Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Electrolyzer costing documentation into template dedicated file #1392

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
May 22, 2024

Conversation

hunterbarber
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes/Resolves:

Electrolyzer costing documentation for #1360
Mostly lateral changes from unit model documentation to costing model documentation files with minor wording changes

Summary/Motivation:

Cost documentation for all unit models

Changes proposed in this PR:

  • Move costing documentation from Electrolyzer unit model doc to new cost model documentation generated from the template

Legal Acknowledgement

By contributing to this software project, I agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution:

  1. I agree my contributions are submitted under the license terms described in the LICENSE.txt file at the top level of this directory.
  2. I represent I am authorized to make the contributions and grant the license. If my employer has rights to intellectual property that includes these contributions, I represent that I have received permission to make contributions and grant the required license on behalf of that employer.

@hunterbarber hunterbarber added Priority:High High Priority Issue or PR 1.0 Hard requirement for the 1.0 release labels May 17, 2024
@hunterbarber hunterbarber self-assigned this May 17, 2024
@hunterbarber hunterbarber mentioned this pull request May 17, 2024
28 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@MarcusHolly MarcusHolly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - one small suggestion

Copy link
Contributor

@savannahsakhai savannahsakhai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Only needs a minor format fix.

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 93.92%. Comparing base (233320e) to head (88a0005).
Report is 61 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1392       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   41.15%   93.92%   +52.76%     
===========================================
  Files          97      335      +238     
  Lines       10572    35620    +25048     
===========================================
+ Hits         4351    33456    +29105     
+ Misses       6221     2164     -4057     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Comment on lines 27 to 32
"Total unit capital cost", ":math:`C_{cap}`", "capital_cost", "10,000", ":math:`\text{USD}_{2020}`"
"Fixed operating costs", ":math:`C_{op}`", "fixed_operating_cost", "10,000", ":math:`\text{USD}_{2020}\text{/yr}`"
"Membrane capital cost", ":math:`C_{cap,\, mem}`", "membrane_cost", "10,000", ":math:`\text{USD}_{2020}`"
"Anode capital cost", ":math:`C_{cap,\, anode}`", "anode_cost", "10,000", ":math:`\text{USD}_{2020}`"
"Cathode capital cost", ":math:`C_{cap,\, cathode}`", "cathode_cost", "10,000", ":math:`\text{USD}_{2020}`"
"Membrane replacement cost", ":math:`C_{op,\, mem}`", "membrane_replacement_cost", "10,000", ":math:`\text{USD}_{2020}\text{/yr}`"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Forgot to mention this in my review, but we were planning on getting rid of the default value column in this table and replacing it with "Index" since a lot of these variables didn't have default values (as indicated by your placeholders) Adam will put up a PR that updates this for the auto-generated files, but it won't touch documentation that has already been updated. So we should update this before merging.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@MarcusHolly I agree that default doesn't make sense here because it is basically the values that are initialized. However, I also don't know if any of these variables are indexed across any of the unit models, although in theory they could be. I went ahead and edited the Electrolyzer and GAC in this to lessen the number of PRs.

@bknueven bknueven enabled auto-merge (squash) May 21, 2024 21:02
@bknueven bknueven merged commit abe21bc into watertap-org:main May 22, 2024
24 checks passed
@hunterbarber hunterbarber deleted the electrolyzer_cost_doc branch May 24, 2024 14:44
@hunterbarber hunterbarber restored the electrolyzer_cost_doc branch May 24, 2024 18:10
@hunterbarber hunterbarber deleted the electrolyzer_cost_doc branch May 24, 2024 18:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1.0 Hard requirement for the 1.0 release Priority:High High Priority Issue or PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants