Feature/profast fin model #355
Conversation
…energy for levelized costs
…er are based on aep
| @@ -374,6 +374,7 @@ def set_om_costs(self, pv_om_per_kw=None, wind_om_per_kw=None, | |||
| if self.battery: | |||
| if battery_om_per_kw: | |||
| self.battery.om_capacity = battery_om_per_kw | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These two lines feel redundant? Why are we assigning battery_om_per_kw to both om_capacity and om_batt_capacity_cost?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good question. It looked like in some places the om_capacity may be used even for battery_om_per_kw. These are redundant names from my perspective that already existed in the code. I'm open to suggestions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like om_capacity mirrors other technologies in hybrid_simulation.py, my vote is for that to be the one that's used instead of two different ones; I don't feel strongly about my preference though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dguittet is there a particular reason on the PySAM side that the battery has a parameter om_batt_capacity_cost and that this should be used over om_capacity? And that is that important in the custom financial model or more of a legacy effect?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have submitted an issue for this discussion to continue: #401
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| pf.set_params("demand rampup", 0) | ||
| pf.set_params("long term utilization", 1) # TODO should use utilization |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it make sense to change this to the capacity factor and use the rated capacity for the set_param("capacity")?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm inclined to keep it as is. Using capacity factor and nameplate capacity is essentially having ProFAST make the same calculations we already did to get the actual capacity. I'm open to discussion here, but let's make it a separate issue/PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it makes sense to just make an issue about it, if we include multi-year simulations we will probably want to be able to add the dictionaries that include performance over time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have created an issue to continue this discussion: #402
hopp/simulation/technologies/financial/custom_financial_model.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…feature/profast-fin-model
|
|
||
| pf.set_params("maintenance", {"value": self.o_and_m_cost(), "escalation": gen_inflation}) | ||
|
|
||
| # pf.add_fixed_cost( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Briefly looking at ProFAST examples, I see they include both set_params and add_fixed_cost calls in the same example. I think keeping the set_params calls and removing the commented code here is a good path forward assuming it mirrors the expected PF usage.
|
Thanks @kbrunik! Is this ready to be merged in @jaredthomas68 or are you planning any further modifications? Could you please make issues for any upcoming changes that need to happen that are not part of this PR? |
I have created or referenced existing issues for all outstanding conversations. I'm going ahead with merging this PR now. |
Add a ProFAST financial model to HOPP custom financial
This PR adds a basic ProFAST model to the HOPP custom financial model so all technologies can be modeled with ProFAST inside HOPP instead of using the PySAM financial models. While an effort has been made to align parameter names with the names in PySAM, I was not able to find corresponding parameters for all the profast parameters in PySAM.Singleowner.
Related issue
Impacted areas of the software
.github/workflows/ci.yml.readthedocs.yamlREADME.mddocs/requirements.txthopp/simulation/hopp_interface.pyhopp/simulation/hybrid_simulation.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/battery/battery.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/battery/battery_stateless.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/csp/csp_plant.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/dispatch/hybrid_dispatch_builder_solver.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/financial/custom_financial_model.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/grid.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/power_source.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/pv/detailed_pv_plant.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/pv/pv_plant.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/sites/site_info.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/wave/mhk_wave_plant.pyhopp/simulation/technologies/wind/wind_plant.pypyproject.tomltests/hopp/test_battery_dispatch.pytests/hopp/test_custom_financial.pytests/hopp/test_dispatch.pytests/hopp/test_hybrid.pytests/hopp/test_wave.pytests/hopp/utils.pyAdditional supporting information
Test results, if applicable
I changed the test value of two tests. One of them was off by less than 0.1% and I could not figure out what changed. The other required a change due to an added technology to the test.