[DNMY] Support in the loop PowerFlow evaluation #1040
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Requires NREL-Sienna/PowerFlows.jl#48. |
|
@jd-lara I can't tag you for review on this since it's technically your PR, so this is me letting you know that this is ready for review. There's a few |
|
One issue to consider is the following, in Models with unit commitment (hydro and thermal) if the unit is connected to a PV Bus bus it is essentially off the bus type needs to change to PQ to make the power flow problem feasible. This implies that we need an aux variable for the bus type and then enact that change both in the call to solve as well as in the exporter for any models of the subtype Commitment |
| Union{String, Int64}} mapping component name/bus number to component name/bus number. | ||
| """ | ||
| input_key_map::Dict{<:OptimizationContainerKey, <:Any} | ||
| input_key_map::Dict{Symbol, <:Dict{<:OptimizationContainerKey, <:Any}} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Separate dicts for active and reactive power, basically. There were other ways to do it but I think this is the most natural.
| # association | ||
| for entry_type in precedence | ||
| for (key, val) in available_keys | ||
| (get_entry_type(key) === entry_type) || continue |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
make this if statement for readability
This is a WIP branch to integrate the evaluation of PowerFlows into a simulation loop.
GKS edit: depends on NREL-Sienna/PowerFlows.jl#53