Comparative analysis of five widely-used multi-criteria decision-making methods to evaluate clean energy technologies

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Effatpanah, Saeed Khojaste
dc.contributor.author Ahmadi, Mohammad Hossein
dc.contributor.author Aungkulanon, Pasura
dc.contributor.author Maleki, Akbar
dc.contributor.author Sadeghzadeh, Milad
dc.contributor.author Sharifpur, Mohsen
dc.contributor.author Chen, Lingen
dc.date.accessioned 2023-03-02T05:21:58Z
dc.date.available 2023-03-02T05:21:58Z
dc.date.issued 2022-01-26
dc.description.abstract Over the last decade, the total primary energy consumption has increased from479 1015 BTU in 2010 to 528 1015 BTU in 2020. To address this ever-increasing energy demand, as well as prevent environmental pollution, clean energies are presented as a potential solution. In this regard, evaluating and selecting the most appropriate clean energy solution for a specific area is of particular importance. Therefore, in this study, a comparative analysis in Jiangsu province in China was performed by describing and implementing five prominent multi-criteria decision-making methods in the field of energy technology selection, including SAW, TOPSIS, ELECTRE, VIKOR, and COPRAS. The decision problem here consists of four clean energy options, including solar photovoltaic, wind, nuclear, and biomass, which have been evaluated by twelve basic and important criteria for ranking clean energy options. The obtained results, according to all five MCDM methods, indicate that solar photovoltaic was the optimal option in this study, followed by wind energy. The nuclear and biomass options placed third and fourth, respectively, except in the ELECTRE method ranking, in which both options scored the same and thus neither was superior. Finally, by conducting a comprehensive two-stage sensitivity analysis, in the first stage, it was found that changes in the weights of land use and water consumption criteria had the greatest impact on the performance of options, among which biomass and nuclear showed high sensitivity to variations in criteria weights. In the second stage, by defining five scenarios, the ranking of options was evaluated from different aspects so that the decision maker/organization would be able to make appropriate decisions in different situations. en_US
dc.description.department Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering en_US
dc.description.librarian am2023 en_US
dc.description.uri https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability en_US
dc.identifier.citation Effatpanah, S.K.; Ahmadi, M.H.; Aungkulanon, P.; Maleki, A.; Sadeghzadeh, M.; Sharifpur, M.; Chen, L. Comparative Analysis of Five Widely-Used Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Evaluate Clean Energy Technologies: A Case Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1403. https://DOI.org/10.3390/su14031403. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 2071-1050 (online)
dc.identifier.other 10.3390/su14031403
dc.identifier.uri https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/89911
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher MDPI en_US
dc.rights © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. en_US
dc.subject Clean energy en_US
dc.subject Multi-criteria decision-making en_US
dc.subject Comparative analysis en_US
dc.subject Sensitivity analysis en_US
dc.subject Jiangsu province en_US
dc.subject Simple additive weighting (SAW) en_US
dc.subject Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) en_US
dc.subject Elimination et choix traduisant la realité (ELECTRE) en_US
dc.subject Viekriterijumsko kompromisno rangiranje (VIKOR) en_US
dc.subject Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE) en_US
dc.subject Complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) en_US
dc.subject Step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) en_US
dc.title Comparative analysis of five widely-used multi-criteria decision-making methods to evaluate clean energy technologies en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record