IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v62y2013icp1544-1552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the long-term power generation mix: The case study of South Korea's energy policy

Author

Listed:
  • Min, Daiki
  • Chung, Jaewoo

Abstract

This paper presents a practical portfolio model for the long-term power generation mix problem. The proposed model optimizes the power generation mix by striking a trade-off between the expected cost of power generation and its variability. We use Monte Carlo simulation techniques to consider the uncertainty associated with future electricity demand, fuel prices and their correlations, and the capital costs of power plants. Unlike in the case of conventional power generation mix models, we employ CVaR (Conditional Value-at-Risk) in designing variability to consider events that are rare but enormously expensive. A comprehensive analysis on South Korea's generation policy using the portfolio model shows that a large annual cost is additionally charged to substitute a portion of nuclear energy with other alternatives. Nonetheless, if Korea has to reduce its dependency on nuclear energy because of undermined social receptivity from the Fukushima disaster, it turns out that LNG or coal could be a secure candidate from an economic perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Min, Daiki & Chung, Jaewoo, 2013. "Evaluation of the long-term power generation mix: The case study of South Korea's energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1544-1552.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:62:y:2013:i:c:p:1544-1552
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513007477
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asche, Frank & Oglend, Atle & Osmundsen, Petter, 2012. "Gas versus oil prices the impact of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 117-124.
    2. Huang, Yun-Hsun & Wu, Jung-Hua, 2008. "A portfolio risk analysis on electricity supply planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 627-641, February.
    3. Mirkhani, Sh. & Saboohi, Y., 2012. "Stochastic modeling of the energy supply system with uncertain fuel price – A case of emerging technologies for distributed power generation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 668-674.
    4. Bar-Lev, Dan & Katz, Steven, 1976. "A Portfolio Approach to Fossil Fuel Procurement in the Electric Utility Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(3), pages 933-947, June.
    5. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
    6. Guastaroba, Gianfranco & Mansini, Renata & Speranza, M. Grazia, 2009. "On the effectiveness of scenario generation techniques in single-period portfolio optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(2), pages 500-511, January.
    7. Zhang, Qi & Ishihara, Keiichi N. & Mclellan, Benjamin C. & Tezuka, Tetsuo, 2012. "Scenario analysis on future electricity supply and demand in Japan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 376-385.
    8. F. W. Meng & J. Sun & M. Goh, 2010. "Stochastic Optimization Problems with CVaR Risk Measure and Their Sample Average Approximation," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 146(2), pages 399-418, August.
    9. Ruangpattana, Suriya & Preckel, Paul V. & Gotham, Douglas J. & Muthuraman, Kumar & Velástegui, Marco & Morin, Thomas L. & Uhan, Nelson A., 2012. "Diversification of fuel costs accounting for load variation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 400-408.
    10. Kjetil Høyland & Stein W. Wallace, 2001. "Generating Scenario Trees for Multistage Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 295-307, February.
    11. Gotham, Douglas & Muthuraman, Kumar & Preckel, Paul & Rardin, Ronald & Ruangpattana, Suriya, 2009. "A load factor based mean-variance analysis for fuel diversification," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 249-256, March.
    12. Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat & MacGill, Iain F., 2012. "A Monte Carlo based decision-support tool for assessing generation portfolios in future carbon constrained electricity industries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 374-392.
    13. Deng, Shi-Jie & Xu, Li, 2009. "Mean-risk efficient portfolio analysis of demand response and supply resources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1523-1529.
    14. Bhattacharya, Anindya & Kojima, Satoshi, 2012. "Power sector investment risk and renewable energy: A Japanese case study using portfolio risk optimization method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 69-80.
    15. Paul R. Kleindorfer & Lide Li, 2005. "Multi-Period VaR-Constrained Portfolio Optimization with Applications to the Electric Power Sector," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-26.
    16. Zhu, Lei & Fan, Ying, 2010. "Optimization of China's generating portfolio and policy implications based on portfolio theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1391-1402.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chun-Kai Wang & Chien-Ming Lee & Yue-Rong Hong & Kan Cheng, 2021. "Assessment of Energy Transition Policy in Taiwan—A View of Sustainable Development Perspectives," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Kim, Dowon & Ryu, Heelang & Lee, Jiwoong & Kim, Kyoung-Kuk, 2022. "Balancing risk: Generation expansion planning under climate mitigation scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 665-679.
    3. Sadeghi, Hadi & Rashidinejad, Masoud & Abdollahi, Amir, 2017. "A comprehensive sequential review study through the generation expansion planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1369-1394.
    4. Irawan, Chandra Ade & Jones, Dylan & Hofman, Peter S. & Zhang, Lina, 2023. "Integrated strategic energy mix and energy generation planning with multiple sustainability criteria and hierarchical stakeholders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(2), pages 864-883.
    5. Lynch & John Curtis, 2016. "The effects of wind generation capacity on electricity prices and generation costs: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 133-151, January.
    6. Stefan Niederhafner, 2014. "The Korean Energy and GHG Target Management System: An Alternative to Kyoto-Protocol Emissions Trading Systems?," TEMEP Discussion Papers 2014118, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Sep 2014.
    7. Shahnazari, Mahdi & McHugh, Adam & Maybee, Bryan & Whale, Jonathan, 2014. "Evaluation of power investment decisions under uncertain carbon policy: A case study for converting coal fired steam turbine to combined cycle gas turbine plants in Australia," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 271-279.
    8. Kim, Hansung & Cheon, Hyungkyu & Ahn, Young-Hwan & Choi, Dong Gu, 2019. "Uncertainty quantification and scenario generation of future solar photovoltaic price for use in energy system models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 370-379.
    9. Ioannou, Anastasia & Angus, Andrew & Brennan, Feargal, 2017. "Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 602-615.
    10. Chandra Ade Irawan & Peter S. Hofman & Hing Kai Chan & Antony Paulraj, 2022. "A stochastic programming model for an energy planning problem: formulation, solution method and application," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 695-730, April.
    11. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Goto, Mika, 2015. "Japanese fuel mix strategy after disaster of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant: Lessons from international comparison among industrial nations measured by DEA environmental assessment in time hori," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(PA), pages 87-103.
    12. Zaman, Rafia & Brudermann, Thomas & Kumar, S. & Islam, Nazrul, 2018. "A multi-criteria analysis of coal-based power generation in Bangladesh," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 182-192.
    13. Heshmati, Almas & Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Sun, Kai, 2014. "Estimation of productivity in Korean electric power plants: A semiparametric smooth coefficient model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 491-500.
    14. Ioannou, Anastasia & Fuzuli, Gulistiani & Brennan, Feargal & Yudha, Satya Widya & Angus, Andrew, 2019. "Multi-stage stochastic optimization framework for power generation system planning integrating hybrid uncertainty modelling," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 760-776.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pérez Odeh, Rodrigo & Watts, David & Flores, Yarela, 2018. "Planning in a changing environment: Applications of portfolio optimisation to deal with risk in the electricity sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3808-3823.
    2. Ioannou, Anastasia & Angus, Andrew & Brennan, Feargal, 2017. "Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 602-615.
    3. deLlano-Paz, Fernando & Calvo-Silvosa, Anxo & Antelo, Susana Iglesias & Soares, Isabel, 2017. "Energy planning and modern portfolio theory: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 636-651.
    4. de-Llano Paz, Fernando & Antelo, Susana Iglesias & Calvo Silvosa, Anxo & Soares, Isabel, 2014. "The technological and environmental efficiency of the EU-27 power mix: An evaluation based on MPT," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 67-81.
    5. deLlano-Paz, Fernando & Calvo-Silvosa, Anxo & Iglesias Antelo, Susana & Soares, Isabel, 2015. "The European low-carbon mix for 2030: The role of renewable energy sources in an environmentally and socially efficient approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 49-61.
    6. Dornan, Matthew & Jotzo, Frank, 2015. "Renewable technologies and risk mitigation in small island developing states: Fiji’s electricity sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 35-48.
    7. Forouli, Aikaterini & Gkonis, Nikolaos & Nikas, Alexandros & Siskos, Eleftherios & Doukas, Haris & Tourkolias, Christos, 2019. "Energy efficiency promotion in Greece in light of risk: Evaluating policies as portfolio assets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 818-831.
    8. Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat & MacGill, Iain F., 2013. "Assessing the value of wind generation in future carbon constrained electricity industries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 400-412.
    9. Ahn, Joongha & Woo, JongRoul & Lee, Jongsu, 2015. "Optimal allocation of energy sources for sustainable development in South Korea: Focus on the electric power generation industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 78-90.
    10. Lang, Joachim & Madlener, Reinhard, 2010. "Portfolio Optimization for Power Plants: The Impact of Credit Risk Mitigation and Margining," FCN Working Papers 11/2010, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    11. deLlano-Paz, Fernando & Martínez Fernandez, Paulino & Soares, Isabel, 2016. "Addressing 2030 EU policy framework for energy and climate: Cost, risk and energy security issues," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P2), pages 1347-1360.
    12. Paulino Martinez-Fernandez & Fernando deLlano-Paz & Anxo Calvo-Silvosa & Isabel Soares, 2018. "Pollutant versus non-pollutant generation technologies: a CML-analogous analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 199-212, December.
    13. Delarue, Erik & De Jonghe, Cedric & Belmans, Ronnie & D'haeseleer, William, 2011. "Applying portfolio theory to the electricity sector: Energy versus power," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 12-23, January.
    14. Inzunza, Andrés & Moreno, Rodrigo & Bernales, Alejandro & Rudnick, Hugh, 2016. "CVaR constrained planning of renewable generation with consideration of system inertial response, reserve services and demand participation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 104-117.
    15. Vithayasrichareon, Peerapat & Riesz, Jenny & MacGill, Iain F., 2015. "Using renewables to hedge against future electricity industry uncertainties—An Australian case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 43-56.
    16. Suzuki, Kengo & Uchiyama, Yohji, 2010. "Quantifying the risk of an increase in the prices of non-energy products by combining the portfolio and input-output approaches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5867-5877, October.
    17. Tietjen, Oliver & Pahle, Michael & Fuss, Sabine, 2016. "Investment risks in power generation: A comparison of fossil fuel and renewable energy dominated markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 174-185.
    18. Turkson, Charles & Liu, Wenbin & Acquaye, Adolf, 2024. "A data envelopment analysis based evaluation of sustainable energy generation portfolio scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 363(C).
    19. Ilka Deluque & Ekundayo Shittu & Jonathan Deason, 2018. "Evaluating the reliability of efficient energy technology portfolios," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 6(1), pages 115-138, June.
    20. Westner, Günther & Madlener, Reinhard, 2011. "Development of cogeneration in Germany: A mean-variance portfolio analysis of individual technology’s prospects in view of the new regulatory framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 5301-5313.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:62:y:2013:i:c:p:1544-1552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.