IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v184y2023ics1364032123003994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability assessment of new technologies using multi criteria decision making: A framework and application in sectioning end-of-life wind turbine blades

Author

Listed:
  • Lund, Kristine Wilhelm
  • Nielsen, Mikkel Liep
  • Madsen, Erik Skov

Abstract

Decommissioned wind turbine blades are becoming a significant problem as they are made from composite material that is difficult to recycle. To solve this problem, sustainable end-of-life value chains are needed. Several significant processes of such value chains consist of the sectioning and pre-processing operations of the blades. Thus, the technologies for these operations must be identified and assessed using sustainable selection criteria. The aim of this study is to investigate how a multi criteria decision making analysis approach can assist and improve the process of assessing technologies through the lens of sustainability. For this purpose, this study proposes a three-step framework for sustainable decision making – 3-SuDeM, which presents a structured approach for how to manage the entire process of applying a multi criteria decision making analysis to an industrial case. The developed framework has been applied and validated in cooperation with a Danish waste management company who have years of experience in handling end-of-life waste. Four different technologies for cutting and sectioning end-of-life wind turbine blades are evaluated using the 3-SuDeM framework applying the method of technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution, and an excavator with a large diamond saw blade is identified as the preferred technology in the given case. The results conclude that the developed framework is both value adding to the practical selection of sectioning technology for blades and also adds to the literature on sustainable value chains, multi criteria decision making methodology and end-of-life wind turbine blades.

Suggested Citation

  • Lund, Kristine Wilhelm & Nielsen, Mikkel Liep & Madsen, Erik Skov, 2023. "Sustainability assessment of new technologies using multi criteria decision making: A framework and application in sectioning end-of-life wind turbine blades," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:184:y:2023:i:c:s1364032123003994
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032123003994
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113542?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. Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas & Krisciukaitienė, Irena & Balezentis, Alvydas, 2012. "Prioritizing sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 3302-3311.
    2. Giannetti, Biagio F. & Sevegnani, Fábio & Almeida, Cecília M.V.B. & Agostinho, Feni & Moreno García, Roberto R. & Liu, Gengyuan, 2019. "Five sector sustainability model: A proposal for assessing sustainability of production systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 406(C), pages 98-108.
    3. Jensen, J.P. & Skelton, K., 2018. "Wind turbine blade recycling: Experiences, challenges and possibilities in a circular economy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 165-176.
    4. Ebbe Bagge Paulsen & Peter Enevoldsen, 2021. "A Multidisciplinary Review of Recycling Methods for End-of-Life Wind Turbine Blades," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-13, July.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Gigih Rahmandhani Setyantho & Hansaem Park & Seongju Chang, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Performance Assessment for Semi-Transparent Photovoltaic Windows in Different Climate Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Fang, Hong & Wang, Xu & Song, Wenyan, 2020. "Technology selection for photovoltaic cell from sustainability perspective: An integrated approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1029-1041.
    6. Streimikiene, Dalia & Baležentis, Tomas, 2013. "Multi-criteria assessment of small scale CHP technologies in buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 183-189.
    7. Ali Mostafaeipour & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Mehdi Jahangiri & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. Ebrahimi, Mehri & Rahmani, Donya, 2019. "A five-dimensional approach to sustainability for prioritizing energy production systems using a revised GRA method: A case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 345-354.
    12. 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.
    13. Colla, Martin & Ioannou, Anastasia & Falcone, Gioia, 2020. "Critical review of competitiveness indicators for energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Parisa Rafiaani & Zoumpolia Dikopoulou & Miet Dael & Tom Kuppens & Hossein Azadi & Philippe Lebailly & Steven Passel, 2020. "Identifying Social Indicators for Sustainability Assessment of CCU Technologies: A Modified Multi-criteria Decision Making," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 15-44, January.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Brand, Bernhard & Missaoui, Rafik, 2014. "Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation mix scenarios in Tunisia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 251-261.
    20. Łuczak, Aleksandra & Just, Małgorzata, 2021. "Sustainable development of territorial units: MCDM approach with optimal tail selection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 457(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:rensus:v:184:y:2023:i:c:s1364032123003994. 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.