Energy excess parameters may be calculated incorrectly

[smartie2076]

New energy busses now always are connected to the ENERGY_VECTOR of the first asset that is connected to it (comp. here). In case of energyConversion assets, this is actually not quite accurate: If an electricity bus is first defined by a heat pump connected to it, which has energyVector "Heat", the bus is defined incorrectly.

The energy vector of a bus is used to define the excess sink connected to it. As such, currently, the energy excess sinks may right now be of an incorrect energy vector and be counted into the KPI connected to excess energy incorrectly (also considering weighting). As such, one should right now look at the scalar_matrix and not the scalars to determine the excess of sector-coupled systems.

Originally posted by @smartie2076 in #555 (comment)

[smartie2076]

Following warning (5c090e6) is printed out to remind of this issue:

15:02:12-WARNING-The calculation of the Total_excess per sector and their energy equivalent may currently be faulty. Please refer to issue #559

[smartie2076]

To-dos:

• Create benchmark test for a simple scenario
• Create failing benchmark test for the issue above
• Fix the issue, also with help of [Decision wanted] Definition of energy busses via csv #635, with explicit energy carrier definitions
• remove warning message about faulty excess calculation

[smartie2076]

@mahendrark found how this issue influences the benchmark tests, specifically with mvs_tool -i tests/benchmark_test_inputs/AFG_grid_heatpump_heat -ext csv -f -pdf:

`"energyConsumption": {
"Electricity_bus_excess": {
"costs_investment_over_lifetime": {
"unit": "EUR",
"value": 0.0
},
...
"energyVector": "Heat",`

...so the energyVector or the electricity excess is "heat", which is obviously incorrect. This might be solved via #649.

The energyBusses are processed as following:

"energyBusses": {
"Electricity_bus": {
"Asset_list": {
"Electricity_bus_excess": "Electricity_bus_excess_sink",
"Grid_DSO": "Grid_DSO",
"Grid_DSO_feedin_sink": "Grid_DSO_feedin_sink_sink",
"demand_elec": "demand_elec",
"heat_pump": "heat_pump"
},
"_excess": "Electricity_bus_excess",
"energyVector": "Heat",
"label": "Electricity_bus"
},
"Electricity_pdp_bus": {
"Asset_list": {
"Grid_DSO_consumption": "Grid_DSO_consumption_source"
},
"energyVector": "Electricity",
"label": "Electricity_pdp_bus"
},
"Heat_bus": {
"Asset_list": {
"Heat_DSO": "Heat_DSO",
"Heat_DSO_feedin_sink": "Heat_DSO_feedin_sink_sink",
"Heat_bus_excess": "Heat_bus_excess_sink",
"demand_heat": "demand_heat",
"heat_pump": "heat_pump"
},
"_excess": "Heat_bus_excess",
"energyVector": "Heat",
"label": "Heat_bus"
},
"Heat_pdp_bus": {
"Asset_list": {
"Heat_DSO_consumption": "Heat_DSO_consumption_source"
},
"energyVector": "Heat",
"label": "Heat_pdp_bus"
}
}

[smartie2076]

@mahendrark thought that this might influence the report generated with PR #647, but I think the code itself will still work fine. The result of course is wrong (but that is because of this issue here and will be fixed as soon as this the issue is fixed).

[smartie2076]

With #649 issue might be eased as the energyVector of a energyBus asset is manually defined by the user. When working on this issue, also check again from where the weighting factor of an asset is derived from - LABEL or ENERGY_VECTOR.

[SabineHaas]

how this issue influences the benchmark tests, specifically with mvs_tool -i tests/benchmark_test_inputs/AFG_grid_heatpump_heat -ext csv -f -pdf:

I ran tests/benchmark_test_inputs/AFG_grid_heatpump_heat with overwrite=True, input_type="csv", save_png=True, pdf_report=True which should be equal.

The busses are processed well:

"energyBusses": {
        "Electricity": {
            "Asset_list": {
                "Electricity_excess": "Electricity_excess_sink",
                "Grid_DSO": "Grid_DSO",
                "Grid_DSO_feedin_sink": "Grid_DSO_feedin_sink_sink",
                "demand_elec": "demand_elec",
                "heat_pump": "heat_pump"
            },
            "_excess": "Electricity_excess",
            "energyVector": "Electricity",
            "label": "Electricity"
        },
        "Electricity_pdp": {
            "Asset_list": {
                "Grid_DSO_consumption": "Grid_DSO_consumption_source"
            },
            **"energyVector": "Electricity",**
            "label": "Electricity_pdp"
        },
        "Heat": {
            "Asset_list": {
                "Heat_DSO": "Heat_DSO",
                "Heat_DSO_feedin_sink": "Heat_DSO_feedin_sink_sink",
                "Heat_excess": "Heat_excess_sink",
                "demand_heat": "demand_heat",
                "heat_pump": "heat_pump"
            },
            "_excess": "Heat_excess",
            "energyVector": "Heat",
            "label": "Heat"
        },
        "Heat_pdp": {
            "Asset_list": {
                "Heat_DSO_consumption": "Heat_DSO_consumption_source"
            },
            "energyVector": "Heat",
            "label": "Heat_pdp"
        }

[smartie2076]

Thats because you manually defined the energyVector of each bus now - so I guess the issue solved itself! :D

You only have to delete the error message in E3.calculate_electricity_equivalent_for_a_set_of_aggregated_values now:

    if kpi_name == TOTAL_EXCESS:
        logging.warning(
            f"The calculation of the {TOTAL_EXCESS} per sector and their energy equivalent may currently be faulty. Please refer to issue #559"
        )

[SabineHaas]

And check that DEFAULT_WEIGHTS_ENERGY_CARRIERS is derived with ENERGY_VECTOR in D2 and E3.

D2 ✅
E3 checked by @smartie2076