Skip to content

Conversation

@TomKae00
Copy link
Contributor

@TomKae00 TomKae00 commented Apr 8, 2025

Changes proposed in this Pull Request

  • Updated DEA Energy Storage data file (technology_data_catalogue_for_energy_storage.xlsx) to the newest version 9 – costs are now given in 2020 currency year.

  • Added storage temperatures as a parameter for central and decentral water tanks as well as for pit thermal energy storage.

  • Integrated gas storage processing directly into the order_data function and removed the add_gas_storage function, as its data structure now matches that of the other components in the technology_data_catalogue_for_energy_storage.xlsx file.

  • Added manual_cost_year_assignments_2020 for components created later from the available data and thus not covered by cost_year_2020 (e.g. gas storage charger/discharger).

  • As mentioned in issue Investment cost of underground natural gas storage too low by a factor of ~7 #154, the specific investment cost for gas storage increases by a factor of 7 with the new DEA data. We now use the directly stated specific investment cost for the storage creation and calculate the specific cost of the charger and discharger as done previously. What's your opinion on that @fneum ?

  • Wrong unit conversion for FOM for pit thermal energy storage in the current DEA technology_data_for_energy_storage file as of 09 April, 2025. Reported values are 1,000 times too high. See issue: Incorrect FOM Unit Conversion in DEA technology catalogue v9 for Pit Thermal Energy Storage #203

Checklist

  • Code changes are sufficiently documented; i.e. new functions contain docstrings and further explanations may be given in doc.
  • Data source for new technologies is clearly stated.
  • Newly introduced dependencies are added to environment.yaml (if applicable).
  • A note for the release notes doc/release_notes.rst of the upcoming release is included.
  • I consent to the release of this PR's code under the GPLv3 license.

@lkstrp lkstrp requested a review from amos-schledorn April 14, 2025 11:47
Copy link
Contributor

@amos-schledorn amos-schledorn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! I just have some minor comments.
Also, could you merge the master into the feature and re-run snakemake?

@TomKae00
Copy link
Contributor Author

TomKae00 commented Apr 29, 2025

@amos-schledorn Thanks for the review! I merged the master and re-ran Snakemake.

@amos-schledorn amos-schledorn merged commit 0b486a5 into PyPSA:master May 13, 2025
3 checks passed
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.

3 participants