IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v38y2010i1p161-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear technology using the analytic hierarchy process: A Korean case

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Deok Joo
  • Hwang, Jooho

Abstract

The Korean government plans to increase strategically focused R&D investment in some promising nuclear technology areas to create export opportunities of technology in a global nuclear market. The purpose of this paper is to present a decision support process for selecting promising nuclear technology with the perspective of exportability by using the AHP based on extensive data gathered from nuclear experts in Korea. In this study, the decision criteria for evaluating the export competitiveness of nuclear technologies were determined, and a hierarchical structure for the decision-making process was systematically developed. Subsequently relative weights of decision criteria were derived using AHP methodology and the export competitiveness of nuclear technology alternatives was quantified to prioritize them. We discuss the implications of our results with a viewpoint toward national nuclear technology policy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:1:p:161-167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(09)00653-3
    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. Lee, Deok Ki & Park, Sang Yong & Park, Soo Uk, 2007. "Development of assessment model for demand-side management investment programs in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5585-5590, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Lee, Seong Kon & Mogi, Gento & Kim, Jong Wook, 2008. "The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: The AHP approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1284-1291, April.
    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. Liang, Zhihong & Yang, Kun & Sun, Yaowei & Yuan, Jiahai & Zhang, Hongwei & Zhang, Zhizheng, 2006. "Decision support for choice optimal power generation projects: Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model based on the electricity market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3359-3364, November.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chuc Anh Tu & Tapan Sarker & Ehsan Rasoulinezhad, 2020. "Factors Influencing the Green Bond Market Expansion: Evidence from a Multi-Dimensional Analysis," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Noh, Heeyong & Song, Young-Keun & Lee, Sungjoo, 2016. "Identifying emerging core technologies for the future: Case study of patents published by leading telecommunication organizations," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 956-970.
    3. 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).
    4. Chung, Yanghon & Hong, Sungjun & Kim, Jongwook, 2014. "Which of the technologies for producing hydrogen is the most prospective in Korea?: Evaluating the competitive priority of those in near-, mid-, and long-term," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 115-125.
    5. Lee, Deok-Joo, 2018. "A multi-criteria approach for prioritizing advanced public transport modes (APTM) considering urban types in Korea," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 148-161.
    6. Shiyi Chen & Wei Chen & Ahsanullah Soomro & Lijuan Luo & Wenguo Xiang, 2020. "Multi-objective economic emission dispatch of thermal power plants based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(5), pages 785-812, August.
    7. 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.

    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. Ahadi, Pedram & Fakhrabadi, Farbod & Pourshaghaghy, Alireza & Kowsary, Farshad, 2023. "Optimal site selection for a solar power plant in Iran via the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Tsita, Katerina G. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2013. "Evaluation of next generation biomass derived fuels for the transport sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 443-455.
    9. 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.
    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. Kahraman, Cengiz & Kaya, İhsan & Cebi, Selcuk, 2009. "A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1603-1616.
    12. Daim, Tugrul & Cowan, Kelly, 2010. "Assessing renewable energy portfolio futures with multiple perspectives: The case of the northwest US," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 255-263.
    13. Wang, Bing & Kocaoglu, Dundar F. & Daim, Tugrul U. & Yang, Jiting, 2010. "A decision model for energy resource selection in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7130-7141, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Ren, Hongbo & Gao, Weijun & Zhou, Weisheng & Nakagami, Ken'ichi, 2009. "Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5484-5493, December.
    16. Manley, Dawn K. & Hines, Valerie A. & Jordan, Matthew W. & Stoltz, Ronald E., 2013. "A survey of energy policy priorities in the United States: Energy supply security, economics, and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 687-696.
    17. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    18. Silva, Diego & Nakata, Toshihiko, 2009. "Multi-objective assessment of rural electrification in remote areas with poverty considerations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3096-3108, August.
    19. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    20. Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Huang, Shuangfa & Vazquez-Brust, Diego, 2020. "Evaluating the factors that influence blockchain adoption in the freight logistics industry," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    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:38:y:2010:i:1:p:161-167. 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.