PV with Profiles by tolga-akan · Pull Request #399 · Multi-Energy-Systems-Optimization/mesido

tolga-akan · 2026-01-12T14:17:17Z

DONE:

Check if maximum_electricity_source is already availabe for solar_PV asset
Maximum profile constraint for PV asset is taken into account in solar_PV sizing similar to heat producer sizing with maximum profile constraint
Test is added for solar_PV asset with maximum profile constraint is defined via csv
Test that profile constraint is scaled by the asset capacity.

…lectricity_source. Style check via new black version is done.

tolga-akan · 2026-01-28T11:43:17Z

@FJanssen-TNO Ready for review

FJanssen-TNO

I haven't checked every thing yet, but here are some pointers

src/mesido/esdl/profile_parser.py

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-01-29T08:35:22Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+        for source in optimization_problem.energy_system_components.get("electricity_source", []):
+            if "PV_without_profile" in source:
+                sum = optimization_problem.state(f"{source}.Electricity_source")


if you only want electricity production of pv added to the function, then you should only loop over over the pv asset.:
optimization_problem.energy_system_components.get("solarpv", [])

Now the test is modified. There is no PV w/o profile constraint (but instead Electricity Producer). Hence, I only want electricity production of "Electricity Producer" added to the function. "Electricity Producer" has no component_subtype. Hence, I still keep if condition (if "ElectricityProducer_edde" in source:) after the for loop.

This for loop over all e-producers, but one with a positive and the other a negative sum is confusing. You could just loop over the e-production assets and only add to the sum if the asset is not solar_pv. Either solar_pv is a subgroup and you can check if it is not in that or the solarpv asset is already not included in this electricity_source group.

Sorry. my previous comment was outdated (I forgot to update that comment after I have modified the objective function. Hence, that comment does not explain what I did back then). Back then I actually intentionally made contribution of pv to objective function negative and electric generator positive (in that moment I thought it might be better to understand the aim of the objective function). But actually only using electric generator was also enough. Now, I made a new update in the objective function, i only take into account electricity producer in that part of the objective function.

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

tests/test_electric_source_sink.py

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-01-29T08:44:27Z

tests/test_electric_source_sink.py

+        np.testing.assert_allclose(
+            results["PV__max_size"],
+            max(solution.get_timeseries("PV.maximum_electricity_source").values[1:]),
+        )


I actually want to see that it can scale the profile.

I updated the objective function in a way that we ensure that constraint profile sizing in asset_sizing works as expected

I'm missing a check that the PV is not sized to its max size, but smaller.

src/mesido/asset_sizing_mixin.py

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-01-29T08:56:02Z

src/mesido/asset_sizing_mixin.py

-                    (np_ones * max_power - electricity_source) / constraint_nominal,
-                    0.0,
-                    np.inf,
+            if (d in self.energy_system_components.get("solar_pv", [])) and (


Do we only want to allow this in case the asset is a solar_pv?

Since this PR was only related to solar_pv, I intentionally did not want to allow all electricity producers (other component subtypes of electricity_source). Otherwise, I would needed to add tests for the other electricity producers with profile constraints. If you like I can remove solar_pv condition and make this sizing valid for all electricity producers.

tolga-akan · 2026-01-30T16:07:23Z

@FJanssen-TNO Ready for review

tolga-akan · 2026-02-03T16:50:12Z

@FJanssen-TNO ready for the review

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-02T17:42:32Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+        for source in self.energy_system_components["electricity_source"]:
+            goals.append(MinimizeElecProductionSize(source, total_demand))


The total_demand seems unnecessary. You don't need a target here.
This goal should even not be a path goal but a normal goal. So you should move it to
def goals()

Yes. I agree. Constraint on max_size should not be done via path_goals() but goals().

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-02T17:47:27Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+class MinimizeElecProductionSize(Goal):
+    priority = 2
+
+    order = 2
+
+    def __init__(self, source, total_demand):
+        self.source = source
+        self.target_min = total_demand
+        self.target_max = total_demand
+        self.function_range = (0.0, 2.0 * max(total_demand.values))
+        self.function_nominal = np.median(total_demand.values)
+
+    def function(self, optimization_problem, ensemble_member):
+        return optimization_problem.state(f"{self.source}__max_size") * 2.0


This should be a "normal goal". No target is assigned for sizing variable.
Furthermore in the function itself you also multiply it with "2" what is the reason for that?
f"{self.source}__max_size" is not state variable, it is a variable that only exists once. You have to extract it iusing optimization_problem.extra_variable()

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-02T17:47:29Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+            if total_demand is None:
+                total_demand = target.copy() if hasattr(target, "copy") else target
+            else:
+                total_demand += target


The total_demand is unnecessary.

I removed the total_demand vector, but I still use maximum of the electricity demand to define self.function_nominal in MinimizeElecProductionSize.

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-02T17:48:56Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+class _GoalsAndOptionsPV:
+    def path_goals(self):
+        """
+        Add goal to meet the specified power demands in the electricity network.
+
+        Returns
+        -------
+        Extended goals list.
+        """
+        goals = super().path_goals().copy()


Instead of another _GoalsAndOptions, check what can already be placed in the orginal one and else add them to the problem directly instead of creating a new class, there is no need for that right now.

Good idea. Makes it cleaner.

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-02T17:52:41Z

tests/test_electric_source_sink.py

        np.testing.assert_allclose(
-            results["PV__max_size"],
-            max(solution.get_timeseries("PV.maximum_electricity_source").values[1:]),
+            results["PV.Electricity_source"], profile_scaled * results["PV__max_size"]


Some checks are still missing like, check that the max PV size is actually the same as the max demand and thus much smaller than the optional size.
Also this check shouldn't be an all close but smaller than.

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-02T17:57:12Z

src/mesido/asset_sizing_mixin.py

This entire if/else statement could be placed in a generic function instead of only the cap of the profile. All relevant information is already pass on.

# Conflicts: # src/mesido/asset_sizing_mixin.py

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T08:30:31Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+        self.source = source
+        self.target_min = 1e-6
+        self.function_range = (0.0, 2.0 * nominal)
+        self.function_nominal = nominal


function_nominal has to be the same for all assets --> as otherwise the one assetsize is scaled larger/smaller than the other, thereby the optimization is not exactly on their size. If the sizes are in the magnitude of MW, then the function_nominal could be set to 1e6.

now function_nominal is defined same for all assets and equal to 1e6

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T08:31:02Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+    def __init__(self, source, nominal):
+        self.source = source
+        self.target_min = 1e-6
+        self.function_range = (0.0, 2.0 * nominal)


function_range is typically set to 2*max value.

now it is nor nominal but max_value

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T08:32:15Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+            if source not in self.energy_system_components.get("solar_pv", []):
+                nominal = float(self.bounds()[f"{source}.Electricity_source"][1]) / 2.0
+            else:
+                nominal = max(self.bounds()[f"{source}.Electricity_source"][1].values) / 2.0


the information you pass on can be:

Suggested change

if source not in self.energy_system_components.get("solar_pv", []):

nominal = float(self.bounds()[f"{source}.Electricity_source"][1]) / 2.0

else:

nominal = max(self.bounds()[f"{source}.Electricity_source"][1].values) / 2.0

max_val = self.bounds()[f"{source}.Electricity_source"][1]

which is indep of asset type.

now I call the max_value. but I still keep if/else conditions. Because, on electricty producer has a time Reries as upper bound other has just a scalar

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T08:49:28Z

src/mesido/asset_sizing_mixin.py

+            max_profile_non_scaled = max(profile_non_scaled)
+            profile_scaled = profile_non_scaled / max_profile_non_scaled
+
+            # Cap the electricity produced via a profile. Two profile options below.


Suggested change

# Cap the electricity produced via a profile. Two profile options below.

# Cap the energy produced via a profile. Two profile options below.

word is replaced

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T08:49:59Z

src/mesido/asset_sizing_mixin.py

+        self,
+        asset,
+        variable_suffix,  # i.e. maximum_electricity_source, maximum_heat_source
+        source,  # i.e. heat_source, energy source
+        max_power,  # i.e. max_heat, max_power
+        constraint_nominal,
+        ensemble_member,


Typehinting should be added here.

typehinting is now done as how you explained in the comment

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T08:59:31Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+        """
+        Add goal to minimize max_size of electricity producers while ensuring
+        that they are equal to each other.
+
+        Returns
+        -------
+        Extended goals list.
+        """


comments from these goals are removed

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T09:00:27Z

tests/test_electric_source_sink.py

+        )
+        results = solution.extract_results()
+
+        # Test demand matching


This comment is unnecessary, the demand_matching_test name is already describing it. same for electric_power_conservation_test.

comment is removed

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T10:08:53Z

tests/models/unit_cases_electricity/source_sink_cable/src/example.py

+
+    def __init__(self, source, nominal):
+        self.source = source
+        self.target_min = 1e-6


why did you put in this target_min?

order = 2 required to pass a target_min or target_max. I thought max value of self.function_range should be equal to self.target_max but as I defined both equal to each other I got error indicating that self.target_max should be smllaer than the upper bound of self.function_range. Hence, I decided to not to define self.target_max but self.target_min. But now I define self.target_max = max_value, whereas upper bound of self.function_range as 2*max_value. Hence, this is better now

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T10:20:24Z

tests/test_electric_source_sink.py

+        np.testing.assert_allclose(
+            solution.get_timeseries("ElectricityDemand_2af6.target_electricity_demand").values,
+            results["ElectricityProducer_edde.Electricity_source"]
+            + results["PV.Electricity_source"],
+        )


This check is unnecessary as it is already part of the electrical_power_conservation_test

FJanssen-TNO · 2026-02-17T10:21:00Z

tests/test_electric_source_sink.py

+        np.testing.assert_allclose(
+            results["PV__max_size"],
+            max(solution.get_timeseries("PV.maximum_electricity_source").values[1:]),
+        )


I'm missing a check that the PV is not sized to its max size, but smaller.

tolga-akan · 2026-02-17T14:35:48Z

@FJanssen-TNO I did the modification based on PR review. But, still I have issue with the problem formulation. The objective functions do not constraint the the problem in a way we want. For instance, I used "MinimizeElecProductionSize" to make PV max size equal to Electricity producer max size. But it does not work. results["ElectricityProducer_edde__max_size"] is not equal to max(results["ElectricityProducer_edde.Electricity_source"]). Also other checks that I placed inthe test does not pass. Can you have a look at the branch?

initial commit

cc72709

tolga-akan changed the title ~~initial commit~~ PV with Profiles Jan 12, 2026

tolga-akan added 8 commits January 20, 2026 15:15

small modification

c47e7fe

PV can take upper limit profile constraint via db profiles

3cbed4a

input files are added

c357fef

__apply_profile_cap_function is created and used by heat_source and e…

d48b2ed

…lectricity_source. Style check via new black version is done.

small modification in test

aebdf4e

all modifications are done

71b41fe

Merge branch 'main' into pv-with-profile

6a2c0ee

ChangeLog is updated.

352cc30

tolga-akan marked this pull request as ready for review January 28, 2026 10:48

tolga-akan requested review from FJanssen-TNO, KobusVanRooyen and jimrojerTNO as code owners January 28, 2026 10:48

style check

460a792

FJanssen-TNO reviewed Jan 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

tolga-akan added 7 commits January 29, 2026 13:56

Updates based on PR review (incomplete)

0a48a78

small modification

6e7481b

small modification

5ff6d62

objective function is modified

dcfbd45

Merge branch 'main' into pv-with-profile

9a8ec46

doc string update

7b7157a

PR updates complete

3d24364

tolga-akan added 3 commits February 2, 2026 20:52

Merge branch 'main' into pv-with-profile

9b11b3c

update in objective function

8570f91

test

11ffb93

FJanssen-TNO reviewed Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

tolga-akan added 3 commits February 12, 2026 13:57

not complete

7bd1360

Merge branch 'main' into pv-with-profile

d201bb4

# Conflicts: # src/mesido/asset_sizing_mixin.py

not complete

9d7b7b2

FJanssen-TNO reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

tolga-akan added 2 commits February 17, 2026 15:00

pr review. objective function is not constraining as what we intent

4544b93

pr review. objective nominal is defined smaller

ee196b9

		for source in self.energy_system_components["electricity_source"]:
		goals.append(MinimizeElecProductionSize(source, total_demand))

	# Cap the electricity produced via a profile. Two profile options below.
	# Cap the energy produced via a profile. Two profile options below.

Comments

Conversation

tolga-akan commented Jan 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tolga-akan commented Jan 28, 2026

Uh oh!

FJanssen-TNO left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tolga-akan Jan 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tolga-akan commented Jan 30, 2026

Uh oh!

tolga-akan commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tolga-akan commented Jan 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

tolga-akan Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading