IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v10y2017i12p2017-d121202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

National Options for a Sustainable Nuclear Energy System: MCDM Evaluation Using an Improved Integrated Weighting Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ruxing Gao

    (Department of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989-111 Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

  • Hyo On Nam

    (Department of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989-111 Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

  • Won Il Ko

    (Department of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989-111 Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

  • Hong Jang

    (Department of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989-111 Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-353, Korea)

Abstract

While the prospects look bright for nuclear energy development in China, no consensus about an optimum transitional path towards sustainability of the nuclear fuel cycle has been achieved. Herein, we present a preliminary study of decision making for China’s future nuclear energy systems, combined with a dynamic analysis model. In terms of sustainability assessment based on environmental, economic, and social considerations, we compared and ranked the four candidate options of nuclear fuel cycles combined with an integrated evaluation analysis using the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. An improved integrated weighting method was first applied in the nuclear fuel cycle evaluation study. This method synthesizes diverse subjective/objective weighting methods to evaluate conflicting criteria among the competing decision makers at different levels of expertise and experience. The results suggest that the fuel cycle option of direct recycling of spent fuel through fast reactors is the most competitive candidate, while the fuel cycle option of direct disposal of all spent fuel without recycling is the least attractive for China, from a sustainability perspective. In summary, this study provided a well-informed decision-making tool to support the development of national nuclear energy strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruxing Gao & Hyo On Nam & Won Il Ko & Hong Jang, 2017. "National Options for a Sustainable Nuclear Energy System: MCDM Evaluation Using an Improved Integrated Weighting Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-24, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:12:p:2017-:d:121202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2017/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2017/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Islam, Sahidul & Roy, Tapan Kumar, 2006. "A new fuzzy multi-objective programming: Entropy based geometric programming and its application of transportation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(2), pages 387-404, September.
    2. Rogers, Martin & Bruen, Michael, 1998. "Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 542-551, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Zhu Liu & Dabo Guan & Douglas Crawford-Brown & Qiang Zhang & Kebin He & Jianguo Liu, 2013. "A low-carbon road map for China," Nature, Nature, vol. 500(7461), pages 143-145, August.
    5. Keeney, Ralph L. & Nair, Keshavan, 1977. "Nuclear siting using decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 223-231, September.
    6. Aleksandra Schwenk-Ferrero & Andrei Andrianov, 2017. "Comparison and Screening of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options in View of Sustainable Performance and Waste Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-31, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Vladimir Kuznetsov & Galina Fesenko & Aleksandra Schwenk-Ferrero & Andrei Andrianov & Ilya Kuptsov, 2015. "Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems: State-of-the Art Survey on Evaluation and Aggregation Judgment Measures Applied to Performance Comparison," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-41, April.
    9. Gao, Ruxing & Choi, Sungyeol & Il Ko, Won & Kim, Sungki, 2017. "Economic potential of fuel recycling options: A lifecycle cost analysis of future nuclear system transition in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 526-536.
    10. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    12. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    13. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, September.
    14. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    15. Jing, You-Yin & Bai, He & Wang, Jiang-Jiang, 2012. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for CCHP systems driven by different energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 286-296.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weihua Su & Dongcai Zhang & Chonghui Zhang & Dalia Streimikiene, 2020. "Sustainability assessment of energy sector development in China and European Union," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 1063-1076, September.
    2. Ullah, Kafait & Hamid, Salman & Mirza, Faisal Mehmood & Shakoor, Usman, 2018. "Prioritizing the gaseous alternatives for the road transport sector of Pakistan: A multi criteria decision making analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 1072-1084.
    3. Indre Siksnelyte & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene & Deepak Sharma, 2018. "An Overview of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Dealing with Sustainable Energy Development Issues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Koray Altintas & Ozalp Vayvay & Sinan Apak & Emine Cobanoglu, 2020. "An Extended GRA Method Integrated with Fuzzy AHP to Construct a Multidimensional Index for Ranking Overall Energy Sustainability Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Bi-Huei Tsai & Yao-Min Huang, 2023. "Comparing the Substitution of Nuclear Energy or Renewable Energy for Fossil Fuels between the United States and Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Ye Sol Lim & Hyun-Ah Jung & Haejin Hwang, 2018. "Fabrication of PEO-PMMA-LiClO 4 -Based Solid Polymer Electrolytes Containing Silica Aerogel Particles for All-Solid-State Lithium Batteries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-10, September.
    7. Katarzyna Zawalińska & Jouko Kinnunen & Piotr Gradziuk & Dorota Celińska-Janowicz, 2020. "To Whom Should We Grant a Power Plant? Economic Effects of Investment in Nuclear Energy in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-26, May.

    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. Gao, Ruxing & Nam, Hyo On & Ko, Won Il & Jang, Hong, 2018. "Integrated system evaluation of nuclear fuel cycle options in China combined with an analytical MCDM framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 221-233.
    2. Zhang, Weishi & Wang, Can & Zhang, Long & Xu, Ying & Cui, Yuanzheng & Lu, Zifeng & Streets, David G., 2018. "Evaluation of the performance of distributed and centralized biomass technologies in rural China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 445-455.
    3. Seddiki, Mohammed & Bennadji, Amar, 2019. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation in a residential building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 101-117.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Lerche, Nils & Wilkens, Ines & Schmehl, Meike & Eigner-Thiel, Swantje & Geldermann, Jutta, 2019. "Using methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    9. Rahimdel, Mohammad Javad & Noferesti, Hossein, 2020. "Investment preferences of Iran's mineral extraction sector with a focus on the productivity of the energy consumption, water and labor force," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.
    11. Ayough, Ashkan & Boshruei, Setareh & Khorshidvand, Behrooz, 2022. "A new interactive method based on multi-criteria preference degree functions for solar power plant site selection," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 1165-1173.
    12. Gopalji Gaur & T. Velmurugan & P. Prakasam & S. Nandakumar, 2021. "Application specific thresholding scheme for handover reduction in 5G Ultra Dense Networks," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 97-113, January.
    13. Simone Steinhilber & Jutta Geldermann & Martin Wietschel, 2016. "Renewables in the EU after 2020: a multi-criteria decision analysis in the context of the policy formation process," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 119-155, June.
    14. Marina Polykarpou & Flora Karathanasi & Takvor Soukissian & Vasiliki Loukaidi & Ioannis Kyriakides, 2023. "A Novel Data-Driven Tool Based on Non-Linear Optimization for Offshore Wind Farm Siting," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Rezaei, Jafar & Ortt, Roland, 2013. "Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(1), pages 75-84.
    16. Jie Wu & Liang Liang, 2012. "A multiple criteria ranking method based on game cross-evaluation approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 191-200, August.
    17. Szántó, Richárd, 2012. "Több szempontú részvételi döntések a fenntarthatósági értékelésekben. A legnépszerűbb módszerek összehasonlítása [Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis. A comparison of methodologies]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1336-1355.
    18. Yamei Wang & Zhongwu Li & Zhenghong Tang & Guangming Zeng, 2011. "A GIS-Based Spatial Multi-Criteria Approach for Flood Risk Assessment in the Dongting Lake Region, Hunan, Central China," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(13), pages 3465-3484, October.
    19. Babak Zolghadr-Asli & Omid Bozorg-Haddad & Maedeh Enayati & Xuefeng Chu, 2021. "A review of 20-year applications of multi-attribute decision-making in environmental and water resources planning and management," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 14379-14404, October.
    20. Shankha Shubhra Goswami & Dhiren Kumar Behera, 2021. "Evaluation of the best smartphone model in the market by integrating fuzzy-AHP and PROMETHEE decision-making approach," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 48(1), pages 71-96, March.

    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:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:12:p:2017-:d:121202. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.