Add new resource type: CCS with solvent storage #854

Open

qluo0320github wants to merge 25 commits intodevelopfrom

solvent-storage

Collaborator

qluo0320github commented Jun 24, 2025 •

edited by lbonaldo

Loading

Description

What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)

Feature

Checklist

Code changes are sufficiently documented; i.e. new functions contain docstrings and .md files under /docs/src have been updated if necessary.
The latest changes on the target branch have been incorporated, so that any conflicts are taken care of before merging. This can be accomplished either by merging in the target branch (e.g. 'git merge develop') or by rebasing on top of the target branch (e.g. 'git rebase develop'). Please do not hesitate to reach out to the GenX development team if you need help with this.
Code has been tested to ensure all functionality works as intended.
CHANGELOG.md has been updated (if this is a 'notable' change).
I consent to the release of this PR's code under the GNU General Public license.

How this can be tested

An example case "11_three_zones_CCS_solvent_storage" is used in test.

Post-approval checklist for GenX core developers

After the PR is approved

Check that the latest changes on the target branch are incorporated, either via merge or rebase
Remember to squash and merge if incorporating into develop

qluo0320github requested review from JesseJenkins and lbonaldo

June 24, 2025 13:13

Collaborator

lbonaldo commented Jun 24, 2025

Thanks @qluo0320github for reopening this PR! 🙌

lbonaldo mentioned this pull request

Add new resource type: CCS with solvent storage #795

Closed

12 tasks

qluo0320github and others added 20 commits

July 3, 2025 15:42


          Add CCS with solvent storage as a FLECCS resource

a11dc83


          Modify output files; add documentation

2b57881


          Update CHANGELOG.md and add doc in settings

4477f15


          add a check for empty collections

0241c1f


          Fix bugs in write_capacity.csv

e4c2364


          fixed bugs in write_capacityfactor.jl

f26065b


          Revert "fixed bugs in write_capacityfactor.jl"

36273e9

This reverts commit 4a15eb5.


          Force CCS_SS capture rate

e510500


          convert vStartFuel back to eStartFuel in co2&fuel

0f84dcd


          lower case for CCS_solvent_storage.csv

b2eb02d


          modify write capacity and cf

8fe9dd7


          Add input variable doc for ccs solvent storage

9b4dd5b


          add start costs and fuels for all components


          Add output doc for CCS with solvent storage

6d89b2e


          remove Gurobi in the example

a05f7e5


          fix bugs in add_expression in ccs_ss_commit

ffd32f0


          Remove functions to load specific ccs-ss input

ae48e08


          fix bug in write_capacity for ccs-ss


          fixed a typo in doc string in fuel.jl

01a0e6b


          Rename example case

281091b

lbonaldo force-pushed the solvent-storage branch from ab01643 to 4aa01ca Compare

July 8, 2025 20:57


          Code cleanup following rebase

01f86d2

lbonaldo force-pushed the solvent-storage branch from 4aa01ca to 01f86d2 Compare

July 9, 2025 07:23

lbonaldo added 2 commits

July 9, 2025 09:24


          Add validation for multistage and retrofit

57bbe4a


          Fix documentation build

fc2c327

lbonaldo reviewed

View reviewed changes

src/configure_settings/configure_settings.jl

                       "PoliciesFolder" => "policies",
-                      "ObjScale" => 1)
+                      "ObjScale" => 1,
+                      "FlexibleCCS" => 1)

Collaborator

lbonaldo Jul 9, 2025

Just curious — what’s the reason for using a settings flag rather than a resource attribute?

lbonaldo reviewed

View reviewed changes

Collaborator

lbonaldo left a comment

Hey @qluo0320github! Thanks so much for adding this new resource. I’ve added a few comments to the code and rebased the branch onto the current develop. Would you mind running the example case again and seeing if the results make sense to you? Thank you!

src/model/resources/flexible_ccs/ccs_solvent_storage.jl

+                  end
+                  if MultiStage == 1
+                      @expression(EP, eExistingCap_CCS_SS[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, i = 1:7], vEXISTINGCAP_CCS_SS[y,i])

Collaborator

lbonaldo Jul 9, 2025

Is multistage supported? I think we need to update the configure_ddp_dicts function in dual_dyanimic_programming.jl as well to make it run. For now, I added a check that throws an error if CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE is used with both retrofit and multistage (as we did for allam cycle), but please let me if I'm wrong.

src/model/resources/flexible_ccs/ccs_solvent_storage.jl

Comment on lines +159 to +190

+                  @expression(EP, eCInv_CCS_SS[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, i in 1:7],
+                      if y in NEW_CAP_CCS_SS # Resources eligible for new capacity
+                          if y in COMMIT_CCS_SS  # Resource eligible for Unit commitment
+                              solvent_storage_dict[y,"inv_cost"][i] * solvent_storage_dict[y,"cap_size"][i] * EP[:vCAP_CCS_SS][y, i]
+                          else
+                              solvent_storage_dict[y,"inv_cost"][i] * EP[:vCAP_CCS_SS][y, i]
+                          end
+                      else
+
+                      end)
+                  # Fixed O&M cost of each component in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE
+                  @expression(EP, eCFom_CCS_SS[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, i in 1:7],
+                      solvent_storage_dict[y,"fom_cost"][i] * eTotalCap_CCS_SS[y,i])
+                  # Total fixed cost expression - combines investment and fixed O&M costs
+                  @expression(EP, eCFix_CCS_SS[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, i in 1:7],
+                      if y in NEW_CAP_CCS_SS
+                          # For resources with new capacity: investment cost + fixed O&M cost
+                          EP[:eCInv_CCS_SS][y, i] + EP[:eCFom_CCS_SS][y, i]
+                      else
+                          # For existing resources: only fixed O&M cost
+                          EP[:eCFom_CCS_SS][y, i]
+                      end)
+                  # connect eCFix_CCS_SS_Plant to eCFix
+                  @expression(EP, eCFix_CCS_SS_Plant[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE], sum(EP[:eCFix_CCS_SS][y,i] for i in 1:7))
+                  @expression(EP, eTotalCFix_CCS_SS, sum(EP[:eCFix_CCS_SS_Plant][y] for y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE))
+                  # connect eCInv_CCS_SS_Plant to eCInv
+                  @expression(EP, eCInv_CCS_SS_Plant[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE], sum(EP[:eCInv_CCS_SS][y,i] for i in 1:7))
+                  @expression(EP, eTotalCInv_CCS_SS, sum(EP[:eCInv_CCS_SS_Plant][y] for y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE))

Collaborator

lbonaldo Jul 9, 2025

I've updated the file splitting eCFix = eCInv + eCFom. Could you please double check it makes sense to you?

src/model/resources/flexible_ccs/ccs_solvent_storage.jl

Comment on lines +213 to +216

+                  if MultiStage == 1
+                      # Existing capacity variable is equal to existing capacity specified in the input file
+                      @constraint(EP, cExistingCap_CCS_SS[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, i in 1:7], EP[:vEXISTINGCAP_CCS_SS][y,i]== solvent_storage_dict[y, "existing_cap"][i])
+                  end

Collaborator

lbonaldo Jul 9, 2025

I believe this constraint is repeated (see line 118)

src/model/resources/flexible_ccs/ccs_solvent_storage.jl

+                  # sum to annual level
+                  @expression(EP, eCVar_CCS_SS[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE], sum(EP[:eCVar_CCS_SS_unit][y,i,t] for i in 1:5 for t in 1:T))
+                  # sum to zonal-annual level
+                  @expression(EP, eZonalCVar_CCS_SS[z = 1:Z], sum(EP[:eCVar_CCS_SS][y] for y in intersect(CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, resources_in_zone_by_rid(gen, z))))

Collaborator

lbonaldo Jul 9, 2025

Pre-compute set outside @expression

Suggested change

      
                @expression(EP, eZonalCVar_CCS_SS[z = 1:Z], sum(EP[:eCVar_CCS_SS][y] for y in intersect(CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, resources_in_zone_by_rid(gen, z))))
          
                CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE_BY_ZONE = map(1:Z) do z
          
                    return intersect(CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, resources_in_zone_by_rid(gen, z))
          
                end
          
                @expression(EP, eZonalCVar_CCS_SS[z = 1:Z], 
          
                    sum(EP[:eCVar_CCS_SS][y] 
          
                    for y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE_BY_ZONE[z]))

src/model/resources/flexible_ccs/ccs_solvent_storage.jl

+                  @constraint(EP, cP[y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, t = 1:T], eP_CCS_SS[y, t] == EP[:vP][y,t])
+                  @expression(EP, ePowerBalance_CCS_SS[t = 1:T, z = 1:Z],
+                              sum(EP[:eP_CCS_SS][y, t] - EP[:vCHARGE_CCS_SS][y, t]
+                              for y in intersect(CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, resources_in_zone_by_rid(gen, z))))

Collaborator

lbonaldo Jul 9, 2025

similar to the previous comment:

Suggested change

      
                            for y in intersect(CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE, resources_in_zone_by_rid(gen, z))))
          
                            for y in CCS_SOLVENT_STORAGE_BY_ZONE[z]))

src/model/resources/flexible_ccs/ccs_solvent_storage_commit.jl

Comment on lines +102 to +105

+                  @constraint(EP,[y in COMMIT_CCS_SS, i in [gasturbine, absorber, compressor], t = 1:T],
+                      EP[:vOutput_CCS_SS][y,i,t]-EP[:vOutput_CCS_SS][y,i,hoursbefore(p, t, 1)] <= solvent_storage_dict[y, "ramp_up"][i]*solvent_storage_dict[y, "cap_size"][i]*(vCOMMIT_CCS_SS[y,i,t]-vSTART_CCS_SS[y,i,t])
+                          + min(1,max(solvent_storage_dict[y, "min_power"][i],solvent_storage_dict[y, "ramp_up"][i]))*solvent_storage_dict[y, "cap_size"][i]*vSTART_CCS_SS[y,i,t]
+                          -solvent_storage_dict[y, "min_power"][i]*solvent_storage_dict[y, "cap_size"][i]*vSHUT_CCS_SS[y,i,t])

Collaborator

lbonaldo Jul 9, 2025

Two questions on this constraint:

do we need to include regulation and reserves terms?
can the max power output be different than 1 (e.g. inputs["pP_Max"])

src/write_outputs/write_costs.jl

+                              tempCVar += eCVar_CCS_SS_zone
+                              tempCTotal += eCFix_CCS_SS_zone + eCVar_CCS_SS_zone
+                              if setup["UCommit"] >= 1 && !isempty(Y_ZONE_CCS_SS)
+                                  eCStart_CCS_SS = sum(value.(EP[:eCStart_CCS_SS][Y_ZONE_CCS_SS, :])) +

Collaborator

lbonaldo Jul 9, 2025

Should we use the sum of (EP[:eCStart_CCS_SS][y,t] + EP[:eCStart_CCS_SS_steamturbine][y,t] + EP[:eCStart_CCS_SS_regenerator][y,t]) instead of EP[:eCStart_CCS_SS] only?

lbonaldo added 2 commits

July 9, 2025 15:21


          Clean up unused lines

a7d6d43


          Use add_similar_to_expression! instead of += for performance

89ff4c2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet