IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v65y2014icp115-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Chung, Yanghon
  • Hong, Sungjun
  • Kim, Jongwook

Abstract

In order to evaluate the alternative technologies for producing hydrogen in Korea stage by stage, we searched for impact factors, calculated the weights of them and evaluated the hydrogen production technologies in Korea using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. The AHP is a useful method for resolving multi-criteria decision making problems. We investigated 4 criteria (technical characteristics, economic efficiency, marketability, internal capability) and 11 sub-criteria (scale, efficiency, key barriers, carbon dioxide reduction, current production cost, expected production cost in 2017, feed-stock, technical maturity, R&D competitive level, technology gap with competing agencies, and domestic infrastructure). And the alternatives are natural gas reforming technology, coal gasification technology, biomass gasification technology, water electrolysis technology, thermochemical production technology, photoelectrochemical hydrogen production technology, and biological hydrogen production technology. In order to maintain the objectivity of the analysis result and observe the difference among the groups, the questionnaire survey targets were divided into the R&D professional group and policy professional group. This result of study is expected to serve as important basic information in the establishment of a national R&D strategy to prepare for the imminent hydrogen economy era.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:65:y:2014:i:c:p:115-125
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513010422
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.020?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    4. James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1992. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 645-654, May.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L., 1986. "Exploring optimization through hierarchies and ratio scales," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 355-360.
    6. 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.
    7. Lee, Seong Kon & Yoon, Yong Jin & Kim, Jong Wook, 2007. "A study on making a long-term improvement in the national energy efficiency and GHG control plans by the AHP approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2862-2868, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    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. Muhammad Asyraf Azni & Rasyikah Md Khalid, 2021. "Hydrogen Fuel Cell Legal Framework in the United States, Germany, and South Korea—A Model for a Regulation in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Lim, Juin Yau & How, Bing Shen & Rhee, Gahee & Hwangbo, Soonho & Yoo, Chang Kyoo, 2020. "Transitioning of localized renewable energy system towards sustainable hydrogen development planning: P-graph approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    3. Wenhui Zhao & Jibin Ma & Zhanyang Wang & Youting Li & Weishi Zhang, 2022. "Potential Hydrogen Market: Value-Added Services Increase Economic Efficiency for Hydrogen Energy Suppliers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Lim, Juin Yau & Safder, Usman & How, Bing Shen & Ifaei, Pouya & Yoo, Chang Kyoo, 2021. "Nationwide sustainable renewable energy and Power-to-X deployment planning in South Korea assisted with forecasting model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    5. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Buyuan & Tao, Yao & Li, Xinying & Chu, Han & Liu, Fangtong, 2019. "Sustainability performance assessment of wind power coupling hydrogen storage projects using a hybrid evaluation technique based on interval type-2 fuzzy set," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1176-1190.
    6. Jongseok Seo & Lidziya Lysiankova & Young-Seok Ock & Dongphil Chun, 2017. "Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    7. Muhammad Ansori Nasution & Ayu Wulandari & Tofael Ahamed & Ryozo Noguchi, 2020. "Alternative POME Treatment Technology in the Implementation of Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO), and Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) Standards Using LCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, 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. Lee, Seong Kon & Mogi, Gento & Hui, K.S., 2013. "A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)/data envelopment analysis (DEA) hybrid model for efficiently allocating energy R&D resources: In the case of energy technologies against high oil prices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 347-355.
    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. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    5. Rihab Khemiri & Khaoula Elbedoui-Maktouf & Bernard Grabot & Belhassen Zouari, 2017. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for managing performance and risk in integrated procurement-production planning," Post-Print hal-01758604, HAL.
    6. Mohammad Rahman & Lena Jaumann & Nils Lerche & Fabian Renatus & Ann Buchs & Rudolf Gade & Jutta Geldermann & Martin Sauter, 2015. "Selection of the Best Inland Waterway Structure: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2733-2749, June.
    7. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Akiko Iimura & Jeffrey Scott Cross, 2016. "Influence of Safety Risk Perception on Post-Fukushima Generation Mix and its Policy Implications in Japan," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 518-532, September.
    10. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    11. 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.
    12. Salvatore Greco & Alessio Ishizaka & Menelaos Tasiou & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2019. "On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 61-94, January.
    13. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    14. G Özerol & E Karasakal, 2008. "Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    15. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    16. Daniel R. Georgiadis & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2013. "Using multi criteria decision making in analysis of alternatives for selection of enabling technology," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 287-303, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Beck, Patrick & Hofmann, Erik, 2012. "Multiple criteria decision making in supply chain management – Currently available methods and possibilities for future research," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(2), pages 180-213.
    19. Bilbao-Terol, Amelia & Arenas-Parra, Mar & Cañal-Fernández, Verónica & Antomil-Ibias, José, 2014. "Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-17.
    20. Vidal Vieira, José Geraldo & Ramos Toso, Milton & da Silva, João Eduardo Azevedo Ramos & Cabral Ribeiro, Priscilla Cristina, 2017. "An AHP-based framework for logistics operations in distribution centres," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 246-259.

    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:65:y:2014:i:c:p:115-125. 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.