Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Photovoltaic power plants: a multicriteria approach to investment decisions and a case study in western Spain

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a compromise programming (CP) model to help investors decide whether to construct photovoltaic power plants with government financial support. For this purpose, we simulate an agreement between the government, who pursues political prices (guaranteed prices) as low as possible, and the project sponsor who wants returns (stochastic cash flows) as high as possible. The sponsor’s decision depends on the positive or negative result of this simulation, the resulting simulated price being compared to the effective guaranteed price established by the country legislation for photovoltaic energy. To undertake the simulation, the CP model articulates variables such as ranges of guaranteed prices, technical characteristics of the plant, expected energy to be generated over the investment life, investment cost, cash flow probabilities, and others. To determine the CP metric, risk aversion is assumed. As an actual application, a case study on photovoltaic power investment in Extremadura, western Spain, is developed in detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/solar-energy/solarpassive.

  2. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/solar-energy/solarprocessheat.

References

  • Andrews, R. W., Pollard, A., & Pearce, J. M. (2012). Improved parametric empirical determination of module short circuit current for modelling and optimization of solar photovoltaic systems. Solar Energy, 86(9), 2240–2254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anwar, Y., & Mulyadi, M. S. (2011). Income tax incentives on renewable energy industry: Case of geothermal industry in USA and Indonesia. African Journal of Business Management, 5(31), 12264–12270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aouni, B., & Kettani, O. (2001). Goal programming model: A glorious history and a promising future. European Journal of Operational Research, 133(2), 225–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E. (1997). Selecting the CP metric: A risk aversion approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 97(3), 593–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E. (2000). Project finance: A multicriteria approach to arbitration. Journal of Operational Research Society, 51, 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E. (2007). Compromise programming: A utility-based linear-quadratic composite metric from the trade-off between achievement and balanced (non-corner) solutions. European Journal of Operational Research, 182(3), 1369–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E., Pérez-Gladish, B., Arenas-Parra, M., & BilbaoTerol, A. (2009). Selecting portfolios given multiple Eurostoxx-based uncertainty scenarios: A stochastic goal programming approach from fuzzy betas. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 47(1), 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E., & Plà-Santamaría, D. (2003). Portfolio selection on the Madrid exchange: A compromise programming model. International Transactions in Operational Research, 10(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E., & Pla-Santamaria, D. (2004). Selecting portfolios for mutual funds. Omega, 32(5), 385–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E., & Pla-Santamaria, D. (2005). Grading the performance of market indicators with utility benchmarks selected from Footsie: A 2000 case study. Applied Economics, 37(18), 2147–2160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E., & Romero, C. (1996). Portfolio selection: A compromise programming solution. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 1377–1386.

  • Bastian-Pinto, C., Brandão, L., & de Lemos Alves, M. (2010). Valuing the switching flexibility of the ethanol–gas flex fuel car. Annals of Operations Research, 176(1), 333–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branker, K., Pathak, M., & Pearce, J. M. (2011). A review of solar photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4470–4482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casares, F., Lopez-Luque, R., Posadillo, R., & Varo-Martinez, M. (2014). Mathematical approach to the characterization of daily energy balance in autonomous photovoltaic solar systems. Energy, 72, 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, T. E., & Weston, J. (1988). Financial theory and corporate policy. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

  • Gallagher, K. S. (2013). Why & how governments support renewable energy. Daedalus, 142(1), 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Cascales, M. S., Lamata, M. T., & Sánchez-Lozano, J. M. (2012). Evaluation of photovoltaic cells in a multi-criteria decision making process. Annals of Operations Research, 199(1), 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S. (2012). Financing renewable energy. In F. L. Toth (Ed.), Energy for development (pp. 171–186). Springer.

  • Karaarslan, A. (2012). Obtaining renewable energy from piezoelectric ceramics using Sheppard–Taylor converter. International Review of Electrical Engineering, 7(2), 3949–3956.

  • Koellner, T., Weber, O., Fenchel, M., & Scholz, R. (2005). Principles for sustainability rating of investment funds. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(1), 54–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo, E., & Navarte, L. (2000). On the usefulness of stand-alone PV sizing methods. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 8(4), 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Loock, M. (2011). Debt for brands: Tracking down a bias in financing photovoltaic projects in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(12), 1356–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas, G., Diakoulaki, D., & Capros, P. (2003). Combined MCDA-IP approach for project selection in the electricity market. Annals of Operations Research, 120(1–4), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendez-Rodriguez, P., Garcia Bernabeu, A., Hilario, A., & Perez-Gladish, B. (2013). Some effects on the efficient frontier of the investment strategy: A preliminary approach. Recta, 14, 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelson, G., Wailes, N., Van Der Laan, S., & Frost, G. (2004). Ethical investment processes and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. J. (1994). Project finance for renewable energy. Renewable energy, 5(1–4), 700–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ORourke, A. (2003). The message and methods of ethical investment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(6), 683–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pla-Santamaria, D., & Bravo, M. (2013). Portfolio optimization based on downside risk: A mean-semivariance efficient frontier from Dow Jones blue chips. Annals of Operations Research, 205(1), 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, N. (2009). Renewable project finance options: ITC, PTC, or cash grant? Power, 153(5), 90–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader, U. (2006). Ignorant advice-customer advisory service for ethical investment funds. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3), 200–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitarz, S. (2013). Compromise programming with tehebycheff norm for discrete stochastic orders. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 433–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Kaa, G., Rezaei, J., Kamp, L., & de Winter, A. (2014). Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 662–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaqub, M., Shahram Sarkni, P., & Mazzuchi, T. (2012). Feasibility analysis of solar photovoltaic commercial power generation in California. Engineering Management Journal, 24(4), 36–49.

  • Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Fouladgar, M. M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Moini, S. H. H. (2013). Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(5), 957–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P. (1985). Multiple criteria decision making: Concepts, techniques and extensions. New York: Springer.

  • Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making (Vol. 25). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, R., Shi, G., Chen, H., Ren, A., & Finlow, D. (2011). Present status and prospects of photovoltaic market in China. Energy Policy, 39(4), 2204–2207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We devote this paper to the memory of Professor Enrique Ballestero, who has been a guiding light in our research careers.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mila Bravo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garcia-Bernabeu, A., Benito, A., Bravo, M. et al. Photovoltaic power plants: a multicriteria approach to investment decisions and a case study in western Spain. Ann Oper Res 245, 163–175 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1836-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1836-2

Keywords

Navigation