IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v94y2016icp476-482.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-criteria evaluation and priority analysis for localization equipment in a thermal power plant using the AHP (analytic hierarchy process)

Author

Listed:
  • Yagmur, Levent

Abstract

Ensuring the safety of its energy supply is one of the main issues for newly industrialized/developing countries when utilizing domestic sources for electricity generation. Turkey depends heavily on imported gas to generate electricity, and the ratio of natural gas power generation to total electricity production is nearly 50%. Coal-fired thermal power plants using domestic resources are considered a good option to decrease the large amount of imported natural gas, and to supply a secure energy demand. However, electricity generation from coal-fired power plants using local lignite reserves is not adequate to maintain a secure energy mix and provide sustainable development, as Turkey does not have indigenous energy sector technology. Therefore, technology transfer and its localization are crucial for newly industrialized/developing countries such as Turkey. The aim of this study is to use the analytic hierarchy process to determine a priority analysis in relation to localization equipment for a thermal power plant. Parameters involved, such as readiness of both infrastructure and human resources, manpower as skilled labor, market potential for equipment developed by transferred technology, and competition in global/internal market, are related to localization in thermal power plant technologies, and are considered in relation to the country's technological capability, design ability, possession of materials/equipment, and ability to erect a plant. Results of analysis show that the boiler is the most important piece of equipment in this respect, and that heaters and fans are ranked after the boiler with respect to local conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Yagmur, Levent, 2016. "Multi-criteria evaluation and priority analysis for localization equipment in a thermal power plant using the AHP (analytic hierarchy process)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 476-482.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:94:y:2016:i:c:p:476-482
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544215015352
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.011?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. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Xiaolong Yang & Yan Li & Dongxiao Niu & Lijie Sun, 2019. "Research on the Economic Benefit Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technical Renovation Projects Based on the Improved Factor Analysis and Incremental Method in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Ma, Xuejiao & Wang, Yong & Wang, Chen, 2017. "Low-carbon development of China's thermal power industry based on an international comparison: Review, analysis and forecast," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 942-970.
    3. Luo, Chao & Ju, Yanbing & Santibanez Gonzalez, Ernesto D.R. & Dong, Peiwu & Wang, Aihua, 2020. "The waste-to-energy incineration plant site selection based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic Best-Worst method ANP and double parameters TOPSIS approach: A case study in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    4. Xu, Chengyuan & Xie, Zhichao & Kang, Yili & Yu, Guoyi & You, Zhenjiang & You, Lijun & Zhang, Jingyi & Yan, Xiaopeng, 2020. "A novel material evaluation method for lost circulation control and formation damage prevention in deep fractured tight reservoir," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    5. Geng, ZhiQiang & Qin, Lin & Han, YongMing & Zhu, QunXiong, 2017. "Energy saving and prediction modeling of petrochemical industries: A novel ELM based on FAHP," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 350-362.
    6. Shiyi Chen & Wei Chen & Ahsanullah Soomro & Lijuan Luo & Wenguo Xiang, 2020. "Multi-objective economic emission dispatch of thermal power plants based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(5), pages 785-812, August.
    7. Wang, Zhaoxia & Zhu, Han & Ding, Yan & Zhu, Tianli & Zhu, Neng & Tian, Zhe, 2018. "Energy efficiency evaluation of key energy consumption sectors in China based on a macro-evaluating system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 65-79.
    8. Salvia, Amanda Lange & Brandli, Luciana Londero & Leal Filho, Walter & Locatelli Kalil, Rosa Maria, 2019. "An analysis of the applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for selection of energy efficiency practices in public lighting in a sample of Brazilian cities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 854-864.
    9. Alipour, M. & Alighaleh, S. & Hafezi, R. & Omranievardi, M., 2017. "A new hybrid decision framework for prioritizing funding allocation to Iran's energy sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 388-402.
    10. Yajing Gao & Fushen Xue & Wenhai Yang & Yanping Sun & Yongjian Sun & Haifeng Liang & Peng Li, 2017. "A Three-Part Electricity Price Mechanism for Photovoltaic-Battery Energy Storage Power Plants Considering the Power Quality and Ancillary Service," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, August.

    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. 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.
    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. Xu, Gang & Yang, Yong-ping & Lu, Shi-yuan & Li, Le & Song, Xiaona, 2011. "Comprehensive evaluation of coal-fired power plants based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2343-2351, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Jamal, Taskin & Urmee, Tania & Shafiullah, G.M., 2020. "Planning of off-grid power supply systems in remote areas using multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Ahmad, Salman & Tahar, Razman Mat, 2014. "Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 458-466.
    8. 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.
    9. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    10. Abdul, Daud & Wenqi, Jiang & Tanveer, Arsalan, 2022. "Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1018-1032.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Zhang, Ting, 2018. "Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1227-1239.
    14. 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).
    15. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    16. Phillips, Jason, 2013. "Determining the sustainability of large-scale photovoltaic solar power plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 435-444.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Tereza Aubrechtová & Eva Semančíková & Pavel Raška, 2020. "Formulation Matters! The Failure of Integrating Landscape Fragmentation Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    20. 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).

    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:energy:v:94:y:2016:i:c:p:476-482. 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.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.