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

WIP - Support storage in RTS-GMLC input #184

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

darrylmelander
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@darrylmelander darrylmelander force-pushed the rts-gmlc-storage-support branch from cd41a96 to c310822 Compare January 3, 2024 00:14
@darrylmelander
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I had to make a few judgment calls on the storage CSV file format. Look at https://prescient--184.org.readthedocs.build/en/184/reference/file_formats/rts-gmlc/storage.html to see what I came up with. I'd appreciate feedback on some of the choices described below:

  • The columns defined in the RTS-GMLC specification cover only a subset of the storage properties supported by Egret. To support Egret's additional properties, I added columns to the file format. I chose to require the columns defined by the RTS-GMLC format, while all the new columns are optional.
  • The units for many columns defined by RTS-GMLC is GWh. Most other files use MW/MWh as typical units. I ended up sticking with GWh for the RTS-GMLC columns and using MW for the new columns. Opinions on whether we should use GW for the new columns instead?
  • If a value is left out of the CSV, either because the column was optional and omitted, or because the value was left blank, we use default values. If the default value is listed in the documentation as Unlimited then the property is omitted from the Egret model. Otherwise the property is included in the Egret model with the listed default value.
  • Are the units for Inflow Limit GWh really GWh, or is this a mistake and should have been GW?

@darrylmelander darrylmelander force-pushed the rts-gmlc-storage-support branch 2 times, most recently from 3b2a103 to 20231e6 Compare January 8, 2024 22:01
@darrylmelander darrylmelander force-pushed the rts-gmlc-storage-support branch from 20231e6 to af6b76d Compare January 8, 2024 23:17
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.

1 participant