Uwe Krien

I understand your idea @oakca but solph is a very generalised framework, so it is always difficult to name the attributes. To use solph you need an application. We decided...

> This way, all costs would be in results_meta['objective']. I tend to rate this second option more intuitive. In some cases the result of the objective function is equal to...

> Maybe, my confusion is due to the "[objective-function-value-fetish](https://github.com/oemof/oemof/pull/396#issuecomment-350304917)". I do not understand, what confuses you, the phrase itself or the comment of @simnh?

> +1, and it makes the model comparisons easier... Otherwise you have to remove fix-costs from the other model. That's right. If the objective function of the other model has...

1. No, the way you do it is perfectly right. 2. The storage-capacity-variable is a sequence not a scalar. ```python print(results[node_storage, None]['sequences'])

This is not possible with oemof. It might be possible with pyomo but I doubt so. You can find the pyomo results in the model after the solver has finished....

The funny thing is, that we have a delete function ([teardown](../blob/dev/tests/constraint_tests.py#L53)) in the tests but not in the basic code.

@gnn mentioned that it is not trivial to add a `remove` method. As the building of the energy system is really fast compared to the building of the model and...

We may do some changes without an API break. For the rest we have to wait until `v0.5.0`.

No, @p-snft that seems to be different because in #781 the user wanted to dump the EnergySystem before(!) the optimisation.