powerplantmatching
powerplantmatching copied to clipboard
Rerunning with `extend_by_vres` results extreme overcapacity
Version Checks (indicate both or one)
-
[x] I have confirmed this bug exists on the lastest release of powerplantmatching.
-
[ ] I have confirmed this bug exists on the current
masterbranch of powerplantmatching.
Issue Description
Re-generating the collection with the extend_by_vres option produces a very high number of installed powerplants, particularly for PV and Wind.
The image below uses the default configuration (Europe). Wind is quite extreme.
For PV, I suspect the cause might be due mismatches in the coding of some technologies. Notice PV, Pv, Photovoltaics and Photovoltaics ground.
Reproducible Example
# Took 1h on my computer
import powerplantmatching as ppm
collection = ppm.collection.powerplants(
update=True,
extend_by_vres=True,
fill_geopositions=True
)
stats = ppm.data.Capacity_stats()
ppm.plot.fueltype_totals_bar([collection, stats])
Expected Behavior
Two suggestions:
- A schema should be used to validate that the processed datasets conform to a given shape before they are passed to the matching algorithm. I suggest pandera.
- Consider adding some logic that 'trims' excessive capacities (when compared to annual country totals), as an optional callable function for further post-processing.
Installed Versions
We should deprecate extend_by_vres since it takes data that is not maintained anymore. We're now using GEM and MASTR for VRES mostly, which is added as regular technology (and sometimes excluded from matching).
I'd advocate for removing it, yeah. Or at least mentioning that it is no longer maintained. Thanks for the info!
but shouldn't we then instead replace the old vres data by GEM data when using extend_by _vres?
I suppose, if that's what most users would expect.
I no longer use powerplantmatching in my processes, so I can no longer speak as a user unfortunately.
but shouldn't we then instead replace the old vres data by GEM data when using extend_by _vres?
The alternative is to remove it and always include wind and solar (which seems sensible to me).
The alternative is to remove it and always include wind and solar (which seems sensible to me).
ah yes, that would indeed the direct and clear way!