You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current use of ProFAST in HOPP only relates to calculating LCOE (real and nominal) when using the custom financial model. It would be better to have a complete functional financial model that relies exclusively on ProFAST for all financial calculations.
Proposed solution
There are two basic paths to accomplishing this:
Removing all currently implemented financial calculations (mostly cash flows and NPV) from the CustomFinancialModel class and replacing them with calculations from ProFAST. This would be a small lift since a full ProFAST model is already being set up and run in HOPP, but would break many tests. I prefer this option.
Creating a new financial model class (ProFASTFinancialModel) specifically for ProFAST and removing ProFAST from the CustomFinancialModel. The benefit of this approach would be to not break existing tests, etc. However, I am concerned that the existing financial calculations may have unrecognized bugs. I did a small test of option 1 and the NPV values and cash flows were very different between the two models. I tend to trust ProFAST over what is currently in CustomFinancialModel. Given the relative trust I have in each model and the increased effort involved in option 2, I lean toward option 1.
Alternatives considered
Additional context
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Make a full profast-based financial model
The current use of ProFAST in HOPP only relates to calculating LCOE (real and nominal) when using the custom financial model. It would be better to have a complete functional financial model that relies exclusively on ProFAST for all financial calculations.
Proposed solution
There are two basic paths to accomplishing this:
Removing all currently implemented financial calculations (mostly cash flows and NPV) from the CustomFinancialModel class and replacing them with calculations from ProFAST. This would be a small lift since a full ProFAST model is already being set up and run in HOPP, but would break many tests. I prefer this option.
Creating a new financial model class (ProFASTFinancialModel) specifically for ProFAST and removing ProFAST from the CustomFinancialModel. The benefit of this approach would be to not break existing tests, etc. However, I am concerned that the existing financial calculations may have unrecognized bugs. I did a small test of option 1 and the NPV values and cash flows were very different between the two models. I tend to trust ProFAST over what is currently in CustomFinancialModel. Given the relative trust I have in each model and the increased effort involved in option 2, I lean toward option 1.
Alternatives considered
Additional context
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: