IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v62y2014i1p69-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Real Options Approach for the Investment Decisions of a Farm-Based Anaerobic Digester

Author

Listed:
  • Robert C. Anderson
  • Alfons Weersink

Abstract

type="main" xml:lang="fr"> Dans le présent article, nous analysons la rentabilité des digesteurs anaérobies pour les exploitants de ferme laitière en Ontario à l'aide de la méthode des options réelles qui tient compte des politiques gouvernementales d’établissement des prix actuelles et proposées et de l'incertitude entourant l'investissement. Dans le cas d'un projet d'énergie renouvelable comme l'installation d'un digesteur anaérobie, qui comprend des coûts irrécupérables importants et des rendements volatils, la valeur associée au report de l'investissement peut être suffisamment importante pour contrebalancer les rendements avancés par la méthode de la valeur actualisée nette. Dans le cas d'une exploitation de 150 vaches, il faudrait que les recettes nettes atteignent près de 1,1 million de dollars pour justifier l'installation d'un digesteur anaérobie selon la méthode des options réelles comparativement à des recettes nettes de 0,5 million de dollars selon la méthode de la valeur actualisée nette. Dans le cas d'une exploitation de 600 vaches, un digesteur anaérobie peut générer une valeur actualisée nette positive si le prix de l'électricité augmente de 1% ou si les coûts diminuent de 1%. Toutefois, les exploitants ne sont pas tenus d'investir immédiatement. Le report de la décision d'investir permettrait de profiter des progrès technologiques éventuels qui augmenteraient l'efficacité ou diminueraient les coûts d'exploitation d'un digesteur anaérobie. Selon l'analyse des options réelles, la valeur liée à la décision de reporter l'investissement est d'environ 300,000$ dans le cas d'une exploitation laitière typique en Ontario. Ainsi, pour favoriser l'adoption de la technologie de la digestion anaérobie en Ontario, même chez les exploitants de ferme laitière de grande taille, les subventions ou les tarifs du Programme de tarifs de rachat garantis (TRG) devront être plus élevés. La probabilité que le gouvernement abolisse son soutien accroît la valeur de l'investissement maintenant, mais l'option visant à reporter l'investissement comporte tout de même une valeur significative.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert C. Anderson & Alfons Weersink, 2014. "A Real Options Approach for the Investment Decisions of a Farm-Based Anaerobic Digester," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(1), pages 69-87, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:62:y:2014:i:1:p:69-87
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/cjag.12019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Jeffrey R. Stokes & Rekha M. Rajagopalan & Spiro E. Stefanou, 2008. "Investment in a Methane Digester: An Application of Capital Budgeting and Real Options," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 664-676.
    2. Anderson, Robert C. & Hilborn, Don & Weersink, Alfons, 2013. "An economic and functional tool for assessing the financial feasibility of farm-based anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 85-92.
    3. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway, 2009. "The Economics of Dairy Anaerobic Digestion with Coproduct Marketing," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 394-410, September.
    4. William F. Lazarus & Margaretha Rudstrom, 2007. "The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Operation on a Minnesota Dairy Farm," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 349-364.
    5. Adam Maung & Ken Foster, 2002. "Capital Investment under Alternative Marketing Scenarios in the Hog Industry: A Real Option Approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(3), pages 223-235, November.
    6. I. Tzouramani & K. Mattas, 2004. "Employing real options methodology in agricultural investments: the case of greenhouse construction," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 355-359.
    7. Martin Odening & Oliver Mußhoff & Alfons Balmann, 2005. "Investment decisions in hog finishing: an application of the real options approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 47-60, January.
    8. Wang, Qingbin & Thompson, Ethan & Parsons, Robert L. & Rogers, Glenn, 2011. "Economic feasibility of converting cow manure to electricity: A case study of the CVPS Cow Power program in Vermont," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 104564, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Peter R. Tozer & Jeffrey R. Stokes, 2009. "Investing in Perennial Pasture Improvement: A Real Options Analysis," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 88-102.
    10. William F. Lazarus & Margaretha Rudstrom, 2007. "The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Operation on a Minnesota Dairy Farm," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 349-364.
    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. Kozlova, Mariia, 2017. "Real option valuation in renewable energy literature: Research focus, trends and design," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 180-196.
    2. He, Ke & Zhang, Junbiao & Zeng, Yangmei, 2020. "Households’ willingness to pay for energy utilization of crop straw in rural China:Based on an improved UTAUT model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    3. Li, Xue & Mupondwa, Edmund, 2018. "Commercial feasibility of an integrated closed-loop ethanol-feedlot-biodigester system based on triticale feedstock in Canadian Prairies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 401-413.

    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. Li, Xue & Mupondwa, Edmund, 2018. "Commercial feasibility of an integrated closed-loop ethanol-feedlot-biodigester system based on triticale feedstock in Canadian Prairies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 401-413.
    2. Cowley, Cortney & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2018. "Anaerobic Digester Production and Cost Functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 347-357.
    3. Willeghems, Gwen & Buysse, Jeroen, 2016. "Changing old habits: The case of feeding patterns in anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 212-221.
    4. DeVuyst, Eric A. & Pryor, Scott W. & Lardy, Greg & Eide, Wallace & Wiederholt, Ron, 2011. "Cattle, ethanol, and biogas: Does closing the loop make economic sense?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(8), pages 609-614, October.
    5. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    6. Namuli, R. & Pillay, P. & Jaumard, B. & Laflamme, C.B., 2013. "Threshold herd size for commercial viability of biomass waste to energy conversion systems on rural farms," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 308-322.
    7. T. Chen & M. Liu & Y. Takahashi & J.D. Mullen & G.C.W. Ames, 2016. "Carbon emission reduction and cost--benefit of methane digester systems on hog farms in China," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 948-966, June.
    8. Di Corato, Luca & Moretto, Michele, 2011. "Investing in biogas: Timing, technological choice and the value of flexibility from input mix," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1186-1193.
    9. Key, Nigel & Sneeringer, Stacy, 2012. "Carbon Emissions, Renewable Electricity, and Profits: Comparing Policies to Promote Anaerobic Digesters on Dairies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 139-157, August.
    10. Anderson, Robert C. & Hilborn, Don & Weersink, Alfons, 2013. "An economic and functional tool for assessing the financial feasibility of farm-based anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 85-92.
    11. Benavidez, Justin R. & Thayer, Anastasia W. & Anderson, David P., 2019. "Poo Power: Revisiting Biogas Generation Potential on Dairy Farms in Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 682-700, November.
    12. Kay Camarillo, Mary & Stringfellow, William T. & Jue, Michael B. & Hanlon, Jeremy S., 2012. "Economic sustainability of a biomass energy project located at a dairy in California, USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 790-798.
    13. Thompson, Ethan & Wang, Qingbin & Li, Minghao, 2013. "Anaerobic digester systems (ADS) for multiple dairy farms: A GIS analysis for optimal site selection," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 114-124.
    14. Cowley, Cortney & Brorsen, B. Wade & Hamilton, Doug, 2014. "Economic Feasibility of Anaerobic Digesters with Swine Operations," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170621, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Benavidez, Justin & Thayer, Anastasia W., 2018. "Poo Power: Revisiting Energy Generation from Biogas on Dairies in Texas," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266636, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Rojas-Downing, M. Melissa & Harrigan, Timothy & Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan, 2017. "Resource use and economic impacts in the transition from small confinement to pasture-based dairies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 157-171.
    17. Megan Swindal & Gilbert Gillespie & Rick Welsh, 2010. "Community digester operations and dairy farmer perspectives," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 461-474, December.
    18. Ciliberti, Carlo & Jordaan, Sarah M. & Smith, Stephen V. & Spatari, Sabrina, 2016. "A life cycle perspective on land use and project economics of electricity from wind and anaerobic digestion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 52-63.
    19. Liebrand, Carolyn Betts & Ling, K. Charles, 2009. "Cooperative Approaches for Implementation of Dairy Manure Digesters," Research Reports 280105, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.
    20. Binkley, David & Harsh, Stephen & Wolf, Christopher A. & Safferman, Steven & Kirk, Dana, 2013. "Electricity purchase agreements and distributed energy policies for anaerobic digesters," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 341-352.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:canjag:v:62:y:2014:i:1:p:69-87. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    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.