Advertisement

Selection of features for analysis of reliability of performance in hydropower plants: a multi-criteria decision making approach

  • Priyanka MajumderEmail author
  • Mrinmoy Majumder
  • Apu Kumar Saha
  • Soumitra Nath
Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Hydropower is one of the most reliable and inexpensive forms of renewable energy that has maximum potential to replace conventional energy resources. However, due to the variations in climatic parameters along with the increased rate of urbanization, the reliability of hydropower plant in satisfying the increased demand requires additional measures which upsurges the operational expenditure. As a consequence, smart mitigation techniques are required to be adopted which can identify the trade-off between optimization of power production considering economic constraints, climatic variability and increased demand. This paper aims at proposing an intelligent mitigation measure to control the trade-off with the help of some group of indicators which have the maximum impact on production reliability of a power plant. This significance-based parameter modification entails recognition of the indicators and their significance in controlling reliability of a hydropower plant with the help of objective decision making methods and validating the selection by laboratory-based physical models as well as real-life case studies. A number of multi-criteria decision making methods which were popular in the identification of best decision out of many options were utilized in the detection of the significant indicators and their importance where the ensembled output from multiple multi-criteria decision making methods was used to detect the priority indicators and their priority. The results were validated by the physical replication of a hydropower plant which seconded the output from the decision making techniques. According to the results, the efficiency of the prime mover and the generators was found to be most substantial in regulating the reliability of the plant production. The physical model and real-life scenario both supported the selection.

Keywords

Reliability analysis Ensemble multi-criteria decision making Feature selection Renewable energy Physical model of power plant 

Abbreviations

MCDM

Multi-criteria decision making

Fuzzy AHP

Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Fuzzy WSM

Fuzzy weighted sum model

Fuzzy ANP

Fuzzy analytic network process

TOPSIS

Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution

DEA

Data envelopment analysis

HPPs

Hydropower plants

HPP

Hydropower plant

E

Economic stability

U

Urbanization impact

C

Climate change impacts

PV

Priority value

T

Turbine efficiency

R

Reliability of plant performance

G

Electrical or generator efficiency

FC

Firm capacity

Notes

References

  1. Adhikari, R., & Wood, D. (2018). The design of high efficiency cross flow hydro turbines: A review and extension. Energies, 11(2), 267.Google Scholar
  2. Alilou, H., Rahmati, O., Singh, V. P., Choubin, B., Pradhan, B., Keesstra, S., et al. (2019). Evaluation of watershed health using fuzzy-ANP approach considering geo-environmental and topo-hydrological criteria. Journal of Environmental Management, 232, 22–36.Google Scholar
  3. Amin, A. Z. (2013). How renewable energy can be cost-competitive. UN Chronicle, 52(3), 8–11.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, D., Moggridge, H., Shucksmith, J. D., & Warren, P. H. (2017). Quantifying the impact of water abstraction for low head ‘run of the river’ hydropower on localized river channel hydraulics and benthic macroinvertebrates. River Research and Applications, 33(2), 202–213.Google Scholar
  5. Ayag, Z., & Yücekaya, A. (2019). A fuzzy ANP-based GRA approach to evaluate ERP packages. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (IJEIS), 15(1), 45–68.Google Scholar
  6. Bide, Z., Yuan, T., & Ping, Z. J. (2013). Vibration fault diagnosis of hydropower units based on Choquet fuzzy integral. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 32, 61–66.Google Scholar
  7. Bohlen, C., & Lewis, L. Y. (2009). Examining the economic impacts of hydropower dams on property values using GIS. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S258–S269.Google Scholar
  8. Bolgov, M. V., Buber, A. L., Komarovskii, A. A., & Lotov, A. V. (2018). Searching for compromise solution in the planning and managing of releases into the lower pool of the volgograd hydropower system. I. Strategic Planning. Water Resources, 45(5), 819–826.Google Scholar
  9. Borges, C. L., & Pinto, R. J. (2008). Small hydro power plants energy availability modeling for generation reliability evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 23(3), 1125–1135.Google Scholar
  10. Calabria, F. A., Camanho, A. S., & Zanella, A. (2018). The use of composite indicators to evaluate the performance of Brazilian hydropower plants. International Transactions in Operational Research, 25(4), 1323–1343.Google Scholar
  11. Carvajal, P. E., Anandarajah, G., Mulugetta, Y., & Dessens, O. (2017). Assessing uncertainty of climate change impacts on long-term hydropower generation using the CMIP5 ensemble—The case of Ecuador. Climatic Change, 144(4), 611–624.Google Scholar
  12. Chae, K. J., Kim, I. S., Ren, X., & Cheon, K. H. (2015). Reliable energy recovery in an existing municipal wastewater treatment plant with a flow-variable micro-hydropower system. Energy Conversion and Management, 101, 681–688.Google Scholar
  13. Chang, J., Li, Y., Yuan, M., & Wang, Y. (2017). Efficiency evaluation of hydropower station operation: A case study of Longyangxia station in the Yellow River, China. Energy, 135, 23–31.Google Scholar
  14. Cheng, J., Ai, L., Duan, Z., & Xiong, Y. (2014). Fault classification of hydroelectric generating unit based on improved evidence. Theory the Open Fuels and Energy Science Journal, 7, 78–83.Google Scholar
  15. Chiacchio, F., D’Urso, D., Famoso, F., Brusca, S., Aizpurua, J. I., & Catterson, V. M. (2018). On the use of dynamic reliability for an accurate modelling of renewable power plants. Energy, 151, 605–621.Google Scholar
  16. de Faria, F. A., Davis, A., Severnini, E., & Jaramillo, P. (2017). The local socio-economic impacts of large hydropower plant development in a developing country. Energy Economics, 67, 533–544.Google Scholar
  17. Demirbas, A., Hashem, A. A., & Bakhsh, A. A. (2017). The cost analysis of electric power generation in Saudi Arabia. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 12(6), 591–596.Google Scholar
  18. Deshmukh, S., & Sunnapwar, V. (2019). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for green supplier selection in Indian Industries. In Proceedings of international conference on intelligent manufacturing and automation (pp. 679–687). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Ding, Z., Fang, G., Wen, X., Tan, Q., Huang, X., Lei, X., et al. (2018). A novel operation chart for cascade hydropower system to alleviate ecological degradation in hydrological extremes. Ecological Modelling, 384, 10–22.Google Scholar
  20. Djelailia, O., Kelaiaia, M. S., Labar, H., Necaibia, S., & Merad, F. (2019). Energy hybridization photovoltaic/diesel generator/pump storage hydroelectric management based on online optimal fuel consumption per kWh. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 1–15.Google Scholar
  21. Dujardin, J., Kahl, A., Kruyt, B., Bartlett, S., & Lehning, M. (2017). Interplay between photovoltaic, wind energy and storage hydropower in a fully renewable Switzerland. Energy, 135, 513–525.Google Scholar
  22. Fan, J.-L., Hu, J.-W., Zhang, X., Kong, L.-S., Li, F., & Mi, Z. (2018). Impacts of climate change on hydropower generation in China. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2018.01.002.Google Scholar
  23. Faria, E., Barroso, L. A., Kelman, R., Granville, S., & Pereira, M. V. (2009). Allocation of firm-energy rights among hydro plants: An Aumann–Shapley approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 24(2), 541–551.Google Scholar
  24. Filippini, M., Geissmann, T., & Greene, W. H. (2018). Persistent and transient cost efficiency—An application to the Swiss hydropower sector. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 49(1), 65–77.Google Scholar
  25. Findawati, Y., Qomariyah, N., Fitroni, A. S., & Abdullah, D. (2018). Decision support system for Islamic couple selection using fuzzy-AHP and WSM method based web. In MATEC web of conferences (Vol. 197, p. 15009). EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
  26. Forrest, K., Tarroja, B., Chiang, F., AghaKouchak, A., & Samuelsen, S. (2018). Assessing climate change impacts on California hydropower generation and ancillary services provision. Climatic Change, 151(3–4), 395–412.Google Scholar
  27. Gernaat, D. E., Bogaart, P. W., van Vuuren, D. P., Biemans, H., & Niessink, R. (2017). High-resolution assessment of global technical and economic hydropower potential. Nature Energy, 2(10), 821.Google Scholar
  28. Hameed, S., Wei, W., Farrukh, U., & Mushtaq, K. (2019). Switching to hydropower renewable energy to mitigate the effects of the carbon emissions in South and East Asian economies. MPRA Paper No. 90435. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/90435/.
  29. Hammid, A. T., Sulaiman, M. H. B., & Abdalla, A. N. (2018). Prediction of small hydropower plant power production in Himreen Lake dam (HLD) using artificial neural network. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(1), 211–221.Google Scholar
  30. Hemmati, N., Rahiminezhad Galankashi, M., Imani, D. M., & Farughi, H. (2018). Maintenance policy selection: A fuzzy-ANP approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(7), 1253–1268.Google Scholar
  31. Hesketh, T., Pryor, R., & Hesketh, B. (1988). An application of a computerized fuzzy graphic rating scale to the psychological measurement of individual differences. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 29(1), 21–35.Google Scholar
  32. Hilden, M., Huuki, H., Kivisaari, V., & Kopsakangas-Savolainen, M. (2018). The importance of transnational impacts of climate change in a power market. Energy Policy, 115, 418–425.Google Scholar
  33. Iman-Eini, H., Frey, D., Bacha, S., Boudinet, C., & Schanen, J. L. (2019). Evaluation of loss effect on optimum operation of variable speed micro-hydropower energy conversion systems. Renewable Energy, 131, 1022–1034.Google Scholar
  34. Jain, R. (1990). The art of computer systems performance analysis: Techniques for experimental design, measurement, simulation, and modeling. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Jenkin, T. J., Feldman, D. J., Kwan, A., & Walker, B. J. (2019). Estimating the impact of residual value for electricity generation plants on capital recovery, levelized cost of energy, and cost to consumers (No. NREL/TP-6A20-72217). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL).Google Scholar
  36. John, C. J., & James, T. T. (2011). Annual energy outlook.Google Scholar
  37. Karki, R., Hu, P., & Billinton, R. (2010). Reliability evaluation considering wind and hydro power coordination. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25(2), 685–693.Google Scholar
  38. Kaunda, C. S., Kimambo, C. Z., & Nielsen, T. K. (2012). Hydropower in the context of sustainable energy supply: A review of technologies and challenges. ISRN Renewable Energy, 2012, 15.Google Scholar
  39. Kohar, R. (2018). Optimal web service selection model using fuzzy extended AHP and weighted sum method. Journal of Digital Information Management, 16(4), 157.Google Scholar
  40. Lopes, V. S., & Borges, C. L. (2015). Impact of the combined integration of wind generation and small hydropower plants on the system reliability. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 6(3), 1169–1177.Google Scholar
  41. Mahmud, M. A. P., Huda, N., Farjana, S. H., & Lang, C. (2018, May). Environmental sustainability assessment of hydropower plant in Europe using life cycle assessment. In IOP conference series: Materials science and engineering (Vol. 351, No. 1, p. 012006). IOP Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Majumder, M. (2015). Impact of urbanization on water shortage in face of climatic aberrations. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Majumder, M. (2016). Minimization of climatic vulnerabilities on mini-hydro power plants: Fuzzy AHP, fuzzy ANP techniques and neuro-genetic model approach. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Majumder, P., Majumder, M., & Saha, A. K. (2016a). Application of decision making for optimal condition method to analyze operational efficiency of hydropower plants. International Journal of Control Theory and Applications, 9(42), 79–94.Google Scholar
  45. Majumder, P., Majumder, M., & Saha, A. K. (2016b). An optimization-MCDM approach of multi criteria decision analysis. International Journal of Control Theory and Applications, 9(40), 417–423.Google Scholar
  46. Majumder, P., Majumder, M., & Saha, A. K. (2018). Climate change and urbanization impact on hydropower plant by neural network-based decision-making methods: Identification of the most significant parameter. Water Conservation Science and Engineering, 2018, 1–11.Google Scholar
  47. Majumder, M., & Saha, A. K. (2016). Impact of climate change on hydro-energy potential: A MCDM and neural network approach. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Majumder, P., & Saha, A. K. (2018). Efficiency assignment of hydropower plants by DEMATEL-MAPPAC approach. Water Conservation Science and Engineering, 3, 1–7.Google Scholar
  49. Mutikanga, H. E. (2012). Water loss management: Tools and methods for developing countries. Delft: IHE Delft Institute for Water Education.Google Scholar
  50. Räsänen, T. A., Varis, O., Scherer, L., & Kummu, M. (2018). Greenhouse gas emissions of hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Environmental Research Letters, 13(3), 034030.Google Scholar
  51. Rathore, A., & Patidar, N. P. (2019). Reliability assessment using probabilistic modelling of pumped storage hydro plant with PV-wind based standalone microgrid. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 106, 17–32.Google Scholar
  52. Riva, F., Berti, L., Mandelli, S., Pendezza, J., & Colombo, E. (2017, June). On-field assessment of reliable electricity access scenarios through a bottom-up approach: The case of Ninga SHPP, Tanzania. In 2017 6th international conference on clean electrical power (ICCEP) (pp. 340–346). IEEE.Google Scholar
  53. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.Google Scholar
  54. Samvedi, A., Jain, V., & Chan, F. T. (2012). An integrated approach for machine tool selection using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 50(12), 3211–3221.Google Scholar
  55. Sangal, S., Singhal, M. K., & Saini, R. P. (2018). Hydro-abrasive erosion in hydro turbines: A review. International Journal of Green Energy, 15(4), 232–253.Google Scholar
  56. Sargent, R. G. (2013). Verification and validation of simulation models. Journal of Simulation, 7(1), 12–24.Google Scholar
  57. Scherer, L., & Pfister, S. (2016). Hydropower’s biogenic carbon footprint. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0161947.Google Scholar
  58. Schmidt, O., Hawkes, A., Gambhir, A., & Staffell, I. (2017). The future cost of electrical energy storage based on experience rates. Nature Energy, 2(8), 17110.Google Scholar
  59. Shrestha, S., Bajracharya, A. R., & Babel, M. S. (2016). Assessment of risks due to climate change for the Upper Tamakoshi Hydropower Project in Nepal. Climate Risk Management, 14, 27–41.Google Scholar
  60. Sisodia, G., Sharma, K., & Gupta, S. (2018). Intuitionistic fuzzy weighted sum and product method for electronic service quality selection problem.Google Scholar
  61. Soder, L., & Amelin, M. (2008, July). A review of different methodologies used for calculation of wind power capacity credit. In Power and energy society general meeting-conversion and delivery of electrical energy in the 21st century, 2008 IEEE (pp. 1–5). IEEE.Google Scholar
  62. Sozen, A., Alp, İ., & Kilinc, C. (2012). Efficiency assessment of the hydro-power plants in Turkey by using data envelopment analysis. Renewable Energy, 46, 192–202.Google Scholar
  63. Tahir, M. F., & Saqib, M. A. (2016). Optimal scheduling of electrical power in energy-deficient scenarios using artificial neural network and Bootstrap aggregating. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 83, 49–57.Google Scholar
  64. Tong, C. (2019). Advanced materials and devices for hydropower and ocean energy. In Introduction to materials for advanced energy systems (pp. 445–501). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Triantaphyllou, E., & Lin, C. T. (1996). Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. International Journal of Approximate reasoning, 14(4), 281–310.Google Scholar
  66. Turner, S. W., Hejazi, M., Kim, S. H., Clarke, L., & Edmonds, J. (2017). Climate impacts on hydropower and consequences for global electricity supply investment needs. Energy, 141, 2081–2090.Google Scholar
  67. Ummalla, M., & Samal, A. (2018). The impact of hydropower energy consumption on economic growth and CO2 emissions in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(35), 35725–35737.Google Scholar
  68. Valipour, A., Yahaya, N., Md Noor, N., Kildienė, S., Sarvari, H., & Mardani, A. (2015). A fuzzy analytic network process method for risk prioritization in freeway PPP projects: An Iranian case study. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21(7), 933–947.Google Scholar
  69. Verán-Leigh, D., & Vázquez-Rowe, I. (2019). Life cycle assessment of run-of-river hydropower plants in the Peruvian Andes: A policy support perspective. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7, 1–20.Google Scholar
  70. Wang, D., Cheng, S., Yang, N., Wu, C., Jia, R., & Xie, Q. (2018, July). Fault diagnosis of draft tube based on stochastic resonance, multi-dimensional entropy and optimized SVM model. In 2018 3rd international conference on advanced robotics and mechatronics (ICARM) (pp. 846–850). IEEE.Google Scholar
  71. Wang, J., Guo, M., & Liu, Y. (2018b). Hydropower unit commitment with nonlinearity decoupled from mixed integer nonlinear problem. Energy, 150, 839–846.Google Scholar
  72. Wang, B., Nistor, I., Murty, T., & Wei, Y. M. (2014). Efficiency assessment of hydroelectric power plants in Canada: A multi criteria decision making approach. Energy Economics, 46, 112–121.Google Scholar
  73. Wang, B., Song, J., Ren, J., Li, K., Duan, H., & Wang, X. E. (2019). Selecting sustainable energy conversion technologies for agricultural residues: A fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based prioritization from life cycle perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 142, 78–87.Google Scholar
  74. Wu, J., Guo, Q., Yuan, J., Lin, J., Xiao, L., & Yang, D. (2019). An integrated approach for allocating carbon emission quotas in China’s emissions trading system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 143, 291–298.Google Scholar
  75. Xie, H., Yu, Y., Wang, W., & Liu, Y. (2017). The substitutability of non-fossil energy, potential carbon emission reduction and energy shadow prices in China. Energy Policy, 107, 63–71.Google Scholar
  76. Xu, B., Jun, H. B., Chen, D., Li, H., Zhang, J., Blanco, C. J. C., et al. (2019). Stability analysis of a hydro-turbine governing system considering inner energy losses. Renewable Energy, 134, 258–266.Google Scholar
  77. Yucesan, M., & Kahraman, G. (2019). Risk evaluation and prevention in hydropower plant operations: A model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP. Energy Policy, 126, 343–351.Google Scholar
  78. Zadeh, L. (1963). Optimality and non-scalar-valued performance criteria. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 8(1), 59–60.Google Scholar
  79. Zang, W., Liu, S., Huang, S., Li, J., Fu, Y., Sun, Y., et al. (2019). Impact of urbanization on hydrological processes under different precipitation scenarios. Natural Hazards, 7, 1–25.Google Scholar
  80. Zhang, X., Peng, Y., Xu, W., & Wang, B. (2019). An optimal operation model for hydropower stations considering inflow forecasts with different lead-times. Water Resources Management, 33(1), 173–188.Google Scholar
  81. Zhou, D., & Deng, Z. D. (2017). Ultra-low-head hydroelectric technology: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78, 23–30.Google Scholar
  82. Zhou, Q., Hanasaki, N., Fujimori, S., Masaki, Y., & Hijioka, Y. (2018). Economic consequences of global climate change and mitigation on future hydropower generation. Climatic Change, 147(1–2), 77–90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priyanka Majumder
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mrinmoy Majumder
    • 2
  • Apu Kumar Saha
    • 1
  • Soumitra Nath
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsNational Institute of TechnologyAgartala, Barjala, JiraniaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyAgartala, Barjala, JiraniaIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringTechno College of Engineering AgartalaMadhubanIndia

Personalised recommendations