IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i3p778-787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Author

Listed:
  • Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I.
  • Pilavachi, Petros A.

Abstract

Complexity of power plant evaluation is steadily rising, as more criteria are involved in the overall assessment while evaluation data change rapidly. Apart from evaluating several aspects of power plants separately, a multicriteria analysis based on hierarchically structured criteria is necessary, so as to address the overall assessment of power plants according to the technological, economic and sustainability aspects. For this reason, in this paper, ten types of power plant are evaluated using nine end node criteria properly structured under the Analytical Hierarchy Process. Moreover, pairwise comparisons allow for accurate subjective criteria weighting. According to the scenario based on the subjective criteria weighting, emphasis is laid on sustainability driving renewable energy power plants at the top of the overall ranking, while nuclear and fossil fuel power plants rank in the last five positions. End node criteria contribution to each power plant and power plant performance per end node criterion is presented for all types of power plant and end node criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 778-787, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:3:p:778-787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(08)00588-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kablan, M. M., 2004. "Decision support for energy conservation promotion:: an analytic hierarchy process approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1151-1158, July.
    2. Feretic, Danilo & Tomsic, Zeljko, 2005. "Probabilistic analysis of electrical energy costs comparing: production costs for gas, coal and nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 5-13, January.
    3. Kaldellis, J. K. & Vlachou, D. S. & Korbakis, G., 2005. "Techno-economic evaluation of small hydro power plants in Greece: a complete sensitivity analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(15), pages 1969-1985, October.
    4. Ogaji, Stephen & Sampath, Suresh & Singh, Riti & Probert, Douglas, 2002. "Novel approach for improving power-plant availability using advanced engine diagnostics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 389-407, May.
    5. Franco, Alessandro & Casarosa, Claudio, 2004. "Thermoeconomic evaluation of the feasibility of highly efficient combined cycle power plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(12), pages 1963-1982.
    6. Rafaj, Peter & Kypreos, Socrates, 2007. "Internalisation of external cost in the power generation sector: Analysis with Global Multi-regional MARKAL model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 828-843, February.
    7. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2007. "Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4027-4038, August.
    8. Kasseris, Emmanuel & Samaras, Zissis & Zafeiris, Dimitrios, 2007. "Optimization of a wind-power fuel-cell hybrid system in an autonomous electrical network environment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 57-79.
    9. Sinden, Graham, 2007. "Characteristics of the UK wind resource: Long-term patterns and relationship to electricity demand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 112-127, January.
    10. Chang, Tsang-Jung & Tu, Yi-Long, 2007. "Evaluation of monthly capacity factor of WECS using chronological and probabilistic wind speed data: A case study of Taiwan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 1999-2010.
    11. Persaud, Shashi & Flynn, Damian & Fox, Brendan, 1999. "Potential for wind generation on the Guyana coastlands," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 175-189.
    12. Kaldellis, J.K. & Kavadias, K.A., 2007. "Cost-benefit analysis of remote hybrid wind-diesel power stations: Case study Aegean Sea islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1525-1538, March.
    13. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2008. "Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1074-1089, March.
    14. Wang, Ling & Chu, Jian & Wu, Jun, 2007. "Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 151-163, May.
    15. Elkarmi, Fawwaz & Mustafa, Isam, 1993. "Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in Jordan : Analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 978-984, September.
    16. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    17. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    18. Klaassen, Ger & Riahi, Keywan, 2007. "Internalizing externalities of electricity generation: An analysis with MESSAGE-MACRO," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 815-827, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2008. "Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1074-1089, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Lee, Deok Joo & Hwang, Jooho, 2010. "Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear technology using the analytic hierarchy process: A Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 161-167, January.
    4. Tsita, Katerina G. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2013. "Evaluation of next generation biomass derived fuels for the transport sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 443-455.
    5. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    6. Iskin, Ibrahim & Daim, Tugrul & Kayakutlu, Gulgun & Altuntas, Mehmet, 2012. "Exploring renewable energy pricing with analytic network process — Comparing a developed and a developing economy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 882-891.
    7. Oree, Vishwamitra & Sayed Hassen, Sayed Z. & Fleming, Peter J., 2017. "Generation expansion planning optimisation with renewable energy integration: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 790-803.
    8. Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2009. "Sensitivity analysis of technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 788-798, March.
    9. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    10. Mohamed Ali Elleuch & Marwa Mallek & Ahmed Frikha & Wafik Hachicha & Awad M. Aljuaid & Murad Andejany, 2021. "Solving a Multiple User Energy Source Selection Problem Using a Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Nir Becker & David Soloveitchik & Moshe Olshansky, 2012. "A Weighted Average Incorporation of Pollution Costs into the Electrical Expansion Planning," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(1), pages 1-15, January.
    13. Manley, Dawn K. & Hines, Valerie A. & Jordan, Matthew W. & Stoltz, Ronald E., 2013. "A survey of energy policy priorities in the United States: Energy supply security, economics, and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 687-696.
    14. Jintao Lu & Chong Zhang & Licheng Ren & Mengshang Liang & Wadim Strielkowski & Justas Streimikis, 2020. "Evolution of External Health Costs of Electricity Generation in the Baltic States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-22, July.
    15. Wang, Hsiao-Fan & Sung, Meng-Ping & Hsu, Hsin-Wei, 2016. "Complementarity and substitution of renewable energy in target year energy supply-mix plannin–in the case of Taiwan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 172-182.
    16. Daim, Tugrul & Cowan, Kelly, 2010. "Assessing renewable energy portfolio futures with multiple perspectives: The case of the northwest US," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 255-263.
    17. Zvingilaite, Erika & Klinge Jacobsen, Henrik, 2015. "Heat savings and heat generation technologies: Modelling of residential investment behaviour with local health costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 31-45.
    18. Anandarajah, Gabrial & Strachan, Neil, 2010. "Interactions and implications of renewable and climate change policy on UK energy scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 6724-6735, November.
    19. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    20. Lott, Melissa C. & Pye, Steve & Dodds, Paul E., 2017. "Quantifying the co-impacts of energy sector decarbonisation on outdoor air pollution in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 42-51.

    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:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:3:p:778-787. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.