IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i3p1403-d735015.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Five Widely-Used Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Evaluate Clean Energy Technologies: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Saeed Khojaste Effatpanah

    (Faculty of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood 3619995161, Iran)

  • Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi

    (Faculty of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood 3619995161, Iran)

  • Pasura Aungkulanon

    (Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand)

  • Akbar Maleki

    (Faculty of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood 3619995161, Iran)

  • Milad Sadeghzadeh

    (Renewable Energy and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Tehran, Tehran 14399571, Iran)

  • Mohsen Sharifpur

    (Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
    Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung 404, Taiwan)

  • Lingen Chen

    (Institute of Thermal Science and Power Engineering, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

Abstract

Over the last decade, the total primary energy consumption has increased from 479 × 10 15 BTU in 2010 to 528 × 10 15 BTU in 2020. To address this ever-increasing energy demand, as well as prevent environmental pollution, clean energies are presented as a potential solution. In this regard, evaluating and selecting the most appropriate clean energy solution for a specific area is of particular importance. Therefore, in this study, a comparative analysis in Jiangsu province in China was performed by describing and implementing five prominent multi-criteria decision-making methods in the field of energy technology selection, including SAW, TOPSIS, ELECTRE, VIKOR, and COPRAS. The decision problem here consists of four clean energy options, including solar photovoltaic, wind, nuclear, and biomass, which have been evaluated by twelve basic and important criteria for ranking clean energy options. The obtained results, according to all five MCDM methods, indicate that solar photovoltaic was the optimal option in this study, followed by wind energy. The nuclear and biomass options placed third and fourth, respectively, except in the ELECTRE method ranking, in which both options scored the same and thus neither was superior. Finally, by conducting a comprehensive two-stage sensitivity analysis, in the first stage, it was found that changes in the weights of land use and water consumption criteria had the greatest impact on the performance of options, among which biomass and nuclear showed high sensitivity to variations in criteria weights. In the second stage, by defining five scenarios, the ranking of options was evaluated from different aspects so that the decision maker/organization would be able to make appropriate decisions in different situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Saeed Khojaste Effatpanah & Mohammad Hossein Ahmadi & Pasura Aungkulanon & Akbar Maleki & Milad Sadeghzadeh & Mohsen Sharifpur & Lingen Chen, 2022. "Comparative Analysis of Five Widely-Used Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Evaluate Clean Energy Technologies: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-33, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1403-:d:735015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1403/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1403/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murat Köksalan & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 2011. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making:From Early History to the 21st Century," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 8042, December.
    2. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    3. Zhang, Ling & Zhou, Peng & Newton, Sidney & Fang, Jian-xin & Zhou, De-qun & Zhang, Lu-ping, 2015. "Evaluating clean energy alternatives for Jiangsu, China: An improved multi-criteria decision making method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P1), pages 953-964.
    4. Sahraei-Ardakani, Mostafa & Blumsack, Seth & Kleit, Andrew, 2015. "Estimating zonal electricity supply curves in transmission-constrained electricity markets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 10-19.
    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. Krishankumar, Raghunathan & Pamucar, Dragan & Deveci, Muhammat & Aggarwal, Manish & Ravichandran, Kattur Soundarapandian, 2022. "Assessment of renewable energy sources for smart cities’ demand satisfaction using multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic based choquet integral approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1428-1442.
    2. Esmanur Uçal & Hasan Yildizhan & Arman Ameen & Zafer Erbay, 2023. "Assessment of Whole Milk Powder Production by a Cumulative Exergy Consumption Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Basma Souayeh & Suvanjan Bhattacharyya & Najib Hdhiri & Fayçal Hammami & Essam Yasin & S. Suresh Kumar Raju & Mir Waqas Alam & Tarfa Alsheddi & Muneerah Al Nuwairan, 2022. "Effect of Magnetic Baffles and Magnetic Nanofluid on Thermo-Hydraulic Characteristics of Dimple Mini Channel for Thermal Energy Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-27, August.
    4. Dinçer, Hasan & Yüksel, Serhat & Hacioglu, Umit & Yilmaz, Mustafa K. & Delen, Dursun, 2023. "Development of a sustainable corporate social responsibility index for performance evaluation of the energy industry: A hybrid decision-making methodology," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    5. Fatih Topaloğlu, 2024. "Development of a new hybrid method for multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach: a case study for facility location selection," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Basma Souayeh & Suvanjan Bhattacharyya & Najib Hdhiri & Mir Waqas Alam, 2022. "Selection of Best Suitable Eco-Friendly Refrigerants for HVAC Sector and Renewable Energy Devices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-16, September.

    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. Majid Ebrahimi & Hamid Nejadsoleymani & Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar, 2019. "Land suitability map and ecological carrying capacity for the recognition of touristic zones in the Kalat region, Iran: a multi-criteria analysis based on AHP and GIS," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 697-718, October.
    2. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    3. Asimina Kouriati & Anna Tafidou & Evgenia Lialia & Angelos Prentzas & Christina Moulogianni & Eleni Dimitriadou & Thomas Bournaris, 2024. "A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model for Optimal Land Uses: Guiding Farmers under the New European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (2023–2027)," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Marcin Rabe & Dalia Streimikiene & Yuriy Bilan, 2019. "The Concept of Risk and Possibilities of Application of Mathematical Methods in Supporting Decision Making for Sustainable Energy Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Julio Berbel & M. Mesa-Jurado & Juan Pistón, 2011. "Value of Irrigation Water in Guadalquivir Basin (Spain) by Residual Value Method," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1565-1579, April.
    7. Seyit Ali Erdogan & Jonas Šaparauskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2019. "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model to Choose the Best Option for Sustainable Construction Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Nguyen, Le Khanh Ngan & Howick, Susan & Megiddo, Itamar, 2024. "A framework for conceptualising hybrid system dynamics and agent-based simulation models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(3), pages 1153-1166.
    9. Rohmer, S.U.K. & Gerdessen, J.C. & Claassen, G.D.H., 2019. "Sustainable supply chain design in the food system with dietary considerations: A multi-objective analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1149-1164.
    10. Mestre, Guillermo & Sánchez-Úbeda, Eugenio F. & Muñoz San Roque, Antonio & Alonso, Estrella, 2022. "The arithmetic of stepwise offer curves," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PE).
    11. Haidar Howari & Mohd Parvez & Osama Khan & Aiyeshah Alhodaib & Abdulrahman Mallah & Zeinebou Yahya, 2023. "Multi-Objective Optimization for Ranking Waste Biomass Materials Based on Performance and Emission Parameters in a Pyrolysis Process—An AHP–TOPSIS Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Olga Porro & Francesc Pardo-Bosch & Núria Agell & Mónica Sánchez, 2020. "Understanding Location Decisions of Energy Multinational Enterprises within the European Smart Cities’ Context: An Integrated AHP and Extended Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-29, May.
    13. Gohari, Adel & Ahmad, Anuar Bin & Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard & Gohari, Ali & Hasan, Razi & Sholagberu, Abdulkadir Taofeeq, 2022. "Significance of intermodal freight modal choice criteria: MCDM-based decision support models and SP-based modal shift policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 46-60.
    14. 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.
    15. Frew, Bethany A. & Becker, Sarah & Dvorak, Michael J. & Andresen, Gorm B. & Jacobson, Mark Z., 2016. "Flexibility mechanisms and pathways to a highly renewable US electricity future," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 65-78.
    16. Minviel, Jean Joseph & De Witte, Kristof, 2017. "The influence of public subsidies on farm technical efficiency: A robust conditional nonparametric approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1112-1120.
    17. A. Psomas & I. Vryzidis & A. Spyridakos & M. Mimikou, 2021. "MCDA approach for agricultural water management in the context of water–energy–land–food nexus," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 689-723, March.
    18. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    19. Paulo Antônio Xavier Furtado & Antônio Vanderley Herrero Sola, 2020. "Fuzzy Complex Proportional Assessment Applied in Location Selection for Installation of Photovoltaic Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    20. Sean Pascoe & Renae Tobin & Jill Windle & Toni Cannard & Nadine Marshall & Zobaidul Kabir & Nicole Flint, 2016. "Developing a Social, Cultural and Economic Report Card for a Regional Industrial Harbour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.

    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:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1403-:d:735015. 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.