Skip to main content

Optimal investment timing and capacity choice for pumped hydropower storage

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Notes

  1. Additional revenue streams would be available to the facility through participation in ancillary service markets. Here we consider only arbitrage revenue in the spot market.

  2. The mean prices \(\mu _{y,j}\) are calculated monthly, since increasing price volatility around a daily mean would ignore that periods of high and low wind can last longer than a day, and adjusting prices around a yearly mean could mask finer-scale fluctuations and artificially suppress or elevate prices that are low or high for longer periods of time due to seasonal or macroeconomic effects.

  3. Phelix refers to the physical electricity index in the EEX power spot market for Germany and Austria.

  4. A Bermudan call option allows the owner to purchase an asset for a given exercise price at given points in time during the option lifetime. Here, the asset value is the present value of revenue to the pumped hydropower storage system, the exercise price is the investment cost, and the option can be exercised yearly. The option valuation method used in this study requires discrete exercise times, although an investment decision could be made more frequently than once per year, this frequency is adequate to yield insight into our problem.

  5. Although the success of obtaining a permit has a small degree of uncertainty, incorporating this uncertainty would require a two-stage option valuation framework that is outside the scope of this analysis. Dixit and Pindyck [9] have proposed a method for valuing such two-stage options; however, due to the low cost and large likelihood of success in obtaining a permit, the value of the two-stage option would be very close to that of the single-stage option we consider. We therefore choose to ignore uncertainty in the permitting stage.

  6. Continuation values appear to increase with time because they are discounted to the time of investment; if values were discounted to a uniform time they would of course decrease, reflecting the reduced flexibility as the option nears expiration.

References

  1. European Central Bank. Monetary policy (accessed November 2011); 2011

  2. BMU. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) [German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety]. Technical Report 12-2010; 2010

  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. 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. Cox, J.C., Ross, S.A., Rubinstein, M.: Option pricing: a simplified approach. J. Fin. Econ. 7, 229–263 (1979)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Décamps, J.P., Mariotti, T., Villeneuve, S.: Irreversible investment in alternative projects. Econ. Theory 28(2), 425–448 (2006)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Dixit, A.: Choosing among alternative discrete investment projects under uncertainty. Econ. Lett. 41(3), 265–268 (1993)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Dixit, A.K., Pindyck, R.S.: Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)

  10. Gamba, A.: An extension of least squares Monte Carlo simulation for multi-option problems. 6th Annual Real Options Conference, Cyprus (2002)

  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)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Muche, T.: A real option-based simulation model to evaluate investments in pump storage plants. Energy Policy 37(11), 4851–4862 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. NDR. Veileder i samfunnsøkonomiske analyser [Guide to economic analysis]. Technical report, Norway Department of Finance (2011)

  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)

  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)

  20. NVE. Konsesjonshandsaming for vasskraftsaker, [Processing of license applications for hydropower plants]. Technical Report 3/2010, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (2010)

  21. Phelix. Physical electricity index futures prices for Germany and Austria (accessed February 2011) (2011)

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

  25. SRU. Climate-friendly, reliable, affordable: 100 % renewable electricity supply by 2050. Technical report, German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) (2010)

  26. Weigt, H.: Germany’s wind energy: the potential for fossil capacity replacement and cost saving. Appl. Energy 86(10), 1857–1863 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Bjørn Bakken, Michael Belsnes, and Atle Harby of SINTEF Energy Research; Stein-Erik Fleten from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU); Arne Sæterdal and Rolv Guddal from Sira Kvina Kraftselskap; and anonymous reviewers for helpful input. This work was supported by FINERGY Project 178374, the Center for Sustainable Energy Studies (CenSES) at NTNU, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program, and the Research Council of Norway and NSF through the Nordic Research Opportunity. This work was also supported in part by grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and EPRI to the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center; from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the Heinz Endowments to the RenewElec program at Carnegie Mellon University; and from the U.S. National Science Foundation under Award no. SES-0345798.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Fertig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fertig, E., Heggedal, A.M., Doorman, G. et al. Optimal investment timing and capacity choice for pumped hydropower storage. Energy Syst 5, 285–306 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-013-0109-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-013-0109-x

Keywords

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