Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Research and Technology Management in the Electricity Industry pp 17–30Cite as

Multi-Criteria Applications in Renewable Energy Analysis, a Literature Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Green Energy and Technology ((GREEN))

Abstract

Energy impacts so many aspects of our lives. This makes it necessary to evaluate multiple aspects when we are evaluating energy alternatives. This chapter introduces us to a spectrum of tools for this evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aras H et al (2004) Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process. Renew Energy 29:1383–1392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee SK et al (2009) Decision support for prioritizing energy technologies against high oil prices: a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. J Loss Prev Process Ind 22:915–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Afgan NH, Carvalho MG (2002) Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants. Energy 27:739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. San Cristóbal JR (2011) Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: the Vikor method. Renew Energy 36:498–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cavallaro F (2009) Multi-criteria decision aid to assess concentrated solar thermal technologies. Renew Energy 34:1678–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision-making to sustainable energy planning–a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 8:365–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Climaco J (1997) Multicriteria analysis. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Diakaki C et al (2010) A multi-objective decision model for the improvement of energy efficiency in buildings. Energy 35:5483–5496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang M et al (2010) The comparison between MAUT and PROMETHEE. In: IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IEEM), 2010, pp 753–757

    Google Scholar 

  10. Polatidis H et al (2006) Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources Part B 1:181–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chu M-T et al (2007) Comparison among three analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis. Expert Syst Appl 33:1011–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hobbs BF, Horn GTF (1997) Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energy Policy 25:357–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang J–J et al (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:2263–2278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhou P et al (2006) Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: an update. Energy 31:2604–2622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Saaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process–what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9:161–176

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Saaty TL (1996) Decision-making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RSW Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cheng EWL, Li H (2005) Analytic network process applied to project selection. J Constr Eng Manag 131:459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Oberschmidt J et al (2010) Modified PROMETHEE approach for assessing energy technologies. Int J Energy Sector Manag 4:183–212

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wang J–J et al (2008) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for trigeneration system. Energy Policy 36:3823–3832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Greening LA, Bernow S (2004) Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 32:721–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Diakoulaki D, Karangelis F (2007) Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11:716–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cavallaro F (2010) A comparative assessment of thin-film photovoltaic production processes using the ELECTRE III method. Energy Policy 38:463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hämäläinen RP, Karjalainen R (1992) Decision support for risk analysis in energy policy. Eur J Oper Res 56:172–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kablan MM (2004) Decision support for energy conservation promotion: an analytic hierarchy process approach. Energy Policy 32:1151–1158, 7 2004

    Google Scholar 

  26. Köne AÇ, Büke T (2007) An analytical network process (ANP) evaluation of alternative fuels for electricity generation in Turkey. Energy Policy 35:5220–5228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee SK et al (2007) A study on making a long-term improvement in the national energy efficiency and GHG control plans by the AHP approach. Energy Policy 35:2862–2868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee SK et al (2008) The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: the AHP approach. Energy Policy 36:1284–1291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Önüt S et al (2008) Multiple criteria evaluation of current energy resources for Turkish manufacturing industry. Energy Convers Manage 49:1480–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ulutas BH (2005) Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey. Energy 30:1146–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Beccali M et al (1998) Decision-making in energy planning: the ELECTRE multicriteria analysis approach compared to a FUZZY-SETS methodology. Energy Convers Manag 39:1869–1881

    Google Scholar 

  32. Georgopoulou E et al (1997) A multicriteria decision aid approach for energy planning problems: the case of renewable energy option. Eur J Oper Res 103:38–54

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Kowalski K et al (2009) Sustainable energy futures: methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. Eur J Oper Res 197:1063–1074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Topcu YI, Ulengin F (2004) Energy for the future: an integrated decision aid for the case of Turkey. Energy 29:137–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Borges AR, Antunes CH (2003) A fuzzy multiple objective decision support model for energy-economy planning. Eur J Oper Res 145:304–316

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Kahraman C, Kaya I (2010) A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst Appl 37:6270–6281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee SK et al (2008) A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach for assessing national competitiveness in the hydrogen technology sector. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33:6840–6848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Afgan NH et al (2007) Multi-criteria evaluation of hydrogen system options. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32:3183–3193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Diakoulaki D et al (1999) The use of a preference disaggregation method in energy analysis and policy making. Energy 24:157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Enzensberger N et al (2002) Policy instruments fostering wind energy projects–a multi-perspective evaluation approach. Energy Policy 30:793–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Keeney RL et al (1987) Structuring West Germany’s energy objectives. Energy Policy 15:352–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schulz V, Stehfest H (1984) Regional energy supply optimization with multiple objectives. Eur J Oper Res 17:302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA (2009) Sensitivity analysis of technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 37:788–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA (2009) Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 37:778–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nigim K et al (2004) Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources. Renew Energy 29:1775–1791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pilavachi PA et al (2009) Multi-criteria evaluation of hydrogen and natural gas fuelled power plant technologies. Appl Therm Eng 29:2228–2234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tzeng G-H et al (2005) Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33:1373–1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Beccali M et al (2003) Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renew Energy 28:2063–2087, 10 2003

    Google Scholar 

  49. Siskos J, Hubert P (1983) Multi-criteria analysis of the impacts of energy alternatives: a survey and a new comparative approach. Eur J Oper Res 13:278–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Haralambopoulos DA, Polatidis H (2003) Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework. Renew Energy 28:961–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Cai YP et al (2009) Planning of community-scale renewable energy management systems in a mixed stochastic and fuzzy environment. Renew Energy 34:1833–1847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kahraman C et al (2009) A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 34:1603–1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Afgan NH, Carvalho MG (2008) Sustainability assessment of a hybrid energy system. Energy Policy 36:2903–2910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Afgan NH et al (2007) Multi-criteria evaluation of natural gas resources. Energy Policy 35:704–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Burton J, Hubacek K (2007) Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small-scale energy technology applications in local governments. Energy Policy 35:6402–6412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cavallaro F, Ciraolo L (2005) A multicriteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island. Energy Policy 33:235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Polatidis H, Haralambopoulos DA (2004) Local renewable energy planning: a participatory multi-criteria approach. Energy Sources 26:1253–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Roth S et al (2009) Sustainability of electricity supply technology portfolio. Ann Nucl Energy 36:409–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Aragonés-Beltrán P et al (2010) An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant investment projects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:249–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy 35:2517–2527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee AHI et al (2009) Multi-criteria decision-making on strategic selection of wind farms. Renew Energy 34:120–126, 1 2009

    Google Scholar 

  62. Meade LA, Presley A (2005) R&D project selection using ANP… the analytic network process. IEEE Potentials 21:22–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Goletsis Y et al (2003) Project ranking in the Armenian energy sector using a multicriteria method for groups. Ann Oper Res 120:135–157

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Goumas M, Lygerou V (2000) An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. Eur J Oper Res 123:606–613

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Safaei Mohamadabadi H et al (2009) Development of a multi-criteria assessment model for ranking of renewable and non-renewable transportation fuel vehicles. Energy 34:112–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ben Salah C et al (2008) Multi-criteria fuzzy algorithm for - energy management of a domestic photovoltaic panel. Renew Energy 33:993–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Cavallaro F (2010) Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for assessing thermal-energy storage in concentrated solar power (CSP) systems. Appl Energy 87:496–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mohanty RP et al (2005) A fuzzy ANP-based approach to R&D project selection: a case study. Int J Prod Res 43:5199–5216

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Begic F, Afgan NH (2007) Sustainability assessment tool for the decision-making in selection of energy system–Bosnian case. Energy 32:1979–1985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Cherni JA et al (2007) Energy supply for sustainable rural livelihoods. A multi-criteria decision-support system. Energy Policy 35:1493–1504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Espie P et al (2003) Multiple criteria decision making techniques applied to electricity distribution system planning. IEE Proc Gener Transm Distrib 150:527–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Goumas MG et al (1999) Computational methods for planning and evaluating geothermal energy projects. Energy Policy 27:147–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ivanova EY et al (2005) A multi—criteria approach to expansion planning of wind power plants in electric power systems. In: Power tech, 2005 IEEE Russia, 2005, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  74. Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA (2007) Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 35:4027–4038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Jianjian Z et al (2009) Multi-criteria evaluation of alternative power supply using analytic hierarchy process. In: International conference on sustainable power generation and supply 2009. SUPERGEN ‘09, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  76. Salminen P et al (1998) Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems. Eur J Oper Res 104:485–496

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  77. Huang JP et al (1995) Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy 20:843–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Lahdelma R et al (2000) Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environ Manag 26:595–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Linkov I et al (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Mirasgedis S, Diakoulaki D (1997) Multicriteria analysis vs. externalities assessment for the comparative evaluation of electricity generation systems. Eur J Oper Res 102:364–379

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  81. Patlitzianas KD et al (2007) Assessing the renewable energy producers’ environment in EU accession member states. Energy Convers Manag 48:890–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lee SK et al (2010) Econometric analysis of the R&D performance in the national hydrogen energy technology development for measuring relative efficiency: the fuzzy AHP/DEA integrated model approach. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35:2236–2246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Hacking T, Guthrie P (2008) A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28:73–89, 0 2008

    Google Scholar 

  84. Daim T et al (2009) Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: the case of the Pacific Northwest. Technol Soc 31:232–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Zhou P et al (2008) A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. Eur J Oper Res 189:1–18

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  86. Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA (2008) Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 36:1074–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Li YF et al (2010) Energy and environmental systems planning under uncertainty–an inexact fuzzy-stochastic programming approach. Appl Energy 87:3189–3211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Theodorou S et al (2010) The use of multiple criteria decision-making methodologies for the promotion of RES through funding schemes in Cyprus, a review. Energy Policy 38:7783–7792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Hobbs BF, Meier PM (2002) Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison. IEEE Trans Power Syst 9:1811–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Opricovic S, Tzeng G-H (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  91. Opricovic S, Tzeng G-H (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178:514–529

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Portland State University, Portland, USA

    Rimal Abu Taha & Tugrul Daim

Authors
  1. Rimal Abu Taha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tugrul Daim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tugrul Daim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, SW Fourth, Portland, 97201, USA

    Tugrul Daim

  2. Bonneville Power Administration, NE 11th Ave 905, Portland, 97207, Oregon, USA

    Terry Oliver

  3. Bonneville Power Administration, NE 11th Ave 905, Portland, 97232, Oregon, USA

    Jisun Kim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Abu Taha, R., Daim, T. (2013). Multi-Criteria Applications in Renewable Energy Analysis, a Literature Review. In: Daim, T., Oliver, T., Kim, J. (eds) Research and Technology Management in the Electricity Industry. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5097-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5097-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5096-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5097-8

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation