Dear Antti,
"I think everything works exactly as one may expect. Would you not agree?" :
It was not acting as I was expecting because I was expecting the storage process to charge that VAR_ACT, so, I was expecting VAR_Fin inside one season to reach that level. I did not know ACT_BND acts like an exogenous charge ("any constant value without any charging up").
I said this relation does not hold because it was consistent between two consecutive TS (as you showed and as I calculated, including storage losses and efficiency calculations which were clearly explained) BUT for me, it was not holding inside the season because I was expecting a Fin to generate that VAR_ACT inside the season).
Summing up all VAR_FIn does not gives VAR_ACT (please ignore the plus losses). Yes, I did the same calculation than you and it only gave me the losses as I told you ("that VAR_FIn is only accounting for losses") and what I was expecting is that the VAR_Fin will generate either in one TS or in several TS the level of energy showed, maintaining the relation cited above and accounting for losses and efficiencies.
_________
Yes, I had a misunderstanding, I thought that if I force an ACT_BND for a storage process, it was not going to be like an exogenous charge, I thought defining an activity bound will force a Fin until reaching that storage level. It did not occur to me that it will be like an exogenous charge because you have another attribute for that (which I have never used).
I am sorry if I cannot fully understand TIMES modeling tool, I am new with TIMES and that is why I am trying to understand how the calculations are done, so I can understand what my inputs and my results mean, and I can analyze my results properly.
The way forcing ACT_BND acts in STG processes is clear now. Thanks a lot for your help.
"I think everything works exactly as one may expect. Would you not agree?" :
It was not acting as I was expecting because I was expecting the storage process to charge that VAR_ACT, so, I was expecting VAR_Fin inside one season to reach that level. I did not know ACT_BND acts like an exogenous charge ("any constant value without any charging up").
I said this relation does not hold because it was consistent between two consecutive TS (as you showed and as I calculated, including storage losses and efficiency calculations which were clearly explained) BUT for me, it was not holding inside the season because I was expecting a Fin to generate that VAR_ACT inside the season).
Summing up all VAR_FIn does not gives VAR_ACT (please ignore the plus losses). Yes, I did the same calculation than you and it only gave me the losses as I told you ("that VAR_FIn is only accounting for losses") and what I was expecting is that the VAR_Fin will generate either in one TS or in several TS the level of energy showed, maintaining the relation cited above and accounting for losses and efficiencies.
_________
Yes, I had a misunderstanding, I thought that if I force an ACT_BND for a storage process, it was not going to be like an exogenous charge, I thought defining an activity bound will force a Fin until reaching that storage level. It did not occur to me that it will be like an exogenous charge because you have another attribute for that (which I have never used).
I am sorry if I cannot fully understand TIMES modeling tool, I am new with TIMES and that is why I am trying to understand how the calculations are done, so I can understand what my inputs and my results mean, and I can analyze my results properly.
The way forcing ACT_BND acts in STG processes is clear now. Thanks a lot for your help.