IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v34y2014i9p1720-1737.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model and Risk Assessment Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage

Author

Listed:
  • John Michael Humphries Choptiany
  • Ronald Pelot

Abstract

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been applied to various energy problems to incorporate a variety of qualitative and quantitative criteria, usually spanning environmental, social, engineering, and economic fields. MCDA and associated methods such as life‐cycle assessments and cost‐benefit analysis can also include risk analysis to address uncertainties in criteria estimates. One technology now being assessed to help mitigate climate change is carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS is a new process that captures CO2 emissions from fossil‐fueled power plants and injects them into geological reservoirs for storage. It presents a unique challenge to decisionmakers (DMs) due to its technical complexity, range of environmental, social, and economic impacts, variety of stakeholders, and long time spans. The authors have developed a risk assessment model using a MCDA approach for CCS decisions such as selecting between CO2 storage locations and choosing among different mitigation actions for reducing risks. The model includes uncertainty measures for several factors, utility curve representations of all variables, Monte Carlo simulation, and sensitivity analysis. This article uses a CCS scenario example to demonstrate the development and application of the model based on data derived from published articles and publicly available sources. The model allows high‐level DMs to better understand project risks and the tradeoffs inherent in modern, complex energy decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • John Michael Humphries Choptiany & Ronald Pelot, 2014. "A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model and Risk Assessment Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(9), pages 1720-1737, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:9:p:1720-1737
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12211
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12211?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. Sathre, Roger & Chester, Mikhail & Cain, Jennifer & Masanet, Eric, 2012. "A framework for environmental assessment of CO2 capture and storage systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 540-548.
    2. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Drandaki, Maria & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Iosifidis, Eleftherios & Kiosses, Ioannis, 2009. "Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1587-1600, May.
    3. Huang, J.P. & Poh, K.L. & Ang, B.W., 1995. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 20(9), pages 843-855.
    4. Eisenhauer, Joseph G., 2006. "Risk aversion and prudence in the large," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 179-187, December.
    5. Viebahn, Peter & Daniel, Vallentin & Samuel, Höller, 2012. "Integrated assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the German power sector and comparison with the deployment of renewable energies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 238-248.
    6. Markusson, Nils & Kern, Florian & Watson, Jim & Arapostathis, Stathis & Chalmers, Hannah & Ghaleigh, Navraj & Heptonstall, Philip & Pearson, Peter & Rossati, David & Russell, Stewart, 2012. "A socio-technical framework for assessing the viability of carbon capture and storage technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(5), pages 903-918.
    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. Peter Viebahn & Emile J. L. Chappin, 2018. "Scrutinising the Gap between the Expected and Actual Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage—A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-45, September.
    2. Khammassi, Emna & Rehimi, Ferid & Halawani, Ahmed T.M. & Kalboussi, Adel, 2024. "Energy transition policy via electric vehicles adoption in the developing world: Tunisia as a case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Serkan Erbis & Zeynep Ok & Jacqueline A. Isaacs & James C. Benneyan & Sagar Kamarthi, 2016. "Review of Research Trends and Methods in Nano Environmental, Health, and Safety Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1644-1665, August.
    4. Steven Duret & Hong‐Minh Hoang & Evelyne Derens‐Bertheau & Anthony Delahaye & Onrawee Laguerre & Laurent Guillier, 2019. "Combining Quantitative Risk Assessment of Human Health, Food Waste, and Energy Consumption: The Next Step in the Development of the Food Cold Chain?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 906-925, April.
    5. Li, Wei & Li, Huaizhan & Chen, Yanpeng & Guo, Guangli & Chen, Fu & Tang, Chao & Zha, Jianfeng & Yuan, Yafei & Huo, Wenqi, 2024. "Risk analysis and production safety design of supercritical carbon dioxide storage in gasification combustion cavity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).

    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. Peter Viebahn & Emile J. L. Chappin, 2018. "Scrutinising the Gap between the Expected and Actual Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage—A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-45, September.
    2. Papapostolou, Aikaterini & Karakosta, Charikleia & Nikas, Alexandros & Psarras, John, 2017. "Exploring opportunities and risks for RES-E deployment under Cooperation Mechanisms between EU and Western Balkans: A multi-criteria assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 519-530.
    3. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.
    4. 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.
    5. Tamaki, Tetsuya & Nozawa, Wataru & Managi, Shunsuke, 2017. "Evaluation of the ocean ecosystem: Climate change modelling with backstop technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 428-439.
    6. Tamaki, Tetsuya & Nozawa, Wataru & Managi, Shunsuke, 2017. "Evaluation of the ocean ecosystem: climate change modelling with backstop technology," MPRA Paper 80549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. J. Cabello & M. Luque & F. Miguel & A. Ruiz & F. Ruiz, 2014. "A multiobjective interactive approach to determine the optimal electricity mix in Andalucía (Spain)," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 22(1), pages 109-127, April.
    8. Bratanova, Alexandra & Robinson, Jacqueline & Wagner, Liam & Kolegov, Vitaly & Nikitchenko, Aleksey & Nikitchenko, Anna, 2015. "Multiple criteria analysis of policy alternatives to improve energy efficiency in industry in Russia," MPRA Paper 67178, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bhumika Gupta & Salil K. Sen, 2019. "Carbon Capture Usage and Storage with Scale-up: Energy Finance through Bricolage Deploying the Co-integration Methodology," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(6), pages 146-153.
    10. 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.
    11. Konstantina Peloriadi & Petros Iliadis & Panagiotis Boutikos & Konstantinos Atsonios & Panagiotis Grammelis & Aristeidis Nikolopoulos, 2022. "Technoeconomic Assessment of LNG-Fueled Solid Oxide Fuel Cells in Small Island Systems: The Patmos Island Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Haurant, P. & Oberti, P. & Muselli, M., 2011. "Multicriteria selection aiding related to photovoltaic plants on farming fields on Corsica island: A real case study using the ELECTRE outranking framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 676-688, February.
    13. Sanna, Aimaro & Dri, Marco & Hall, Matthew R. & Maroto-Valer, Mercedes, 2012. "Waste materials for carbon capture and storage by mineralisation (CCSM) – A UK perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 545-554.
    14. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    15. Lee, Suh-Young & Lee, Jae-Uk & Lee, In-Beum & Han, Jeehoon, 2017. "Design under uncertainty of carbon capture and storage infrastructure considering cost, environmental impact, and preference on risk," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 725-738.
    16. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    17. Ren, Hongbo & Gao, Weijun & Zhou, Weisheng & Nakagami, Ken'ichi, 2009. "Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5484-5493, December.
    18. Joseph G. Eisenhauer, 2010. "Relative Risk Aversion as an Arc Elasticity," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 13(1), pages 161-172, March.
    19. Cowan, Kelly & Daim, Tugrul & Anderson, Tim, 2010. "Exploring the impact of technology development and adoption for sustainable hydroelectric power and storage technologies in the Pacific Northwest United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 4771-4779.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:9:p:1720-1737. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.