Energy Systems

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 285–306 | Cite as

Optimal investment timing and capacity choice for pumped hydropower storage

  • Emily Fertig
  • Ane Marte Heggedal
  • Gerard Doorman
  • Jay Apt
Original Paper

Abstract

Pumped hydropower storage can smooth output from intermittent renewable electricity generators and facilitate their large-scale use in energy systems. Germany has aggressive plans for wind power expansion, and pumped storage ramps quickly enough to smooth wind power and could profit from arbitrage on the short-term price fluctuations wind power strengthens. We consider five capacity alternatives for a pumped storage facility in Norway that practices arbitrage in the German spot market. Price forecasts given increased wind capacity are used to calculate profit-maximizing production schedules and annual revenue streams. Real options theory is used to value the investment opportunity, since unlike net present value, it accounts for uncertainty and intertemporal choice. Results show that the optimal investment strategy under the base scenario is to invest in the largest available plant approximately eight years into the option lifetime.

Keywords

Pumped hydropower storage Real options Wind power integration European Energy Exchange Mutually exclusive options 

References

  1. 1.
    European Central Bank. Monetary policy (accessed November 2011); 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    BMU. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) [German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety]. Technical Report 12-2010; 2010Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clément, E., Lamberton, D., Protter, P.: An analysis of a least squares regression method for American option pricing. Finance Stoch 6, 449–471 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Connolly, D., Lund, H., Finn, P., Mathiesen, B.V., Leahy, M.: Practical operation strategies for pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES) utilizing electricity price arbitrage. Energy Policy 39(7), 4189–4196 (July 2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cox, J.C., Ross, S.A., Rubinstein, M.: Option pricing: a simplified approach. J. Fin. Econ. 7, 229–263 (1979)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deane, J.P., Gallachóir, B.P.Ó, McKeogh, E.J.: Techno-economic review of existing and new pumped hydro energy storage plant. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14(4), 1293–1302 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Décamps, J.P., Mariotti, T., Villeneuve, S.: Irreversible investment in alternative projects. Econ. Theory 28(2), 425–448 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dixit, A.: Choosing among alternative discrete investment projects under uncertainty. Econ. Lett. 41(3), 265–268 (1993)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dixit, A.K., Pindyck, R.S.: Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gamba, A.: An extension of least squares Monte Carlo simulation for multi-option problems. 6th Annual Real Options Conference, Cyprus (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Imre Gyuk. EPRI-DOE Handbook of energy storage for transmission and distribution applications. Technical Report 1001834, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadjipaschalis, Ioannis, Poullikkas, Andreas, Efthimiou, Venizelos: Overview of current and future energy storage technologies for electric power applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13(6–7), 1513–1522 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehner, Bernhard, Czisch, Gregor, Vassolo, Sara: The impact of global change on the hydropower potential of Europe: a model-based analysis. Energy Policy 33(7), 839–855 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loisel, R., Mercier, A., Gatzen, C., Elms, N., Petric, H.: Valuation framework for large scale electricity storage in a case with wind curtailment. Energy Policy 38(11), 7323–7337 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Longstaff, F.A., Schwartz, E.S.: Valuing American options by simulation: a simple least-squares approach. Rev. Fin. Stud. 14(1), 113–147 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muche, T.: A real option-based simulation model to evaluate investments in pump storage plants. Energy Policy 37(11), 4851–4862 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    NDR. Veileder i samfunnsøkonomiske analyser [Guide to economic analysis]. Technical report, Norway Department of Finance (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nicolosi, M., Fürsch, M.: The impact of an increasing share of RES-E on the conventional power market—the example of Germany. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    NorGer. Konsesjonssøknad, likestrømsforbindelse (1400 MW) mellom Norge og Tyskland, [Application for license for constructing a direct current transmission line (1400 MW) between Norway and Germany]. Technical Report 200704983, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    NVE. Konsesjonshandsaming for vasskraftsaker, [Processing of license applications for hydropower plants]. Technical Report 3/2010, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Phelix. Physical electricity index futures prices for Germany and Austria (accessed February 2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schaber, K., Steinke, F., Hamacher, T.: Transmission grid extensions for the integration of variable renewable energies in Europe: who benefits where? Energy Policy 43, 123–135 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schill, W.P., Kemfert, C.: Modeling strategic electricity storage: the case of pumped hydro storage in Germany. Energy J. 32(3), 59–87 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sira Kvina. Konsesjonssøknad, tilleggsinstallasjon i Tonstad kraftverk med mulighet for pumping (Application for license for additional installation in Tonstad power plant with opportunities for pumping). Technical Report 3475/200707786, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SRU. Climate-friendly, reliable, affordable: 100 % renewable electricity supply by 2050. Technical report, German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weigt, H.: Germany’s wind energy: the potential for fossil capacity replacement and cost saving. Appl. Energy 86(10), 1857–1863 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Fertig
    • 1
  • Ane Marte Heggedal
    • 2
  • Gerard Doorman
    • 3
  • Jay Apt
    • 4
  1. 1.Engineering Systems DivisionMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Economics and Technology ManagementNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Department of Electric Power EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  4. 4.Department of Engineering and Public Policy and Tepper School of BusinessCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations