Investment issues (umbrella)
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100
- Issue type
- Feature
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Domain
- backend
Research direction
Start by reading sub-issues #1358, #1383, #1384, #1209, and #1313, along with the referenced issues and any linked pull requests. This is an umbrella for unresolved capacity, divisible-asset, shadow-price, and multi-output design questions; no single file, test, or completion criterion is identified here.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Main issues:
- #1358 (see also #1199 and #1357)We don't have an agreed upon approach for capacity/tranche size selection. Unclear whether capacities should be defined upfront or dynamic (there are software design implications here, and I'd advise against mixing approaches to keep things relatively simple). Unclear how this should interact with divisible assets. Unclear what the user interface should be.
- #1383 (see also #1319) We're appraising capacities in each tranche as if they're entirely separate assets, rather than part of a whole. Ignoring what's been selected so far can lead to inefficient use of availability constraints, potentially leading to higher capacity than we need
- #1384 Zero shadow prices can lead to negative activity coefficients which can prevent assets which would probably be feasible from dispatching (see also #992)
- General indecision about divisible assets (which, to remind, mostly exist for the purposes of allowing partial decommissioning). Should we have a "parent" asset made up of lots of discrete units with the pre-defined capacities, something that allows for more continuous capacities (#1269), or scrap this completely and just have a collection of independent smaller assets. What should the user interface be?
- #1209 Related, to the above and point 1, the current approach of splitting assets into small units for re-appraisal can lead to many appraisal rounds which can be inefficient. Should we allow appraising multiple units simultaneously?
- #1313 No good solution yet for processes with multiple output commodities (also related to zero shadow prices)
See sub issues below, but also look at any linked pull requests/issues for full context.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 8
- Forks
- 5
- Avg merge
- 11h 31m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 33
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE2
-
bug documentation
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE2#1367 · 1 comment ·
-
Remove the `ironing out iteration 0` prefix from debug files when the ironing out loop is turned off Openmuse xiii question
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE2#1221 ·
-
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 35/100
EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE2#1554 ·
-
bug
EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE2#1541 · 2 comments · 1 assignee ·
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE2#1526 ·
All issues in EnergySystemsModellingLab/MUSE2
Similar issues
-
bug CLI custom-model
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#6930 · 1 comment ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
fulcrumgenomics/ferro-hgvs#2251 ·
-
A-allocators A-docs C-enhancement T-libs
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100