Add simple method for multi year investment on assets

[datejada]

Pull request details

Describe the changes made in this pull request

Changes to consider the simple method in the investment of assets.

Other related issues are:

• Update on ramping constraints Update ramping constraints to consider multi-year investment methods #790
• Update on binary method for storage Update binary to avoid simultaneously charging/discharging constraints to consider multi-year investment methods #791
• Add simple method for transport assets Add the simple method for investments in transport assets #792

They are done in separate issues to keep the changes as atomic as possible.

List of related issues or pull requests

Closes #786

Collaboration confirmation

As a contributor I confirm

• I read and followed the instructions in README.dev.md
• [NA] The documentation is up to date with the changes introduced in this Pull Request (or NA)
• Tests are passing
• Lint is passing

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (1868e94) to head (ecdc6f3).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #793   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           18        18           
  Lines          904       915   +11     
=========================================
+ Hits           904       915   +11     

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

[datejada]

@abelsiqueira depending on the answer from @gnawin here #462 (comment) the code might simplify a bit more depending if we don't allow missing values on the investment method.

But, for now, I would appreciate your feedback. Also, these changes might help to have a better overview for the ones in #784

[abelsiqueira]

Thanks for the PR. I noticed a place where we can join the sums. It shouldn't be a performance bottleneck, so you can choose whatever makes the code more readable.

[gnawin]

Hi @datejada thanks for the PR, I left a few comments. We can discuss in person today if you want.

[datejada]

@gnawin, then let's review it together in person because the code reflects the equations that are in the pdf 🤷

[datejada]

@gnawin, my takeaway is that we might need an extra parameter to cover the cases you describe more easily. Otherwise, I don't see a combination that allows existing capacity to be decommissioned without being an investable asset (with the current parameters' definitions).

[gnawin]

Hi @datejada thanks a lot for the PR!

As discussed, let's for now leave out the upper bounds for the decommission variables and do that in a separate PR.

The naming of things can be improved but let's do it later after my PR.

And regarding your comments on the initial capacity/units, let's continue the discussion but also do it separately.