THE MCS CORPORATION PROJECT

AMEYA SAMPAT & HUY NGUYEN

Operation Research Methods
Professor Sharkey
12/06/2012

Introduction/Problem Background
The MCS Corporation, producers of the toy Dinoball, is interested in maximizing profits
while minimizing production cost. Acting as advisors to the company, our group was charged to

find the answers to three questions to helpMCS reach the most cost-efficient production method.
The first question was Should they remove the balanced policy that requires each of MCS
production facilities to produce the same number of toys? The second question was, Should
MCS Corporation install FastProd, a system that would allow for faster and cheaper production of
Dinoballs? The third question involves a green initiative that the MCS Corporation is pursuing.
In order to lower the carbon emission to below the permitted limit of 10 metric ton, the company
has an option to install a certain number of solar panels per facilities. The installation would help
reduce a cost that certain facilities would incur that would drive overall cost.
To answer the questions, an analysis was done in excel using Operations Research
Methods which could be applied to develop a decision choice. The following report details the
findings of the report and will walk through the steps used to come to that decision.

Removal of the Policy

Defining the Problem
Currently, MCS operates under the policy that each facility will produce the same number of
DinoBall toys each month. In other words, the facilities are balanced in that each will produces
exactly 1/3 of MCSs DinoBall monthly demand. MCS Corporation also operates under the idea of
equal wear and tear on each production line at a particular facility. Equal wear and tear is a
current MCS Corporation implement the requires every production line at a facility run for the
same length of time during a month. For the purposes of this analysis, we will assume that a
month consists of four 40 hour weeks (for a total of 160 hours).
MCS Corporation is considering removing the policy that each facility is responsible for the same
number of toys. MCS Corporation is interested in determining the amount of savings that would
result from this decision. The equal wear and tear policy on the production lines will remain in
place.
The analysis below calculates the total operation costs of the two scenarios: operation system
with the balance policy and operation system without the balance policy. The savings from the
removing the policy will then be calculated and considered for decision making.
Analysis
The monthly total demand table below was obtained by summing the demand of all locations.

Total
Month
Demand
January
1425
February
1475
March
1525
April
1575
May
1450
June
1480
July
1430
August
1500
September
1300
October
1475
November
1875
December
2300
Table 1a: Monthly
Demand
In this analysis, the operation cost is defined as the sum of production cost and shipping cost.
The monthly production cost is calculated by Excel Solver which uses simplex method providing
a minimum cost given constraints.

Operation with Balance Policy

Our group used Excel Solver to calculate monthly production cost and shipping cost. Below is an
example of the cost calculation (for December) and an explanation for how we formulated the
cost.

Troy, NY
Prod
Line 1
Prod
Line 2
Prod
Line 3
Newark,
NJ
Prod
Line 1
Prod
Line 2
Prod
Line 3
Harrisbu
rg, PA
Prod
Line 1
Prod
Line 2
Prod
Line 3

Energy
(KW)/h
our

Ener
gy
Cost
/Hr

200

0.15

Decisi
on
Variab
les
(Hrs)
85.185
185

255

275

210

0.18

95.833
333

255

4398.75

275

4743.75
Total No. of
Products:

220

235

0.5

300

Units/h
our

0.09

102.22
222

Time
Limit(
Hrs)

Cost
2555.55
160
5556
3258.33
3333
3513.88
8889
Total No. of
Products:

160

160

3622.5

2024
2162

No. of
Product
s
511.1111
11
170.3703
7
85.18518 Dema
52 nd
766.6666 766.6
67
667
479.1666
67
191.6666
67
95.83333 Dema
33 nd
766.6666 766.6
67
667
408.8888
89
306.6666
67
51.11111 Dema
11 nd
766.6666 766.6
67
667

2760
Total No. of
Products:
29038.
Total
7778
cost
Total Supply
2300
Total Demand
2300
Table 1b: Sample of Production Cost Calculation for Balance Policy Operation

Parameter explanation:

Decision variables: the time each production line in a particular factory operates. They are
determined by Excel Solver as an optimal solution to minimize production cost. Since MCS

uses the equal wear and tear policy, all three production lines in each factory will have
the same operating time. Each of the decision variables has to be smaller than the 160
hour time limit, the maximum amount of time a machine can operate every month.

Cost=

Energy Energy Cost

DecisionVariable . Cost is the production cost for each

Hour
Hour

production line. Total cost is the sum of all costs from all production lines.
No. of Products = Unit Variables X Decision Variable. The total number products of each
factory has to be equal to exactly 1/3 of the monthly demand due to balance policy
Total cost is what Excel Solver tries to minimize. It is the production cost for that month (in
this case December).

Parameter explanation:

# Units shipped: the amount of products shipped from a particular factory to a particular
destination. These are determined by Excel Solver to minimize the total shipping cost. The
total amount of units shipped from each factory has to be equal to the supply of that
factory (i.e. Total No. of products in Table 1b). The total amount of units shipped to each
retailer has to be equal to the demand of that retailer.
# of Trips: the number of trips it takes to ship the amount of products from one particular
factory to particular retailer. Example: it takes 2 trips to ship 300 products from Harrisburg
to Pittsburgh. Each trip can only carry a maximum of 250 products. These are also
determine by Excel Solver.
Total Capacity = # of Trips X 250. The # of Units shipped always has to be smaller than
this number.
Total Unit Shipping cost = Sum (# Units shipped X Shipping Costs Per Unit). The shipping
cost per unit is provided by MCS in project data.

Total Trip cost = Sum # of Trips X Shipping Costs Per Trip). The shipping cost per trips
provided by MCS in project data.
Total Cost = Total Unit Shipping cost + Total Trip cost. This is the shipping cost and the
objective function that Excel Solver tries to minimize.

For each month, tables like above are created to calculate the operation cost. The operation cost
is the sum of shipping cost and production cost. The results are recorded in the Table 1d below.

Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

Total
Demand
1425
1475
1525
1575
1450
1480
1430
1500
1300
1475
1875
2300

Production
Cost( with
Balance)
17991.42
18622.69
19253.97
19885.25
18307.06
18685.82
18054.54
18938.33
16413.22
18622.69
23672.92
29038.78
237486.7
0

Shipping
cost(with
Balance)
1218.56
1305.16
1329.26
1384.96
1344.20
1347.12
1356.83
1332.48
1277.37
1300.78
1508.80
1853.03

Operation
cost with
Balance
19209.98
19927.85
20583.23
21270.21
19651.25
20032.94
19411.37
20270.81
17690.59
19923.48
25181.72
30891.81

16558.55
254045.25
Total
Table 1d: Monthly Operation cost with Balance Policy

Operation without Balance Policy

Using the similar technique as described above with operation with balance policy, with the
exception of the demand constraint (the total number products of each factory has to be equal to
exactly 1/3 of the monthly demand due to balance policy-Table 1b parameter explanation), we
obtained the operation cost without the balance policy. In addition, the production cost and
shipping are done simultaneously. The example of an integrated model (for July) is shown below.

The balance policy is removed so each factory is free to produce as many products as they can
without demand constraints as long as their total production equals the total demand. The
supply constraints (the total amount of units shipped from each factory has to be equal to the
supply of that factory, i.e. total no. of products) still remain. For example, Troy produces 230
products, which means only a maximum of 230 units can be shipped from Troy. Since the model
is now integrated, the objective function is now to minimize the Total Cost (= Unit shipping cost
+ Total Trip Cost + Total Production Cost) instead of two separate objective function as in balance
policy operation. This Total Cost is calculated for each month and recorded in the table below.

Month

Total Demand

Operation cost without

Balance Policy

January

1425

15357.95

February

1475

15882.90

March

1525

16473.15

April

1575

17248.13

May

1450

15676.39

June

1480

15981.15

July

1430

15406.22

August

1500

16192.08

September

1300

13781.25

October

1475

15939.77

November

1875

21009.41

December

2300

26312.83

18810

205261.22

Total

Table 1f: Monthly Operation cost without

Balance Policy

Comparison
From Table 1d and 1f, the table below is created in order to compare the cost regarding balance
policy.
Operation
cost with
Operation cost
Percent
Balance
without Balance
of
Month
Polivicy
Policy
savings
January
19209.9767
15357.9533
20.1%
February
19927.85
15882.9
20.3%
March
20583.2344
16473.1533
20.0%
April
21270.21
17248.13
18.9%
May
19651.2511
15676.3867
20.2%
June
20032.944
15981.1473
20.2%
July
19411.3729
15406.216
20.6%
August
20270.8133
16192.08
20.1%
September
17690.5911
13781.2533
22.1%
October
19923.4767
15939.7667
20.0%
November
25181.7167
21009.4067
16.6%
December
30891.8089
26312.8267
14.8%
Total
254045.246
205261.22
19.2%
Total Savings
48784.0258
19.2%
Table 1g Total Operation Costs Comparison regarding
Balance Policy
Total
Dema
nd
1425
1475
1525
1575
1450
1480
1430
1500
1300
1475
1875
2300

Conclusion
After reviewing table 1g, it was determined that the most cost effective choice would be to
operate the facilities without balance. Where balance is defined as production levels are the
same. The findings indicate that the total cost of operating with balance is $254,045.24 and the
total without balance being $205,261.22. This would mean a savings of $48,784.02. Thus, a
choice to choosing a production system without balance policy would be the best way of
reaching MCS Corporations objective of lowering its cost across the board unless the cost of
restructuring is higher than $48,784.02, which is approximately 19.2% of total operation cost of
balance operation.

Installation of FastProd
Defining The Problem
As mentioned before, MCS Corporation was challenged with the question of whether or not
to install a new system called FastProd. This system was designed not only to replace the
existing production line, but it was designed to turn out DinoBalls at a faster rate and conserve
more energy. Although the choice to install this new system seems trivial, the decision was
complicated by the requirement that MCS Corporation had to purchase a new system for each of
their factories in order for any deal to occur.
In order to make any decisions and have more leverage during a negotiation, MCS
Corporation requested that their reserve price be calculated. The reserve price was the
maximum amount that MCS Corporation was willing to pay for a certain type of contract. Below
are the series of steps used to calculate and the reserve prices of the two types of systems.
Analysis
We took similar approach as we did with the removal of policy problem. The operation costs were
calculated using Excel Solver. All the production characteristics were changed to FastProd
characteristics. An example of this is shown in the table below.

Troy, NY
Prod Line
1
Prod Line
2
Prod Line
3
Newark,
NJ
Prod Line
1
Prod Line
2
Prod Line
3
Harrisbur
g, PA
Prod Line
1
Prod Line
2
Prod Line
3

Energy
(KW)/h
our

Ener
gy
Cost/
Hr

300

0.15

Decisi
on
Variab
les
(Hrs)
31.944
444

300

300

300

0.18

31.944
444

160

300

300

300

0.09

31.944
444

160

300

300

Units/h
our

Time
Limit(
Hrs)

Cost
1341.666
160
667
1341.666
667
1341.666
667
Total No. of
Products:

No. of
Produc
ts
255.555
556
255.555
556
255.555 Dema
556 nd
766.666
766.6
667
667

1341.666
667
1341.666
667
1341.666
667
Total No. of
Products:

255.555
556
255.555
556
255.555 Dema
556 nd
766.666
766.6
667
667

1341.666
667
1341.666
667
1341.666
667

255.555
556
255.555
556
255.555 Dema
556 nd

Total No. of
766.666
766.6
Products:
667
667
Total
cost
12075
Total Supply
2300
Total Demand
2300
Table 2a: Sample of Fast Production Cost Calculation for Balance Policy
Operation for December

To get an understanding of how much MCS Corporation was willing to pay, the cost of operating
the previous system for three years with balance and without balance was calculated and
compared to the cost of operating the FastProd with balance and without balance. The table
below shows our findings.

Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
3-year Total
3 Year
Difference

Normal
Operation
cost with
Balance
Policy
19209.97667
19927.85
20583.23444
21270.21
19651.25111
20032.944
19411.37289
20270.81333
17690.59111
19923.47667
25181.71667
30891.80889
254045.2458
762135.7373

FastProd
Operation
cost with
Balance
Policy
8699.81
9048.905556
9335.512222
9653.71
8956.695556
9117.121778
8864.328444
9207.48
8102.368889
9044.532222
11352.55
13928.03111
115311.0458
345933.1373

Normal
Operation
cost without
Balance
Policy
15357.95333
15882.9
16473.15333
17248.13
15676.38667
15981.14733
15406.216
16192.08
13781.25333
15939.76667
21009.40667
26312.82667
205261.22
615783.66

FastProd
Operation
cost with
Balance Policy
6728.808333
6971.245
7142.821667
7365.918333
6881.536667
6984.492
6713.108667
7031.246667
6156.336667
6959.958333
8709.691667
10535.94
88181.104
264543.312

416202.6
351240.348
Table 2 Operation Cost Comparison Table

In order to determine the reserve price, the production costs (for normal operation with
balancing, FastProd with balancing, normal operation without balancing and FastProd without
balancing) were calculated by summing the monthly rate for a 12 month period, with numbers at
the top of the column representing January and the bottom being December. This then was
multiplied by three as the company requested a three year period to be analyzed. Then the
difference was taken of the respective systems and their new counterparts to determine the
reserve price of a system balanced and unbalanced.

Conclusion
In this specific situation, MCS Corporation did not request a specific decision to be made.
Instead, they asked to find the reserve price that represents the maximum price they were
willing to pay for a certain type of contract. The reserve price for a system that uses balancing
was $416,202.60 and the reserve price for a system without balancing amounted to
$351,240.35. Based solely off these numbers, MCS Corporation would have to pay more money
for a system that uses balancing than a system that doesnt.

Implementing the Green Initiative

Defining the Problem
Following the ever growing trend of going green and the desire to be in compliance with future
government restrictions, MCS Corporation desired to reduce their monthly combustion
emissions to less than or equal to 10 metric tons across its facilities. To do this, they are looking
into purchasing solar panels that would have a life cycle of five years and allow the company to
receive a credit of .2 metric tons of emissions monthly for every panel installed. The panels
would be outfitted at certain locations and would produce energy for 1000 KW hours. Each panel
cost $18000. In addition, MCS Corporation can purchase carbon credits to offset emissions over
their threshold. So with that information, MCS Corporation would like to know how many solar
panels to purchase and how many carbon credits they should purchase at a specific price for
carbon credit.
Analysis
The analysis will be done separately for the two cases: balance splitting policy and optimal
splitting
Balance Splitting Policy
First, we calculated the total amount of carbon credit needed for each month and the number of
solar panels and their optimal locations. At this stage, the price of a carbon credit is unknown so
we temporarily assumed carbon credit purchase does not exist for calculation purposes.
We use the same table that we used for problem 1(removal of policy). To this table, we added
two variable columns: emissions per products and total emissions. A solar panel table is also
added to calculate the cost of solar panels and how to locate solar panel placement so that the
cost is minimal. An example of our calculation (for November) is in table 3a on the following
page.
Parameter explanation:

Total Emission= emission per product X # products. This gives the amount of emission of
each production line. The total emission of the whole company was also calculated as the
sum of all emission.
# solar panels: the number of solar panels are placed at a particular factory determined
by Excel Solver
Cost/month: Cost of having an extra solar panel. Each solar panel cost $18,000 over five
years which is an equivalent of $300/month
KWh/Unit: each solar panel provides its factory 1000 kWh of free energy. The total KWh is
the total amount of free energy each factory gets.
Total C credits: .2 X # solar panels. Total carbon credit that a factory gets for installing
solar panels.
Energy cost save = total KWh X energy cost (KW) per hour. The amount of money each
factory saves due to free energy provided by solar panels. This has to be smaller than the
sum of production cost of that factory.

Emission - solar carbon credits= total emission - total C credit. This number has to be
lower than 10 (metric tons) in order to meet the Green Initiative requirement.
Solar Cost = # solar panels X cost/month. The total cost of installing all solar panels in
that month.
Total cost = sum (cost) + solar cost - sum (energy cost save). The total cost of production.
All other parameters are explained previously in removal of policy problem.
Excel Solver is set to minimize to total tost and returns tecision tariables of tours of each
factory run and amount of solar panels each factory installed.

The results of this calculation are summarized in the table below.

# solar
panels
Troy, NY
Newark, NJ

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0
2

0
4

0
6

0
8

0
3

0
4

0
3

0
5

0
0

0
4

0
19

0
34

Harrisburg,
PA
Cost w solar

1823
1
C credit
0.37
needed
45
Table 3b Solar panels

1910 1997
3
4
0.73 1.10
85
26
analysis

2084
5
1.46
66

1866
7
0.55
65

1916
6
0.77
49

1841
5
0.41
09

1953
8
0.92
06

164
13
0

1910
3
0.73
85

2595
3
3.65
07

3311
9
6.74
49

We realize that no matter how many solar panels MCS Corporation need, they will locate them at
Newark, NJ for optimal cost. Hence, we know that the extra cost that each solar panel brings is
300- 1000(.18) = $120/month or $1440/year (because each solar panels cost $300 but save
1000 KWh at the energy cost of .18/KWh in Newark).
Next, we do the analysis to help MCS decide the number of panels to buy depending on price.
The algorithm: we increase price of carbon credit from $0/carbon credit until the extra cost of
buying all carbon credit is equal or higher than the extra cost of buying all carbon credit and one
solar panel. We keep repeating the process for n amount of solar panels (i.e. we increase price of
carbon credit until the extra cost of buying all carbon credit and n solar panels is equal or higher
than the extra cost of buying all carbon credit and n+1 solar panels). The reason that this
algorithm works is that, as the price of carbon credit increases, our demand for carbon credit
purchase decreases and our demand for solar panels increases. The table below shows the
calculation. Case 1 represents the decision and cost when MCS buys n solar panels, case 2
represents the decision and cost when MCS buys n+1 solar panels.
The Excel Solver will try to maximize C credit price from 0 until the total extra cost of case 1
equal or barely surpasses the cost of case 2. The results below can be interpreted as if a carbon
credit price is $654.55 or below it is optimal for MCS to buy 0 solar panels and only purchase
Carbon credit to meet their green initiative.

Parameter Explanation:

C credit price: the price for one carbon credit. This is the same for both cases. This value is
increased from 0 until the total extra cost 1 >= total extra cost 2.
# solar panels: the number of solar panels purchased for each case.
Solar panels extra cost = # solar panels X $1440 because each solar panels cost extra
$1440/year.

C credit needed: the total amount of carbon credit that goes over 10 metric ton limit and
need to be compensated by either solar panels or Carbon credit purchase
C credit - solar credit = C credit needed - 0.2 X # solar panels. The amount of Carbon
credits left after using solar panels carbon credit aka the carbon credit needed to be
purchase
C credit purchase cost = C credit price X (C credit - solar credit). The cost each month to
purchase carbon credit. This cost is not applied for months that have their (C credit - solar
credit) value smaller or equal to 0, such as September in this example.
Total extra cost = Solar panels extra cost + C credit purchase cost.

From the analysis, the result table below is created. The table shows the range of Carbon credit
price and the optimal number of solar panels should be purchased (e.g. If the price of carbon
credit is $1000(which is between $991.71 and $1564.27, then it is optimal for MCS to buy exactly
four solar panels). When the price is above $9941.19, it is simply not beneficial for MCS to buy
any Carbon credits and they should install all 34 solar panels. At prices such as $3600 or $7200,
there are multiple optimal solutions for how many solar panels should be bought. It depends on
the companys preferences and/or unlisted cost (cost of installation, cost of maintenance) to
decide.

Carbon credit
Price (per carbon
credit)
From
To
654.545
0
45
654.545 662.212
45
74
662.212 814.725
74
41
814.725 991.707
41
71
991.707 1564.27
71
28
1564.27 2049.63
28
3
2049.63
3
2400
3086.26
2400
54
3086.26
54
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
5744.04
3600
43
5744.04
43
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200

Optimal
number
of solar
panels
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

7200
7200
9941.19
7200
15
Above 9941.192

31
32
33
34

Table 3d

Optimal Splitting
We apply a similar method for optimal splitting. First, we calculated the total amount of carbon
credit needed for each month and the number of solar panels and their optimal locations. The
results are shown below.
# solar
panels
Troy, NY
Newark, NJ

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

Harrisburg
, PA

Carbon
Credit

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

7
0

22
0

0
1.37
6
968.
99

0
4.39
82

Cost difference

Nov

Dec

3300

Table 3e
We noticed that November and December are the only two months that exceed the Carbon limit.
We also realized that MCS Corporation will need to locate solar panels at Troy, NY for optimal
cost. Hence, we know that the extra cost that each solar panels bring is 300- 1000(.15) =
$150/month or $1800/year (because each solar panels cost $300 but save 1000 KWh at the
energy cost of .15/KWh in Troy).
Next, we do the analysis to help MCS decide on the number of panels to buy depending on price.
We apply the same algorithm that we used for balance splitting. However, for the optimal
splitting, we add a constraint that the amount of energy saves always has to be smaller than the
amount of energy used at that factory. This constraint did not appear on the analysis for balance
splitting because it is always true for that scenario.
An example of the example is shown on the next page. The parameter stays the same except:

Solar panels purchase cost = 3600 X solar panels. The cost of purchasing solar panels is
used instead of extra cost (purchase cost-energy saving cost).
Total energy used in Troy: the maximum amount of energy that can be saved using solar
panels.
Energy saving cost = Min (total energy used in Troy X .15, # solar panels X 150).
Constraint that the amount of energy saves always smaller than the amount of energy
used at that factory.
Total cost = solar panels purchase cost + C credit purchase cost - energy saving cost

Decision
variable
Solar
panels
purchas
e cost(1
yr)
C credit
needed
C credit
- solar
credit(ca
se 1)
C credit
- solar
credit(ca
se 2)
C credit
purchas
e cost 1
C credit
purchas
e cost 2
Total
Energy
used in
Troy
Energy
saving
cost(cas
e 1)
Energy
saving
cost(cas
e 2)
Objectiv
e
function

Case 1
C
#
credi solar
t
pane
price
ls
113
21
51

Case 2
C
#
credi solar
t
pane
price
ls
1135
22
1

756
00

7920
0

Total

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

1.37
6

4.39
82

-4.2

-4.2

-4.2

-4.2

-4.2

-4.2

-4.2

-4.2

-4.2

-4.2

2.82
4

0.19
82

-4.4

-4.4

-4.4

-4.4

-4.4

-4.4

-4.4

-4.4

-4.4

-4.4

3.02
4

0.00
2

2250

2250

223
06

2230
6

263
61

283
89

2027
8

223
06

1865
6

2433
3

8111
.1

243
33

547
50

8922
2

315
0

3150

315
0

315
0

3041
.7

315
0

2798
.3

3150

1216
.7

315
0

315
0

3150

3540
7

330
0

3300

330
0

330
0

3041
.7

330
0

2798
.3

3300

1216
.7

330
0

330
0

3300

3675
7

113
51
Total cost
1
42443.3333
2

Total cost
2
42443.3333
2

Table 3f Carbon Purchase Price vs. Solar panels analysis

From the analysis, the result table below is created. The table shows that the range of Carbon
credit price and the optimal number of solar panels should be purchased. When the price is
above $11350.9, it is simply not beneficial for MCS to buy any Carbon credits and they should
install all 22 solar panels. At prices such as $4500 or $9750, there are multiple optimal solutions

for how many solar panels should be bought. It depends on the company preferences and/or
unlisted costs (cost of installation, cost of maintenance) to decide.

Carbon credit
Price (per
carbon credit)
From
To
0
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
4787.2
4500
34
4787.2
34
9000
9666.6
9000
67
9666.6
67
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
10008.
9750
33
10008.
33
10500
11041.
10500
67
11041. 11350.
67
9
Above 11350.9

Optimal
number
of solar
panels
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Conclusion

Balance Splitting
Carbon credit
Price (per carbon
credit)
From
To
654.545
0
45
654.545 662.212
45
74
662.212 814.725
74
41
814.725 991.707
41
71
991.707 1564.27
71
28
1564.27 2049.63
28
3
2049.63
3
2400
3086.26
2400
54
3086.26
54
3600

Optimal
number
of solar
panels

3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
5744.04
3600
43
5744.04
43
7200

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Optimal Splitting
Optimal
Carbon credit
number
Price (per
of solar
carbon credit)
panels
From
To
0

4500

4500

4500

4500

4500

4500
4787.2
4500
34
4787.2
34
9000
9666.6
9000
67
9666.6
67
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
9750
10008.
9750
33
10008.
33
10500
11041.
10500
67
11041. 11350.
67
9

6
7
8

18
19

7200

20

7200

21

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
7200
9941.19
7200
15
Above 9941.192

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Above 11350.9

22

33
34

Table 3h
After a thorough analysis of the data, it was determined that the decision to buy more carbon
credit would have to be made depending on the current situation at the time. With that being
said, the research showed that price ranges could be made (reference carbon credit price ranges
in table 3h) and then could dictate how many solar panels the company should install.
Referencing table 3h, the company could look at the price of the current carbon credit and then
install the optimal choice of solar panels, followed by purchasing more carbon credits if need be.
This solution to the problem would allow the MCS Corporation the ability to estimate how many
carbon credits and solar panels to buy in the future.