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,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Energy economics 2018-08, Vol.74, p.299-309 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 |