IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/engenv/v31y2020i5p785-812.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-objective economic emission dispatch of thermal power plants based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process

Author

Listed:
  • Shiyi Chen
  • Wei Chen
  • Ahsanullah Soomro
  • Lijuan Luo
  • Wenguo Xiang

Abstract

In this paper, mathematical models for a synthesized evaluation were established according to grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process. The models were used to select a power dispatch scheme considering hierarchies of material consumption, electrical efficiency, exergy efficiency, and environmental benefit. Four unit dispatch schemes, i.e., proportional fair allocation dispatch, conventional economic dispatch, economic emission dispatch, and economic emission dispatch with varied weights were investigated and compared. Analytic hierarchy process decision-making approach has been employed to find the optimal Pareto solution as the best tradeoff between cost and pollutant emission. The model indicated that the economic emission dispatch was preferred as the best option and could further reduce fuel consumption and pollutant emission, followed by the economic emission dispatch with varied weights. The assessment performed serves decision makers a valuable reference for policy making in the power dispatch sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiyi Chen & Wei Chen & Ahsanullah Soomro & Lijuan Luo & Wenguo Xiang, 2020. "Multi-objective economic emission dispatch of thermal power plants based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(5), pages 785-812, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:engenv:v:31:y:2020:i:5:p:785-812
    DOI: 10.1177/0958305X19882387
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X19882387
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0958305X19882387?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty, 1987. "Risk—Its Priority and Probability: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 159-172, June.
    2. Yagmur, Levent, 2016. "Multi-criteria evaluation and priority analysis for localization equipment in a thermal power plant using the AHP (analytic hierarchy process)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 476-482.
    3. Lee, Deok Joo & Hwang, Jooho, 2010. "Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear technology using the analytic hierarchy process: A Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 161-167, January.
    4. Kurka, Thomas, 2013. "Application of the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the regional sustainability of bioenergy developments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 393-402.
    5. 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.
    6. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Sensitivity analysis of technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 788-798, March.
    7. Unknown, 2016. "Energy for Sustainable Development," Conference Proceedings 253270, Guru Arjan Dev Institute of Development Studies (IDSAsr).
    8. Cheng, Chuntian & Li, Shushan & Li, Gang, 2014. "A hybrid method of incorporating extended priority list into equal incremental principle for energy-saving generation dispatch of thermal power systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 688-696.
    9. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2008. "Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1074-1089, March.
    10. Cohan, Daniel S. & Douglass, Catherine, 2011. "Potential emissions reductions from grandfathered coal power plants in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4816-4822, September.
    11. Zhong, Haiwang & Xia, Qing & Chen, Yuguo & Kang, Chongqing, 2015. "Energy-saving generation dispatch toward a sustainable electric power industry in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 14-25.
    12. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 778-787, March.
    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. Abdul, Daud & Wenqi, Jiang & Tanveer, Arsalan, 2022. "Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1018-1032.
    2. Salem Nechi & Belaid Aouni & Zouhair Mrabet, 2020. "Managing sustainable development through goal programming model and satisfaction functions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 747-766, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Milutinović, Biljana & Stefanović, Gordana & Dassisti, Michele & Marković, Danijel & Vučković, Goran, 2014. "Multi-criteria analysis as a tool for sustainability assessment of a waste management model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 190-201.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.
    9. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    10. Farboud Khatami & Erfan Goharian, 2022. "Beyond Profitable Shifts to Green Energies, towards Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-28, April.
    11. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    12. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    13. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    14. 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.
    15. Hottenroth, H. & Sutardhio, C. & Weidlich, A. & Tietze, I. & Simon, S. & Hauser, W. & Naegler, T. & Becker, L. & Buchgeister, J. & Junne, T. & Lehr, U. & Scheel, O. & Schmidt-Scheele, R. & Ulrich, P. , 2022. "Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    16. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    17. Endre Börcsök & Zoltán Ferencz & Veronika Groma & Ágnes Gerse & János Fülöp & Sándor Bozóki & János Osán & Szabina Török & Ákos Horváth, 2020. "Energy Supply Preferences as Multicriteria Decision Problems: Developing a System of Criteria from Survey Data," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-21, July.
    18. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Participatory selection of sustainability criteria and indicators for bioenergy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 92-102.
    19. Shen, Yung-Chi & Lin, Grace T.R. & Li, Kuang-Pin & Yuan, Benjamin J.C., 2010. "An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4604-4616, August.
    20. 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.

    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:sae:engenv:v:31:y:2020:i:5:p:785-812. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.