Photovoltaic power plants: a multicriteria approach to investment decisions and a case study in western Spain

his paper proposes a compromise programming (CP) model to help investors decide whether to construct photovoltaic power plants with government financial support. For this purpose, we simulate an agreement between the government, who pursues political prices (guaranteed prices) as low as possible, and the project sponsor who wants returns (stochastic cash flows) as high as possible. The sponsor s decision depends on the positive or negative result of this simulation, the resulting simulated price being compared to the effective guaranteed price established by the country legislation for photovoltaic energy. To undertake the simulation, the CP model articulates variables such as ranges of guaranteed prices, tech- nical characteristics of the plant, expected energy to be generated over the investment life, investment cost, cash flow probabilities, and others. To determine the CP metric, risk aver- sion is assumed. As an actual application, a case study on photovoltaic power investment in Extremadura, western Spain, is developed in detail.Garcia-Bernabeu, A.; Benito Benito, A.; Bravo Selles, M.; Pla Santamaría, D. (2015). Photovoltaic power plants: a multicriteria approach to investment decisions and a case study in western Spain. Annals of Operations Research. 1-12. doi:10.1007/s10479-015-1836-2S112Andrews, R. W., Pollard, A., & Pearce, J. M. (2012). Improved parametric empirical determination of module short circuit current for modelling and optimization of solar photovoltaic systems. Solar Energy, 86(9), 2240–2254.Anwar, Y., & Mulyadi, M. S. (2011). Income tax incentives on renewable energy industry: Case of geothermal industry in USA and Indonesia. African Journal of Business Management, 5(31), 12264–12270.Aouni, B., & Kettani, O. (2001). Goal programming model: A glorious history and a promising future. European Journal of Operational Research, 133(2), 225–231.Ballestero, E. (1997). Selecting the CP metric: A risk aversion approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 97(3), 593–596.Ballestero, E. (2000). Project finance: A multicriteria approach to arbitration. Journal of Operational Research Society, 51, 183–197.Ballestero, E. (2007). Compromise programming: A utility-based linear-quadratic composite metric from the trade-off between achievement and balanced (non-corner) solutions. European Journal of Operational Research, 182(3), 1369–1382.Ballestero, E., Pérez-Gladish, B., Arenas-Parra, M., & BilbaoTerol, A. (2009). Selecting portfolios given multiple Eurostoxx-based uncertainty scenarios: A stochastic goal programming approach from fuzzy betas. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 47(1), 59–70.Ballestero, E., & Plà-Santamaría, D. (2003). Portfolio selection on the Madrid exchange: A compromise programming model. International Transactions in Operational Research, 10(1), 33–51.Ballestero, E., & Pla-Santamaria, D. (2004). Selecting portfolios for mutual funds. Omega, 32(5), 385–394.Ballestero, E., & Pla-Santamaria, D. (2005). Grading the performance of market indicators with utility benchmarks selected from Footsie: A 2000 case study. Applied Economics, 37(18), 2147–2160.Ballestero, E., & Romero, C. (1996). Portfolio selection: A compromise programming solution. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 1377–1386.Bastian-Pinto, C., Brandão, L., & de Lemos Alves, M. (2010). Valuing the switching flexibility of the ethanol–gas flex fuel car. Annals of Operations Research, 176(1), 333–348.Branker, K., Pathak, M., & Pearce, J. M. (2011). A review of solar photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4470–4482.Casares, F., Lopez-Luque, R., Posadillo, R., & Varo-Martinez, M. (2014). Mathematical approach to the characterization of daily energy balance in autonomous photovoltaic solar systems. Energy, 72, 393–404.Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169.Copeland, T. E., & Weston, J. (1988). Financial theory and corporate policy. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Gallagher, K. S. (2013). Why & how governments support renewable energy. Daedalus, 142(1), 59–77.García-Cascales, M. S., Lamata, M. T., & Sánchez-Lozano, J. M. (2012). Evaluation of photovoltaic cells in a multi-criteria decision making process. Annals of Operations Research, 199(1), 373–391.Gupta, S. (2012). Financing renewable energy. In F. L. Toth (Ed.), Energy for development (pp. 171–186). Springer.Karaarslan, A. (2012). Obtaining renewable energy from piezoelectric ceramics using Sheppard–Taylor converter. International Review of Electrical Engineering, 7(2), 3949–3956.Koellner, T., Weber, O., Fenchel, M., & Scholz, R. (2005). Principles for sustainability rating of investment funds. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(1), 54–70.Lorenzo, E., & Navarte, L. (2000). On the usefulness of stand-alone PV sizing methods. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 8(4), 391–409.Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Loock, M. (2011). Debt for brands: Tracking down a bias in financing photovoltaic projects in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(12), 1356–1364.Mavrotas, G., Diakoulaki, D., & Capros, P. (2003). Combined MCDA-IP approach for project selection in the electricity market. Annals of Operations Research, 120(1–4), 159–170.Mendez-Rodriguez, P., Garcia Bernabeu, A., Hilario, A., & Perez-Gladish, B. (2013). Some effects on the efficient frontier of the investment strategy: A preliminary approach. Recta, 14, 131–144.Michelson, G., Wailes, N., Van Der Laan, S., & Frost, G. (2004). Ethical investment processes and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 1–10.Mills, S. J. (1994). Project finance for renewable energy. Renewable energy, 5(1–4), 700–708.ORourke, A. (2003). The message and methods of ethical investment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(6), 683–693.Pla-Santamaria, D., & Bravo, M. (2013). Portfolio optimization based on downside risk: A mean-semivariance efficient frontier from Dow Jones blue chips. Annals of Operations Research, 205(1), 189–201.Richter, N. (2009). Renewable project finance options: ITC, PTC, or cash grant? Power, 153(5), 90–92.Schrader, U. (2006). Ignorant advice-customer advisory service for ethical investment funds. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3), 200–214.Sitarz, S. (2013). Compromise programming with tehebycheff norm for discrete stochastic orders. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 433–446.van de Kaa, G., Rezaei, J., Kamp, L., & de Winter, A. (2014). Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 662–670.Yaqub, M., Shahram Sarkni, P., & Mazzuchi, T. (2012). Feasibility analysis of solar photovoltaic commercial power generation in California. Engineering Management Journal, 24(4), 36–49.Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Fouladgar, M. M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Moini, S. H. H. (2013). Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(5), 957–978.Yu, P. (1985). Multiple criteria decision making: Concepts, techniques and extensions. New York: Springer.Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making (Vol. 25). New York: McGraw-Hill.Zhao, R., Shi, G., Chen, H., Ren, A., & Finlow, D. (2011). Present status and prospects of photovoltaic market in China. Energy Policy, 39(4), 2204–2207

La protección medioambiental como criterio en la selección de inversiones socialmente responsables: una aproximación multicriterio

La mayor concienciación medioambiental y ética de empresas y organizaciones se traslada también a la selección de carteras. En esta nota se propone un modelo multicriterio de programación por metas para la selección de carteras incorporando a los criterios clásicos financieros, criterios mediambientales

Valence change ReRAMs (VCM) - Experiments and modelling: General discussion

Valence change ReRAMs (VCM) - Experiments and modelling: General discussio

Potato consumption does not increase blood pressure or incident hypertension in 2 cohorts of Spanish adults

5 TablasBackground: Potatoes have a high glycemic load but also antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals. It is unclear what mechanisms are involved in relation to their effect on blood pressure (BP) and hypertension. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the association between potato consumption, BP changes, and the risk of hypertension in 2 Spanish populations. Methods: Separate analyses were performed in PREDIMED (PREvención con DIeta MEDiterránea), a multicenter nutrition intervention trial of adults aged 55-80 y, and the SUN (Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra) project, a prospective cohort made up of university graduates and educated adults with ages (means±SDs) of 42.7±13.3 y for men and 35.1± 10.7 y for women. In PREDIMED, generalized estimating equations adjusted for lifestyle and dietary characteristics were used to assess changes in BP across quintiles of total potato consumption during a 4-y follow-up. Controlled BP values (systolic BP < 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP < 90 mm Hg) during follow-up were also assessed. For SUN, multivariateadjusted HRs for incident hypertension during a mean 6.7-y follow-up were calculated. Results: In PREDIMED, the total potato intake was 81.9 ± 40.6 g/d. No overall differences in systolic or diastolic BP changes were detected based on consumption of potatoes. For total potatoes, the mean difference in change between quintile 5 (highest intake) and quintile 1 (lowest intake) in systolic BP after multivariate adjustment was 20.90 mm Hg (95% CI: -2.56, 0.76 mm Hg; P-trend = 0.1) and for diastolic BP was 20.02 mm Hg (95% CI: -0.93, 0.89 mm Hg; P-trend = 0.8). In SUN, the total potato consumption was 52.7 ± 33.6 g/d, and no significant association between potato consumption and hypertension incidence was observed in the fully adjusted HR for total potato consumption (quintile 5 compared with quintile 1: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.19; P-trend = 0.8). Conclusions: Potato consumption is not associated with changes over 4 y in blood pressure among older adults in Spain or with the risk of hypertension among Spanish adults.Supported by the official funding agency for biomedical research of the Spanish Government, Instituto de Salud Carlos III through grants provided to research networks specifically developed for the trial (RTIC G03/140, to RE; RTIC RD 06/0045, to MAM-G) and through Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERobn), and by grants from Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC 06/2007), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional [Proyecto de Investigación (PI) 04-2239, PI 05/2584, CP06/00100, PI07/0240, PI07/1138, PI07/0954, PI 07/0473, PI10/01407, PI10/02658, PI11/01647, P11/02505 and PI13/00462], Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [Recursos y teconologia agroalimentarias (AGL)-2009-13906-C02 and AGL2010-22319-C03 and AGL2013-49083-C3-1-R], Fundación Mapfre 2010, the Consejería de Salud de la Junta de Andalucía (PI0105/2007), the Public Health Division of the Department of Health of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Generalitat Valenciana [Generalitat Valenciana Ayuda Complementaria (GVACOMP) 06109, GVACOMP2010-181, GVACOMP2011-151], Conselleria de Sanitat y AP; Atención Primaria (CS) 2010-AP-111 and CS2011-AP-042, and Regional Government of Navarra (P27/2011)

Relationship between method of anastomosis and anastomotic failure after right hemicolectomy and ileo-caecal resection: an international snapshot audit

Aim The anastomosis technique used following right-sided colonic resection is widely variable and may affect patient outcome. This study aimed to assess the association between leak and anastomosis technique (stapled vs handsewn). Method This was a prospective, multicentre, international audit including patients undergoing elective or emergency right hemicolectomy or ileo-caecal resection operations over a 2-month period in early 2015. The primary outcome measure was the presence of anastomotic leak within 30 days of surgery, determined using a prespecified definition. Mixed effects logistic regression models were used to assess the association between leak and anastomosis method, adjusting for patient, disease and operative cofactors, with centre included as a random-effect variable. Results This study included 3208 patients, of whom 78.4\% (n = 2515) underwent surgery for malignancy and 11.7\% (n = 375) underwent surgery for Crohn's disease. An anastomosis was performed in 94.8\% (n = 3041) of patients, which was handsewn in 38.9\% (n = 1183) and stapled in 61.1\% (n = 1858). Patients undergoing hand-sewn anastomosis were more likely to be emergency admissions (20.5\% handsewn vs 12.9\% stapled) and to undergo open surgery (54.7\% handsewn vs 36.6\% stapled). The overall anastomotic leak rate was 8.1\% (245/3041), which was similar following handsewn (7.4\%) and stapled (8.5\%) techniques (P = 0.3). After adjustment for cofactors, the odds of a leak were higher for stapled anastomosis (adjusted OR = 1.43; 95\% CI: 1.04-1.95; P = 0.03). Conclusion Despite being used in lower-risk patients, stapled anastomosis was associated with an increased anastomotic leak rate in this observational study. Further research is needed to define patient groups in whom a stapled anastomosis is safe

Dietary inflammatory index and all-cause mortality in large cohorts: The SUN and PREDIMED studies

[Background]: Inflammation is known to be related to the leading causes of death including cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer, obesity, type 2 diabetes, depression-suicide and other chronic diseases. In the context of whole dietary patterns, the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII®) was developed to appraise the inflammatory potential of the diet. [Objective]: We prospectively assessed the association between DII scores and all-cause mortality in two large Spanish cohorts and valuated the consistency of findings across these two cohorts and results published based on other cohorts.[Design]: We assessed 18,566 participants in the “Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra” (SUN) cohort followed-up during 188,891 person-years and 6790 participants in the “PREvencion con DIeta MEDiterránea” (PREDIMED) randomized trial representing 30,233 person-years of follow-up. DII scores were calculated in both cohorts from validated FFQs. Higher DII scores corresponded to more proinflammatory diets. A total of 230 and 302 deaths occurred in SUN and PREDIMED, respectively. In a random-effect meta-analysis we included 12 prospective studies (SUN, PREDIMED and 10 additional studies) that assessed the association between DII scores and all-cause mortality.[Results]: After adjusting for a wide array of potential confounders, the comparison between extreme quartiles of the DII showed a positive and significant association with all-cause mortality in both the SUN (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.85; 95% CI: 1.15, 2.98; P-trend = 0.004) and the PREDIMED cohort (HR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.02; P-trend = 0.009). In the meta-analysis of 12 cohorts, the DII was significantly associated with an increase of 23% in all-cause mortality (95% CI: 16%–32%, for the highest vs lowest category of DII).[Conclusion]: Our results provide strong and consistent support for the hypothesis that a pro-inflammatory diet is associated with increased all-cause mortality. The SUN cohort and PREDIMED trial were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02669602 and at isrctn.com as ISRCTN35739639, respectively.Supported by the official funding agency for biomedical research of the Spanish Government, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), through grants provided to research networks specifically developed for the trial (RTIC G03/140, to R.E.; RTIC RD 06/0045, to Miguel A. Martínez-González) and through Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERobn), and by grants from Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC 06/2007), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (Proyecto de Investigación (PI) 04-2239, PI 05/2584, CP06/00100, PI07/0240, PI07/1138, PI07/0954, PI 07/0473, PI10/01407, PI10/02658, PI11/01647, P11/02505, PI13/00462, PI13/00615, PI13/01090, PI14/01668, PI14/01798, PI14/01764), Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Recursos y teconologia agroalimentarias(AGL)-2009-13906-C02 and AGL2010-22319-C03 and AGL2013-49083-C3-1- R), Fundación Mapfre 2010, the Consejería de Salud de la Junta de Andalucía (PI0105/2007), the Public Health Division of the Department of Health of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Generalitat Valenciana (Generalitat Valenciana Ayuda Complementaria (GVACOMP) 06109, GVACOMP2010-181, GVACOMP2011-151), Conselleria de Sanitat y, PI14/01764 AP; Atención Primaria (CS) 2010-AP-111, and CS2011-AP-042), and Regional Government of Navarra (P27/2011).). Drs. Shivappa and Hébert were supported by grant number R44DK103377 from the United States National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases