IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v185y2017ip1p862-871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Baležentis, Tomas
  • Streimikiene, Dalia

Abstract

Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are omnipresent in energy policy analysis. Even though IAMs can successfully handle uncertainty pertinent to energy planning problems, they render multiple variables as outputs of the modelling. Therefore, policy makers are faced with multiple energy development scenarios and goals. Specifically, technical, environmental, and economic aspects are represented by multiple criteria, which, in turn, are related to conflicting objectives. Preferences of decision makers need to be taken into account in order to facilitate effective energy planning. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) tools are relevant in aggregating diverse information and thus comparing alternative energy planning options. The paper aims at ranking European Union (EU) energy development scenarios based on several IAMs with respect to multiple criteria. By doing so, we account for uncertainty surrounding policy priorities outside the IAM. In order to follow a sustainable approach, the ranking of policy options is based on EU energy policy priorities: energy efficiency improvements, increased use of renewables, reduction in and low mitigations costs of GHG emission. The ranking of scenarios is based on the estimates rendered by the two advanced IAMs relying on different approaches, namely TIAM and WITCH. The data are fed into the three MCDM techniques: the method of weighted aggregated sum/product assessment (WASPAS), the Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method, and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). As MCDM techniques allow assigning different importance to objectives, a sensitivity analysis is carried out to check the impact of perturbations in weights upon the final ranking. The rankings provided for the scenarios by different MCDM techniques diverge, first of all, due to the underlying assumptions of IAMs. Results of the analysis provide valuable insights in integrated application of both IAMs and MCDM models for developing energy policy scenarios and decision making in energy sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Baležentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia, 2017. "Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P1), pages 862-871.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:185:y:2017:i:p1:p:862-871
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916315306
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.085?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mateos, A. & Jimenez, A. & Rios-Insua, S., 2006. "Monte Carlo simulation techniques for group decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1842-1864, November.
    2. Bosetti, Valentina & Marangoni, Giacomo & Borgonovo, Emanuele & Diaz Anadon, Laura & Barron, Robert & McJeon, Haewon C. & Politis, Savvas & Friley, Paul, 2015. "Sensitivity to energy technology costs: A multi-model comparison analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 244-263.
    3. Kriegler, Elmar & Petermann, Nils & Krey, Volker & Schwanitz, Valeria Jana & Luderer, Gunnar & Ashina, Shuichi & Bosetti, Valentina & Eom, Jiyong & Kitous, Alban & Méjean, Aurélie & Paroussos, Leonida, 2015. "Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 45-61.
    4. Hannah Förster & Katja Schumacher & Enrica De Cian & Michael Hübler & Ilkka Keppo & Silvana Mima & Ronald D. Sands, 2013. "European Energy Efficiency And Decarbonization Strategies Beyond 2030 — A Sectoral Multi-Model Decomposition," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(supp0), pages 1-29.
    5. Lootsma, F. A. & Boonekamp, P. G. M. & Cooke, R. M. & Van Oostvoorn, F., 1990. "Choice of a long-term strategy for the national electricity supply via scenario analysis and multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 189-203, September.
    6. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    7. Jansen, Jaap C. & Seebregts, Ad J., 2010. "Long-term energy services security: What is it and how can it be measured and valued?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1654-1664, April.
    8. Baños, R. & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. & Montoya, F.G. & Gil, C. & Alcayde, A. & Gómez, J., 2011. "Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 1753-1766, May.
    9. Zhu, H. & Huang, W.W. & Huang, G.H., 2014. "Planning of regional energy systems: An inexact mixed-integer fractional programming model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 500-514.
    10. Labriet, Maryse & Kanudia, Amit & Loulou, Richard, 2012. "Climate mitigation under an uncertain technology future: A TIAM-World analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S3), pages 366-377.
    11. Lu, Hong-fang & Lin, Bin-le & Campbell, Daniel E. & Sagisaka, Masayuki & Ren, Hai, 2016. "Interactions among energy consumption, economic development and greenhouse gas emissions in Japan after World War II," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1060-1072.
    12. Antonio Jiménez & Alfonso Mateos & Sixto Ríos-Insua, 2005. "Monte Carlo Simulation Techniques in a Decision Support System for Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 109-130, March.
    13. Franco, Camilo & Bojesen, Mikkel & Hougaard, Jens Leth & Nielsen, Kurt, 2015. "A fuzzy approach to a multiple criteria and Geographical Information System for decision support on suitable locations for biogas plants," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 304-315.
    14. Huang, J.P. & Poh, K.L. & Ang, B.W., 1995. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 20(9), pages 843-855.
    15. Goumas, M. G. & Lygerou, V. A. & Papayannakis, L. E., 1999. "Computational methods for planning and evaluating geothermal energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 147-154, March.
    16. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    17. Anandarajah, Gabrial & Gambhir, Ajay, 2014. "India’s CO2 emission pathways to 2050: What role can renewables play?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 79-86.
    18. Diakoulaki, D. & Karangelis, F., 2007. "Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 716-727, May.
    19. Føyn, T. Helene Ystanes & Karlsson, Kenneth & Balyk, Olexandr & Grohnheit, Poul Erik, 2011. "A global renewable energy system: A modelling exercise in ETSAP/TIAM," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 526-534, February.
    20. Gracceva, Francesco & Zeniewski, Peter, 2013. "Exploring the uncertainty around potential shale gas development – A global energy system analysis based on TIAM (TIMES Integrated Assessment Model)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 443-457.
    21. Balezentiene, Ligita & Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas, 2013. "Fuzzy decision support methodology for sustainable energy crop selection," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 83-93.
    22. Georgiou, Dimitris & Mohammed, Essam Sh. & Rozakis, Stelios, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision making on the energy supply configuration of autonomous desalination units," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 459-467.
    23. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    24. Marcucci, Adriana & Fragkos, Panagiotis, 2015. "Drivers of regional decarbonization through 2100: A multi-model decomposition analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 111-124.
    25. Aras, Haydar & Erdoğmuş, Şenol & Koç, Eylem, 2004. "Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1383-1392.
    26. Hiremath, R.B. & Shikha, S. & Ravindranath, N.H., 2007. "Decentralized energy planning; modeling and application--a review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(5), pages 729-752, June.
    27. Gracceva, Francesco & Zeniewski, Peter, 2014. "A systemic approach to assessing energy security in a low-carbon EU energy system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 335-348.
    28. Brand, Bernhard & Missaoui, Rafik, 2014. "Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation mix scenarios in Tunisia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 251-261.
    29. Zhang, Shaohui & Worrell, Ernst & Crijns-Graus, Wina, 2015. "Synergy of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions of Chinese industries: A critical assessment of energy models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P2), pages 2436-2450.
    30. Abdolreza Yazdani-Chamzini & Mohammad Majid Fouladgar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & S. Hamzeh Haji Moini, 2013. "Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 957-978, November.
    31. Şengül, Ümran & Eren, Miraç & Eslamian Shiraz, Seyedhadi & Gezder, Volkan & Şengül, Ahmet Bilal, 2015. "Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 617-625.
    32. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    2. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.
    3. Chiranjib Bhowmik & Sumit Bhowmik & Amitava Ray, 2020. "Optimal green energy source selection: An eclectic decision," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(5), pages 842-859, August.
    4. Chiranjib Bhowmik & Sumit Bhowmik & Amitava Ray, 2021. "Selection of optimum green energy sources by considering environmental constructs and their technical criteria: a case study," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 13890-13918, September.
    5. Jamal, Taskin & Urmee, Tania & Shafiullah, G.M., 2020. "Planning of off-grid power supply systems in remote areas using multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    6. Wang, Q. & Poh, K.L., 2014. "A survey of integrated decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 691-702.
    7. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    8. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    9. Cavallaro, Fausto & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mardani, Abbas, 2019. "Assessment of concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies based on a modified intuitionistic fuzzy topsis and trigonometric entropy weights," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 258-270.
    10. Khishtandar, Soheila & Zandieh, Mostafa & Dorri, Behrouz, 2017. "A multi criteria decision making framework for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: The case of Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1130-1145.
    11. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    12. Dagoumas, Athanasios S. & Koltsaklis, Nikolaos E., 2019. "Review of models for integrating renewable energy in the generation expansion planning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1573-1587.
    13. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    14. Bilgili, Faik & Zarali, Fulya & Ilgün, Miraç Fatih & Dumrul, Cüneyt & Dumrul, Yasemin, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using ‌intuitionistic‌ ‌fuzzy‌-TOPSIS method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1443-1458.
    15. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    16. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    18. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    19. Rivero-Iglesias, Jose M. & Puente, Javier & Fernandez, Isabel & León, Omar, 2023. "Integrated model for the assessment of power generation alternatives through analytic hierarchy process and a fuzzy inference system. Case study of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 563-581.
    20. Hong-Gang Peng & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2017. "Cloud decision model for selecting sustainable energy crop based on linguistic intuitionistic information," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(15), pages 3316-3333, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:185:y:2017:i:p1:p:862-871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.