AN
APPLICATION OF FULL COST ASSESSMENT IN THE ENERGY SECTOR
Denise Helena Lombardo Ferreira
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Brazil
E-mail: lombardo@puc-campinas.edu.br
Carolina Baron
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Brazil
E-mail: carolbaron94@gmail.com
Luciano Hideaki Fujita
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Brazil
E-mail: luciano.hf@puccampinas.edu.br
Submission: 16/02/2016
Accept: 22/03/2016
ABSTRACT
This article seeks to evaluate some plants for
electricity generation existing in Brazil, among which wind, thermal,
hydroelectric and nuclear power, through the Full Cost Assessment tool. Two
studies were prepared, the first deals with the analysis of these plants in
view of the technical-economic, environmental and social factors. The second
study is the analysis of these plants in view of the cost of energy and energy
production in the five Brazilian regions - South, Southeast, Midwest, North and
Northeast. The final results show that in the first study the wind farm had the
highest valuation, so the best option among the others. However, the second
study, wind power was the one that obtained the highest valuation for the
Northeast Region, and the thermoelectric and hydroelectric plants had the
highest valuation for the Southeast Region.
Keywords: Full Cost Assessment;
electricity; Brazilian regions
1. INTRODUCTION
For decades,
especially since the industrialization period, human activity is impacting the
ecosystem and its environmental resources. Currently the world is going through
a period in which the human being is placed as the center of everything, often
causing an unsustainable environment. The concern focuses on quick and easy
economic gain without regard to preserving the environment.
As stated by
Hawken, Lovis and Lovis (2007), the process of production and mass consumption
in the world today and factors arising as rapid industrialization, spatial
concentration, agricultural modernization, significant population growth and
increasing urbanization, climate change, depletion of productive resources,
water scarcity, pollution of soil water and air, make up the main points of
pressure and human awareness of global environmental issues.
The worsening
environmental situation demand studies and the development of alternative
proposals to overcome the contradictions of the present world scenario, being
prudent to search for methods that preserve natural resources, which often
requires the need to make decisions from the simplest to the most complex.
The development
of a model representing reality can help in choosing the most appropriate
decisions. Mathematical models use mathematical relationships to describe or
represent an object or decision problem, and may, in his creative process,
assist in the understanding of the problem, and as a result improve decision
analysis.
In order to
evaluate some plants for electric power generation that exist in Brazil, this
paper makes use of a tool that helps in the process of decision making, called
Full Cost Assessment (FCA) to two distinct problems. One considers the four
types of power plants for electricity generation treated here in view of the
environmental factors, technical- economic and social. The other problem
analyzes these plants for electric power generation among the five Brazilian
regions taking into account the parameters of cost and energy production.
The results show
that wind energy appears as 1st choice followed by nuclear, hydro and thermal
power in the application of FCA in the evaluation of these four plants for
electric power generation in view of the environmental factors, technical-
economic and social. Regarding the application of this tool in the study of
these plants for the five Brazilian regions for the cost of energy production
the conclusion is that the wind farm has the highest valuation for the
Northeast, while the thermoelectric and hydroelectric plants have the highest
valuation for Southeast region.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Full
Cost Assessment tool is based on the identification and assessment of data on
external impacts and costs / benefits of the activities in question.
The FCA
tool was initially developed to account for the costs arising from
environmental impacts of an enterprise (Burani et al., 2004). Later, according
to Carvalho (2000), this concept was used to account for all costs related to
the project, such as social, political and environmental factors.
In
traditional assessments, normally, an economic evaluation (mainly considering
the internal costs) is done at which the environmental costs, social, cultural
are not considered or when considered, are delegated to the background. This
form of assessment is inconsistent within an integrated resource planning,
since upon disregarding the external costs, one can get to the selection of a
particular resource that is not the most appropriate (Burani et al., 2004).
Regarding
the power generation subject, to Boarati (2003) the FCA tool revolutionizes the
way of evaluating the feasibility of a plant, for they were usually considered
only aspects related to the investment, the plant's construction and its
financial return, however, it is required to take into account other related
factors on the venture feasibility. As pointed out by Gimenes et al. (2004),
through the FCA some variables needed for decision-making can be identified and
addressed, directing the application of methodologies for sustainable
development and resource planning by providing treatment to elements that
traditionally do not take part in the planning.
The FCA
tool makes it possible to analyze the technical-economic factors,
environmental, social and political with the same importance. The factors
necessary for a decision-making process can be identified and addressed in
order to satisfy the concepts of sustainable development and resource planning.
Through FCA
different analysis elements are valued from two types of weighting: 1)
alternatives to each element under analysis and 2) the weight of each element
under analysis. According Boarati (2003), these two criteria enable each
analysis element to be evaluated according to the available options. The
alternatives are considered by percentages, ranging from the best (100%) to the
worst alternative (25%), with the following classification: excellent (100%),
satisfactory (75%), regular (50%) and unsatisfactory (25%). The weight of each
element of analysis varies between A, B, C, in descending order of importance.
Given that
the factors considered must have the same importance, the maximum valuation for
all of them is 100 points according to Eq. 1.
|
(1) |
Where:
A, B and C are variations of each Analysis Element - depends on the
importance attached to the Analysis Element within the considered factor, being
A = maximum importance (A = 300), B = 2/3 of the maximum importance (B = 200)
and C = 1/3 of the maximum value (C = 100);
X, Y and Z are the numbers of occurrences of the Analysis Elements with
the rating A, B or C, respectively.
From the definition of the Analysis Elements and their respective
weights (A, B or C) is made the calculation of KFC given by Eq. 2.
|
(2) |
Where:
KFC is the Constant of the Considered Factor.
A Eq. 3 shows VEAi calculation
|
(3) |
Where:
VEAi é is the valuation of Analysis
Element i.
Lastly Eq 4 is obtained.
|
(4) |
Where:
VF is the Factor Valuation.
Table
1: Numeric Example of Full Cost Assessment.
Source: based in Bachi
Junior, Tiago Filho e Seydell (2013).
The
filled in cells at Table 1 presents the options selected according to the
research on this topic (BACHI JUNIOR; TIAGO FILHO; SEYDELL, 2013).
In
the numeric example of Table 1, the value of the KFC is 15 (3 * 3 + 2 * 2 + 2),
because there are three analysis elements with Valuation A, two analysis
elements with Valuation B and two analysis elements with Valuation C. It is
highlighted the calculation made for the Valuation Analysis Element 1 (Eq. 5).
|
(5) |
3. RESULTS
The section in question presents the results
obtained in the application of FCA for the two studies mentioned above.
3.1.
FCA application in the analysis of power plants
considering the environmental factors, technical-economic and social
The application of FCA is made to analyze the
feasibility of using four plants of electricity generation in Brazil, namely,
wind, hydroelectric, thermal and nuclear. An analysis considered traditional
uses only technical and economic elements for the viability of an enterprise.
However, it is interesting to take into account not just one factor, but three
factors that are of great importance to an alleged decision making: technical,
economic, environmental and social as Rutherford (1997).
According to Boarati (2003), the technical and
economic factors reflects the vision of the entrepreneur and investor to seek
return of their invested capital through the sale of energy to be produced by
the plant that must operate in a defined period of time.
The environmental factor is the vision of the
official agencies and environmental protection agencies (Boarati, 2003).
Therefore, for the viability of the power plants is only possible if there is
no opposition of these agencies, in other words, that the project in question
does not degrade the environment.
The social factor is characterized by the
population affected due to construction of the plants (Boarati, 2003). The
installation of the plant causes many impacts on local society. Impacts related
to the emission of pollutants or else dysfunction in local economic activities
such as fishing, agriculture and tourism, causing population displacement due
to the poor quality of living locally.
The central idea of the Full Cost Assessment in
relation to energy resources in Brazil is studying the possibility of building
and installation of power plants, in addition to analyzing the best investment
option. For this, twelve tables were built following the model of Table 1, four
for each factor (environmental, technical-economic and social). And, from these
four, one table for each plant type (wind, nuclear, hydroelectric,
thermoelectric).
For example, the following are the engineered
tables for the power plant to the environmental factor (Table 2),
technical-economic factors (Table 3) and the social factor (Table 4), with
their respective analysis elements.
Table 2: Hydroelectric Power Plant evaluated by the environmental
factor.
Source: author’s elaboration.
Table
3: Hydroelectric Power Plant evaluated by the technical-economic factor.
Source: author’s elaboration.
Table
4: Hydroelectric Power Plant evaluated by the social factor.
Source: author’s elaboration.
Following the same model, tables for wind power plants, nuclear and
thermal power were built. The total scores are depicted in Table 5.
Table
5: Final Valuation Results for each factor for the Power Plants.
Source: author’s
elaboration.
The scores shown
in Table 5 indicate that, regarding the environmental factors, the best
investment option is the wind farm, with the highest valuation of 77.91. For
the technical-economic factor, the wind farm is also the most viable option,
because of its score of 79.53. But, In relation to the social factor, the plant
with the best valuation is the nuclear power plant, with 79.16.
So, to the end
result, one can draw up a preliminary ranking of energy resources obtained in
Brazil, 1st option: wind, 2nd option: nuclear, 3rd option: hydroelectric and
4th option: thermoelectric.
3.2.
FAC application in the analysis of power plants in
the Brazilian regions
The application of FAC is made to analyze the plants for power
generation: wind, hydroelectric, thermal and nuclear in five regions of Brazil.
The Analysis Elements considered in this study are only cost and energy
production. It is worth noting that data on the costs of each type of energy
for each region were not found and therefore these values were estimated
considering that the cost of energy is inversely proportional to its
production.
Table 6 presents the scores obtained for the nuclear power plant in the
Southeast. It is worth noting that the analysis of this plant was made only in
this region since Brazil has this plant only in Angra dos Reis, State of Rio de
Janeiro.
Table 6: Nuclear Plant – Southeast Region.
Source: author’s
elaboration.
Similarly it was built tables for other plants and regions of Brazil.
Table 7 summarizes the values obtained for each one of them.
Table 7: Final Valuation Plant/Region.
Source: author’s elaboration.
By comparing the four plants studied among the five regions of Brazil it
is possible to determine, in each case, the most viable option for a possible
investment.
As can be observed, it was not possible to analyze the feasibility of
nuclear power among all regions as this type of Plant is only found in the
Southeast. But, compared to other active plants in the regions it can be seen
that the Southeast region had a high valuation so, we can consider it as a good
investment option. On the other hand, the wind farm proved to be the most
advisable for the Northeast region. While the thermoelectric and hydroelectric
plants had a higher valuation for the Southeast region.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The application of FCA in the first study shows
that wind energy appears as 1st choice, followed by nuclear energy,
hydroelectric and thermal.
The application of FCA in the second study allows
to conclude that the wind farm has the highest valuation for the Northeast,
while the thermoelectric and hydroelectric plants have the highest valuation
for the Southeast region.
Note that the FCA tool makes it possible to analyze
several factors: environmental, social, political, technical and economical
with the same importance. However, in the first study, it was not considered
the political factor in view of the difficulty in obtaining data. In the second
study, by emphasizing the study of plants for electricity generation in
different regions of the country, it was decided to only address the cost and
energy production, again because of the difficulty in obtaining information
regarding the environmental, social, political and technical and economic these
plants for each region of Brazil.
The user-friendly handling with the calculations
made by Microsoft Excel tool enables the application of FCA in several areas.
However, in the study presented, as previously mentioned, the greatest
difficulty was in getting the data.
REFERENCES
BACHI JUNIOR; TIAGO FILHO, D. G.
L.; SEYDELL, M. R. R. (2013). Um modelo de análise do transporte de derivados
de petróleo através dos custos completos. Anais
do V Congresso Brasileiro de Energia. Itajubá.
BOARATI, J. R.
(2003). Um modelo para avaliação
ponderada da hidreletricidade e termeletricidade com gás natural através dos
custos completos. Dissertação (Mestrado) – EDUSP, São Paulo.
BURANI, G. F.;
UDAETA, M. E. M.; FUJJI, R. J.; GALVÃO, L. C. R. (2004). O cenário dos recursos
energéticos distribuídos no estado de São Paulo. Anais do 5º. Encontro de energia no meio Rural e Geração Distribuída.
CARVALHO, E. C. (2000).
A Análise do ciclo de vida e os custos
completos no planejamento energético. Dissertação (Mestrado) – EDUSP, São
Paulo, 228 p.
GIMENES, A. L.
V.; UDAETA, M. E. M; GALVÃO, L. C. R.; REIS, L. B. (2004). Modelo de Integração
de recursos para um planejamento energético integrado e sustentável. X Congresso Brasileiro de Energia, Rio de
Janeiro.
HAWKEN, P.; LOVINS, A.; LOVINS, H. (2007). Capitalismo
Natural: criando a próxima revolução industrial. São Paulo: Cultrix.
RUTHERFORD, I. (1997). Use of Models to link
Indicators of Sustainable Development. In: MODAN, B.; BILHARZ, S. (Eds.) Sustainable Development. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons Ltda.