IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i24p6435-d1548699.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Method to Select the Final Solution for Multi-Criteria Optimization of the Structure of a Hybrid Generation System with Energy Storage

Author

Listed:
  • Andrzej Tomczewski

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Electrical Engineering, Institute of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, Faculty of Control, Robotics and Electrical Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, 60-965 Poznań, Poland
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Stanisław Mikulski

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Electrical Engineering, Institute of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, Faculty of Control, Robotics and Electrical Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, 60-965 Poznań, Poland
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Jan Szymenderski

    (Department of Theoretical and Applied Electrical Engineering, Institute of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, Faculty of Control, Robotics and Electrical Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, 60-965 Poznań, Poland
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

This paper concerns the application of the AHP (analytic hierarchy process) multi-criteria decision support method for the final selection of the structure of a hybrid power system with RESs (renewable energy sources) and EES (electrical energy storage) from a set of solutions obtained through multi-criteria optimization. These solutions, depending on their position within the Pareto front, may differ significantly in terms of the values of the criteria functions, or may be located very close to each other in the solution space. The role of the expert is to select the final solution, taking into account many additional criteria, often of a subjective nature. The article optimizes the structure of the proposed system using the multi-criteria NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm) method, taking into account three technical criteria. The AHP method was used to select the final solution, which allows determination of the ranking of solution variants, taking into account selected additional criteria. In the analyzed case, these are primarily economic indicators, technical conditions, and preferences of the system recipients. In addition to determining the ranking of solutions, a sensitivity analysis was performed, which gives the expert extensive knowledge on the impact of individual criteria on the order of variants in the ranking. It was shown that in the case of selecting hybrid structures of generating systems with EES for a specific type of receiver, the use of the AHP method significantly facilitates making the final decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrzej Tomczewski & Stanisław Mikulski & Jan Szymenderski, 2024. "Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Method to Select the Final Solution for Multi-Criteria Optimization of the Structure of a Hybrid Generation System with Energy Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-22, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:24:p:6435-:d:1548699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/24/6435/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/24/6435/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrzej Tomczewski & Stanisław Mikulski & Adam Piotrowski & Sławomir Sowa & Krzysztof Wróbel, 2023. "Multicriteria Optimisation of the Structure of a Hybrid Power Supply System for a Single-Family Housing Estate in Poland, Taking into Account Different Electromobility Development Scenarios," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Larichev, O. I. & Moshkovich, H. M., 1995. "ZAPROS-LM -- A method and system for ordering multiattribute alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 503-521, May.
    3. Cho, Sangmin & Kim, Jinsoo & Lim, Deokoh, 2024. "Optimal design of renewable energy certificate multipliers using an LCOE-Integrated AHP model: A case study of South Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    4. Lai, Vincent S. & Wong, Bo K. & Cheung, Waiman, 2002. "Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 134-144, February.
    5. Junpai Chen & Yue Chen & Yitong Zhu & Mingyan Xiao & Hongfei Yang & Huaming Huang & Linli Li, 2023. "Assessing the Sustainability of Urban Community Renewal Projects in Southern China Based on a Hybrid MADM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-33, February.
    6. Ilbahar, Esra & Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebi, Selcuk, 2022. "Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    7. Ali, Shahid & Stewart, Rodney A. & Sahin, Oz & Vieira, Abel Silva, 2023. "Integrated GIS-AHP-based approach for off-river pumped hydro energy storage site selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 337(C).
    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. 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. Gaurav Khatwani & Gopal Das, 2016. "Evaluating combination of individual pre-purchase internet information channels using hybrid fuzzy MCDM technique: demographics as moderators," International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(1), pages 28-49.
    3. Karami, Ezatollah, 2006. "Appropriateness of farmers' adoption of irrigation methods: The application of the AHP model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 101-119, January.
    4. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Ruan, Da, 2008. "Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 77(5), pages 464-475.
    5. Dorota Górecka, 2012. "Applying Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding techniques in the process of project management within the wedding planning business," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 22(4), pages 41-67.
    6. Hyungjin Shin & Gyumin Lee & Jaenam Lee & Sehoon Kim & Inhong Song, 2023. "Assessment of Agricultural Drought Vulnerability with Focus on Upland Fields and Identification of Primary Management Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Tinta, Abdoulganiour Almame, 2023. "Energy substitution in Africa: Cross-regional differentiation effects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PA).
    9. Saeed Nosratabadi & Gergo Pinter & Amir Mosavi & Sandor Semperger, 2020. "Sustainable Banking; Evaluation of the European Business Models," Papers 2003.13423, arXiv.org.
    10. P P Sutton & R H Green, 2007. "Choice is a value statement. On inferring optimal multiple attribute portfolios from non-optimal nominations," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(11), pages 1526-1533, November.
    11. Jing, Qi & Yu, Lin & Lan, Fengyi & Li, Yuntao, 2024. "Quantitative assessment rules and models for dynamic disaster risk in high-density gas gathering stations: Practical application in a largest CBM gathering station," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    12. Guangquan Zhang & Jie Lu, 2003. "An Integrated Group Decision-Making Method Dealing with Fuzzy Preferences for Alternatives and Individual Judgments for Selection Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(6), pages 501-515, November.
    13. Zhang, Bowen & Dong, Yucheng & Zhang, Hengjie & Pedrycz, Witold, 2020. "Consensus mechanism with maximum-return modifications and minimum-cost feedback: A perspective of game theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 546-559.
    14. Emre Çalişkan & Erdem Aksakal & Saliha Çetinyokuş & Tahsin Çetinyokuş, 2019. "Hybrid Use of Likert Scale-Based AHP and PROMETHEE Methods for Hazard Analysis and Consequence Modeling (HACM) Software Selection," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(05), pages 1689-1715, September.
    15. Mingtao Ding & Fangqiang Wei & Kaiheng Hu, 2012. "Property insurance against debris-flow disasters based on risk assessment and the principal–agent theory," 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. 60(3), pages 801-817, February.
    16. Wen‐Hsien Tsai & Yu‐Wei Chou & Kuen‐Chang Lee & Wan‐Rung Lin & Elliott T.Y. Hwang, 2013. "Combining Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory with Analytic Network Process to Perform an Investigation of Information Technology Auditing and Risk Control in an Enterprise Resource Planni," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 176-193, March.
    17. Ioanna Andreoulaki & Aikaterini Papapostolou & Vangelis Marinakis, 2024. "Evaluating the Barriers to Blockchain Adoption in the Energy Sector: A Multicriteria Approach Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for Group Decision Making," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-27, March.
    18. Saad Saleem Bhatti & Nitin Kumar Tripathi & Masahiko Nagai & Vilas Nitivattananon, 2017. "Spatial Interrelationships of Quality of Life with Land Use/Land Cover, Demography and Urbanization," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 1193-1216, July.
    19. Veronika V. Yankovskaya & Timur A. Mustafin & Dmitry A. Endovitsky & Artem V. Krivosheev, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility as an Alternative Approach to Financial Risk Management: Advantages for Sustainable Development," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    20. S. Vijayakumar Bharathi, 2017. "Prioritizing and Ranking the Big Data Information Security Risk Spectrum," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 18(3), pages 183-201, September.

    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:24:p:6435-:d:1548699. 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.