IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v207y2020ics036054422031344x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selection of wind turbines with multi-criteria decision making techniques involving neutrosophic numbers: A case from Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Supciller, Aliye Ayca
  • Toprak, Fatih

Abstract

Countries that supply the majority of their energy needs from fossil fuels are turning to new, renewable, and eco-friendly energy sources. Wind energy technology has been the most promising alternative to traditional energy systems. The aim of this case study was the selection of the best wind turbine for one of the leading companies in Turkey. First, the studies on wind turbines in the literature were reviewed. The criteria used in these studies were listed. Interviews were conducted with the experts from the company and 21 criteria and the turbine alternatives were determined. Because there are multiple criteria, and some of them conflict with each other, it has been preferable to use multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. The criteria were weighted by the SWARA method, which was not used in the previous turbine studies. The criterion weights of alternatives were given by experts using linguistic variable-defined neutrosophic numbers for the first time to select a wind turbine. TOPSIS and EDAS methods were used as the solution methods integrated with single valued neutrosophic numbers. The best wind turbine was selected with the assistance of the aggregation method of Borda.

Suggested Citation

  • Supciller, Aliye Ayca & Toprak, Fatih, 2020. "Selection of wind turbines with multi-criteria decision making techniques involving neutrosophic numbers: A case from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:207:y:2020:i:c:s036054422031344x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422031344X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118237?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. 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.
    2. Gamboa, Gonzalo & Munda, Giuseppe, 2007. "The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1564-1583, March.
    3. Suganthi, L. & Iniyan, S. & Samuel, Anand A., 2015. "Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy systems – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 585-607.
    4. Shafiqur Rehman & Salman A. Khan, 2016. "Fuzzy Logic Based Multi-Criteria Wind Turbine Selection Strategy—A Case Study of Qassim, Saudi Arabia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-26, October.
    5. Lee, Amy H.I. & Chen, Hsing Hung & Kang, He-Yau, 2009. "Multi-criteria decision making on strategic selection of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 120-126.
    6. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    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. Liu, Xinglei & Liu, Jun & Ren, Kezheng & Liu, Xiaoming & Liu, Jiacheng, 2022. "An integrated fuzzy multi-energy transaction evaluation approach for energy internet markets considering judgement credibility and variable rough precision," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PB).
    2. Gokasar, Ilgin & Deveci, Muhammet & Kalan, Onur, 2022. "CO2 Emission based prioritization of bridge maintenance projects using neutrosophic fuzzy sets based decision making approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    3. Baolong Liu & Jianxing Yu, 2022. "Dynamic Response of SPAR-Type Floating Offshore Wind Turbine under Wave Group Scenarios," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Ullah, Zia & Elkadeem, M.R. & Kotb, Kotb M. & Taha, Ibrahim B.M. & Wang, Shaorong, 2021. "Multi-criteria decision-making model for optimal planning of on/off grid hybrid solar, wind, hydro, biomass clean electricity supply," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 885-910.
    5. Zehba Raizah & Udaya Kumara Kodipalya Nanjappa & Harshitha Urs Ajjipura Shankar & Umair Khan & Sayed M. Eldin & Rajesh Kumar & Ahmed M. Galal, 2022. "Windmill Global Sourcing in an Initiative Using a Spherical Fuzzy Multiple-Criteria Decision Prototype," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Deveci, Muhammet & Pamucar, Dragan & Gokasar, Ilgin & Delen, Dursun & Wu, Qun & Simic, Vladimir, 2022. "An analytics approach to decision alternative prioritization for zero-emission zone logistics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 554-570.
    7. Kumbuso Joshua Nyoni & Anesu Maronga & Paul Gerard Tuohy & Agabu Shane, 2021. "Hydro–Connected Floating PV Renewable Energy System and Onshore Wind Potential in Zambia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-42, August.
    8. Xu, Li & Wang, Jin & Ou, Yanxia & Fu, Yang & Bian, Xiaoyan, 2022. "A novel decision-making system for selecting offshore wind turbines with PCA and D numbers," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    9. Yu, Yang & Wu, Shibo & Yu, Jianxing & Xu, Ya & Song, Lin & Xu, Weipeng, 2022. "A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework for offshore wind turbine selection: A case study in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    10. Nansheng Pang & Mengfan Nan & Qichen Meng & Siyang Zhao, 2021. "Selection of Wind Turbine Based on Fuzzy Analytic Network Process: A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.

    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. Paweł Ziemba, 2019. "Inter-Criteria Dependencies-Based Decision Support in the Sustainable wind Energy Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Çelikbilek, Yakup & Tüysüz, Fatih, 2016. "An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1246-1258.
    4. 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.
    5. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    6. 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).
    7. Seddiki, Mohammed & Bennadji, Amar, 2019. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation in a residential building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 101-117.
    8. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    9. Onar, Sezi Cevik & Oztaysi, Basar & Otay, İrem & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2015. "Multi-expert wind energy technology selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P1), pages 274-285.
    10. Arayeh Afsordegan & Luis Del Vasto-Terrientes & Aida Valls & Núria Agell & Mónica Sánchez, 2022. "Finding the most sustainable wind farm sites with a hierarchical outranking decision aiding method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(2), pages 1307-1335, May.
    11. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    12. Nasrollahi, Sadaf & Kazemi, Aliyeh & Jahangir, Mohammad-Hossein & Aryaee, Sara, 2023. "Selecting suitable wave energy technology for sustainable development, an MCDM approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 756-772.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Shao, Meng & Han, Zhixin & Sun, Jinwei & Xiao, Chengsi & Zhang, Shulei & Zhao, Yuanxu, 2020. "A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 377-403.
    16. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    17. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    18. 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.
    19. Read, Laura & Madani, Kaveh & Mokhtari, Soroush & Hanks, Catherine, 2017. "Stakeholder-driven multi-attribute analysis for energy project selection under uncertainty," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 744-753.
    20. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.

    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:energy:v:207:y:2020:i:c:s036054422031344x. 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.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.