Advertisement

Climate pp 311-332 | Cite as

Energy Security: Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Select Power Supply Alternatives for Small Settlements

  • A. Tkachuk
  • Z. Collier
  • A. Travleev
  • V. Levchenko
  • A. Levchenko
  • Y. Kazansky
  • S. Parad
  • I. Linkov
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Abstract

Selecting an effective energy strategy for military installations and small towns is a challenge given the variety of climate, geographical, economic, and social conditions as well as military mission needs. This chapter illustrates a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for energy infrastructure planning and technology selection that can be applied to energy security, climate change impacts, and other related uncertainties. The decision model frames the problem in terms of the power plant life cycle, including plant development, commissioning, operation, and decommissioning. Metrics associated with technical, economic, sociopolitical, ecological, and human health risks are considered for each life cycle stage. These criteria and metrics are developed and quantified based on available literature data and expert judgments, and are applied to a realistic case study.

Keywords

Analytical Hierarchy Process Wind Farm Expert Judgment Human Health Risk Life Cycle Stage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Christopher Karvetski and Matthew Bates for their review and suggestions. This effort was sponsored in part by the USACE Civil Works Basic Research Program by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center and the Department of Army Installation Technology Transfer Program. Permission was granted by the USACE Chief of Engineers to publish this material. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and not those of the U.S. Army, or other sponsor organizations.

References

  1. 1.
    Ananda J, Herath G (2009) A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ 68(10):2535–2548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axsäter S (2006) Inventory control. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blumenthal A (1977) The process of cognition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA (2008) Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 36:1074–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA (2009) Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 37:778–787Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Connolly T (2000) Judgment and decision making: an interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooke R (1991) Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dean WD (2008) Wind turbine mechanical vibrations: potential environmental threat. Energy Environ 19(2):303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Energy (2010) Small modular reactors. http://nuclear.energy.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/2011_SMR_Factsheet.pdf
  11. 11.
    DTLR (2001) DTLR multi-criteria analysis manual. UK Department for Transport, Local Government and the RegionsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eleftheriadou E, Haralambopoulos D, Polatidis H (2004) A multi-criteria approach to siting wind farms in Lesvos, Greece. In: Proceedings of the 7th Pan-Hellenic Geographical conference of the Hellenic Geographical Association, Mytilene, vol II, pp 390–395Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis—state of the art surveys. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fort Bliss (2009) Energy security tiger team assessment—Fort Bliss, Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    French S (2003) Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: the roles of sensitivity analysis. TOP 11(2):229–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fthenakis VM (2004) Environmental life cycle assessment of cadmium telluride solar cells: Cd emissions, National Photovoltaic Environmental Research Center, Department of Environmental Sciences, Brookhaven National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fthenakis VM, Moskowitz PD (2008) The value and feasibility of proactive recycling. Environmental and Waste Technology Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, UptonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galena (2007) Overview of Galena’s proposed approach to licensing a 4S nuclear reactor based power generation facility, City of Galena, Alaska. http://www.roe.com/pdfs/technical/Galena/Overview%20Whitepaper%20Rev02.pdf
  19. 19.
    Gen-IV International Forum (2008) Introduction to Generation IV nuclear energy systems and the International Forum. http://www.gen-4.org/PDFs/GIF_introduction.pdf
  20. 20.
    Greening LA, Bernow S (2004) Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 32:721–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haralambopoulos DA, Polatidis H (2003) Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework. Renewable Energy 28:961–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hobbs BF, Meier P (2000) Energy decision and the environment: a guide to the use of multicriteria methods. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang JP, Poh KL, Ang BW (1995) Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy 20(9):843–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and application. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    IAEA (2007) Status of small reactor designs without On-Ste Refuelling, IAEA-TECHDOC-1536. http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/PubDetails.asp?pubId=7658
  26. 26.
    Ingersoll DT (2009) Deliberately small reactors and the second nuclear era. Prog Nucl Energy 51:589–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Inhelder B, Piaget J (1958) The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. Basic Books, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karvetski C, Lambert J, Linkov I (2010) Scenario and multiple criteria decision analysis for energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations. Integr Environ Assess Manage 7(2):228–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keeney RL (1975) Energy policy and value tradeoffs. IIASA Res. Memorandum, RM-75-76Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keeney RL (1975) Multiattribute utility analysis: a brief survey. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Research Memorandum, RM-75-43Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keeney RL, Robillard GA (1977) Assessing and evaluating environmental impacts at proposed nuclear power plant sites. J Environ Econ Manag 4:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manage 1(2):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Köne AC, Büke T (2007) An Analytical Network Process (ANP) evaluation of alternative fuels for electricity generation in Turkey. Energy Policy 35:5220–5228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kröger W (2008) Critical infrastructure at risk: a need for a new conceptual approach and extended analytical tools. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:1781–1787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J, Salminen P (1998) SMAA—Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 106(1):137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Levchenko VA, Kazansky YA, Barshevtsev VA, Yurev YS, Belugin VA (2008) Design concept of self-contained low power reactor MASTER for heat supply. Prog Nucl Energy 50(2–6):314–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Linares P, Romero C (2000) A multiple criteria decision making approach for electricity planning in Spain: economic versus environmental objectives. J Oper Res Soc 51(6):736–743Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Løken E (2007) Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11:1584–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Løken E, Botterud A, Holen AT (2009) Use of the equivalent attribute technique in multi-criteria planning of local energy systems. Eur J Oper Res 197:1075–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Madlener R, Antunes CH, Dias LC (2009) Assessing the performance of biogas plants with multi-criteria and data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 197:1084–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McCarthy RW, Ogden JM, Sperling D (2007) Assessing reliability in energy supply systems. Energy Policy 35:2151–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal 19(3):497–510Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Merkhofer MW, Keeney RL (1987) A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. Decis Anal 7(2):173–194Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Meyer M, Booker J (2001) Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: a Practical Guide, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Minato A, Ueda N, Wade D, Greenspan E, Brown N (2005) Small liquid metal cooled reactor safety study. Technical Report, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Morgan M, Henrion M (1992) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mustajoki J, Hamalainen RP (2000) Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR 38(3):208–220Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Neves LP, Martins AG, Antunes CH, Dias LC (2008) A multi-criteria decision approach to sorting actions for promoting energy efficiency. Energy Policy 36:2351–2363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Park RE (1936) Human ecology. Am J Sociol 42(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Paul Scherrer Institut (2007) The 2000-Watt Society: standard or guidepost? Energie-Spiegel facts for the energy decisions of tomorrow, No. 18Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Polatidis H, Haralambopoulos DA, Munda G, Vreeker R (2006) Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources B 1:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Popadopoulos A, Karagiannidis A (2008) Application of the multi-criteria analysis method Electre III for the optimization of decentralized energy systems. Omega 36:766–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rinaldi S, Peerenboom J, Kelly T (2001) Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies, IEEE control systems magazine, IEEE, Dec 2001, pp 11–25Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2003) Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Modell 38(3–4):233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Saaty T, Vargas L (2011) Decision making with the analytic network process: economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Seager TP (2004) Understanding industrial ecology and the multiple dimensions of sustainability. In: Bellandi R (ed) Strategic environmental management for engineers. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
  62. 62.
  63. 63.
    Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study in a Swiss Prealpine Region. Syst Pract Action Res 21:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Stewart T (2005) Dealing with uncertainties in MCDA. In: Figuera J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis, state of the art surveys. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Supriyasilp T, Pongput K, Boonyasirikul T (2009) Hydropower development priority using MCDM method. Energy Policy 37:1866–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tsoutsos T, Drandaki M, Frantzeskaki N, Iosifidis E, Kiosses I (2009) Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy 37:1587–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wright G, Bolger F (1992) Expertise and decision support. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wright RT, Nebel BJ (2002) Environmental science. Toward a sustainable future. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Tkachuk
    • 1
  • Z. Collier
    • 1
  • A. Travleev
    • 2
  • V. Levchenko
    • 3
  • A. Levchenko
    • 3
  • Y. Kazansky
    • 4
  • S. Parad
    • 5
  • I. Linkov
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterConcordUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Neutron Physics and Reactor TechnologyKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Simulation Systems Ltd.ObninskRussia
  4. 4.Obninsk State Technical University for Nuclear Power EngineeringObninskRussia
  5. 5.Natural and Social Science Interface, Institute for Environmental DecisionsETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations