Investment evaluation in renewable projects under uncertainty, using real options analysis: the case of wind power industry

  • Published March 31, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Ioannis Kinias , Ioannis Tsakalos , Nikolaos Konstantopoulos
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.14(1).2017.10
  • Article Info
    Volume 14 2017, Issue #1, pp. 96-103
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    6 articles
  • 2316 Views
  • 1487 Downloads

Creative Commons License DMCA.com Protection Status
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Investment analysis is a crucial process for any investment’s success. This process can be supported by both the discounted cash flow analysis and the real options analysis. Many researchers have point out restrictions for the first one, in cases of uncertainty in the entrepreneurial environment. The main types of uncertainty, concerning the wind energy sector, include uncertainties related to the price of electriticity by RES, the public policy regulatory policies, the demand, the initial capital costs, the technological progress, the weather conditions, the political and economical situations and generally the RES market structure. In this paper, we try to find the optimal investment strategy in a liberalized global electricity market, where the price of electricity is uncertain while the other parameters are configured separately in each country. The authors consider about the factors of the time for investment and the electricity’s price level, in wind energy by using the real options theory. The authors select a variety of data for the wind energy industry from different countries in several continents, and also create a model for the investment analysis in this entrepreneurial sector.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Fig. 1. Annual installed capacity by region 2007-2015
    • Fig. 2. Market forecast for 2016-2020
    • Table 1. Public Support Mechanisms
    • Table 2. Interest rates
    • Table 3. Investment evaluation
    • Altug, S., Demers, F., and Demers, M. (2001). The impact of Tax Risk and Persistence on Investment Decisions. Economics Bulletin, 5, 1-6.
    • Auer, H. (2008). Overview of the main RES – E support schemes for wind energy in the EU-27 Member States, September 2008.
    • Blanco, M. (2009). The economics of wind energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(6-7), 1372-1382.
    • Brekke, K. A., Schieldrop, B. (1999). Investment in flexible technologies under uncertainty. In M.J.Brennan and L. Trigeorgis, eds., Project Flexibility, Agency and Competition: New Developments in the Theory of Real Options (pp. 34-49), Oxford University Press, New York.
    • Davis, G., Owens, B. (2003). Optimizing the level of renewable electric R and D expenditures using real options analysis. Energy Policy, 31(15), 229-263.
    • Deng, S-J., Oren, S. S. (2003). Incorporating operational characteristics and startup costs in option-based valuation of power generation capacity. Probability in the Engineering and Information Sciences, 17(2), 155-182.
    • EWEA (2016). Wind in power 2015 – European statistics. THE EUROPEAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION, February.
    • GWEC (2015). GLOBAL WIND REPORT – ANNUAL MARKET UPDATE. Global Wind Energy Council – GWEC.
    • Hassett, K. A., Metcalf, G. E. (1995). Investment under alternative return assumptions: Comparing random walks and mean reversion. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 19, 1471-1488.
    • Hassett, K. A., Metcalf, G. E. (1999). Investment with uncertain tax policy: Does Random Tax Policy discourages investment? The Economic Journal, 109, 372-393.
    • Herbelot, O. (1992). Option Valuation of Flexible Investments: The case of environmental investments in the electric power industry. MIT Press, PhD Thesis.
    • IEA (2011). IEA WIND2011 Annual Report, July 2012.
    • Kjærland, F. (2007). A real option analysis of investments in hydropower: The case of Norway. Energy Policy, 35, 5901-5908.
    • Kinias I. (2015). Renewable Energy Sources. Europe vs BRICS, 16th International Conference of the Global Academy of Business & Economic Research (GABER), 22-42, New York, USA.
    • Kobila, T. (1990). The choice between hydro and thermal power generation under uncertainty. O. Olsen and J. Vislie, eds., Recent modeling approaches in applied energy economics, International Studies in Economic.
    • Madlener, R., Kumbaroglu, G., Ediger, V. S. (2005). Modeling technology adoption as an irreversible investment under uncertainty: the case of the Turkish electricity supply industry, Energy Economics, 27, 139-163.
    • Moreira, A., Rocha, K., David, P. (2004). Thermopower generation investment in Brazil-economic conditions, Energy Policy, 32(1), 91-100.
    • Murto, P. (2003). Timing of investment under technological and revenue related uncertainties. Helsinki University of technology, E11.
    • Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147-175.
    • OECD (2016). Annual Statistics 2016.
    • Panteghini, P. M., Scarpa, C. (2003). Irreversible Investments and Regulatory Risk. CES Working Paper 934.
    • Renewable Energy Roadmap (2016). Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Future, International Renewable Energy Agency, 2016 Edition.
    • Salahor, G. (1998). Implications of outputs price risk and operating leverage for the evaluation of petroleum development projects. The Energy Journal, 19(1), 13-46.
    • Sarkar, S. (2003). The effect of mean reversion on investment under uncertainty, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28, 377-396.
    • Schwartz, E. (1997). The stochastic behavior of commodity prices: implications for valuation and hedging. Journal of Finance, 52, 923-973.
    • Seifert, J., Marliese Uhrig – Homburg (2007). Modeling jumps in electricity prices: theory and empirical evidence. Review of Derivatives, 10(1), 59-85.
    • Smith, J., McCardle, K. (1999). Options in the real world: lessons learned in evaluating oil and gas investments, Operations Research, 47(1), 1-15.
    • Tseng, C., Barz, G. (2002). Short – term generation asset valuation: a real options approach. Operations Research, 50(2), 297-310.
    • Yeo, K. T., Qui, F. (2003). The value of management flexibility – a real option approach to investment evaluation. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 243-250.
    • Venetsanos, K., Angelopoulou, P., Tsoutsos, T. (2002). Renewable Energy Sources project appraisal under uncertainty: the case of wind energy exploitation within a changing energy market development. Energy Policy, 30, 297-307.
    • Verra, A. (2009). Modeling the income uncertainty using the real options theory: the case of renewable energy industry. PhD Thesis, UoA.
Related Articles

  • Valuing synergies in strategic mergers and acquisitions using the real options approach

    Anna Loukianova , Egor Nikulin , Andrey Vedernikov doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.14(1-1).2017.10
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 14, 2017         Issue #1 (cont.)         pp. 236-247 Views: 4686 Downloads: 3634 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The purpose of the current paper is to elaborate the model for assessing cumulative synergetic effect in M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) deals on the basis of a real options approach. The majority of papers on the synergetic effects of M&A deals typically focus on a particular type of synergy, while the current paper proposes a model that accounts for the cumulative simultaneous effect of different types of operating and financial synergies. The methodology of our research is loosely based on Datar-Mathews real option valuation model, which is flexible and intuitive for practitioners. Formulae for assessing eight types of synergy typically arising from M&A deals are developed. They are integrated into a single model to assess their cumulative effect on the M&A deal using a simulation modelling approach. The method was used ex post to find synergy values in two recent M&A deals in the pharmaceutical industry, and produced sound results. The proposed approach to value target companies could be used by firms before an M&A deal in the due diligence process. Using this tool a company can build a bidding strategy and define the maximum premium it can pay for the target.

  • A model for analyzing the financial stability of banks in the VUCA-world conditions

    Svitlana KhalaturORCID Researcher ID, Liudmyla VelychkoORCID Researcher ID, Olena PavlenkoORCID , Oleksandr KaramushkaORCID , Mariia Huba doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.16(1).2021.16
    Banks and Bank Systems Volume 16, 2021          Issue #1         pp. 182-194 Views: 4592 Downloads: 1271 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    VUСA is a chaotic and rapidly changing business environment that, based on the variability, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of the modern world, transforms the approach of banks to the analysis of financial stability. The aim of the paper is to improve tools for monitoring the impact of VUCA-world conditions on the financial stability of banks, namely a model for studying and analyzing the impact of the modern business space “VUCA” on the financial stability of the country's banks. To test the model, the method of constructing regression equations in multifactor regression analysis is used. For this study, data from some Eastern European countries (Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova) were used, and time series data were used for 10 years from 2010 to 2019.
    Having considered the definition of “VUCA-world conditions”, the model of modern business space “VUCA” was developed when analyzing the activity of banks in the studied countries. Drivers, consequences, requirements and macroeconomic indicators of the countries’ activities in the VUСA-world conditions are determined. The VUCA-world conditions also consider the study of key macroeconomic indicators that allow building long-term relationships throughout the value chain. The analysis of the studied Eastern European countries showed that with the increase of factors of GDP growth, GNI per capita growth, research and development costs, foreign direct investment, and net inflow of 1%, the effective ratio of bank capital and assets also increases. The assessment, in contrast to the existing ones, makes it possible to consider the impact of the macroeconomic environment of banks on their financial stability.

  • The impact of ESG risks on bank stability in Indonesia

    Felisitas DefungORCID Researcher ID, Rizky YudaruddinORCID , Nita Priska AmbaritaORCID , Norliza Che-YahyaORCID , Nur Zahidah BahrudinORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.19(4).2024.15
    Banks and Bank Systems Volume 19, 2024         Issue #4         pp. 194-204 Views: 2842 Downloads: 881 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The influence of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) risks on bank stability has become a critical area of study in the banking sector. This study examines the influence of ESG risks on bank stability using unbalanced panel data from 134 commercial banks in Indonesia from 2003 to 2022. Employing a fixed effects model, the findings reveal a significant negative effect of ESG risks on bank stability, where higher ESG risks significantly reduce bank stability. Specifically, government-owned banks face a greater stability decline than private banks due to their often higher exposure to regulatory and reputational pressures. Smaller banks are more adversely affected than larger ones because they lack the resources and diversification to effectively mitigate ESG risks. Additionally, non-listed banks experience a larger decrease in stability than listed banks, as the latter tend to have stricter governance structures and more robust risk management practices. These findings underscore the need for tailored risk management strategies to address ESG risks, particularly for government-owned, smaller, and non-listed banks.

Download Preview
Close
Investment Management and Financial Innovations
Investment Management and Financial Innovations