Topic: Problem with Exercise 3Subscribe | Previous | Next
Argiro Roinioti 1/14/2011
2245 Views Hello,
I have reached the end of Exercise 3, but the Energy Balance in 2030 is not correct for some fuels (solid fuels, hydro, biomass,oil products).
http://rapidshare.com/files/442552352/New_Freedonia2.zip
The problem seems to be in the Resources and Transformation branches. I have double checked them, but I can't find the mistakes. Are my inputs correct? The Energy Balance of 2000 seems to be correct.
I would be very thankful if you could help me.
Tory Clark 1/14/2011
2244 Views Hi Argiro,
Please first read the following tips on troubleshooting energy balances.
1. If the value of energy requirements (independently of whether they are imported/exported/domestically produced) does not match what you expect, it is good to trace your results to see if you can localize which demand, transformation and resources branches are not functioning as you expect.
2. If the energy requirements seem correct, but imports, exports and/or domestic production seems incorrect, then it is likely that numbers have been input correctly, but branch properties are not set correctly. Here are some things to check:
o Check the output properties of each transformation module. This can be found in analysis view, in the "Output Fuels" folder in each transformation module (i.e. Transformation\Oil Refining\Output Fuels). Check the "Output Properties," "Import Target" and "Export Target" variables to make sure those make sense.
o Check the "Base Year Reserves" and "Yield" variables in the Resources branch to ensure that you have sufficient primary and secondary resources to produce resources and energy domestically.
o Check the import and export target variables at the Primary and Secondary Resources branch. These variables add additional imports and exports for resources that have not been already specified as outputs of one or more Transformation modules.
Please let me know how this goes. If the value (point 1 above) is different, please post more information on how the results you are seeing are different than you expect.
Best,
Tory
Argiro Roinioti 1/16/2011
2226 Views Hello Tory,
Thank you for your quick response. I have tried to localize which branches aren't functioning, as far as the 2030 energy balance is concerned: Production, Imports (oil products), coal mining, charcoal making and electricity generation.The corresponding fuels are solid fuels, hydro, biomass and oil products. I have checked the output properties and export and import target variables and they seem to be correct.
I really can't see why the results for 2030 aren't the ones they are supposed to be.
Also, I moved to Exercise 4 and my cost benefit results are wrong. I noticed that in the costs for existing and future electric facilities, the capital and fixed costs cannot be turned to KW, as it is stated in the exercise, because LEAP uses as default unit the Μεgawatt. Moreover, I noticed that in the Freedonia file, there is both indigenous cost and import cost for crude oil.Isn't it imported? Shouldn't it have only an import cost? There is also no import cost for the coal in Freedonia (it is domestic, so I assume it should have an indigenous cost), and the base year reserves are zero.
I am sorry for bombarding you with questions, but I don't have any other help besides this forum!
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Argiro.
http://rapidshare.com/files/442902113/New_Freedonia2.zip
Tory Clark 1/31/2011
1 Like 2194 Views Hi Argiro,
It looks like there are a few things that are not correct. The most important part about viewing LEAP results is that you must be able to localize which parts are not behaving as you would expect so that you know how to troubleshoot. I will pick one item and walk you through how to fix it.
By looking at the results graphs for electric capacity and generation (graphs shown on page 38), there is a difference within the existing coal steam technology, where no capacity exists in 2030 and therefore no generation occurs within that technology. From this observation I can go check in the analysis view for coal steam to see what assumptions were made and narrow my search for a mistake.
When I look for coal steam assumptions I find that you have entered an expression “Step(2010,500,2020,0)” for exogenous capacity in the reference scenario, which explains the disappearance of the existing coal steam generation in future years. If you delete this equation, allowing the current accounts value to be inherited, you will see the correct value for electricity in the energy balance.
I recommend going through the results graphs along with the energy balance to trace the discrepancies back to the source. You can also always check your results with each completed file, which can be found on the training materials page. It's also important to note that we expect these training materials to be a guide. Your results may differ slightly based on assumptions you have made when inputs were not explicitly given in the exercise.
In terms of your other questions, you can convert capital costs for electric facilities from $/kW to $/MW. In these exercises we try to give some examples where you need to do additional calculations or unit conversions, much like in a real world example.
The costing variables that appear at all branches are visible based on the type of costing analysis that is specified for your area. You can change this method by going to General: Basic Parameters and going to the costing tab. The first drop down box will specify the module boundary for the cost-benefit calculations. If you would like to know more about the different methods and where to enter costs, please see the user guide documentation (http://tinyurl.com/4gz8qww).
If you have “complete energy system” chosen for your module boundary, all resources will have variables for both indigenous cost and import cost so that you can choose which to use.
Best,
Tory