IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v376y2024ipbs0306261924017215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A novel multi-objective decision-making model to determine optimum resource and capacity configuration for hybrid electricity generation systems: A comparative case study in Türkiye

Author

Listed:
  • Yalılı, Mehmet
  • Menlik, Tayfun
  • Boran, Fatih Emre

Abstract

The rapid depletion of fossil fuels, their negative environmental impacts due to harmful carbon emissions, and the drawbacks of the sole use of intermittent renewable energy resources on system reliability necessitate the use of more advanced energy system technologies. As a result, hybrid electricity generation systems offer an innovative alternative to conventional energy systems. However, the technical complexity and variability of these systems require the application of multi-objective optimization techniques to determine the optimal sizing and system design. Therefore, in this study, we suggest a multi-objective decision-making (MODM) model that involves five conflicting objectives to find the optimal resource configuration and auxiliary source capacity allocation within the framework of the multi-source electricity production method in Türkiye. The MODM model aims to maximize the utilization of resource potentials and the jobs created, while simultaneously minimizing the levelized cost of energy (LCOE), construction duration, and carbon emissions. The MODM model was solved using fmincon and fgoalattain multi-objective optimization algorithms using the Goal Attainment Method in MATLAB and the model results were subsequently compared to the real-world data. According to the model results, the optimal capacity to be allocated for the auxiliary source units is 13,749.58 MWm, while the capacity allocated according to the real-world data as of March 2024 is 2495.49 MWm. In contrast to the model's prediction of 90.8 % solar-based auxiliary unit installations, 99.8 % of auxiliary units are based on solar PV in the actual case. Furthermore, hydro or geothermal-based auxiliary sources are not allocated any capacity, which is consistent with the actual situation. The capacity allocated for the wind (primary source) + solar (auxiliary source) configuration is 76.2 %, whereas in reality, it accounts for 65.6 % of the total installations. Consequently, the model findings suggest that the maximum capacity allocation is for the wind (primary source) + solar (auxiliary source) type hybrid electricity generation system.

Suggested Citation

  • Yalılı, Mehmet & Menlik, Tayfun & Boran, Fatih Emre, 2024. "A novel multi-objective decision-making model to determine optimum resource and capacity configuration for hybrid electricity generation systems: A comparative case study in Türkiye," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 376(PB).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:376:y:2024:i:pb:s0306261924017215
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924017215
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124338?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ekren, Orhan & Ekren, Banu Y., 2010. "Size optimization of a PV/wind hybrid energy conversion system with battery storage using simulated annealing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 592-598, February.
    2. Iqbal, M. & Azam, M. & Naeem, M. & Khwaja, A.S. & Anpalagan, A., 2014. "Optimization classification, algorithms and tools for renewable energy: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 640-654.
    3. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Mahdavi, Meisam & Jurado, Francisco & Ramos, Ricardo Alan Verdú & Awaafo, Augustine, 2023. "Hybrid biomass, solar and wind electricity generation in rural areas of Fez-Meknes region in Morocco considering water consumption of animals and anaerobic digester," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 343(C).
    5. Li, Jinze & Liu, Pei & Li, Zheng, 2020. "Optimal design and techno-economic analysis of a solar-wind-biomass off-grid hybrid power system for remote rural electrification: A case study of west China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Peng, Qiao & Liu, Weilong & Shi, Yufeng & Dai, Yuanyuan & Yu, Kunjie & Graham, Byron, 2024. "Multi-objective electricity generation expansion planning towards renewable energy policy objectives under uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Beccali, M. & Cellura, M. & Mistretta, M., 2003. "Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(13), pages 2063-2087.
    9. Deveci, Kaan & Güler, Önder, 2020. "A CMOPSO based multi-objective optimization of renewable energy planning: Case of Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 578-590.
    10. Stein, Eric W., 2013. "A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 640-654.
    11. Mourmouris, J.C. & Potolias, C., 2013. "A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: A case study Thassos, Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 522-530.
    12. Shao, Meng & Han, Zhixin & Sun, Jinwei & Xiao, Chengsi & Zhang, Shulei & Zhao, Yuanxu, 2020. "A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 377-403.
    13. Cayir Ervural, Beyzanur & Evren, Ramazan & Delen, Dursun, 2018. "A multi-objective decision-making approach for sustainable energy investment planning," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 387-402.
    14. Lee, Hsing-Chen & Chang, Ching-Ter, 2018. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 883-896.
    15. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) for the Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies in a Household: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Jichang Xiao & Jianfeng Cai & Xiaodong Wang, 2017. "A Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Multicriteria Decision-Making Method with Interactive Criteria and Its Application to Renewable Energy Projects Selection," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-15, December.
    17. Bajpai, Prabodh & Dash, Vaishalee, 2012. "Hybrid renewable energy systems for power generation in stand-alone applications: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 2926-2939.
    18. Zhang, Zhiying & Liao, Huchang & Tang, Anbin, 2022. "Renewable energy portfolio optimization with public participation under uncertainty: A hybrid multi-attribute multi-objective decision-making method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    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. Shuai, Wei & Wang, Keqin & Zhang, Tian & He, Yibin & Xu, Haoran & Zhu, Peiwang & Xiao, Gang, 2025. "Multi-objective optimization of operational strategy and capacity configuration for hybrid energy system combined with concentrated solar power plant," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 390(C).

    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. Horasan, Muhammed Bilal & Kilic, Huseyin Selcuk, 2022. "A multi-objective decision-making model for renewable energy planning: The case of Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 484-504.
    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. 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.
    4. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos & Livanos, Georgios A., 2017. "Evaluation of future sustainable electricity generation alternatives: The case of a Greek island," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 775-787.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Evaluation of energy alternatives for sustainable development of energy sector in India: An integrated Shannon’s entropy fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 58-74.
    9. Hosseini Dehshiri, Seyyed Shahabaddin & Firoozabadi, Bahar, 2022. "A new application of measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) in solar site location for electricity and hydrogen production: A case study in the southern clim," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PB).
    10. 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.
    11. Alvin Henao & Luceny Guzman, 2024. "Exploration of Alternatives to Reduce the Gap in Access to Electricity in Rural Communities—Las Nubes Village Case (Barranquilla, Colombia)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, January.
    12. Silinto, Berino Francisco & van der Laag Yamu, Claudia & Zuidema, Christian & Faaij, André P.C., 2025. "Hybrid renewable energy systems for rural electrification in developing countries: A review on energy system models and spatial explicit modelling tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    13. Mostafayi Darmian, Sobhan & Tavana, Madjid & Ribeiro-Navarrete, Samuel, 2024. "An investment evaluation and incentive allocation model for public-private partnerships in renewable energy development projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Prasenjit Mandal & Leo Mrsic & Antonios Kalampakas & Tofigh Allahviranloo & Sovan Samanta, 2024. "Multicriteria Group Decision Making Based on TODIM and PROMETHEE II Approaches with Integrating Quantum Decision Theory and Linguistic Z Number in Renewable Energy Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, November.
    16. 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.
    17. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Streimikiene, Dalia & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil M.D. & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2016. "Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy saving technologies and solutions in five star hotels: A new hierarchical framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 117(P1), pages 131-148.
    18. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    19. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.
    20. Ridha, Hussein Mohammed & Gomes, Chandima & Hizam, Hashim & Ahmadipour, Masoud & Heidari, Ali Asghar & Chen, Huiling, 2021. "Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision-making methods for optimal design of standalone photovoltaic system: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:appene:v:376:y:2024:i:pb:s0306261924017215. 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/405891/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.