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

dc.contributor.authorEffatpanah, Saeed Khojaste
dc.contributor.authorAhmadi, Mohammad Hossein
dc.contributor.authorAungkulanon, Pasura
dc.contributor.authorMaleki, Akbar
dc.contributor.authorSadeghzadeh, Milad
dc.contributor.authorSharifpur, Mohsen
dc.contributor.authorChen, Lingen
dc.contributor.emailmohsen.sharifpur@up.ac.zaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-02T05:21:58Z
dc.date.available2023-03-02T05:21:58Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-26
dc.description.abstractOver 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.departmentMechanical and Aeronautical Engineeringen_US
dc.description.librarianam2023en_US
dc.description.librarianmi2025en
dc.description.sdgSDG-04: Quality educationen
dc.description.sdgSDG-07: Affordable and clean energyen
dc.description.sdgSDG-09: Industry, innovation and infrastructureen
dc.description.sdgSDG-13: Climate actionen
dc.description.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainabilityen_US
dc.identifier.citationEffatpanah, 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.issn2071-1050 (online)
dc.identifier.other10.3390/su14031403
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/89911
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMDPIen_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.subjectClean energyen_US
dc.subjectMulti-criteria decision-makingen_US
dc.subjectComparative analysisen_US
dc.subjectSensitivity analysisen_US
dc.subjectJiangsu provinceen_US
dc.subjectSimple additive weighting (SAW)en_US
dc.subjectTechnique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)en_US
dc.subjectElimination et choix traduisant la realité (ELECTRE)en_US
dc.subjectViekriterijumsko kompromisno rangiranje (VIKOR)en_US
dc.subjectPreference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (PROMETHEE)en_US
dc.subjectComplex proportional assessment (COPRAS)en_US
dc.subjectStep-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA)en_US
dc.subject.otherEngineering, built environment and information technology articles SDG-04
dc.subject.otherSDG-04: Quality education
dc.subject.otherEngineering, built environment and information technology articles SDG-07
dc.subject.otherSDG-07: Affordable and clean energy
dc.subject.otherEngineering, built environment and information technology articles SDG-09
dc.subject.otherSDG-09: Industry, innovation and infrastructure
dc.subject.otherEngineering, built environment and information technology articles SDG-13
dc.subject.otherSDG-13: Climate action
dc.titleComparative analysis of five widely-used multi-criteria decision-making methods to evaluate clean energy technologiesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Effatpanah_Comparative_2022.pdf
Size:
4.56 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: