IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i4p931-d322677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Select the Optimal Electrochemical Energy Storage Planning Program? A Hybrid MCDM Method

Author

Listed:
  • Nan Li

    (College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, Zhejiang, China
    Green Energy Development Research Institute (Qinghai), Xining 810008, Qinghai, China
    State Grid Qinghai Economic Research Institute, Xining 810008, Qinghai, China)

  • Haining Zhang

    (Green Energy Development Research Institute (Qinghai), Xining 810008, Qinghai, China
    State Grid Qinghai Economic Research Institute, Xining 810008, Qinghai, China)

  • Xiangcheng Zhang

    (Green Energy Development Research Institute (Qinghai), Xining 810008, Qinghai, China
    State Grid Qinghai Economic Research Institute, Xining 810008, Qinghai, China)

  • Xue Ma

    (Green Energy Development Research Institute (Qinghai), Xining 810008, Qinghai, China
    State Grid Qinghai Economic Research Institute, Xining 810008, Qinghai, China)

  • Sen Guo

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

Abstract

Electrochemical energy storage (EES) is a promising kind of energy storage and has developed rapidly in recent years in many countries. EES planning is an important topic that can impact the earnings of EES investors and sustainable industrial development. Current studies only consider the profit or cost of the EES planning program, without considering other economic criteria such as payback period and return on investment (ROI), which are also important for determining an optimal EES planning program. In this paper, a new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method integrating the Bayesian best-worst method (BBWM), the entropy weighting approach, and grey cumulative prospect theory is proposed for the optimal EES planning program selection with the consideration of multiple economic criteria. The BBWM and entropy weighting approach are jointly employed for determining the weightings of criteria, and the grey cumulative prospect theory was utilized for the performance rankings of different EES planning programs. Five EES planning programs were selected for empirical analysis, including 9MW PbC battery EES, 2MW LiFePO lithium ion battery EES, 3MW LiFePO lithium ion battery EES, 2MW vanadium redox flow battery EES, and 3MW vanadium redox flow battery EES. The empirical results indicate the 2MW LiFePO lithium ion battery EES is the optimal one. The sensitivity analysis related to different risk preferences of decision-makers also shows the 2MW LiFePO lithium ion battery EES is always the optimal EES planning program. The proposed MCDM method for the optimal EES planning program selection in this paper is effective and robust, and can provide certain references for EES investors and decision-makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Nan Li & Haining Zhang & Xiangcheng Zhang & Xue Ma & Sen Guo, 2020. "How to Select the Optimal Electrochemical Energy Storage Planning Program? A Hybrid MCDM Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:4:p:931-:d:322677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/4/931/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/4/931/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Zhang, Ning & Lu, Xi & McElroy, Michael B. & Nielsen, Chris P. & Chen, Xinyu & Deng, Yu & Kang, Chongqing, 2016. "Reducing curtailment of wind electricity in China by employing electric boilers for heat and pumped hydro for energy storage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 987-994.
    3. Han, Xiaojuan & Ji, Tianming & Zhao, Zekun & Zhang, Hao, 2015. "Economic evaluation of batteries planning in energy storage power stations for load shifting," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 643-647.
    4. Zhao, Haoran & Guo, Sen & Zhao, Huiru, 2019. "Provincial energy efficiency of China quantified by three-stage data envelopment analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 96-107.
    5. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo & Huiru Zhao, 2018. "Selecting the Optimal Micro-Grid Planning Program Using a Novel Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Based on Grey Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, July.
    6. Klein, Martin & Deissenroth, Marc, 2017. "When do households invest in solar photovoltaics? An application of prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 270-278.
    7. Noah Kittner & Felix Lill & Daniel M. Kammen, 2017. "Energy storage deployment and innovation for the clean energy transition," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 1-6, September.
    8. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo & Huiru Zhao, 2018. "Comprehensive benefit evaluation of eco-industrial parks by employing the best-worst method based on circular economy and sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1229-1253, June.
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    10. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    11. Zhao, Haoran & Guo, Sen & Zhao, Huiru, 2019. "Comprehensive assessment for battery energy storage systems based on fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 450-461.
    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. Bartosz Radomski & Tomasz Mróz, 2023. "Application of the Hybrid MCDM Method for Energy Modernisation of an Existing Public Building—A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Danijela Barić & Silvestar Grabušić & Martina Jakara & Marko Emanović, 2023. "Reviewing the Cost–Benefit Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Xiaoyang Shu & Raman Kumar & Rajeev Kumar Saha & Nikhil Dev & Željko Stević & Shubham Sharma & Mohammad Rafighi, 2023. "Sustainability Assessment of Energy Storage Technologies Based on Commercialization Viability: MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Fangyuan Qian & Shuiye Niu & Yujuan Xi, 2022. "Multi-Technology Driven R&D Cost Improvement Scheme and Application Utility of EESP in Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Tadeusz Białoń & Roman Niestrój & Wojciech Skarka & Wojciech Korski, 2023. "HPPC Test Methodology Using LFP Battery Cell Identification Tests as an Example," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Xuejie Wang & Huiru Zhao & Guanglong Xie & Keyao Lin & Juhua Hong, 2023. "Research on Industrial and Commercial User-Side Energy Storage Planning Considering Uncertainty and Multi-Market Joint Operation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Alicja Lenarczyk & Marcin Jaskólski & Paweł Bućko, 2022. "The Application of a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Indication of Directions of the Development of Renewable Energy Sources in the Context of Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-21, December.

    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. Gholamreza Haseli & Reza Sheikh & Jianqiang Wang & Hana Tomaskova & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2021. "A Novel Approach for Group Decision Making Based on the Best–Worst Method (G-BWM): Application to Supply Chain Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo & Huiru Zhao, 2018. "Selecting the Optimal Micro-Grid Planning Program Using a Novel Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Based on Grey Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    4. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.
    6. Chun-Chieh Tseng & Jun-Yi Zeng & Min-Liang Hsieh & Chih-Hung Hsu, 2022. "Analysis of Innovation Drivers of New and Old Kinetic Energy Conversion Using a Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Model in the Post-COVID-19 Era: A Chinese Case," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(20), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Sen Guo & Wenyue Zhang & Xiao Gao, 2020. "Business Risk Evaluation of Electricity Retail Company in China Using a Hybrid MCDM Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Liu, Aijun & Zhao, Yingxue & Meng, Xiaoge & Zhang, Yan, 2020. "A three-phase fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for charging station location of the sharing electric vehicle," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    9. Penjani Hopkins Nyimbili & Turan Erden, 2021. "Comparative evaluation of GIS-based best–worst method (BWM) for emergency facility planning: perspectives from two decision-maker groups," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 1031-1067, January.
    10. Hashem Omrani & Arash Alizadeh & Ali Emrouznejad & Tamara Teplova, 2024. "Data envelopment analysis model with decision makers’ preferences: a robust credibility approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 339(3), pages 1269-1306, August.
    11. Yana Duan & Yang Sun & Yu Zhang & Xiaoqi Fan & Qinghuan Dong & Sen Guo, 2021. "Risk Evaluation of Electric Power Grid Investment in China Employing a Hybrid Novel MCDM Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-22, February.
    12. Zhao, Haoran & Guo, Sen & Zhao, Huiru, 2019. "Comprehensive assessment for battery energy storage systems based on fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 450-461.
    13. Roya Ghamari & Mohammad Mahdavi-Mazdeh & Seyed Farid Ghannadpour, 2022. "Resilient and sustainable supplier selection via a new framework: a case study from the steel industry," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 10403-10441, August.
    14. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    15. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Pushparenu Bhattacharjee & Syed Abou Iltaf Hussain & V. Dey & U. K. Mandal, 2023. "Failure mode and effects analysis for submersible pump component using proportionate risk assessment model: a case study in the power plant of Agartala," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(5), pages 1778-1798, October.
    18. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    19. Yuanxin Liu & FengYun Li & Yi Wang & Xinhua Yu & Jiahai Yuan & Yuwei Wang, 2018. "Assessing the Environmental Impact Caused by Power Grid Projects in High Altitude Areas Based on BWM and Vague Sets Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    20. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.

    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:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:4:p:931-:d:322677. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.