Counterfactual comparisons of investment options for wind power and agricultural production in the United States: Lessons from Northern Ohio

We analyze potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions in two different scenarios under a real options framework. The first scenario is a standard wind power investment, where the investor rents the land from local farms. In the second scenario,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Energy economics 2018-08, Vol.74, p.299-309
Hauptverfasser: Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro, Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro, Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 309
container_issue
container_start_page 299
container_title Energy economics
container_volume 74
creator Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro
Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro
Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz
description We analyze potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions in two different scenarios under a real options framework. The first scenario is a standard wind power investment, where the investor rents the land from local farms. In the second scenario, the wind power investor buys the land and commercializes both electricity and crop production, thus reducing the revenue risk through the diversification. Both scenarios have a waiting option, with the wholesale prices leading the installation decision. We model the electricity price as a mean reverting process with jumps and with different jumping probabilities for the different seasons of the year. Corn prices follow a mean reverting process. The waiting flexibility was modeled as a bundle of European options. The results indicate that the waiting option is exercised in 100% of our simulations in both scenarios, suggesting the still important role of government policies to stimulate wind power. More importantly, in more than 90% of the simulations, the second scenario brought value to the investment. Furthermore, net present values are more sensitive to reductions in capital costs than electricity prices. These results can form the basis for more effective policies for the wind power sector. •Potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions.•The comparison relies on the real option framework.•Buying the land by the investor brings value to the investment.•The net present value of the projects is more sensitive to reduction in the capital costs than electricity prices.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.011
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2125315892</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0140988318302299</els_id><sourcerecordid>2125315892</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-787137a6f34e97fc2134c8884aaf5be14d5092be4f9f6d8f16e697f26ca4ece43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9u1DAQxi1EJZa2T8DFEucET-I4DhIHtOKftKIH6NlynTH1atcOY6cV79CHxtvlzGlGo9_3zczH2BsQLQhQ7_YtRnSp7QToVqhWALxgG9Bj3yjQ8JJtBEjRTFr3r9jrnPdCiEENesOetmmNBclbV1Z74C4dF0shp5h58jzEB8zliLHwtJRwmvpE_DHEmS_pEYnb2tlfFNx6KCtVh4XSvLoTW9W83CO_jaHgzH8UWzC_5zvMz_ae0pF_T1QRivzmPqQrduHtIeP1v3rJbj9_-rn92uxuvnzbftw1TkoozahH6EerfC9xGr3roJdOay2t9cMdgpwHMXV3KP3k1aw9KFSV65SzEh3K_pK9PfvWW3-v9UGzTyvFutJ00A09DHrqKtWfKUcpZ0JvFgpHS38MCHOK3ezNc-zmFLsRytTYq-rDWYX1gYeAZLILGB3OgdAVM6fwX_1fyVyQDQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2125315892</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Counterfactual comparisons of investment options for wind power and agricultural production in the United States: Lessons from Northern Ohio</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro ; Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro ; Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz</creator><creatorcontrib>Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro ; Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro ; Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz</creatorcontrib><description>We analyze potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions in two different scenarios under a real options framework. The first scenario is a standard wind power investment, where the investor rents the land from local farms. In the second scenario, the wind power investor buys the land and commercializes both electricity and crop production, thus reducing the revenue risk through the diversification. Both scenarios have a waiting option, with the wholesale prices leading the installation decision. We model the electricity price as a mean reverting process with jumps and with different jumping probabilities for the different seasons of the year. Corn prices follow a mean reverting process. The waiting flexibility was modeled as a bundle of European options. The results indicate that the waiting option is exercised in 100% of our simulations in both scenarios, suggesting the still important role of government policies to stimulate wind power. More importantly, in more than 90% of the simulations, the second scenario brought value to the investment. Furthermore, net present values are more sensitive to reductions in capital costs than electricity prices. These results can form the basis for more effective policies for the wind power sector. •Potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions.•The comparison relies on the real option framework.•Buying the land by the investor brings value to the investment.•The net present value of the projects is more sensitive to reduction in the capital costs than electricity prices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0140-9883</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6181</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.011</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agricultural economics ; Agricultural production ; Capital ; Capital costs ; Commercialization ; Computer simulation ; Corn ; Counterfactual thinking ; Crop production ; Diversification ; Electric rates ; Electricity ; Electricity pricing ; Energy costs ; Energy economics ; Farms ; Flexibility ; Installation ; Investment ; Investment decision ; Investments ; Jumping ; Land ; Policies ; Power efficiency ; Prices ; Producer prices ; Public policy ; Real option framework ; Renewable energy ; Rents ; Revenue ; Risk ; Values ; Wind energy ; Wind power</subject><ispartof>Energy economics, 2018-08, Vol.74, p.299-309</ispartof><rights>2018 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Aug 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-787137a6f34e97fc2134c8884aaf5be14d5092be4f9f6d8f16e697f26ca4ece43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-787137a6f34e97fc2134c8884aaf5be14d5092be4f9f6d8f16e697f26ca4ece43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.011$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27866,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz</creatorcontrib><title>Counterfactual comparisons of investment options for wind power and agricultural production in the United States: Lessons from Northern Ohio</title><title>Energy economics</title><description>We analyze potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions in two different scenarios under a real options framework. The first scenario is a standard wind power investment, where the investor rents the land from local farms. In the second scenario, the wind power investor buys the land and commercializes both electricity and crop production, thus reducing the revenue risk through the diversification. Both scenarios have a waiting option, with the wholesale prices leading the installation decision. We model the electricity price as a mean reverting process with jumps and with different jumping probabilities for the different seasons of the year. Corn prices follow a mean reverting process. The waiting flexibility was modeled as a bundle of European options. The results indicate that the waiting option is exercised in 100% of our simulations in both scenarios, suggesting the still important role of government policies to stimulate wind power. More importantly, in more than 90% of the simulations, the second scenario brought value to the investment. Furthermore, net present values are more sensitive to reductions in capital costs than electricity prices. These results can form the basis for more effective policies for the wind power sector. •Potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions.•The comparison relies on the real option framework.•Buying the land by the investor brings value to the investment.•The net present value of the projects is more sensitive to reduction in the capital costs than electricity prices.</description><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Capital</subject><subject>Capital costs</subject><subject>Commercialization</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Corn</subject><subject>Counterfactual thinking</subject><subject>Crop production</subject><subject>Diversification</subject><subject>Electric rates</subject><subject>Electricity</subject><subject>Electricity pricing</subject><subject>Energy costs</subject><subject>Energy economics</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Installation</subject><subject>Investment</subject><subject>Investment decision</subject><subject>Investments</subject><subject>Jumping</subject><subject>Land</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Power efficiency</subject><subject>Prices</subject><subject>Producer prices</subject><subject>Public policy</subject><subject>Real option framework</subject><subject>Renewable energy</subject><subject>Rents</subject><subject>Revenue</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Values</subject><subject>Wind energy</subject><subject>Wind power</subject><issn>0140-9883</issn><issn>1873-6181</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM9u1DAQxi1EJZa2T8DFEucET-I4DhIHtOKftKIH6NlynTH1atcOY6cV79CHxtvlzGlGo9_3zczH2BsQLQhQ7_YtRnSp7QToVqhWALxgG9Bj3yjQ8JJtBEjRTFr3r9jrnPdCiEENesOetmmNBclbV1Z74C4dF0shp5h58jzEB8zliLHwtJRwmvpE_DHEmS_pEYnb2tlfFNx6KCtVh4XSvLoTW9W83CO_jaHgzH8UWzC_5zvMz_ae0pF_T1QRivzmPqQrduHtIeP1v3rJbj9_-rn92uxuvnzbftw1TkoozahH6EerfC9xGr3roJdOay2t9cMdgpwHMXV3KP3k1aw9KFSV65SzEh3K_pK9PfvWW3-v9UGzTyvFutJ00A09DHrqKtWfKUcpZ0JvFgpHS38MCHOK3ezNc-zmFLsRytTYq-rDWYX1gYeAZLILGB3OgdAVM6fwX_1fyVyQDQ</recordid><startdate>20180801</startdate><enddate>20180801</enddate><creator>Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro</creator><creator>Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro</creator><creator>Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180801</creationdate><title>Counterfactual comparisons of investment options for wind power and agricultural production in the United States: Lessons from Northern Ohio</title><author>Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro ; Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro ; Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-787137a6f34e97fc2134c8884aaf5be14d5092be4f9f6d8f16e697f26ca4ece43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Capital</topic><topic>Capital costs</topic><topic>Commercialization</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Corn</topic><topic>Counterfactual thinking</topic><topic>Crop production</topic><topic>Diversification</topic><topic>Electric rates</topic><topic>Electricity</topic><topic>Electricity pricing</topic><topic>Energy costs</topic><topic>Energy economics</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Installation</topic><topic>Investment</topic><topic>Investment decision</topic><topic>Investments</topic><topic>Jumping</topic><topic>Land</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Power efficiency</topic><topic>Prices</topic><topic>Producer prices</topic><topic>Public policy</topic><topic>Real option framework</topic><topic>Renewable energy</topic><topic>Rents</topic><topic>Revenue</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Values</topic><topic>Wind energy</topic><topic>Wind power</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Energy economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Scarcioffolo, Alexandre Ribeiro</au><au>Perobelli, Fernanda Finotti Cordeiro</au><au>Chimeli, Ariaster Baumgratz</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Counterfactual comparisons of investment options for wind power and agricultural production in the United States: Lessons from Northern Ohio</atitle><jtitle>Energy economics</jtitle><date>2018-08-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>74</volume><spage>299</spage><epage>309</epage><pages>299-309</pages><issn>0140-9883</issn><eissn>1873-6181</eissn><abstract>We analyze potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions in two different scenarios under a real options framework. The first scenario is a standard wind power investment, where the investor rents the land from local farms. In the second scenario, the wind power investor buys the land and commercializes both electricity and crop production, thus reducing the revenue risk through the diversification. Both scenarios have a waiting option, with the wholesale prices leading the installation decision. We model the electricity price as a mean reverting process with jumps and with different jumping probabilities for the different seasons of the year. Corn prices follow a mean reverting process. The waiting flexibility was modeled as a bundle of European options. The results indicate that the waiting option is exercised in 100% of our simulations in both scenarios, suggesting the still important role of government policies to stimulate wind power. More importantly, in more than 90% of the simulations, the second scenario brought value to the investment. Furthermore, net present values are more sensitive to reductions in capital costs than electricity prices. These results can form the basis for more effective policies for the wind power sector. •Potential efficiency gains in wind power projects by comparing counterfactual investment decisions.•The comparison relies on the real option framework.•Buying the land by the investor brings value to the investment.•The net present value of the projects is more sensitive to reduction in the capital costs than electricity prices.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.011</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0140-9883
ispartof Energy economics, 2018-08, Vol.74, p.299-309
issn 0140-9883
1873-6181
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2125315892
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; PAIS Index
subjects Agricultural economics
Agricultural production
Capital
Capital costs
Commercialization
Computer simulation
Corn
Counterfactual thinking
Crop production
Diversification
Electric rates
Electricity
Electricity pricing
Energy costs
Energy economics
Farms
Flexibility
Installation
Investment
Investment decision
Investments
Jumping
Land
Policies
Power efficiency
Prices
Producer prices
Public policy
Real option framework
Renewable energy
Rents
Revenue
Risk
Values
Wind energy
Wind power
title Counterfactual comparisons of investment options for wind power and agricultural production in the United States: Lessons from Northern Ohio
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T19%3A32%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Counterfactual%20comparisons%20of%20investment%20options%20for%20wind%20power%20and%20agricultural%20production%20in%20the%20United%20States:%20Lessons%20from%20Northern%20Ohio&rft.jtitle=Energy%20economics&rft.au=Scarcioffolo,%20Alexandre%20Ribeiro&rft.date=2018-08-01&rft.volume=74&rft.spage=299&rft.epage=309&rft.pages=299-309&rft.issn=0140-9883&rft.eissn=1873-6181&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2125315892%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2125315892&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0140988318302299&rfr_iscdi=true