IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v107y2019icp516-534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications

Author

Listed:
  • Baumann, Manuel
  • Weil, Marcel
  • Peters, Jens F.
  • Chibeles-Martins, Nelson
  • Moniz, Antonio B.

Abstract

Energy storage systems (ESS) are seen as one of the main pillars for a renewable-based energy system. Selecting the most suitable and sustainable ESS for a given project is a problem that involves multiple stakeholders with quite often diverging objectives that cannot all be fulfilled by a single technology. Several studies are available that tackle this problem applying multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). However, these use very different Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) approaches, criteria and goals for decision support, why their results are difficult to compare or to reproduce. This work presents a review of existing MCDA-literature using MADM as a tool for sustainability evaluation of grid-tied ESS. Available studies are summarized, the goals, used MADM methods, and quantification of criteria are analyzed and discussed to provide tentative recommendations. The reviewed studies cover multiple technologies ranging from electrochemical, mechanical or electric ESS. Considered criteria are mainly structured around technology, economy, society, and environment, comprising a high number of individual sub-criteria. The aggregation of these criteria is mainly realized through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in combination with a wide set of other methods. The quantification of various criteria is often based on different literature sources wherein context-free data for cost, and environmental impacts are used, leading in some cases to inconsistent comparisons in the assessments. Only in a few cases, assessments are linked to specific application requirements, which are decisive factors for the design of an ESS. A minority of the reviewed works include a representative set of decision-makers in their approaches, wherein the number or type of participants is often not communicated transparently. Therefore, most of the studies are considered to have a limited orientation towards practical decision making, but they provide valuable information regarding MADM method development.

Suggested Citation

  • Baumann, Manuel & Weil, Marcel & Peters, Jens F. & Chibeles-Martins, Nelson & Moniz, Antonio B., 2019. "A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 516-534.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:107:y:2019:i:c:p:516-534
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119301091
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Fertig, Emily & Apt, Jay, 2011. "Economics of compressed air energy storage to integrate wind power: A case study in ERCOT," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2330-2342, May.
    2. van Alphen, Klaas & van Sark, Wilfried G.J.H.M. & Hekkert, Marko P., 2007. "Renewable energy technologies in the Maldives--determining the potential," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(8), pages 1650-1674, October.
    3. Giuseppe Munda, 2016. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1235-1267, Springer.
    4. Rehman, Shafiqur & Al-Hadhrami, Luai M. & Alam, Md. Mahbub, 2015. "Pumped hydro energy storage system: A technological review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 586-598.
    5. Maxim, Alexandru, 2014. "Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 284-297.
    6. Carlos Henggeler Antunes & Carla Oliveira Henriques, 2016. "Multi-Objective Optimization and Multi-Criteria Analysis Models and Methods for Problems in the Energy Sector," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1067-1165, Springer.
    7. Yang, Chi-Jen & Jackson, Robert B., 2011. "Opportunities and barriers to pumped-hydro energy storage in the United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 839-844, January.
    8. Elena Arce, María & Saavedra, Ángeles & Míguez, José L. & Granada, Enrique, 2015. "The use of grey-based methods in multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of sustainable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 924-932.
    9. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    10. Grünewald, Philipp H. & Cockerill, Timothy T. & Contestabile, Marcello & Pearson, Peter J.G., 2012. "The socio-technical transition of distributed electricity storage into future networks—System value and stakeholder views," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 449-457.
    11. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Whalley, Stephanie, 2015. "Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 127-149.
    12. Ahern, Eoin P. & Deane, Paul & Persson, Tobias & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Murphy, Jerry D., 2015. "A perspective on the potential role of renewable gas in a smart energy island system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 648-656.
    13. Aneke, Mathew & Wang, Meihong, 2016. "Energy storage technologies and real life applications – A state of the art review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 350-377.
    14. Gallego Carrera, Diana & Mack, Alexander, 2010. "Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 1030-1039, February.
    15. Ozgur Demirta, 2013. "Evaluating the Best Renewable Energy Technology for Sustainable Energy Plannin," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 3(Special), pages 23-33.
    16. Løken, Espen, 2007. "Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(7), pages 1584-1595, September.
    17. Mehdi KESHAVARZ GHORABAEE & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS & Zenonas TURSKIS & Jurgita ANTUCHEVICIENE, 2016. "A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment(Codas) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 50(3), pages 25-44.
    18. 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.
    19. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "A review and probabilistic model of lifecycle costs of stationary batteries in multiple applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 240-250.
    20. 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.
    21. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2012. "Assessment of utility energy storage options for increased renewable energy penetration," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 4141-4147.
    22. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    23. Díaz-González, Francisco & Sumper, Andreas & Gomis-Bellmunt, Oriol & Villafáfila-Robles, Roberto, 2012. "A review of energy storage technologies for wind power applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 2154-2171.
    24. Spanos, Constantine & Turney, Damon E. & Fthenakis, Vasilis, 2015. "Life-cycle analysis of flow-assisted nickel zinc-, manganese dioxide-, and valve-regulated lead-acid batteries designed for demand-charge reduction," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 478-494.
    25. Clark, Woodrow & Isherwood, William, 2004. "Distributed generation: remote power systems with advanced storage technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(14), pages 1573-1589, September.
    26. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Batel, Susana & Aas, Oystein & Sovacool, Benjamin & Labelle, Michael Carnegie & Ruud, Audun, 2017. "A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 27-31.
    27. Ro, Kyoungsoo & Rahman, Saifur, 1998. "Battery or fuel cell support for an autonomous photovoltaic power system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 203-213.
    28. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    29. Murrant, Daniel & Radcliffe, Jonathan, 2018. "Assessing energy storage technology options using a multi-criteria decision analysis-based framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 788-802.
    30. Thomas Saaty & Luis Vargas, 2012. "The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(3), pages 481-496, March.
    31. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    32. Connolly, D. & Lund, H. & Finn, P. & Mathiesen, B.V. & Leahy, M., 2011. "Practical operation strategies for pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES) utilising electricity price arbitrage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4189-4196, July.
    33. Bradbury, Kyle & Pratson, Lincoln & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia, 2014. "Economic viability of energy storage systems based on price arbitrage potential in real-time U.S. electricity markets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 512-519.
    34. Malhotra, Abhishek & Battke, Benedikt & Beuse, Martin & Stephan, Annegret & Schmidt, Tobias, 2016. "Use cases for stationary battery technologies: A review of the literature and existing projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 705-721.
    35. Champier, D. & Bedecarrats, J.P. & Rivaletto, M. & Strub, F., 2010. "Thermoelectric power generation from biomass cook stoves," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 935-942.
    36. Huang, Yeu-Shiang & Chang, Wei-Chen & Li, Wei-Hao & Lin, Zu-Liang, 2013. "Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(2), pages 462-469.
    37. Harty, Fred R. & Depenbrock, Fred & Ward, Patrick W. & Shectman, Daniel L., 1994. "Options in energy storage technologies," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 38-47.
    38. Afgan, Naim H. & Carvalho, Maria G. & Hovanov, Nikolai V., 2000. "Energy system assessment with sustainability indicators," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 603-612, July.
    39. Ren, Jingzheng, 2018. "Sustainability prioritization of energy storage technologies for promoting the development of renewable energy: A novel intuitionistic fuzzy combinative distance-based assessment approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 666-676.
    40. Peters, Jens F. & Baumann, Manuel & Zimmermann, Benedikt & Braun, Jessica & Weil, Marcel, 2017. "The environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 491-506.
    41. Raza, Syed Shabbar & Janajreh, Isam & Ghenai, Chaouki, 2014. "Sustainability index approach as a selection criteria for energy storage system of an intermittent renewable energy source," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 909-920.
    42. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    43. Versteeg, T. & Baumann, M.J. & Weil, M. & Moniz, A.B., 2017. "Exploring emerging battery technology for grid-connected energy storage with Constructive Technology Assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 99-110.
    44. Bouman, Evert A. & Øberg, Martha M. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2016. "Environmental impacts of balancing offshore wind power with compressed air energy storage (CAES)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 91-98.
    45. Cowan, Kelly & Daim, Tugrul & Anderson, Tim, 2010. "Exploring the impact of technology development and adoption for sustainable hydroelectric power and storage technologies in the Pacific Northwest United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 4771-4779.
    46. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    47. Bernard Roy, 2016. "Paradigms and Challenges," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 19-39, Springer.
    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. Zakeri, Behnam & Syri, Sanna, 2015. "Electrical energy storage systems: A comparative life cycle cost analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 569-596.
    2. Paula Donaduzzi Rigo & Graciele Rediske & Carmen Brum Rosa & Natália Gava Gastaldo & Leandro Michels & Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior & Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk, 2020. "Renewable Energy Problems: Exploring the Methods to Support the Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    3. Na Li & Rudi Hakvoort & Zofia Lukszo, 2021. "Cost Allocation in Integrated Community Energy Systems—Social Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Urošević, Branka Gvozdenac & Marinović, Budimirka, 2021. "Ranking construction of small hydro power plants using multi-criteria decision analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1174-1183.
    5. Pereira, André Alves & Pereira, Miguel Alves, 2023. "Energy storage strategy analysis based on the Choquet multi-criteria preference aggregation model: The Portuguese case," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    6. Hottenroth, H. & Sutardhio, C. & Weidlich, A. & Tietze, I. & Simon, S. & Hauser, W. & Naegler, T. & Becker, L. & Buchgeister, J. & Junne, T. & Lehr, U. & Scheel, O. & Schmidt-Scheele, R. & Ulrich, P. , 2022. "Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    7. Bilgili, Faik & Zarali, Fulya & Ilgün, Miraç Fatih & Dumrul, Cüneyt & Dumrul, Yasemin, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using ‌intuitionistic‌ ‌fuzzy‌-TOPSIS method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1443-1458.
    8. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    9. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Empirical investigation and validation of sustainability indicators for the assessment of energy sources in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    10. Rivero-Iglesias, Jose M. & Puente, Javier & Fernandez, Isabel & León, Omar, 2023. "Integrated model for the assessment of power generation alternatives through analytic hierarchy process and a fuzzy inference system. Case study of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 563-581.
    11. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    12. Yilan, Gülşah & Kadirgan, M.A. Neşet & Çiftçioğlu, Gökçen A., 2020. "Analysis of electricity generation options for sustainable energy decision making: The case of Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 519-529.
    13. Simsek, Yeliz & Watts, David & Escobar, Rodrigo, 2018. "Sustainability evaluation of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) projects under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by using Multi Criteria Decision Method (MCDM)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 421-438.
    14. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    15. Blanco, Herib & Faaij, André, 2018. "A review at the role of storage in energy systems with a focus on Power to Gas and long-term storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 1049-1086.
    16. Murrant, Daniel & Radcliffe, Jonathan, 2018. "Assessing energy storage technology options using a multi-criteria decision analysis-based framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 788-802.
    17. Riaz Uddin & Hashim Raza Khan & Asad Arfeen & Muhammad Ayaz Shirazi & Athar Rashid & Umar Shahbaz Khan, 2021. "Energy Storage for Energy Security and Reliability through Renewable Energy Technologies: A New Paradigm for Energy Policies in Turkey and Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    18. Masebinu, S.O. & Akinlabi, E.T. & Muzenda, E. & Aboyade, A.O., 2017. "Techno-economics and environmental analysis of energy storage for a student residence under a South African time-of-use tariff rate," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 413-429.
    19. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    20. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.

    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:rensus:v:107:y:2019:i:c:p:516-534. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.