The paradox effects of uncertainty and flexibility on investment in renewables under governmental support

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 251, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 1016-1028

  Welling, Andreas ^a  

^a OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Optimal capacity size; Optimal investment timing; OR in energy; OR in environment and climate change; Real options

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; PHOTOVOLTAIC EFFECTS;

GENERATING SYSTEM; OPTIMAL CAPACITY; OPTIMAL INVESTMENT TIMING; OR IN ENERGY; PHOTOVOLTAIC; REAL OPTIONS; RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY; TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS;

INVESTMENTS;

EID: 84970016266     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.027     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bøckman, T., Fleten, S.-E., Juliussen, E., Langhammer, H.J., Revdal, I., Investment timing and optimal capacity choice for small hydropower projects. European Journal of Operational Research 190:1 (2008), 255–267.
2. Boomsma, T.K., Meade, N., Fleten, S.-E., Renewable energy investments under different support schemes: a real options approach. European Journal of Operational Research 220:1 (2012), 225–237.
3. Cerón, I., Caamaño-Martín, E., Neila, F.J., “State-of-the-art” of building integrated photovoltaic products. Renewable Energy 58 (2013), 127–133.
4. Davis, G.A., Owens, B., Optimizing the level of renewable electric R&D expenditures using real options analysis. Energy Policy 31:15 (2003), 1589–1608.
5. Dinica, V., Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies - an investor perspective. Energy Policy 34:4 (2006), 461–480.
6. Dixit, A.K., Pindyck, R.S., Investment under uncertainty. 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
7. Fleten, S.-E., Kristoffersen, T.K., Stochastic programming for optimizing bidding strategies of a Nordic hydropower producer. European Journal of Operational Research 181:2 (2007), 916–928.
8. Foxon, T.J., Gross, R., Chase, A., Howes, J., Arnall, A., Anderson, D., UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures. Energy Policy 33:16 (2005), 2123–2137.
9. Haas, R., Eichhammer, W., Huber, C., Langniss, O., Lorenzoni, A., Madlener, R., et al. How to promote renewable energy systems successfully and effectively. Energy Policy 32:6 (2004), 833–839.
10. Harrison, J.M., Brownian motion and stochastic flow systems. 1985, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
11. Helm, D., A critique of renewables policy in the UK. Energy Policy 30:3 (2002), 185–188.
12. Jacobsson, S., Bergek, A., Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and Corporate Change 13:5 (2004), 815–849.
13. Jacobsson, S., Lauber, V., The politics and policy of energy system transformation - explaining the german diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34:3 (2006), 256–276.
14. Klessmann, C., Nabe, C., Burges, K., Pros and cons of exposing renewables to electricity market risks - a comparison of the market integration approaches in Germany, Spain, and the UK. Energy Policy 36:10 (2008), 3646–3661.
15. Kovacevic, R.M., Paraschiv, F., Medium-term planning for thermal electricity production. OR Spectrum 36:3 (2014), 723–759.
16. Kumbaroğlu, G., Madlener, R., Demirel, M., A real options evaluation model for the diffusion prospects of new renewable power generation technologies. Energy Economics 30:4 (2008), 1882–1908.
17. Lee, S.-C., Shih, L.-H., Renewable energy policy evaluation using real option model - the case of Taiwan. Energy Economics 32 (2010), S67–S78.
18. Linnerud, K., Andersson, A.M., Fleten, S.-E., Investment timing under uncertain renewable energy policy: an empirical study of small hydropower projects. Energy 78 (2014), 154–164 (August).
19. Martínez Ceseña, E.A., Mutale, J., Rivas-Dávalos, F., Real options theory applied to electricity generation projects: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 19 (2013), 573–581.
20. Mauer, D.C., Ott, S.H., Investment under uncertainty: the case of replacement investment decisions. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 30:4 (1995), 581–605.
21. Meijer, I.S. M., Hekkert, M.P., Koppenjan, J.F. M., The influence of perceived uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology; biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 35:11 (2007), 5836–5854.
22. Merton, R.C., An intertemporal capital asset pricing model. Econometrica 41:5 (1973), 867–887.
23. Meyerhoff, J., Ohl, C., Hartje, V., Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38:1 (2010), 82–92.
24. Mitchell, C., Bauknecht, D., Connor, P.M., Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and wales and the feed-in system in Germany. Energy Policy 34:3 (2006), 297–305.
25. Muñoz, J.I., Contreras, J.G., Caamaño, J., Correia, P.F., A decision-making tool for project investments based on real options: the case of wind power generation. Annals of Operations Research 186:1 (2011), 465–490.
26. Sarkis, J., Tamarkin, M., Real Option Analysis for renewable energy technologies in a GHG emissions trading environment. Antes, R., Hansjürgens, B., Letmathe, P., (eds.) Emissions trading, 2008, Springer New York, New York, NY, 103–119.
27. Trigeorgis, L., Real options: managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. 4th ed., 1999, MIT Press, Cambridge.