options based on the
energy_flows.csvdata output from greenheart to visualize the electricity and hydrogen dispatch/flow/production independently and together. There are certainly better ways this could be done, but I'm not sure how far to go given the impending changes.PR Checklist
CHANGELOG.mdhas been updated to describe the changes made in this PRdocs/files are up-to-date, or added when necessaryRelated issues
Impacted areas of the software
examples/01-green-hydrogen.ipynb: add example of using the new plotsgreenheart/tools/eco/utilities.pyvisualize_plant: adjustments for slightly more automatic scaling and better looking plots for onshore and offshoregreenheart/tools/plot.pyget_hour_from_datetimeplot_hydrogen_flows: new functionplot_energy_flows: new functionplot_energy: new functionAdditional supporting information
Test results, if applicable