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

Limit H2 feedin to a share of CH4 load #602

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AmeliaNadal
Copy link
Contributor

The solution proposed by Clara in #354 (comment) is implemented in this branch.

This is a very conservative approach to limit the H2 feedin into the CH4 grid, but we'd rather go for this option than for a modification of the methanisation efficiency that I also presented at the project meeting. Doing so allows to have the H2_feedin independant of the methanisation and to use H2_feedin without building methanisation at all for instance.

A lot of changes are due to black and the content changes are all contained in the commit d107711.

Each H2_feedin link becomes a p_max_pu time series and its p_nom value
is overwritten to model the limitation of H2 feedin into the CH4 grid to a
share of the (time dependant) total CH4 load at this bus.
@AmeliaNadal AmeliaNadal self-assigned this Feb 13, 2023
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@
# Scenario variations:
"scn_extension": None, # None or array of extension scenarios
"scn_decommissioning": None, # None or decommissioning scenario
"H2_vol_share": 15, # in % [50/20/15/10/5/2/1/0] allowed H2 volumetric share for feedin
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you also add this parameter to the json file?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes (61d31a4), sorry about forgetting this again!

@ClaraBuettner
Copy link
Contributor

All checks failed in this PR. It could be fixed by merging the most recent dev into your branch. Could you try that out?

@AmeliaNadal
Copy link
Contributor Author

All checks failed in this PR. It could be fixed by merging the most recent dev into your branch. Could you try that out?

Yes, this looks better now :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants