Computational Management Science

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 109–138 | Cite as

Real options analysis of investment in carbon capture and sequestration technology

  • Somayeh HeydariEmail author
  • Nick Ovenden
  • Afzal Siddiqui
Original Paper


Among a comprehensive scope of mitigation measures for climate change, CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) plays a potentially significant role in industrialised countries. In this paper, we develop an analytical real options model that values the choice between two emissions-reduction technologies available to a coal-fired power plant. Specifically, the plant owner may decide to invest in either full CCS (FCCS) or partial CCS (PCCS) retrofits given uncertain electricity, CO2, and coal prices. We first assess the opportunity to upgrade to each technology independently by determining the option value of installing a CCS unit as a function of CO2 and fuel prices. Next, we value the option of investing in either FCCS or PCCS technology. If the volatilities of the prices are low enough, then the investment region is dichotomous, which implies that for a given fuel price, retrofitting to the FCCS (PCCS) technology is optimal if the CO2 price increases (decreases) sufficiently. The numerical examples provided in this paper using current market data suggest that neither retrofit is optimal immediately. Finally, we observe that the optimal stopping boundaries are highly sensitive to CO2 price volatility.


Real options analysis CCS Geometric Brownian motion Mutually exclusive options 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abadie LM, Chamarro JM (2008) European CO2 prices and carbon capture investments. Energy Econ 30: 2992–3015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie LM, Chamarro JM (2008) Valuing flexibility: the case of an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant. Energy Econ 30: 1850–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adkins R, Paxson D (2008) Optionality in asset renewals, Working paper, Manchester Business School, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Décamps J-P, Mariotti T, Villeneuve S (2006) Irreversible investment in alternative projects. Econ Theory 28: 425–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixit AK (1993) Choosing among alternative discrete investment projects under uncertainty. Econ Lett 41: 265–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixit AK, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Herbelot O (1992) Option valuation of flexible investments: the case of environmental investments in the electric power industry, PhD thesis, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts, Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Hildebrand AN, Herzog HJ (2008) Optimization of carbon capture percentage for technical and economic impact of near-term CCS implementation at coal-fired power plants. In: ‘9th International Conference on green house gas control technologies’, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC: (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. IPCC, Geneva SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Laurikka H, Koljonen T (2006) Emissions trading and investment decisions in the power sector: a case study in Finland. Energy Policy 34: 1063–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Majd S, Pindyck R (1987) Time to build, option value and investment decisions. J Financial Econ 18: 7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mattheij RMM, Rienstra SW, tenThije Boonkkamp JHM (2005) Partial differential equations: modelling, analysis, computation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  14. ORNL (2009) America’s 10 Energy Challenges. ORNL Review 42(2).
  15. Pindyck RS (1999) The long-run evolution of energy prices. Energy J 20: 1–27Google Scholar
  16. Pindyck RS (2002) Optimal timing problems in environmental economics. J Econ Dyn Control 26: 1677–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reinaud J (2003) Emissions trading and its possible impacts on investment decisions in the power sector. IEA Information Paper, International Energy Agency, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  18. Swedish Government Budget Bill (2008) Higher carbon dioxide tax for reduced traffic emissions.
  19. Wickart M, Madlener R (2007) Optimal technology choice and investment timing: A stochastic model of industrial cogeneration vs. heat-only production. Energy Econ 29: 934–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Somayeh Heydari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nick Ovenden
    • 2
  • Afzal Siddiqui
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Statistical ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm University/KTHStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations