Skip to content
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

Review behaviour of electricity storage forecasting algorithm #1403

Open
1 of 4 tasks
mabijkerk opened this issue Feb 19, 2024 · 4 comments
Open
1 of 4 tasks

Review behaviour of electricity storage forecasting algorithm #1403

mabijkerk opened this issue Feb 19, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
Pinned Will never be marked as stale or auto-closed.

Comments

@mabijkerk
Copy link
Member

mabijkerk commented Feb 19, 2024

We have been notified by some of our clients of several potential shortcomings of the forecasting algorithm. These warrant further investigation.

  • 1. After some changes with batteries in a 2050 II3050 scenario, the sum of elements in the chart "total costs" was not equal to the total presented in the table (not able to reproduce yet)
  • 2. When the installed capacity of batteries in a 2050 II3050 scenario is reduced, the full load hours decrease in some cases
  • 3. Local forecasting with large amounts of solar PV in households and demand in households, despite large installed capacity of household batteries, the batteries only charge with a limited capacity
  • 4. Forecasting has unexpected consequences for price-setting behaviour in this scenario: on January 1st curtailment is active but prices jump from 0 tot ~5 euros/MWh
@mabijkerk mabijkerk self-assigned this Feb 19, 2024
@mabijkerk
Copy link
Member Author

The following scenario reproduces issue 1: https://energytransitionmodel.com/saved_scenarios/16595.

image

The error seems to be caused by a rounding error in the Energy carriers import/export group. For 2 GW li-ion batteries the decimals reappear and the sum total is equal to the total row.

@kaskranenburgQ
Copy link
Contributor

kaskranenburgQ commented Mar 22, 2024

When I open this scenario, the correct numbers seem to appear:
Screenshot 2024-03-22 at 17 12 21

@kndehaan kndehaan self-assigned this Apr 26, 2024
@mabijkerk
Copy link
Member Author

The issue for 4. is likely the same that we encountered for hybrid offshore wind. As @kaskranenburgQ puts it:

Merit sets the price equal to the lowest flexible consumer that does not completely fulfills it's demand. Since in these situations the electrolyser does not completely meet it's demand, it will set the price, while it does not reflect the actual market price.

When battery forecasting is on, the price is likely set to the max_consumption_price and marginal_costs as specified on the battery node. We can quickly check to see whether this is indeed the case.

For hybrid offshore wind we solved it by exclude the must-run part of the electrolyser from pricesetting. This worked because the electricity would otherwise have been curtailed anyway. For batteries this is not the case. We therefore need to consider a suitable solution for pricesetting for batteries with forecasting.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 1, 2024

This issue has had no activity for 60 days and will be closed in 7 days. Removing the "Stale" label or posting a comment will prevent it from being closed automatically. You can also add the "Pinned" label to ensure it isn't marked as stale in the future.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale Issue had no activity for 60 days and will be, or has been, closed. label Sep 1, 2024
@mabijkerk mabijkerk added Pinned Will never be marked as stale or auto-closed. and removed Stale Issue had no activity for 60 days and will be, or has been, closed. labels Sep 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Pinned Will never be marked as stale or auto-closed.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants