IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i3p788-798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity analysis of technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process

Author

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

Abstract

Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants by use of the analytic hierarchy process and nine end node criteria for a reference scenario based on subjective criteria weighting has been presented in a previous paper by authors. However, criteria weight variations may substantially modify overall evaluations and rankings of power plants. The current paper presents a sensitivity analysis with four alternative scenarios (sets of criteria weights) compared with the reference scenario. The results show that priority to "technology and sustainability" favors renewable energy power plants, while priority to "economic" criteria favors mainly nuclear power plants and less the four types of fossil fuel power plant.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:37:y:2009:i:3:p:788-798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(08)00712-X
    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. van der Zwaan, Bob & Gerlagh, Reyer, 2006. "Climate sensitivity uncertainty and the necessity to transform global energy supply," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2571-2587.
    2. Marseguerra, M. & Zio, E. & Podofillini, L., 2005. "First-order differential sensitivity analysis of a nuclear safety system by Monte Carlo simulation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 162-168.
    3. Georgopoulou, E. & Sarafidis, Y. & Mirasgedis, S. & Balaras, C.A. & Gaglia, A. & Lalas, D.P., 2006. "Evaluating the need for economic support policies in promoting greenhouse gas emission reduction measures in the building sector: The case of Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2012-2031, October.
    4. Ghanadan, Rebecca & Koomey, Jonathan G., 2005. "Using energy scenarios to explore alternative energy pathways in California," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1117-1142, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Ozdemir, Mujgan S. & Saaty, Thomas L., 2006. "The unknown in decision making: What to do about it," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 349-359, October.
    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. Carraretto, Cristian, 2006. "Power plant operation and management in a deregulated market," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 1000-1016.
    9. Costantini, Valeria & Gracceva, Francesco & Markandya, Anil & Vicini, Giorgio, 2007. "Security of energy supply: Comparing scenarios from a European perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 210-226, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Diakoulaki, D. & Karangelis, F., 2007. "Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 716-727, May.
    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. 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.
    3. Shen, Yung-Chi & Lin, Grace T.R. & Li, Kuang-Pin & Yuan, Benjamin J.C., 2010. "An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4604-4616, August.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Shmelev, Stanislav E. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2016. "Optimal diversity of renewable energy alternatives under multiple criteria: An application to the UK," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 679-691.
    8. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    9. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    10. Wang, Bing & Kocaoglu, Dundar F. & Daim, Tugrul U. & Yang, Jiting, 2010. "A decision model for energy resource selection in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7130-7141, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Cartelle Barros, Juan José & Lara Coira, Manuel & de la Cruz López, María Pilar & del Caño Gochi, Alfredo, 2015. "Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 473-489.
    13. Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Kyriakopoulos, Grigorios & Tsialis, Panagiotis, 2017. "Typology of regional units based on RES plants: The case of Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1424-1434.
    14. Jha, Shibani K. & Puppala, Harish, 2017. "Prospects of renewable energy sources in India: Prioritization of alternative sources in terms of Energy Index," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 116-127.
    15. Songrui Li & Yitang Hu, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Framework to Evaluate the Sustainability of Renewable Energy: A 2-Tuple Linguistic Grey Relation Model from the Perspective of the Prospect Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.
    16. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    17. 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.
    18. Lund, Henrik, 2010. "The implementation of renewable energy systems. Lessons learned from the Danish case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 4003-4009.
    19. 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.
    20. Atmaca, Ediz & Basar, Hasan Burak, 2012. "Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using Analytic Network Process (ANP)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 555-563.

    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:788-798. 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.