Updates interface groups, units and naming consistency

[DFGeerdink]

Context

Several inputs in a slide shared a position, often an external coupling input placed at the same position as an ordinary input. That broke the display of inputs in the collections tool for the TYNDP collections: share groups didn't appear together and the order of inputs was unpredictable. While going through the slides, many labels, sub-headers and group unit annotations also turned out to be inconsistent or missing in the front-end.

Implemented changes

• Fixed the positions of inputs in the slides and input elements, so each input has a unique position and share groups appear together in a logical order.
• Renamed the transport share groups to passenger_transport_share and freight_transport_share, and moved the total demand inputs (passenger kms, freight tonne kms) out of those groups so they're shown above the technology split.
• Added or corrected interface_group on ~270 input elements, so inputs are grouped under consistent headers, e.g. technology_split, capacity, efficiency_lhv, unit_cost, investment_costs, costs_wacc, growth_rate, industry_sector_size and biomass_waste_potential.
• Replaced the separate cost groups per fuel production process (costs_fischer_tropsch, costs_hvo, etc.) with the general costs group.
• Moved general_sub_header to group_sub_header on the slides where the sub-header belongs to a group of inputs, and added missing sub-headers.
• Added new sub-header and accordion labels in English and Dutch (e.g. "% LHV", "unit cost", "relative to base year", "% loss", "Technology split", "Growth rate", "WACC", "Primary fuel extraction"), and changed the efficiency sub-header from "%/year" to "%".
• Made input titles consistent, e.g. "Sector size" for the production inputs of the industry subsectors, and updated a number of English and Dutch input labels for costs, buildings, households, transport and heat.

Related

Checklist

• I have tested these changes
• I have updated documentation as needed
• I have tagged the relevant people for review

[robindesmit-quintel]

Review of Demand:

• Transport demand: in slide Passenger transport > Applications the subheader is now called Technology split. Should we consider Application split?
• Transport demand > International transport: The name Share of energy demand included only becomes clear after reading the description.
• Industry demand: The unit of Sector size is called relative to base year. This name doesn't fit nicely in the collections input interface cause of its length.
• Industry demand / Agriculture demand: Should the header Heat production sometimes be replaced by Technology split? Is the Technology split header a convention that we want to apply as broadly as possible throughout the front-end?

[DFGeerdink]

• Transport demand: in slide Passenger transport > Applications the subheader is now called Technology split. Should we consider Application split?

I have discussed with Mathijs to call this Modality split. We should check where this applies.

• Transport demand > International transport: The name Share of energy demand included only becomes clear after reading the description.

I propose Share of energy included in final energy consumption, although that might be too long?

• Industry demand: The unit of Sector size is called relative to base year. This name doesn't fit nicely in the collections input interface.

Need to discuss how to handle this.

• Industry demand / Agriculture demand: Should the header Heat production sometimes be replaced by Technology split?

Yes!