Technology types#116
Conversation
…ute 'ccs: True' where applicable.
Getting formatting corretion from remote master.
|
Hi @erikfilias, @danielhuppmann, @sandrinecharousset, here the promised draft of a list of technologies. Please let me know what you think and feel free to add or suggest changes! |
|
Thanks @HauHe for starting this list, will be useful starting place to shorten the variable names. I made some suggestions for clarity and also to bring the PR in line with the general recomendations, see https://github.com/openENTRANCE/nomenclature/tree/master/nomenclature/definitions/variable#naming-convention-for-variables |
| Fuel cell: | ||
| description: Fuel cells | ||
|
|
||
| OCGT: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest to use Gas Turbine|Open Cycle
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't the technology then be called Gas Turbine?
One could then define the <Specification>``Open Cycleand Combined Cycle
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps one could then also define a file specification_types.yaml. Or does the information then get too dispersed? What do you think @sandrinecharousset @erikfilias @danielhuppmann ?
| description: Open-Cycle Gas Turbine | ||
| ccs: True | ||
|
|
||
| Generation II: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest to use Nuclear|Generation 2 (same for next technologies) and to more clearly explain in the description what generation 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 is (year of development, other technical specifications)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generation 2 is indeed somehow unspecific, but Nuclear is already covered by the <Fuel>isn't it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The <Fuel>question is also valid for several other of your comments. My thought is that if we say here Nuclear|Generation 2or Wind|Onshore instead of Generation 2 and Onshore then one might end up with variable names containing Nuclear|Nucelar|Generation 2 and Wind|Wind|Onshoresince we say in the naming convention <Fuel>|<Technology>|<Specification>
| Generation IV: | ||
| description: Nuclear power plant of the fourth generation | ||
|
|
||
| SMR reactor: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest to use Nuclear|Small Modular Reactor
| Tidal: | ||
| description: Power generation using tidal currents | ||
|
|
||
| PV: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest to use Solar|Photovoltaics
| PV: | ||
| description: Solar Photovoltaics | ||
|
|
||
| CSP: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest to use Solar|Concentrated Solar Power
| CSP: | ||
| description: Concentrating Solar Power | ||
|
|
||
| Onshore: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest to add Wind|Onshore, also for Offshore
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@danielhuppmann I am a bit lost understanding the difference between this list and the fuel_type list as there are some duplicates (eg Wind|Onshore, Wind|Offshore you just proposed to add...); What if one list is modified and not consistent with the other?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see your point @sandrinecharousset.
That's why I had listed Onshoreand Offshore and other technologies without their <Fuel>, to keep the list separated relating to the spaceholders in the naming convention they can fill.
However, amybe in some cases it might be confusing or at least not 100% clear what a technology name relates to.
I'd still lean towards keeping fuels and technologies separated.
|
Taking this discussion out of the individual review comments to the meta-level of this PR. I see some confusion between the generic description of a variable in the description and README's, e.g., We currently have not (yet?) implemented a method to only fill specific combinations of placeholders (like use |
3 participants
This PR addresses #59
It adds a list of technology types that can be used fill the spaceholder
<Specification>.E.g. given when having variable names like:
Capital Cost|<Fuel>|<Specification>.The list is probably not complete and one could discuss how to name the technologies. Are abbreviations ok? Variable names might get very long if not.
Anyhow, happy for suggestions and contributions for improving the list.