Decision Making on Energy Options: A Case Study

  • V. Jain
  • D. Datta
  • A. Deshpande
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 502)


Major decisions are made without advance knowledge of their consequences including decision on energy options. In spite of the best efforts initiated in the development of renewable energy resources, it is too early to visualize that the ever-increasing gap between supply and demand of energy, for peaceful purposes, should be bridged in the near future. A mix of low carbon sources, including nuclear energy and renewable energy, while limiting greenhouse gases is considered a viable solution with less/no computations. In this chapter, a brief write up on Kahneman and Tversky’s Prospect Theory is presented. Authors believe that the perception of gain, loss and risk are intrinsically fuzzy due to limited or no information about the future scenario. Computing with words, a facet of Restriction—Centered Theory of Reasoning and Computation (RCC) proposed by Prof. Lotfi A. Zadeh, could therefore be a useful armamentarium in decision making under risk and uncertainty. The case study, describing decision-making for the energy prospects (options) in India under risk and uncertainty, is presented by using prospect theory, type-1 and type-2 fuzzy relational calculus- a subset of Computing with Words. A commentary on safety of nuclear plants in India is an integral part of the chapter.


Decision making Prospect theory Cumulative prospect theory Type-1 and Type-2 fuzzy relations Renewable and nonrenewable energy resources Computing with words Reference point 



We are deeply indebted and would like to express our immense gratitude towards Prof. Lotfi A. Zadeh, the father of fuzzy logic for his motivation and all helpful and insightful suggestions. Also, the authors thank the esteemed referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Aliev, R., Pedrycz, W., Fazlollahi, B., Huseynov, O.H., Alizadeh, A.V., Guirimov, B.G.: Fuzzy logic-based generalized decision theory with imperfect information. Inf. Sci. 189, 18–42 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deshpande, A., Jain, V.: Computing with words on energy options?—towards decision under risk and uncertainty. Int. J. Nucl. Knowl. Manag. 5(2), 219–232 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gonzalez, R., Wu, G.: On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cogn. Psychol. 38, 129–166 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo, P.: One-shot decision theory. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 4(5), 917–926 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Jain, V., Deshpande, A. : Prospect theory on energy options?—towards decision making under risk. In: 2nd International Conference on Reliability, Safety & Hazard, pp. 112–117 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 4, 263–291 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: An introduction to type-2 fuzzy logic systems. USC Report, (1998)
  9. 9.
    Karnik, N.N., Mendel, J.M.: Operations on type-2 fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 122, 327–348 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lattimore, P.K., Baker, J.R., Witte, A.D.: The influence of probability on risky choice—a parametric examination. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 17(3), 377–400 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton (1944)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quiggin, J.: A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 3(4), 323–343 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5(4), 297–323 (1992)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu, G., Gonzalez, R.: Curvature of the probability weighting function. Manag. Sci. 42, 1676–1690 (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Computing with words—why? and how? WORLDCOMP 2010. Las Vegas, NV, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Toward a perception based theory of probabilistic reasoning with imprecise probabilities. J. Stat. Planning Infer. 105, 233–264 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsCentral University of RajasthanKishangarhIndia
  2. 2.Computational Radiation Physics Section, Health Physics DivisionBhabha Atomic Research CentreMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing (BISC)-Special Interest Group (SIG)—Environment Management Systems (EMS)College of Engineering PunePuneIndia

Personalised recommendations