IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i20p8397-d426778.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Mostafaeipour

    (Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam
    The Faculty of Civil Engineering, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Vietnam
    Faculty Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand)

  • Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri

    (Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran 1489684511, Iran)

  • Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 1458889694, Iran)

  • Mehdi Jahangiri

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord 8813733395, Iran)

  • Kuaanan Techato

    (Faculty Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
    Environmental Assessment and Technology for Hazardous Waste Management Research Center, Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand)

Abstract

In recent decades, many countries have shown a growing interest in the use of renewable energies for power generation. Geothermal energy is a clean and environmentally friendly source of renewable energy that can be used to produce electricity and heat for industrial and domestic applications. While Afghanistan has undeniably good geothermal potential that can be utilised to alleviate the country’s current energy limitations, so far this potential has remained completely untapped. In this study, the suitability of 21 provinces for geothermal project implementation in Afghanistan was evaluated using multiple multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. The stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method was used to weigh each criterion while the additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method was used to rank potential geothermal sites. The technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), the vlse kriterijumsk optimizacija kompromisno resenje (VIKOR), and the weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) methods were also used in this study. These rankings were then examined via sensitivity analysis which indicated that a 5% change in criteria weights altered the rankings in all methods except the VIKOR method. Volcanic dome density was ranked the most important criteria. All the methods identified Ghazni province as the most suitable location for geothermal project implementation in Afghanistan.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Mostafaeipour & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Mehdi Jahangiri & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8397-:d:426778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8397/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8397/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Sara Raos & Perica Ilak & Ivan Rajšl & Tena Bilić & Ghislain Trullenque, 2019. "Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making for Assessing the Enhanced Geothermal Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-23, April.
    3. Ahmad, Salman & Tahar, Razman Mat, 2014. "Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 458-466.
    4. Sadeghi, Behnam & Khalajmasoumi, Masoumeh, 2015. "A futuristic review for evaluation of geothermal potentials using fuzzy logic and binary index overlay in GIS environment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 818-831.
    5. Rostami, Raheleh & Khoshnava, Seyed Meysam & Lamit, Hasanuddin & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mardani, Abbas, 2017. "An overview of Afghanistan's trends toward renewable and sustainable energies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1440-1464.
    6. 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.
    7. Francesco Tinti & Sara Kasmaee & Mohamed Elkarmoty & Stefano Bonduà & Villiam Bortolotti, 2018. "Suitability Evaluation of Specific Shallow Geothermal Technologies Using a GIS-Based Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Implementing the Analytic Hierarchic Process," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Phillips, Jason, 2010. "Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development for a geothermal power plant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2414-2425, October.
    9. Chen, Jiliang & Jiang, Fangming, 2015. "Designing multi-well layout for enhanced geothermal system to better exploit hot dry rock geothermal energy," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 37-48.
    10. Tena Bilić & Sara Raos & Perica Ilak & Ivan Rajšl & Robert Pašičko, 2020. "Assessment of Geothermal Fields in the South Pannonian Basin System Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tool," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-23, February.
    11. Puppala, Harish & Jha, Shibani K., 2018. "Identification of prospective significance levels for potential geothermal fields of India," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 960-973.
    12. Shortall, Ruth & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur & Axelsson, Guðni, 2015. "Geothermal energy for sustainable development: A review of sustainability impacts and assessment frameworks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 391-406.
    13. Jahangiri, Mehdi & Haghani, Ahmad & Mostafaeipour, Ali & Khosravi, Adel & Raeisi, Heidar Ali, 2019. "Assessment of solar-wind power plants in Afghanistan: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 169-190.
    14. Anwarzai, Mohammad Abed & Nagasaka, Ken, 2017. "Utility-scale implementable potential of wind and solar energies for Afghanistan using GIS multi-criteria decision analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 150-160.
    15. Štreimikienė, Dalia & Šliogerienė, Jūratė & Turskis, Zenonas, 2016. "Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation technologies in Lithuania," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 148-156.
    16. Stein, Eric W., 2013. "A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 640-654.
    17. Akella, A.K. & Saini, R.P. & Sharma, M.P., 2009. "Social, economical and environmental impacts of renewable energy systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 390-396.
    18. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    19. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    20. 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).
    21. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) for the Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies in a Household: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    22. Abdolreza Yazdani-Chamzini & Mohammad Majid Fouladgar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & S. Hamzeh Haji Moini, 2013. "Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 957-978, November.
    23. Şengül, Ümran & Eren, Miraç & Eslamian Shiraz, Seyedhadi & Gezder, Volkan & Şengül, Ahmet Bilal, 2015. "Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 617-625.
    24. Templeton, J.D. & Ghoreishi-Madiseh, S.A. & Hassani, F. & Al-Khawaja, M.J., 2014. "Abandoned petroleum wells as sustainable sources of geothermal energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 366-373.
    25. Campos-Guzmán, Verónica & García-Cáscales, M. Socorro & Espinosa, Nieves & Urbina, Antonio, 2019. "Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 343-366.
    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. Mehdi Jahangiri & Yasaman Yousefi & Iman Pishkar & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Mohammad Fatemi Vanani, 2023. "Techno–Econo–Enviro Energy Analysis, Ranking and Optimization of Various Building-Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) Types in Different Climatic Regions of Iran," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Yücenur, G. Nilay & Maden, Ayça, 2024. "Sequential MCDM methods for site selection of hydroponic geothermal greenhouse: ENTROPY and ARAS," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    3. Chia-Nan Wang & Jui-Chung Kao & Yen-Hui Wang & Van Thanh Nguyen & Viet Tinh Nguyen & Syed Tam Husain, 2021. "A Multicriteria Decision-Making Model for the Selection of Suitable Renewable Energy Sources," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Khalid Almutairi & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Ali Mostafaeipour & Alibek Issakhov & Kuaanan Techato, 2021. "Use of a Hybrid Wind—Solar—Diesel—Battery Energy System to Power Buildings in Remote Areas: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-26, August.
    5. Latifah M. Alsarhan & Alhanouf S. Alayyar & Naif B. Alqahtani & Nezar H. Khdary, 2021. "Circular Carbon Economy (CCE): A Way to Invest CO 2 and Protect the Environment, a Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-25, October.
    6. Hosseini Dehshiri, Seyyed Shahabaddin & Firoozabadi, Bahar, 2022. "A new application of measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) in solar site location for electricity and hydrogen production: A case study in the southern clim," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PB).
    7. Abubakar Yusuf & Lim Hwee San & Ismail Ahmad Abir, 2021. "A Preliminary Geothermal Prospectivity Mapping Based on Integrated GIS, Remote-Sensing, and Geophysical Techniques around Northeastern Nigeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-22, July.

    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. Rivero-Iglesias, Jose M. & Puente, Javier & Fernandez, Isabel & León, Omar, 2023. "Integrated model for the assessment of power generation alternatives through analytic hierarchy process and a fuzzy inference system. Case study of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 563-581.
    2. 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.
    3. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Empirical investigation and validation of sustainability indicators for the assessment of energy sources in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Yilan, Gülşah & Kadirgan, M.A. Neşet & Çiftçioğlu, Gökçen A., 2020. "Analysis of electricity generation options for sustainable energy decision making: The case of Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 519-529.
    5. Wang, Ni & Heijnen, Petra W. & Imhof, Pieter J., 2020. "A multi-actor perspective on multi-objective regional energy system planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    6. Karaaslan, Abdulkerim & Gezen, Mesliha, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey by integer multi-objective selection problem with interval coefficient," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 842-854.
    7. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    8. Ozorhon, Beliz & Batmaz, Arda & Caglayan, Semih, 2018. "Generating a framework to facilitate decision making in renewable energy investments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 217-226.
    9. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Evaluation of energy alternatives for sustainable development of energy sector in India: An integrated Shannon’s entropy fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 58-74.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Bilgili, Faik & Zarali, Fulya & Ilgün, Miraç Fatih & Dumrul, Cüneyt & Dumrul, Yasemin, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using ‌intuitionistic‌ ‌fuzzy‌-TOPSIS method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1443-1458.
    15. Paula Donaduzzi Rigo & Graciele Rediske & Carmen Brum Rosa & Natália Gava Gastaldo & Leandro Michels & Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior & Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk, 2020. "Renewable Energy Problems: Exploring the Methods to Support the Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    16. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    20. Abdel-Basset, Mohamed & Gamal, Abduallah & Chakrabortty, Ripon K. & Ryan, Michael J., 2021. "Evaluation approach for sustainable renewable energy systems under uncertain environment: A case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1073-1095.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8397-:d:426778. 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.