Skip to main content

Combining Mathematical Programming and Monte Carlo Simulation to Deal with Uncertainty in Energy Project Portfolio Selection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assessment and Simulation Tools for Sustainable Energy Systems

Part of the book series: Green Energy and Technology ((GREEN,volume 129))

Abstract

Mathematical programming (MP) is the most common methodology for modeling and optimization of energy systems. Energy systems’ planning and optimization assume the knowledge of future situation, which is usually known with limited certainty. Therefore, the parameters of the model (data which assumed to be known during the modeling process) have usually a degree of uncertainty. Various methods have been proposed for dealing with this uncertainty, the most common ones being fuzzy programming, chance constrained programming, robust programming, and stochastic programming. In this work, we consider the implied uncertainty in the parameters as being of stochastic nature. Each uncertain parameter is characterized by a probability distribution. Subsequently, a Monte Carlo simulation samples the values from these distributions, and the MP models with the sampled values are solved. This process is repeated many times (1,000) in order to have an adequate sample for drawing robust conclusions. Relationships between the values of these parameters (i.e., interdependent parameters) can also be incorporated in the Monte Carlo process. The specific work is focused on the energy project portfolio selection problem where the output of each project as well as other parameters may be uncertain. In the current work, we introduce the iterative trichotomic approach (ITA) that gradually separates projects into green (selected under all circumstances), red (rejected under all circumstances), and gray sets (need further elaboration), combining Monte Carlo simulation and MP. The process output is not only the final portfolio, but also information about the certainty of participation or exclusion of every project in the final portfolio. A case study with real data from clean development mechanism (CDM) projects’ database is elaborated in order to illustrate the method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abu-Taleb M, Mareschal B (1995) Water resources planning in the Middle East: application of the PROMETHEE V multicriteria method. Eur J Oper Res 81:500–511

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Albright SC (1975) Allocation of research grants to university research proposals. Socio-Econ Plann Sci 9:189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badri MA, Davis D, Davis D (2001) A comprehensive 0–1 goal programming model for project selection. Int J Project Manage 19:243–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis. An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard RH (1969) Mathematical programming models for capital budgeting–a survey, generalization, and critique. J Financ Quant Anal 4(2):111–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooke A, Kendrick D, Meeraus A, Raman R (1998) GAMS. A user’s guide. GAMS development corporation, Washington. Available:www.gams.com

  • Cavallaro F (2010) Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for assessing thermal-energy storage in concentrated solar power (CSP) systems. Appl Energ 87(2):496–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP Risø Centre (2012) Available: http://www.uneprisoe.org

  • Cook WD, Green RH (2000) Project prioritisation: a resource-constrained data envelopment analysis approach. Socio-Econ PlanN Sci 34:85–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damghani KK, Sadi-Nezhad S, Aryanezhad MB (2011) A modular decision support system for optimum investment selection in presence of uncertainty: combination of fuzzy mathematical programming and fuzzy rule based system. Int J Expert Syst Appl 38:824–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fandel G, Gal T (2001) Redistribution of funds for teaching and research among universities: the case of North Rhine—Westphalia. Eur J Oper Res 130:111–120

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Georgopoulou E, Sarafidis Y, Diakoulaki D (1998) Design and implementation of a group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. Eur J Oper Res 109(2): 483–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Golabi K, Kirkwood CW, Sicherman A (1981) Selecting a portfolio of solar energy projects using multi-attribute preference theory. Manage Sci 27:174–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold Standard Foundation (2012) Available: http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org

  • Hyde K, Maier HR, Colby C (2003) Incorporating uncertainty in the PROMETHEE MCDA method. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 12:245–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karakosta C, Doukas H, Psarras J (2010) Technology transfer through climate change: setting a sustainable energy pattern. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:1546–1557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak NK, Lee C (1998) A multicriteria decision-making approach to university resource allocation and information infrastructure planning. Eur J Oper Res 110:234–242

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J, Salminen P (1998) SMAA: stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 106:137–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liesio J, Mild P, Salo A (2007) Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection. Eur J Oper Res 181(3):1488–1505

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liesio J, Mild P, Salo A (2008) Robust portfolio modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies. Eur J Oper Res 190(3):679–695

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lorie JH, Savage LJ (1955) Three problems in rationing capital. J Bus 28(4):229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J Finance 7(1):77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas G, Rozakis S (2009) Extensions of the PROMETHEE method to deal with segmentations constraints. J Decis Syst 18:203–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas G, Diakoulaki D, Capros P (2003) Combined MCDA: IP approach for project selection in the electricity market. Ann Oper Res 120:159–170

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas G, Diakoulaki D, Caloghirou Y (2006) Project prioritization under policy restrictions. A combination of MCDA with 0–1 programming. Eur J Oper Res 171:296–308

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas G, Diakoulaki D, Kourentzis A (2008) Selection among ranked projects under segmentation, policy and logical constraints. Eur J Oper Res 187:177–192

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee K, Bera A (1995) Application of goal programming in project selection: a case study from the Indian Coal mining industry. Eur J Oper Res 82:18–25

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Oral M, Kettani O, Lang P (1991) A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Manage Sci 37:871–885

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Oral M, Kettani O, Cinar U (2001) Project evaluation and selection in a network of collaboration: a consensual disaggregation multi-criterion approach. Eur J Oper Res 130:332–346

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pechak O, Mavrotas G, Diakoulaki D (2011) Role and contribution of clean development mechanism to the development of wind energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:3380–3387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santhanam R, Kyparisis GJ (1996) A decision model for interdependent information system project selection. Eur J Oper Res 89:380–399

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Santhanam R, Muralidhar K, Scniederjans M (1989) A zero-one goal programming approach for information system project selection. Omega 17:583–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakhsi-Niaei M, Torabi SA, Iranmanesh SH (2011) A comprehensive framework for project selection problem under uncertainty and real-world constraints. Comp Ind Eng 61:226–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tervonen T, Lahdelma R (2007) Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 178:500–513

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2012) Available: http://unfccc.int

  • Vose D (1996) Quantitative risk analysis: a guide to Monte Carlo simulation modeling. Wiley, UK

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vose D (2006) Risk analysis: a quantitative guide, 2nd edn. Wiley, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • WWDR4 (2012) UN World Water Development Report, 4th edn, vol 1.UNESCO p 380. Available: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr4-2012

  • Zanakis SH, Mandakovic T, Gupta SK, Sahay S, Hong S (1995) a review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors. Socio-Econ Plann Sci 29:59–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Olena Pechak would like to thank the Hellenic State Scholarship Foundation (IKY) for financial support of her Ph.D. studies. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments that helped to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Mavrotas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mavrotas, G., Pechak, O. (2013). Combining Mathematical Programming and Monte Carlo Simulation to Deal with Uncertainty in Energy Project Portfolio Selection. In: Cavallaro, F. (eds) Assessment and Simulation Tools for Sustainable Energy Systems. Green Energy and Technology, vol 129. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5143-2_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5143-2_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5142-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5143-2

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics