IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p9127-d439228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Influence Analysis Assessing the Profitability of Large Photovoltaic Plant Construction Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Serrano-Gomez

    (Project Engineering Group, Departamento de Mecánica Aplicada e Ingeniería de Proyectos, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales de Albacete, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avda. de España S/N, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

  • Jose Ignacio Muñoz-Hernandez

    (Project Engineering Group, Departamento de Mecánica Aplicada e Ingeniería de Proyectos, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales de Albacete, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Avda. de España S/N, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

Abstract

The global energy system is in a phase of change for power generation technologies which involve traditional fossil fuel-based technologies to renewable energy-based systems, thanks to lower construction costs, mainly for photovoltaic energy, and changes in countries’ energy policies. In the case of Spain, both factors have led to a reactivation of renewable technologies, which can be found from the data on requests for access and connection to the electricity transmission network that are being processed in Red Eléctrica de España (REE). The requests that were granted access to the network exceeded 100 GW of power in November 2019 alone, and the companies which made the requests must commence electricity production by 2025. During the early stage of approval considerations, it is necessary to carry out an influence study of the risks that can already be identified, as this would enable determining the effects of these risks on the project’s main financial parameters. Based on a risk identification for similar prior projects, experts are typically asked to make their judgments on the influence of such risks on the main economic variables of a project, focusing on the project’s cost, time, and scope. By applying the fuzzy sets, these judgments can be transformed into triangular values that, through Monte Carlo simulation, allow us to assess the influence of these risks on the main financial parameters: the net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback (PB); as a result of obtaining these parameters, a response to project risks can be planned. To check the functionality of the model, it was applied to a case study involving a construction project for a 250 MW photovoltaic plant located in Murcia (Spain). The application of this methodology allowed us to determine which evaluation criteria are most appropriate based on the philosophy of the PMO (Project Management Office) and the data that were obtained.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Serrano-Gomez & Jose Ignacio Muñoz-Hernandez, 2020. "Risk Influence Analysis Assessing the Profitability of Large Photovoltaic Plant Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9127-:d:439228
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9127/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9127/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fang Yan & Kaili Xu & Xiwen Yao & Yang Li, 2016. "Fuzzy Bayesian Network-Bow-Tie Analysis of Gas Leakage during Biomass Gasification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.
    2. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    3. Gatzert, Nadine & Vogl, Nikolai, 2016. "Evaluating investments in renewable energy under policy risks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 238-252.
    4. Yu, L. & Li, Y.P. & Huang, G.H., 2016. "A fuzzy-stochastic simulation-optimization model for planning electric power systems with considering peak-electricity demand: A case study of Qingdao, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 190-203.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    6. 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.
    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. Francesco Pasanisi & Gaia Righini & Massimo D’Isidoro & Lina Vitali & Gino Briganti & Sergio Grauso & Lorenzo Moretti & Carlo Tebano & Gabriele Zanini & Mabafokeng Mahahabisa & Mosuoe Letuma & Muso Ra, 2021. "A Cooperation Project in Lesotho: Renewable Energy Potential Maps Embedded in a WebGIS Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-26, September.

    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. Luis Serrano-Gomez & Jose Ignacio Munoz-Hernandez, 2019. "Monte Carlo approach to fuzzy AHP risk analysis in renewable energy construction projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Chang, Kai & Zeng, Yonghong & Wang, Weihong & Wu, Xin, 2019. "The effects of credit policy and financial constraints on tangible and research & development investment: Firm-level evidence from China's renewable energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 438-447.
    5. Yujing Xiang & Qinli Zhang & Daolin Wang & Shihai Wu, 2022. "Mining Investment Risk Assessment for Nations along the Belt and Road Initiative," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Menyeh, Bridget Okyerebea, 2021. "Financing electricity access in Africa: A choice experiment study of household investor preferences for renewable energy investments in Ghana," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    7. Mac Clay, Pablo & Börner, Jan & Sellare, Jorge, 2023. "Institutional and macroeconomic stability mediate the effect of auctions on renewable energy capacity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    8. Frank A. Wolak, 2016. "Level versus Variability Trade-offs in Wind and Solar Generation Investments: The Case of California," NBER Working Papers 22494, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    10. Marcin Rabe & Dalia Streimikiene & Yuriy Bilan, 2019. "The Concept of Risk and Possibilities of Application of Mathematical Methods in Supporting Decision Making for Sustainable Energy Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    11. Stefano Cucurachi & Carlos Felipe Blanco & Bernhard Steubing & Reinout Heijungs, 2022. "Implementation of uncertainty analysis and moment‐independent global sensitivity analysis for full‐scale life cycle assessment models," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 374-391, April.
    12. 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.
    13. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. 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.
    15. Mussard, Stéphane & Pi Alperin, María Noel, 2021. "Accounting for risk factors on health outcomes: The case of Luxembourg," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(3), pages 1180-1197.
    16. Skolfield, J. Kyle & Escobedo, Adolfo R., 2022. "Operations research in optimal power flow: A guide to recent and emerging methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(2), pages 387-404.
    17. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    18. Tan, Jiawei & Chen, Xingyu & Bu, Yang & Wang, Feng & Wang, Jialing & Huang, Xianan & Hu, Zhenda & Liu, Lin & Lin, Changzhui & Meng, Chao & Lin, Jian & Xie, Shan & Xu, Jinmei & Jing, Rui & Zhao, Yingru, 2024. "Incorporating FFTA based safety assessment of lithium-ion battery energy storage systems in multi-objective optimization for integrated energy systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).
    19. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    20. Inzunza, Andrés & Muñoz, Francisco D. & Moreno, Rodrigo, 2021. "Measuring the effects of environmental policies on electricity markets risk," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    21. Heiner Ackermann & Erik Diessel & Michael Helmling & Neil Jami & Johanna Münch, 2024. "Computing Optimal Mitigation Plans for Force-Majeure Scenarios in Dynamic Manufacturing Chains," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1-35, June.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9127-:d:439228. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.