IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i12p2971-d1416204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closing the Loop between Waste-to-Energy Technologies: A Holistic Assessment Based on Multiple Criteria

Author

Listed:
  • Christos Mertzanakis

    (Sustainability Engineering Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), P.O. Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Christos Vlachokostas

    (Sustainability Engineering Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), P.O. Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Charalampos Toufexis

    (Sustainability Engineering Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), P.O. Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Alexandra V. Michailidou

    (Sustainability Engineering Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), P.O. Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

Abstract

This paper puts forward a generic methodological framework to holistically assess WtE technologies based on the PROMETHEE approach. In addition to environmental and economic aspects, the method focuses on large-scale applicability and social preference, thus adopting economic, environmental, social, and technological criteria. Three data sources are selected, namely the scientific literature, a public survey, and an experts’ opinion survey, which is a novel combination with the aim to cover public consensus, technological applicability, and to provide alternative data sources for the economic and environmental criteria, thus enriching the methodology with the input of location specific data. The demonstration of the applicability of the proposed methodology is realized at a national level for the case of Greece. Anaerobic Digestion is shown to be the most preferable choice, recognized for its cost-effectiveness and lower environmental burden to other WtE technologies (i.e., gasification, pyrolysis, incineration). When all criteria are evaluated with equal weights, anaerobic digestion greatly outperforms incineration (net flow 0.833 versus 0.1667), while incineration only becomes the most preferred choice if the social criterion is in high focus (i.e., over 63% weight).

Suggested Citation

  • Christos Mertzanakis & Christos Vlachokostas & Charalampos Toufexis & Alexandra V. Michailidou, 2024. "Closing the Loop between Waste-to-Energy Technologies: A Holistic Assessment Based on Multiple Criteria," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-21, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:12:p:2971-:d:1416204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/12/2971/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/12/2971/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Menikpura, S.N.M. & Sang-Arun, Janya & Bengtsson, Magnus, 2016. "Assessment of environmental and economic performance of Waste-to-Energy facilities in Thai cities," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 576-584.
    2. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    3. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    4. Deborah Panepinto & Mariachiara Zanetti, 2021. "Technical and Environmental Comparison among Different Municipal Solid Waste Management Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, March.
    5. Afgan, Naim H. & Carvalho, Maria G., 2002. "Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 739-755.
    6. Khan, Imran & Kabir, Zobaidul, 2020. "Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the developing economies: A multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 320-333.
    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. Cartelle Barros, Juan José & Lara Coira, Manuel & de la Cruz López, María Pilar & del Caño Gochi, Alfredo, 2015. "Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 473-489.
    2. Gallego Carrera, Diana & Mack, Alexander, 2010. "Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 1030-1039, February.
    3. Mainali, Brijesh & Silveira, Semida, 2015. "Using a sustainability index to assess energy technologies for rural electrification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1351-1365.
    4. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    5. Jiang, Yanping & Liang, Xia & Liang, Haiming & Yang, Ningman, 2018. "Multiple criteria decision making with interval stochastic variables: A method based on interval stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 632-643.
    6. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    7. Wilson, Christopher & van der Velden, Maja, 2022. "Sustainable AI: An integrated model to guide public sector decision-making," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    8. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    9. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    10. Mostafa Shaaban & Jürgen Scheffran & Jürgen Böhner & Mohamed S. Elsobki, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    11. Stanojevic, M. & Vranes, S. & Gökalp, I., 2010. "Green accounting for greener energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2473-2491, December.
    12. Ana Beatriz Hernández-Lara & Juan Pablo Gonzales-Bustos & Amado Alarcón-Alarcón, 2021. "Social Sustainability on Corporate Boards: The Effects of Female Family Members on R&D," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    13. Ponce, Pedro & Polasko, Kenneth & Molina, Arturo, 2016. "End user perceptions toward smart grid technology: Acceptance, adoption, risks, and trust," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 587-598.
    14. 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.
    15. Ferraz de Campos, Victor Arruda & Silva, Valter Bruno & Cardoso, João Sousa & Brito, Paulo S. & Tuna, Celso Eduardo & Silveira, José Luz, 2021. "A review of waste management in Brazil and Portugal: Waste-to-energy as pathway for sustainable development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 802-820.
    16. Almoghathawi, Yasser & Barker, Kash & Rocco, Claudio M. & Nicholson, Charles D., 2017. "A multi-criteria decision analysis approach for importance identification and ranking of network components," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 142-151.
    17. Xiaoye Jin & Meiying Li & Fansheng Meng, 2019. "Comprehensive Evaluation of the New Energy Power Generation Development at the Regional Level: An Empirical Analysis from China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-15, December.
    18. Victor Arruda Ferraz de Campos & Luís Carmo-Calado & Roberta Mota-Panizio & Vitor Matos & Valter Bruno Silva & Paulo S. Brito & Daniela F. L. Eusébio & Celso Eduardo Tuna & José Luz Silveira, 2023. "A Waste-to-Energy Technical Approach: Syngas–Biodiesel Blend for Power Generation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-18, October.
    19. Francesco Sica & Francesco Tajani & Maria Rosaria Guarini & Rossana Ranieri, 2023. "A Sensitivity Index to Perform the Territorial Sustainability in Uncertain Decision-Making Conditions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    20. 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.

    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:17:y:2024:i:12:p:2971-:d:1416204. 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.