Revision/rename nominal value #1114
Conversation
I still have to keep explaining people what the nominal_value is meant for and they just understand if I name it nominal_capacity, instead. Reflecting a bit, the capacity of a Flow (e.g. a power line) is easier to interpret as the "nominal value". Thus the refactoring.
This way, it is analogue to teh keyword of the Flow.
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@p-snft I had a look and introduced some fixes and suggestions.
I have some doubts concerning the renaming for the storage which is a consequence of the fact that the English term "capacity" similarly to the German term "Kapazität" can have different meanings.
For storages, we have a value in MWh, while for flows, we have a value in MW or whatever energy resp. power unit. Both are named "capacity", though, which might be slightly misleading, esp. for unexperienced users.
Maybe, one idea would be to rename to something like nominal_energy for storages to make the physical dimensions clearer.
But anyways, feel free to decide on how to proceed with the renaming.
tests/test_scripts/test_solph/test_storage_investment/test_storage_investment.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
tests/test_scripts/test_solph/test_variable_chp/test_variable_chp.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
tests/test_scripts/test_solph/test_variable_chp/test_variable_chp.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Johannes Kochems <40718083+jokochems@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Johannes Kochems <40718083+jokochems@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Johannes Kochems <40718083+jokochems@users.noreply.github.com>
…f-solph into revision/rename-nominal_value
Storages only have energy, Flows only have power. Thus, I think harmonisation is more beneficial than having different names. For both, the name is "nominal_capacity", both accept a value or an |
|
The issue has been open for a year now, and nobody objected or even came up with a better idea. Thus, I will merge this now. |
I think, the capacity of a
Flow(e.g. a power line) is actually easier to interpret as the "nominal value". Actually, I have been asked that quite some times. If we have anominal_capacityof aFlow, it would be arguable why it'snominal_storage_capacityfor theGenericStorage. So we need to say eithernominal_flow_capacitywhich is actually redundant. In my opinion, it makes sense to call bothnominal_capacity.In fact, they are quite similar. In particular, they both accept a number (fixed capacity) or an Investment object.