-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Docs/Improvement of documentation and library #29
Conversation
- Rewrote to common format - Simplified functions for types
- Removed @autodcs for proper analyses - Additional minor error fixes
The tests are currently failing as we have not yet registered the version of EMB which allows for deactivating all tests in Pull request 39. However, it is still possible to check for typos in the documentation. |
while bidirectional transport utilize again the variables ``\texttt{trans\_pos}[tm, t]`` and ``\texttt{trans\_neg}[tm, t]`` as introduced above: | ||
|
||
```math | ||
\texttt{emissions\_trans}[tm, t, p_{em}] = emission(tm, p_{em}, t) \times \left(\texttt{trans\_pos}[tm, t] + \texttt{trans\_neg}[tm, t]\right) |
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.
In a update of the bi-directional flow equations:
here we should also withdraw 0.5*loss(tm, t) form the sum of trans_pos + trans_neg
Co-authored-by: espenfb <[email protected]>
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 will incorporate some of the changes, the rest I would leave for a separate Issue/PR. Changing the behavior on loss calculations would in my opinion correspond to a major release, even if it is not breaking backwards compatibility.
|
||
!!! todo "Loss calculations" | ||
It looks to me that the loss calculations are not equivalent. | ||
We have to change that. |
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 would see that as a separate Issue/PR.
```math | ||
\begin{aligned} | ||
\texttt{trans\_opex\_var}[tm, t_{inv}] = \sum_{t \in t_{inv}} & opex\_var(tm, t) \times \\ & | ||
\left(\texttt{trans\_pos}[tm, t] + \texttt{trans\_neg}[tm, t]\right) \times \\ & |
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.
We can discuss that in more detail in a separate Issue/PR
- Removed check_any_data for EMB (to be included in separate PR) - Fixed docstring for `GeoAvailability`
This PR follows similar PRs in
EnergyModelsBase
andEnergyModelsRenewableProducers
andEnergyModelsCO2
. It is essentially an improvement on the documentation with a mathematical description of the individual concepts.The main aim is to:
The investment tests are furthermore included in the CI.