Explicit demand response peak load #484
Conversation
-convert DST to classes -add residential components -add new tests -refactor code -add dst_componnets to the world -adjust notebook 10
-fix docstrings -remove unrequired dst base class
-add operationl_cost constraints to heatpump, boiler, and PV -revise all tests and add complete tests for each DST component
-remove common constraint definition outside
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
|
Discussion with @Manish-Khanra we used a big-M formulation to linearise the problem formulation. The second objective loop was reformulated to include the absolute values of the shift; otherwise, the objective value was forced to 0 due to the demand covering constraint, which led to arbitrary solutions. Note that there are no costs included in the second objective loop, leading to multiple possible solutions with the same absolute load shift that does not violate the cost increase constraints. Hence, different solvers will most likely result in different solutions.
|
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #484 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 77.51% 77.85% +0.33%
==========================================
Files 50 50
Lines 6792 6971 +179
==========================================
+ Hits 5265 5427 +162
- Misses 1527 1544 +17
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
…o explicit_demand_response_peak_load
-remove changes in example.py -refactor csv forecaster for better usability
-revise hinting in csvforecaster -remove unused code
-fix naming of strategies -fix tests -small changes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Manish-Khanra I have fixed several things and streamlined the code. Everything is fine, but there are some things you should address before we can merge this into main
| "log_to_console": False, | ||
| "LogToConsole": 0, | ||
| } | ||
| # Apply the flexibility function based on flexibility measure |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this has been adapted, please check if correct
| "LogToConsole": 0, | ||
| } | ||
| # Apply the flexibility function based on flexibility measure | ||
| if self.flexibility_measure in DSMFlex.flexibility_map: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this has been adapted, please check if correct
|
@Manish-Khanra also please complete the PR form above |
Pull Request
Related Issue
Closes #[issue number] (if applicable)
Description
Changes Proposed
Implementation of Flexibility Measures:
Testing
Individual test fixtures for each flexibility measure.
Checklist
Please check all applicable items:
docfolder updates)pyproject.tomldoc/release_notes.rstof the upcoming release is includedAdditional Notes (if applicable)
[Any additional information, concerns, or areas you want reviewers to focus on]
Screenshots (if applicable)
[Add screenshots to demonstrate visual changes]