IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v36y2008i3p1074-1089.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process

Author

Listed:
  • Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I.
  • Pilavachi, Petros A.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate 10 types of power plants available at present including fossil fuel, nuclear as well as renewable-energy-based power plants, with regard to their overall impact on the living standard of local communities. Both positive and negative impacts of power plant operation are considered using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The current study covers the set of criteria weights considered typical for many local communities in many developed countries. The results presented here are illustrative only and user-defined weighting is required to make this study valuable for a specific group of users. A sensitivity analysis examines the most important weight variations, thus giving an overall view of the problem evaluation to every decision maker. Regardless of criteria weight variations, the five types of renewable energy power plant rank in the first five positions. Nuclear plants are in the sixth position when priority is given to quality of life and last when socioeconomic aspects are valued more important. Natural gas, oil and coal/lignite power plants rank between sixth and tenth position having slightly better ranking under priority to socioeconomic aspects.

Suggested Citation

  • Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2008. "Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1074-1089, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:3:p:1074-1089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(07)00537-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Kablan, M. M., 2004. "Decision support for energy conservation promotion:: an analytic hierarchy process approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1151-1158, July.
    2. Kaldellis, J. K. & Vlachou, D. S. & Korbakis, G., 2005. "Techno-economic evaluation of small hydro power plants in Greece: a complete sensitivity analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(15), pages 1969-1985, October.
    3. Karami, Ezatollah, 2006. "Appropriateness of farmers' adoption of irrigation methods: The application of the AHP model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 101-119, January.
    4. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Georgopoulou, E. & Lalas, D. & Papagiannakis, L., 1997. "A multicriteria decision aid approach for energy planning problems: The case of renewable energy option," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 38-54, November.
    6. Wedley, William C., 1990. "Combining qualitative and quantitative factors--an analytic hierarchy approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 57-64.
    7. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    8. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1995. "Energy resource allocation incorporating qualitative and quantitative criteria: An integrated model using goal programming and AHP," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 197-218, September.
    9. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2007. "Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4027-4038, August.
    10. Hung, Ming-Lung & Yang, Wan-Fa & Ma, Hwong-Wen & Yang, Ya-Mei, 2006. "A novel multiobjective programming approach dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for environmental management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 584-593, April.
    11. Kaldellis, J.K. & Kavadias, K.A., 2007. "Cost-benefit analysis of remote hybrid wind-diesel power stations: Case study Aegean Sea islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1525-1538, March.
    12. Wang, Ling & Chu, Jian & Wu, Jun, 2007. "Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 151-163, May.
    13. Beccali, M. & Cellura, M. & Mistretta, M., 2003. "Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 2063-2087.
    14. 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.
    15. Elkarmi, Fawwaz & Mustafa, Isam, 1993. "Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in Jordan : Analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 978-984, September.
    16. Heller, Martin C & Keoleian, Gregory A & Mann, Margaret K & Volk, Timothy A, 2004. "Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7), pages 1023-1042.
    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. 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.
    2. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    3. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 778-787, March.
    4. Jha, Shibani K. & Puppala, Harish, 2017. "Prospects of renewable energy sources in India: Prioritization of alternative sources in terms of Energy Index," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 116-127.
    5. 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.
    6. Mohamed Ali Elleuch & Marwa Mallek & Ahmed Frikha & Wafik Hachicha & Awad M. Aljuaid & Murad Andejany, 2021. "Solving a Multiple User Energy Source Selection Problem Using a Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Lee, Deok Joo & Hwang, Jooho, 2010. "Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear technology using the analytic hierarchy process: A Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 161-167, January.
    8. Kayakutlu, Gulgun & Daim, Tugrul & Kunt, Meltem & Altay, Ayca & Suharto, Yulianto, 2017. "Scenarios for regional waste management," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1323-1335.
    9. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    10. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    11. 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).
    12. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2007. "Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4027-4038, August.
    13. Sola, Antonio Vanderley Herrero & Mota, Caroline Maria de Miranda & Kovaleski, João Luiz, 2011. "A model for improving energy efficiency in industrial motor system using multicriteria analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3645-3654, June.
    14. Ahmad, Salman & Tahar, Razman Mat, 2014. "Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 458-466.
    15. Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid & Madlener, Reinhard & Omann, Ines, 2009. "Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1063-1074, September.
    16. Janda, Karel & Tan, Tianhao, 2017. "Integrated Multi-Attribute Value and Analytic Hierarchy Process Model of Sustainable Energy Development in Central Europe and East Asia," MPRA Paper 76716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Shen, Yung-Chi & Lin, Grace T.R. & Li, Kuang-Pin & Yuan, Benjamin J.C., 2010. "An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4604-4616, August.
    18. Cavallaro, Fausto, 2010. "A comparative assessment of thin-film photovoltaic production processes using the ELECTRE III method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 463-474, January.
    19. Xu, Gang & Yang, Yong-ping & Lu, Shi-yuan & Li, Le & Song, Xiaona, 2011. "Comprehensive evaluation of coal-fired power plants based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2343-2351, May.
    20. Songrui Li & Yitang Hu, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Framework to Evaluate the Sustainability of Renewable Energy: A 2-Tuple Linguistic Grey Relation Model from the Perspective of the Prospect Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:3:p:1074-1089. 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/locate/enpol .

    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.