Update on the technical lifetime of a unit/storage/connection constraint

[datejada]

Create a method so that the user can select either ">=" or "==" in the technical lifetime constraint and update the documentation

https://spine-tools.github.io/SpineOpt.jl/latest/mathematical_formulation/constraints/#Technical-lifetime-of-a-unit

[datejada]

FYI: Look to the nodal balance constraint to look for inspiration.

[hannesfelipe]

Is there an update on this issue? Today, I realised that the "unit_investment_lifetime" parameter is only the minimal lifetime. For longer modelling periods it would be helpful to have a maximum lifetime.

[tarskul]

@hannesfelipe We have not started on this issue yet but we should be rather soonish (give or take a few weeks).

[datejada]

Note: consider the comments in #601 for the implementation

[datejada]

Is there an update on this issue? Today, I realised that the "unit_investment_lifetime" parameter is only the minimal lifetime. For longer modelling periods it would be helpful to have a maximum lifetime.

Hi @hannesfelipe, The following PR #1060 has changes to consider different options in the lifetime constraint. If you want to double-check the changes, you can see them there and leave a comment if it is relevant. Once the PR is reviewed, I will merge it, so you can have it in the master branch of SpineOpt.

[hannesfelipe]

@datejada thank you for the update. I think the approach with the ">=", "==", and "<=" options is very good. I am looking forward to use the option in our model.

[datejada]

@datejada thank you for the update. I think the approach with the ">=", "==", and "<=" options is very good. I am looking forward to use the option in our model.

Hi @hannesfelipe, the changes are now available in the master branch for your use and testing. BR, Diego