09-07-2026, 08:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2026, 08:52 PM by KristofferEML.)
(09-07-2026, 07:09 PM)Antti-L Wrote: When the MID_YEAR option is used, the accounting of the investment costs is changed basically only for Cases 1.a and 1.b, because Cases 2.a and 2.b were already compliant with the MID_YEAR assumption. However, with this option one may be inclined to adopt the interpretation that the centers of gravity of the construction costs should also be located in the middle of each year over the lead time, equivalent to moving the commissioning year half a year backwards, in the same way as it is done for Cases 1.a and 1.b. This would effectively be simply meaning that the reported LUMPINV values should be reduced accordingly, by the half year's interest, which are currently included in the LUMPINV values. The objective function (and the raw model solution) would remain unchanged.
If there is a common agreement over this refined interpretation, I could submit this change into the LUMPINV reporting for the next release.
Hello Antti,
The way I use LUMPINV it should ideally be a measure of the total lumpsum payment related to investment within the milestone period (i.e., it should always be possible to validate the lumpsum investment cost by ncap_cost x var_ncap.l). I would hence prefer it not to be influenced by the choice of discount rates and midyear discounting. This is also why I really like the option to separate the impact of hurdle rate from the lumpsum investment cost (i.e., RPT_OPT = OBJ~1).
Sorry for not understanding what you meant by TS_Filter. I found some more guidance on two of your old post on VEDA-forum. I can confirm that adding the TS_filter like below works in terms of filtering out NCAP_ILED without defining any new value(s):
Older VEDA-forum posts:
https://forum.kanors-emr.org/showthread.php?tid=944&highlight=TS_Filter
https://forum.kanors-emr.org/showthread.php?tid=1377&highlight=TS_Filter
Thank you once more!