Excited to announce the latest update of the Modelling User Interface for OSeMOSYS (MUIO) — a platform designed to streamline data management, model creation, and scenario analysis for energy system planning.
The new v5.6 release introduces several enhancements aimed at improving performance, flexibility, and usability.
Note: Please back up your existing models before upgrading to 5.6
Download it here: MUIO 5.6
Make the most of this all, it is a very useful update!
Hi Fernando,
I am unable to run any of my models in this latest version. I do everything as on the course but keep receiving this error message:
Warning! Presolve determined that the problem was infeasible with tolerance of 1e-008 - Total time (CPU seconds): 0.22 (Wallclock seconds): 0.22
Can you please assist?
Dear Fernando and all
That is good to hear, does this version enable to extract daily and hourly energy demand from simulation results, since the tool/OSeMOSYS requires time slice calibration intially in modelling
Kindly
Abdulaziz
Hi Fernando,
Thank you for the update! This looks like a great enhancement for streamlining the modelling and scenario analysis workflow. I appreciate the heads-up regarding backing up existing models before upgrading; that is always a crucial step.
I have tried to download this version, but only a survey form pops up. Kindly revert.
Looking forward to exploring the new features in v5.6.
Best regards,
Babukiika Fiona
Mentor EMP
Hi Robinson,
Fernando is currently on annual leave.
Infeasible usually means there is something not quite right! Your model has not failed, which is good. So it is likely some missing data and/or missing connection(s) between techs/commodities. Have you double checked everything to make sure?
Best, Kane.
Hi Abdu,
Technically you could extract this via daily/hourly timeslices, but otherwise it does not.
Best, Kane.
Hi Fiona,
Please fill out the forum and you will get access to the 5.6.
Best, Kane.
Or use the direct link from the right hand side of the GitHub repo and download directly: Releases · OSeMOSYS/MUIO · GitHub.
Dear Kane, Noted with thanks.
Will revert once it works.
Best regards,
Babukiika Fiona
Mentor EMP
Hello
I’m working on a hands-on exercise in MUIO (OSeMOSYS energy system modelling) and I’m unable to reproduce the expected results shown in the lecture. I found that the parameter TotalTechnologyModelPeriodActivityUpperLimit in the exercise’s data file is set to 0.1 for nearly every real generation technology (solar, wind, hydro, biomass, distribution, transmission, gas, and diesel generation). This value caps each of these technologies’ total activity over the entire 15-year model period to almost nothing — far below what’s needed to meet even a single year of demand. As a result, when I run the model, it can’t use any of these technologies in any meaningful way, and instead meets nearly 100% of demand through the BACKSTOP technology, which is only meant to be used as a last resort when the system is otherwise infeasible. This doesn’t match the “Production By Technology By Mode” output shown in the lecture, which shows a realistic mix of technologies being used. Could you confirm whether this 0.1 value is a data error in the exercise, or whether I’m misunderstanding something about how this parameter should be set? I’d appreciate guidance so I can move forward with this lecture.
Dear @miqo, Could you please indicate which hands-on exercise you are referring to and which data file you are using?
Dear Fernando Hi, this was Hands-on Exercise 2, the first exercise where I tried to run the model, and I ran into trouble there as well.
Using the data file provided in that exercise, the model failed to run properly. After digging into the data, I traced it to a near-zero activity cap set on the MINBACK technology, which was preventing the model from balancing correctly.
Dear @miqo, Hands-on 2 does not require the model to be run. You probably mean Hands-on 3, where we run the backstop technologies.
After reviewing the Excel file used for data preparation, I can confirm that there are no instructions to set TotalTechnologyModelPeriodActivityUpperLimit to 0.1. The default value is 999,999, and you should keep it unchanged for this modelling exercise. Hopefully, you can now complete the activity without any issues.
Dear @miqo, I believe you accidentally changed the default value while completing Hands-on 2. In that exercise, you were supposed to change the Discount Rate from 0.05 to 0.1. The parameter you needed to modify is the one immediately below TotalTechnologyModelPeriodActivityUpperLimit.
You should change TotalTechnologyModelPeriodActivityUpperLimit back to its default value of 999,999.
Hi @Fernando_Plazas, thank you for your help — the first issue is now solved.
I’ve moved on to Hands-on 5, and I’m getting a mismatch in my results compared to the reference. How can we go about solving this? I’m happy to send you my data file if that would help you take a look.
Dear @miqo, unfortunately, the graphs in the guidelines are outdated, so they will not match your results exactly. You can proceed with the quizzes based on the results generated by your current version of the model.
Dear @Fernando_Plazas following up on the earlier issue where you mentioned the guideline charts were outdated — I think I may be running into a similar problem, but this time with the quiz itself rather than the charts.
I’m on Hands-on 9 (emissions and reserve margin). I’ve verified my data file matches the official Data Preparation File OSeHO9 exactly (EmissionActivityRatio, UDC multipliers for the reserve margin, storage parameters, everything). I ran the model in MUIO and pulled the values directly from my own results:
Both answers were marked wrong in the quiz, even though they’re taken directly from my own MUIO run (not estimated or calculated by hand).
Given that my data matches the official prep file exactly, could this be the same kind of outdated-answer-key issue as the charts? Or is there something specific about how these two values should be read/rounded that I might be missing?
Happy to share my data file and the exact numbers I got if that helps.
