Author
Listed:
- Lee, Hsing-Chen
- Chang, Ching-Ter
Abstract
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods are becoming increasingly popular in solving energy selection problems because these problems involve multiple and often conflicting criteria. This paper presents comparative analysis of ranking renewable energy sources (RES) for electricity generation in Taiwan using four MCDM methods - WSM, VIKOR, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE. The Shannon entropy weight method is used to assess the importance of each criterion for the ranking of RES. After that, four MCDM methods are utilized for quantitative evaluation to rank all available RE alternatives. From the weights estimation results, efficiency is the first priority in all evaluation criteria, followed by job creation, operation, and maintenance cost. The purpose of this study is to rank the priorities of various RES and propose recommendations for Taiwan's RE development. The ranking results show that hydro is the best alternative in Taiwan, followed by solar, wind, biomass and geothermal. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis of the weights was conducted considering the ranking results heavily depend on the criteria weight. The results of sensitivity analysis indicated that when financial or technical aspects are focused upon, hydropower is the best RES because its technology is the most mature and the cost is the lowest in Taiwan. In addition, from an environmental perspective, wind energy is the best choice, and from the social perspective, solar PV is the best choice. The findings of this study can provide useful information to energy decision makers and serve as a reference for Taiwan's energy policy.
Suggested Citation
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.
Handle:
RePEc:eee:rensus:v:92:y:2018:i:c:p:883-896
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:92:y:2018:i:c:p:883-896. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.