4.2.1. Analysis of the Economic-Financial Ratios

Starting by the analysis of the financial ratios, centered on the study of the project liquidity, for which Figure 16 illustrates both the values of the solvency ratio (SR) and the total-debt ratio (TDR) with the use of manual and automated maneuvers during the service life of the project. The comparative results of the SR for the maintenance maneuvers depicted in Figure 16a show that, although the values of these ratios throughout the service life of the project are very high in both cases, the use of automated maneuvers provides higher values than manual maneuvers. We found evidence of a comfortable financial situation for both types of maneuvers, in addition to idle assets that have high opportunity costs. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would in both cases be possible to invest the idle resources in an effort to lower the opportunity cost and that this would, in turn, allow the project to attain an even higher profitability. With regard to the results obtained for the ROE illustrated in Figure 16b, it will be observed that the results are similar for both maneuvers, with high TDR values in the first years, thus denoting a situation of high indebtedness and, consequently, less protection and greater risks for the creditors. However, said values gradually decrease, and values close to the unit are obtained in the sixth year with a consequent reduction in the probability of insolvency. From this year on, the TDR values are lower than the unit (with null values from the fifteenth year to the end of the project) signifying that the net equity starts to increase substantially. However, although this signifies an excellent solvency, there is, in both cases, a high opportunity cost that could negatively affect the project's profitability, as was explained above. We shall subsequently continue the analysis of the basis of the economic ratios of the project, for which Figure 17 depicts both the return of assets (ROA) and the return of equity (ROE) when using manual and automated maneuvers during the service life of the project. Figure 17a shows that the ROA values for automated maneuvers are higher than in the case of manual maneuvers, and it will be noted that, in both cases, their value is over zero throughout the lifespan of the project. The evolution for automated maneuvers is the same as that for the manual maneuvers, with the values growing successively until the fifteenth year and, from then on, decreasing slightly. After carrying out a detailed analysis of the two subcomponents (economic margin of sales and asset rotation) into which the ROA can be separated for both sorts of maneuvers, we discovered that, during the first fifteen years, the asset rotation grows successively (obtaining higher values for automated maneuvers than for manual maneuvers), but both projects behave in the same way after year fifteen. That is to say, there is a decrease in asset rotation because the growth undergone by the asset is less than that of the sales, signifying that the relationship between both terms decreases with time. Furthermore, the profit from sales increases faster than the economic margin of sales, leading to a growth in the relationship over time during the total service life of the projects. However, from the fifteenth year onward, the economic margin grows less than the decrease in the asset rotation, signifying that the ROA eventually undergoes a slight decrease. It will, nevertheless, always be greater than zero, which is very positive. If we now analyze the results attained for the ROE for manual and automated maneuvers during the service life of the project depicted in Figure 17b, it will be observed that the values of the ROE for automated maneuvers are higher than in the case of manual maneuvers, and this shows that both are positive during the entire service life of the project. However, its value undergoes a slight decrease as time goes by. Upon studying the subcomponents of the ROE (financial sales margin, asset rotation and leverage) in detail, it will be noted that the growth in the asset rotation and the financial sales margin is less than the decrease in financial leverage, and this is the case for both the manual and automated maneuvers. It should, nevertheless, be noted that they all remain positive, signifying that the debt is, in both cases, good for the project. The profitability of the case study for automated maneuvers is thus greater than that obtained in the case of the manual maneuvers. The results also show that investment is recommended for manual and automated maneuvers thanks to the benefits obtained from the first year from both the financial and the accounting points of view.

**Figure 16.** Comparative financial ratios for manual and automated maneuvers: (**a**) solvency ratio (SR), and (**b**) total debt ratio (TDR).

**Figure 17.** Comparative economic ratios for manual and automate maneuvers: (**a**) return of assets (ROA), and (**b**) return of equity (ROE).

#### 4.2.2. Sensitivity Analysis

After determining those parameters that could have an effect on the profitability of the project (Section 3.5), we shall now identify those that are most critical for the project. The means employed to determine the significance of the aforementioned parameters in the case of the feasibility of the project will be that of altering their values to a slight extent, after which the variations that occur for the reference values considered will be studied. These will, in this case, be the NPV, the IRR and the DPBP of the stakeholders and the project. We shall consider those parameters that lead to higher variations in the references in question to be critical values. In this line of action, the following scenarios have been taken into consideration: (i) an increase in the initial investment to 1%; (ii) a decrease in the AEP by the TEF to 1%; (iii) a decrease in the price of energy to 1%; (iv) an increase in the interest rate to 1%; (v) a decrease in the percentage of the loan requested to 1%; and (vi) an increase in the tax rate to 1%. The values obtained for the nominal case for manual values are the following: the NPV for the project is 64,066,094 e and the NPV for the stakeholders is 94,399,360 e; the IRR for the project is 8.126% and the IRR for the stakeholders is 24.17%, and the DPBP for the project is 13.04 years and the DPBP for the stakeholders is 4.95 years. The values obtained for the nominal case for automated maneuvers are, meanwhile, the following: the NPV for the project is 75,432,173 e and the NPV for the stakeholders is 105,494,103 e; the IRR for the project is 8.21% and the IRR for the stakeholders is 24.17%, and the DPBP for the project is 12.23 years and the DPBP for the stakeholders is 4.37 years. Figures 18 and 19 depict the results of the NPV sensitivity analysis with regard to the project and the stakeholders when manual and automated maneuvers are carried out, while Table 2 shows the variations in the NPV, IRR and DPBP of the project and the stakeholders as regards manual and automated maneuvers in the aforementioned scenarios.

These results allow us to conclude that, in the nominal case, the TEP carried out using manual and automated maneuvers are economically feasible, with a higher profitability for automated maneuvers. Furthermore, both the automated and the manual maneuvers are affected by the same parameters as those that affect the profitability of the project, which are the variations in interest rate, the price of energy and the AEP. This is owing to the fact that these parameters concern the financing of the farm, and the incomes will be achieved during the entire service life of the project. The profitability of the project is, however, less affected by the variations related to the tax rate, the percentage of the loan requested and the investment.

**Figure 18.** NPV (Net Present Value) results of the project when manual and automated maneuvers are carried out.

**Figure 19.** NPV results for the stakeholders when manual and automated maneuvers are carried out.


#### *4.3. Comparative Sensitivity Analysis*

Having employed a case study to demonstrate the excellent profitability and economic feasibility as regards the use of both manual and automated maneuvers, we shall now develop a comparative sensitivity analysis in order to quantify, in an economic manner, how much better the use of automated maneuvers is with regard to the use of manual maneuvers. As occurred in Section 4.2.2, we shall study the following scenarios: (i) the nominal case; (ii) an increase in the initial investment to 1%; (iii) a decrease in the AEP by the TEF to 1%; (iv) a decrease in the price of energy to 1%; (v) an increase in the interest rate to 1%; (vi) a decrease in the percentage of the loan requested to 1%; and (vii) an increase in the tax rate to 1%. Table 3 shows the results of the comparative sensitivity analysis carried out for the variations in the NPV, IRR and DPBP of the project and the stakeholders in the case of the use of automated maneuvers when compared to the use of manual maneuvers in the aforementioned scenarios. These results allow us to conclude that the profitability of the case study is higher and the investment is recovered faster when using automated maneuvers for all scenarios, demonstrating that, from an economic point of view, this is an attractive solution as regards a future commercialization of these devices.


**Table 3.** Comparative sensitivity analysis results for the use of automated maneuvers when compared to the use of manual maneuvers.
