-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 95
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
Add normalize_using_yearly option into hydro function #245
Conversation
I've proposed a normalization approach, however, I think it is worth discussing how to address countries with no existing hydro production. |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
@euronion Regarding this, hence what to do when we dont have existing buses to scale the country hydro production, we have two options:
|
Hi @davide-f , thanks for looking into this and your suggestions. I'm not very familiar with the The The
I agree we should try to avoid terminology which is biased by PyPSA and PyPSA-EUR where we can. So instead of talking about Regarding countries without hydro generation: |
The proposed normalization procedure resembles the second option that you are stating: first the inflows are calculated using the standard hydro function, then if the option is enabled, instead of returning the standard output, that output is normalized as follows. Let's consider that a workflow shall calculate the inflows Let's assume that for the country (A), where all those 10 buses are located, the total hydro energy production is This procedure is still based on a PyPSA-modelling bias: the output inflow will have a measurement unit in terms of GW/h and losses due to spillage in the dams is not accounted for, yet a multiplying factor could be added.
Totally agree
According to what discussed before, some issues may appear in the normalization procedure if the normalization procedure is used but a country has a non-empty set |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
This PR is ready for review. |
Great! @LukasFrankenQ and I will have a look together. |
@euronion and @LukasFrankenQ do you have any updates here? |
Ease rasterio restriction
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
@davide-f sorry that this takes so long. Would it be possible to add a small test for this routine? Then I could review it properly. |
Hi @davide-f , I've had a look at it again (finally). I'm thinking of a third option:
Reason:
Basically: I think it's in our interest to keep this repository and packages as lean and focused on its task as possible. Make maintenance easier and the chance of things breaking becomes lower. What do you think @davide-f and @FabianHofmann ? |
@euronion thanks for the revision! Based on the experience of pypsa-earth: are you aware of groups using the normalize hydro beyond the pypsa-eur use? |
No. |
Thanks, so I created a new PR with the few changes of this PR that may be worth adding anyway, in my opinion, but feel free to disagree and comment on it. |
Closes #244
Change proposed in this Pull Request
This PR aims at adding the normalize_using_yearly option into hydro function
Description
This PR aims at adding the normalize_using_yearly option into hydro function.
To do the above, the output of the runoff function is being postprocess to achieve the desired goal.
Motivation and Context
This feature can be handy to extend the normalization feature that otherwise would be limited to only runoff
How Has This Been Tested?
On my cloud machine
Type of change
Checklist
pytest
inside the repository and no unexpected problems came up.doc/
.environment.yaml
file.doc/release_notes.rst
.pre-commit run --all
to lint/format/check my contribution