Karbon fiyatlandırması, politika tasarımı ve yatırım zamanlaması: Türkiye'de rüzgar enerjisine ilişkin reel opsiyonlar analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma, yenilenebilir enerji destek mekanizmaları, karbon fiyatlandırması ve yatırım belirsizliği arasındaki etkileşime odaklanarak, 2025 piyasa koşulları altında Türkiye'deki rüzgar enerjisi projelerinin finansal fizibilitesini ve yatırım zamanlamasını analiz etmektedir. Küresel enerji geçişi hızlanırken, yenilenebilir enerji yatırımları yalnızca teknolojik gelişmeler ve piyasa dinamiklerinden değil, aynı zamanda politika araçlarının yapısı ve istikrarından da giderek daha fazla etkilenmektedir. Bu bağlamda, politika teşviklerinin ve karbon fiyatlandırma mekanizmalarının yenilenebilir enerji projelerinin ekonomik uygulanabilirliğini nasıl etkilediğini anlamak, hem yatırımcılar hem de politika yapıcılar için kritik bir konu haline gelmiştir. Analiz, Türk yenilenebilir enerji sektörünün mevcut politika ortamını yansıtan senaryo tabanlı bir çerçeve kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Üç ana politika senaryosu değerlendirilmiştir. Birinci senaryo, yenilenebilir elektrik üretimi için satın alma garantisi sağlayan ve yatırımcılar için gelir belirsizliğini azaltan Türk Lirası (TRY) bazlı Yenilenebilir Enerji Destek Mekanizmasını (YEKDEM) dikkate almaktadır. İkinci senaryo, yenilenebilir enerji sektöründe yerel üretim kapasitesini ve teknolojik gelişmeyi teşvik etmek için tasarlanmış ek bir politika aracı olan YEKDEM ile birlikte uygulanan yerel bileşen desteğini içermektedir. Üçüncü senaryo, rüzgar enerjisi projeleri için ek bir gelir akışı olarak karbon kredisi gelirlerini de dahil ederek analizi genişletmektedir. Bu çerçevede, gönüllü karbon piyasalarındaki belirsizlikleri ve potansiyel gelecekteki karbon fiyatlandırma rejimlerini yansıtmak amacıyla düşük, orta ve yüksek olmak üzere üç karbon fiyatı varsayımı ortaya konmuştur. Analizin ilk aşamasında, yatırımın finansal fizibilitesi Net Bugünkü Değer (NPV) yaklaşımı kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, YEKDEM ve yerel bileşen teşviklerinin proje gelirlerini artırıp finansal riski azalttığını gösterse de, bu politika araçlarının tek başına yatırımın ekonomik fizibilitesini sağlamak için yeterli olmadığını göstermektedir. Karbon kredisi gelirleri dahil edildiğinde, proje yalnızca yüksek karbon fiyatı senaryosunda finansal olarak uygulanabilir hale gelmektedir. Analiz ayrıca, yatırımın başabaş noktasına ulaşması için karbon fiyatının yaklaşık 52 ABD doları/ton CO₂'ye ulaşması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bu bulgu, Türkiye'de uygulanması beklenen gelecekteki bir Emisyon Ticaret Sistemi (ETS) altında potansiyel karbon fiyatlandırma seviyeleri için ekonomik olarak temellendirilmiş bir referans değeri sağlamaktadır. İkinci aşamada, belirsizlik altında yatırım zamanlamasını değerlendirmek için ikili gerçek opsiyonlar modeli uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, statik net bugünkü değer (NPV) negatif olsa bile, yatırımcıların piyasa koşulları geliştikçe yatırım kararlarını erteleyebilme ve projeleri daha uygun bir zamanda başlatabilme esnekliğine sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Genel olarak, bulgular karbon fiyatlandırmasının ve politika tasarımının yenilenebilir enerji yatırım kararlarını şekillendirmedeki kritik rolünü vurgulamakta ve sürdürülebilir enerji geçişlerini desteklemeyi amaçlayan yenilenebilir enerji yatırım modellemesi, enerji politikası geliştirme ve uzun vadeli enerji sistemi planlaması için değerli bilgiler sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karbon fiyatlandırması
• Yatırım zamanlaması
• Net Bugünkü Değer (NPV)
• Gerçek seçenekler
• Yenilenebilir enerji
• Rüzgar enerjisi santralleri

Carbon pricing, policy design, and investment timing: An integrated NPV and real options analysis of wind energy in Türkiye

Öz

Context—Renewable energy investments are increasingly shaped not only by technological progress and market dynamics but also by the design and stability of policy instruments. In Türkiye, renewable energy support mechanisms such as the Renewable Energy Support Mechanism (YEKDEM) and domestic component incentives aim to improve investment attractiveness; however, the absence of an established carbon pricing mechanism creates significant uncertainty regarding long-term investment feasibility. This policy gap makes it essential to evaluate how support mechanisms and potential carbon pricing jointly influence renewable energy investment decisions.

Objective—This study aims to analyze the financial feasibility and optimal investment timing of wind energy projects in Türkiye under 2025 market conditions by evaluating the combined effects of renewable energy support mechanisms, carbon pricing, and investment uncertainty. The study also seeks to identify the threshold carbon price required for investment feasibility and provide policy-relevant insights for a future Emissions Trading System (ETS) in Türkiye.

Method—An integrated Net Present Value (NPV) and real options framework was employed. First, the financial feasibility of a representative onshore wind power plant was evaluated using NPV analysis under three policy scenarios: (i) YEKDEM only, (ii) YEKDEM with domestic component support, and (iii) YEKDEM with additional carbon credit revenues under low, medium, and high carbon price assumptions. Second, a Cox–Ross–Rubinstein binomial real options model was applied to evaluate optimal investment timing under uncertainty by incorporating deferment flexibility.

Results—The results show that YEKDEM and domestic component incentives improve project revenues but remain insufficient to ensure financial feasibility, as NPV remains negative in both scenarios. When carbon credit revenues are included, investment feasibility improves significantly with increasing carbon prices. The project becomes financially viable only under the high carbon price scenario (60 USD/tCO₂), where NPV reaches approximately 15.9 million TRY. The analysis further identifies a break-even carbon price of approximately 52 USD/tCO₂. Real options analysis indicates that even under negative NPV conditions, investors can rationally postpone investment and gain additional option value. The optimal deferment period decreases systematically as policy support and carbon prices strengthen.

Conclusion—The findings demonstrate that carbon pricing plays a critical role in improving renewable energy investment feasibility in Türkiye and should be designed as a complementary mechanism to existing support schemes rather than a standalone policy tool. The study highlights that static financial metrics alone cannot fully explain investment behavior under uncertainty and that real options analysis provides a more realistic framework for policy-sensitive energy investment decisions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Carbon pricing
• Investment timing
• NPV
• Real options
• Renewable energy
• Wind power plants

Kaynakça

1. V. G. Nguyen, R. Sirohi, M. H. Tran, T. H. Truong, M. T. Duong, M. T. Pham, D. N. Cao, “Renewable energy role in low-carbon economy and net-zero goal: Perspectives and prospects”, Energy & Environment, 36(5), 2248-2287, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X241253772.
2. T. P. Wang, X. Su, Y. C. Mei, W. Xiong, “Climate change intensifies low-carbon transition pressure in China's power system”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 114, 107949, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.107949.
3. Z. B. Duranay, H. Güldemir, B. Coşkun, “The role of wind turbine siting in achieving sustainable energy goals”, Processes, 12(12), 2900, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12122900.
4. P. M. Falcone, “Sustainable energy policies in developing countries: A review of challenges and opportunities”, Energies, 16(18), 6682, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186682.
5. W. Liu, Y. D. Shen, A. Razzaq, “How renewable energy investment, environmental regulations, and financial development derive renewable energy transition: Evidence from G7 countries”, Renewable Energy, 206, 1188-1197, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.017.
6. M. Krug, M. R. Di Nucci, M. Caldera, E. De Luca, “Mainstreaming community energy: Is the renewable energy directive a driver for renewable energy communities in Germany and Italy?”, Sustainability, 14(12), 7181, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127181.
7. C. P. S. de Brauwer, “The politics of market change towards sustainability: Revisiting Germany’s policy support framework for renewables”, Energies, 15(11), 3898, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15113898.
8. G. Soroush, P. C. Dos Reis, T. Schittekatte, A. Piebalgs, C. J. Jones, A. Pototschnig, J. -M. Glachant, *Review of Different National Approaches to Supporting Renewable Energy Development*, European University Institute, Florence, Italy, Research Project Report, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2870/627847.

9. E. Hughes, *Implications of Application of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to International Shipping, and Potential Benefits of Alternative Market-Based Measures (MBMs)*, European Community Shipowners' Associations (ECSA) and International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), Brussels, Belgium; London, United Kingdom, 2020, https://www.anave.es/images/documentos/ECSA_estudio_ETS.pdf.
10. T. Rayner, M. D. Leiren, T. H. J. Inderberg, “The United Kingdom: From Market-Led Policy Towards Technology Steering”, Comparative Renewables Policy, 1st Ed., E. L. Boasson, M. D. Leiren, J. Wettestad, Eds., London, United Kingdom, Routledge, 2020, Ch. 6, 103-125. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198144-8.
11. C. R. Spring, G. T. Cirella, “Fostering Sustainable Development: Green Energy Policy in the European Union and the United States”, Human Settlements: Urbanization, Smart Sector Development and Future Outlook, G. T. Cirella Eds., Singapore, Springer, 2022, Ch. 7, 101-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4031-5_7.
12. S. Zhou, B. D. Solomon, “Do Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States Stunt Renewable Electricity Development Beyond Mandatory Targets?”, Energy Policy, 140, 111377, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111377.
13. S. A. Samuel, “Carbon Pricing Mechanisms for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Encouraging Sustainable Industrial Practices”, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 25(2), 1–24, 2025. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.25.2.0350.
14. S. F. Verde, “The Impact of the EU Emissions Trading System on Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage: The Econometric Evidence”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 34(2), 320–343, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12356.
15. M. Erdem, M. Gürtürk, “Economic Analysis of the Impact of Turkey's Renewable Support Mechanism on Solar Energy Investment”, Utilities Policy, 92, 101862, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2024.101862.
16. M. Ozcan, “Renewable Energy Auctions in Turkey: Auction Design Based on Stakeholder Opinions”, Renewable Energy, 169, 473–484, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.01.009.
17. İ. Arı, Carbon Pricing in Emerging Economies: Challenges and Opportunities for Türkiye, 1st Ed., London, United Kingdom, Routledge, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003570820.
18. A. Uyduranoglu, S. S. Ozturk, “Public Support for Carbon Taxation in Turkey: Drivers and Barriers”, Climate Policy, 20(9), 1175–1191, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1816887.
19. M. Ozcan, “Increasing Voluntary Carbon Credits Potential via Renewable Energy Projects in Turkey”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 28(5), 710–719, 2022. https://doi.org/10.5505/pajes.2022.06882.
20. A. Batmaz, G. Sisman-Aydin, “Türkiye’s Alignment with the Paris Agreement: A Comparative Policy Analysis with Germany and Spain”, Sustainability, 17(9), 3899, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093899.
21. D. Tsarouhas, “Turkey’s “Green” Transformation and the CBAM: Challenges and Opportunities”, Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP), Athens, Greece, Policy Paper, No. 165/2024, 2024, https://www.eliamep.gr/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Policy-paper-165-Tsarouhas.pdf (27.04.2026).
22. V. Delapedra-Silva, P. Ferreira, J. Cunha, H. Kimura, “Methods for Financial Assessment of Renewable Energy Projects: A Review”, Processes, 10(2), 184, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10020184.
23. A. Di Bari, “A Real Options Approach to Valuate Solar Energy Investment with Public Authority Incentives: The Italian Case”, Energies, 13(16), 4181, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13164181.
24. A. Shimbar, S. B. Ebrahimi, “Political Risk and Valuation of Renewable Energy Investments in Developing Countries”, Renewable Energy, 145, 1325–1333, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.055.
25. M. Zhang, L. Liu, Q. Wang, D. Zhou, “Valuing Investment Decisions of Renewable Energy Projects Considering Changing Volatility”, Energy Economics, 92, 104954, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104954.
26. P. del Río, P. Mir-Artigues, “Designing auctions for concentrating solar power”, Energy for Sustainable Development, 48, 67–81, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.10.005.
27. L. Dusonchet, E. Telaretti, “Comparative Economic Analysis of Support Policies for Solar PV in the Most Representative EU Countries”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 986–998, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.054.
28. P. Menanteau, D. Finon, M. L. Lamy, “Prices versus Quantities: Choosing Policies for Promoting the Development of Renewable Energy”, Energy Policy, 31(8), 799–812, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00133-7.
29. F. Muhammad-Sukki, S. H. Abu-Bakar, A. B. Munir, S. H. M. Yasin, R. Ramirez-Iniguez, S. G. McMeekin, B. G. Stewart, N. Sarmah, T. K. Mallick, R. A. Rahim, M. E. Karim, S. Ahmad, R. M. Tahar, “Feed-in tariff for solar photovoltaic: The rise of Japan”, Renewable Energy, 68, 636–643, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.012.
30. P. Agnolucci, “Use of Economic Instruments in the German Renewable Electricity Policy”, Energy Policy, 34(18), 3538–3548, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.010.
31. P. del Río, M. A. Gual, “An integrated assessment of the feed-in tariff system in Spain”, Energy Policy, 35(2), 994–1012, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.01.014.
32. R. Otojanov, R. Fouquet, B. Granville, “Factor Prices and Induced Technical Change in the Industrial Revolution”, Economic History Review, 76(2), 599–623, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13194.
33. T. Haas, “Comparing Energy Transitions in Germany and Spain Using a Political Economy Perspective”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 200–210, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.11.004.
34. S. Jenner, F. Groba, J. Indvik, “Assessing the Strength and Effectiveness of Renewable Electricity Feed-in Tariffs in European Union Countries”, Energy Policy, 52, 385–401, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.046.
35. F. Cucchiella, M. Gastaldi, M. Trosini, “Investments and Cleaner Energy Production: A Portfolio Analysis in the Italian Electricity Market”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 121–132, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.190.
36. S. Danchev, G. Maniatis, A. Tsakanikas, “Returns on Investment in Electricity Producing Photovoltaic Systems under De-escalating Feed-in Tariffs: The Case of Greece”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(1), 500–505, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.08.008.
37. P. del Río, P. Mir-Artigues, “Support for solar PV deployment in Spain: some policy lessons”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(8), 5557–5566, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.011.
38. S. Gao, “A Comparative Analysis of the Energy Transitions of EU Member States Germany and Spain”, Master of Arts Thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 2022.
39. Y. -S. Yu, X. W. Zhang, J. -W. Liu, Y. Lee, X. -S. Li, “Natural Gas Hydrate Resources and Hydrate Technologies: A Review and Analysis of the Associated Energy and Global Warming Challenges”, Energy & Environmental Science, 14(11), 5611–5668, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1ee02093e.
40. Q. Zhang, G. Wang, Y. Li, H. L. Li, B. McLellan, S. Y. Chen, “Substitution Effect of Renewable Portfolio Standards and Renewable Energy Certificate Trading for Feed-in Tariff”, Applied Energy, 227, 426–435, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.118.
41. G. Wang, Q. Zhang, B. Su, B. Shen, Y. Li, Z. J. Li, “Coordination of Tradable Carbon Emission Permits Market and Renewable Electricity Certificates Market in China”, Energy Economics, 93, 105038, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105038.
42. K. Matsumoto, M. Doumpos, K. Andriosopoulos, “Historical energy security performance in EU countries”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 1737–1748, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.058.
43. D. Toke, K. Oshima, “Comparing Market-Based Renewable Energy Regimes: The Cases of the UK and Japan”, International Journal of Green Energy, 4(4), 409–425, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435070701465748.
44. L. Kitzing, C. Mitchell, P. E. Morthorst, “Renewable Energy Policies in Europe: Converging or Diverging?”, Energy Policy, 51, 192–201, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.064.
45. M. Nicolini, M. Tavoni, “Are Renewable Energy Subsidies Effective? Evidence from Europe”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, 412–423, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.032.
46. C. Mitchell, “Momentum Is increasing towards a flexible electricity system based on renewables”, Nature Energy, 1, 15030, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2015.30.
47. P. Balcombe, J. Brierley, C. Lewis, L. Skatvedt, J. Speirs, A. Hawkes, I. Staffell, “How to decarbonise international shipping: options for fuels, technologies and policies”, Energy Conversion and Management, 182, 72–88, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.080.
48. N. Farrell, “Policy design for green hydrogen”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 178, 113216, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113216.
49. A. Senturk, M. Ozcan, “Turkey's National Renewable Energy Certificate System: A Comparative Assessment”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(3), 7919–7947, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04229-2.
50. G. Büyüközkan, Y. Karabulut, “Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective”, Energy, 119, 549–560, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.087.
51. U. Kilic, “A Review of Renewable Energy Strategies and Policy Effectiveness in Turkey and Selected EU Countries”, Preprints, 2025. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202508.1836.v1.
52. K. Mulier, M. Ovaere, L. Stimpfle, “Emission Trading and Overlapping Environmental Support: Installation-Level Evidence from the EU ETS”, National Bank of Belgium, Brussels, Belgium, NBB Working Paper No. 461, 2024, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/310343/1/190637838X.pdf (27.04.2026).
53. L. Xu, J. Yang, “Carbon pricing policies and renewable energy development: Analysis based on cross-country panel data”, Journal of Environmental Management, 366, 121784, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121784.
54. M. Jang, S. Yoon, S. Jung, B. Min, “Simulating and Assessing Carbon Markets: Application to the Korean and the EU ETSs”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 195, 114346, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114346.
55. H. Jung, C. K. Song, “Effects of Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) on Change Rate of Carbon Emission”, Scientific Reports, 13(1), 912, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28154-6.
56. F. Liu, J. van den Bergh, Y. H. Wei, “Testing Mechanisms Through Which China's ETS Promotes a Low-Carbon Transition”, Energy Economics, 132, 107494, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107494.
57. P. J. J. Welfens, “Failures in Carbon Certificates and Emissions Trading Systems?”, Global Climate Change Policy: Analysis, Economic Efficiency Issues and International Cooperation, Switzerland, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2022, Ch. 11, 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94594-7_11.
58. H. H. Çoban, “Smart Steps Towards Sustainable Transportation: Profitability of Electric Road System”, Balkan Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 11(1), 88–99, 2023. https://doi.org/10.17694/bajece.1058841.
59. Y. F. Quan, M. S. Duan, C. J. Luo, “Measuring Implicit Carbon Prices of Renewable Energy Incentives: Insights from China”, Energy for Sustainable Development, 85, 101656, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2025.101656.
60. M. M. Zhang, Y. Q. Ge, L. Y. Liu, D. Q. Zhou, “Impacts of Carbon Emission Trading Schemes on the Development of Renewable Energy in China: Spatial Spillover and Mediation Paths”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 306–317, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.04.021.
61. N. Koch, S. Fuss, G. Grosjean, O. Edenhofer, “Causes of the EU ETS Price Drop: Recession, CDM, Renewable Policies or a Bit of Everything? New Evidence”, Energy Policy, 73, 676–685, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.024.
62. M. Y. Li, Y. Y. Weng, M. S. Duan, “Emissions, Energy and Economic Impacts of Linking China’s National ETS with the EU ETS”, Applied Energy, 235, 1235–1244, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.047.
63. C. Popescu, M. Panait, M. Palazzo, A. Siano, “Energy Transition in European Union—Challenges and Opportunities”, Energy Transition: Economic, Social and Environmental Dimensions, S. A. R. Khan, M. Panait, F. Puime Guillen, L. Raimi, Eds., Singapore, Springer, 2022, Ch. 11, 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3540-4_11.
64. A. M. Gómez-Restrepo, J. D. González-Ruiz, S. B. Botero, “Financial Investment Valuation Models for Photovoltaic and Energy Storage Projects: Trends and Challenges”, Energies, 17(11), 2653, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112653.
65. M. M. Zhang, P. Zhou, D. Q. Zhou, “A Real Options Model for Renewable Energy Investment with Application to Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation in China”, Energy Economics, 59, 213–226, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.07.028.
66. L. Shao, Z. Y. Xie, Y. X. Qiu, L. Wang, “US-China Decoupling and the Chinese Firms’ Real Option to Defer Overall but R&D Investment”, Journal of World Business, 60(4), 101643, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2025.101643.
67. P. K. Wesseh Jr., B. Lin, “A Real Options Valuation of Chinese Wind Energy Technologies for Power Generation: Do Benefits from the Feed-in Tariffs Outweigh Costs?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1591–1599, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.083.
68. H. Y. Zhang, M. Assereto, J. Byrne, “Deferring Real Options with Solar Renewable Energy Certificates”, Global Finance Journal, 55, 100795, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2022.100795.
69. M. Castellini, “Photovoltaic Smart Grids: Prosumers’ Investment, Uncertainty and Energy Communities”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy, 2021, https://iris.unibs.it/retrieve/handle/11379/544656/.
70. M. Assereto, J. Byrne, “No Real Option for Solar in Ireland: A Real Option Valuation of Utility Scale Solar Investment in Ireland”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110892, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110892.
71. L. E. Nunes, M. V. A. de Lima, M. Davison, A. L. da Silva Leite, “Switch and defer option in renewable energy projects: Evidences from Brazil”, Energy, 231, 120972, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120972.
72. C. Vargas, M. Chesney, “What are you waiting to invest in grid-connected residential photovoltaics in California? A real options analysis”, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 13(1), 660–677, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.2016361.
73. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, “Wind Energy”, https://enerji.gov.tr/bilgi-merkezi-enerji-ruzgar (27.04.2026).
74. Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation (TEİAŞ), “Electricity Generation Statistics”, https://www.teias.gov.tr/ (27.04.2026).
75. S. Moon, D. -J. Lee, “Optimal investment strategy for natural hydrogen exploration and production considering dual price uncertainties: A real options approach”, Resources Policy, 109, 105697, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2025.105697.
76. S. Loizidis, G. Konstantinidis, S. Theocharides, A. Kyprianou, G. E. Georghiou, “Electricity Day-Ahead Market Conditions and Their Effect on the Different Supervised Algorithms for Market Price Forecasting”, Energies, 16(12), 4617, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16124617.
77. A. Mohamed, R. Rigo-Mariani, V. Debusschere, L. Pin, “Operational Planning Strategies to Mitigate Price Uncertainty in Day-Ahead Market for a Battery Energy System”, IEEE Access, 12, 85388–85399, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3415811.
78. M. Ç. Peker, A. Sivrikaya, “The Effects of Electricity Generation from Solar and Wind Energy on the Day-Ahead Market-Clearing Prices and Price Volatility: The Turkish Case”, Fiscaoeconomia, 7(2), 1067–1100, 2023. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1215578.
79. J. Mun, Real Options Analysis: Tools and Techniques for Valuing Strategic Investments and Decisions, 2nd ed., Hoboken, NJ, USA, Wiley, 2006.
80. D. Loncar, I. Milovanovic, B. Rakic, T. Radjenovic, “Compound real options valuation of renewable energy projects: The case of a wind farm in Serbia”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75, 354–367, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.001.
81. K. I. T. Batac, A. A. Collera, R. O. Villanueva, C. B. Agaton, “Decision Support for Investments in Sustainable Energy Sources under Uncertainties”, International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 11(3), 801–814, 2022. https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.2022.45913.
82. Z. Dobrowolski, G. Drozdowski, “Does the Net Present Value as a Financial Metric Fit Investment in Green Energy Security?”, Energies, 15(1), 353, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010353.
83. B. Mombello, F. Olsina, R. Pringles, “Valuing Photovoltaic Power Plants by Compound Real Options”, Renewable Energy, 216, 119021, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119021.
84. E. E. Akhigbe, N. S. Egbuhuzor, A. J. Ajayi, O. O. Agbede, “Designing Risk Assessment Models for Large-Scale Renewable Energy Investment and Financing Projects”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 5(1), 1293–1308, 2024. https://doi.org/10.54660/.IJMRGE.2024.5.1.1293-1308.
85. À. Alonso-Travesset, D. Coppitters, H. Martín, J. de la Hoz, “Economic and Regulatory Uncertainty in Renewable Energy System Design: A Review”, Energies, 16(2), 882, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020882.
86. M. Maeda, D. Watts, “The Unnoticed Impact of Long-Term Cost Information on Wind Farms’ Economic Value in the USA: A Real Option Analysis”, Applied Energy, 241, 540–547, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.065.
87. S. Y. In, J. P. Weyant, B. Manav, “Pricing Climate-Related Risks of Energy Investments”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 154, 111881, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111881.
88. M. V. Migo-Sumagang, R. R. Tan, K. B. Aviso, “A Multi-Period Model for Optimizing Negative Emission Technology Portfolios with Economic and Carbon Value Discount Rates”, Energy, 275, 127445, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127445.
89. Y. Yang, L. Yang, “Renewable Energy Investment under Carbon Pricing Policies”, Sustainability, 12(17), 6879, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176879.
90. J. Qu, W. Jeon, “Price and Subsidy under Uncertainty: Real-Option Approach to Optimal Investment Decisions on Energy Storage with Solar PV”, Energy & Environment, 33(2), 263–282, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X21992291.
91. M. Terkes, K. M. Toprak, A. Demirci, E. Gökalp, U. Cali, “Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems in Türkiye: A Multi-Scenario Assessment of Demand, Metering, and Carbon Tax Policies”, IEEE Access, 13, 121472–121496, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3587879.
92. Türkiye Elektrik İletim A.Ş. (TEİAŞ), “Türkiye Elektrik Üretim-İletim 2024 Yılı İstatistikleri”, https://www.teias.gov.tr/turkiye-elektrik-uretim-iletim-istatistikleri (27.04.2026).
93. T. C. Enerji ve Tabi Kaynaklar Bakanlığı, “2024 Yılı Ulusal Enerji Denge Tabloları”, https://enerji.gov.tr/duyuru-detay?id=30578 (27.04.2026).