IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v6y2013i6p3017-3032d26577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Combined Fuzzy-AHP and Fuzzy-GRA Methodology for Hydrogen Energy Storage Method Selection in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Alev Taskin Gumus

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Faculty, Yildiz Technical University, İstanbul 34349, Turkey)

  • A. Yesim Yayla

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Marmara University, İstanbul 34722, Turkey)

  • Erkan Çelik

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Faculty, Yildiz Technical University, İstanbul 34349, Turkey)

  • Aytac Yildiz

    (Automotive Technologies Program, Amasya Vocational School, Amasya 5100, Turkey)

Abstract

In this paper, we aim to select the most appropriate Hydrogen Energy Storage (HES) method for Turkey from among the alternatives of tank, metal hydride and chemical storage, which are determined based on expert opinions and literature review. Thus, we propose a Buckley extension based fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process (Fuzzy-AHP) and linear normalization based fuzzy Grey Relational Analysis (Fuzzy-GRA) combined Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methodology. This combined approach can be applied to a complex decision process, which often makes sense with subjective data or vague information; and used to solve to solve HES selection problem with different defuzzification methods. The proposed approach is unique both in the HES literature and the MCDM literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Alev Taskin Gumus & A. Yesim Yayla & Erkan Çelik & Aytac Yildiz, 2013. "A Combined Fuzzy-AHP and Fuzzy-GRA Methodology for Hydrogen Energy Storage Method Selection in Turkey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:6:y:2013:i:6:p:3017-3032:d:26577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/6/3017/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/6/3017/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    2. McDowall, William & Eames, Malcolm, 2006. "Forecasts, scenarios, visions, backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: A review of the hydrogen futures literature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1236-1250, July.
    3. Kaya, Durmus, 2006. "Renewable energy policies in Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 152-163, April.
    4. Tsita, Katerina G. & Pilavachi, Petros A., 2012. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for the Greek road transport sector using the analytic hierarchy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 677-686.
    5. Chang, Pao-Long & Hsu, Chiung-Wen & Lin, Chiu-Yue, 2012. "Assessment of hydrogen fuel cell applications using fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-99.
    6. Lee, Seong Kon & Mogi, Gento & Kim, Jong Wook, 2008. "The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: The AHP approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1284-1291, April.
    7. Shen, Yung-Chi & Lin, Grace T.R. & Li, Kuang-Pin & Yuan, Benjamin J.C., 2010. "An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4604-4616, August.
    8. Cavallaro, Fausto, 2010. "Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for assessing thermal-energy storage in concentrated solar power (CSP) systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 496-503, February.
    9. Wang, Bing & Kocaoglu, Dundar F. & Daim, Tugrul U. & Yang, Jiting, 2010. "A decision model for energy resource selection in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7130-7141, November.
    10. Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Lin, Cheng-Wei & Opricovic, Serafim, 2005. "Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 1373-1383, July.
    11. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2012. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 146-156.
    12. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Feyzioglu, Orhan & Nebol, Erdal, 2008. "Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 148-158, May.
    13. Lu, I.J. & Lin, Sue J. & Lewis, Charles, 2008. "Grey relation analysis of motor vehicular energy consumption in Taiwan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2556-2561, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebeci, Ufuk & Ruan, Da, 2004. "Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 171-184, January.
    16. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    17. Lee, Wen-Shing & Lin, Yeong-Chuan, 2011. "Evaluating and ranking energy performance of office buildings using Grey relational analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2551-2556.
    18. 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. Ghada Elshafei & Dušan Katunský & Martina Zeleňáková & Abdelazim Negm, 2022. "Opportunities for Using Analytical Hierarchy Process in Green Building Optimization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Demir, Selcuk & Basaraner, Melih & Taskin Gumus, Alev, 2021. "Selection of suitable parking lot sites in megacities: A case study for four districts of Istanbul," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Ahmad, Salman & Nadeem, Abid & Akhanova, Gulzhanat & Houghton, Tom & Muhammad-Sukki, Firdaus, 2017. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable and nuclear resources for electricity generation in Kazakhstan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1880-1891.
    4. Huiru Zhao & Nana Li, 2015. "Risk Evaluation of a UHV Power Transmission Construction Project Based on a Cloud Model and FCE Method for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, March.
    5. Akshay Hinduja & Manju Pandey, 2023. "Analysis and Comparison of State-of-the-Art Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-making Methods Under Different Levels of Uncertainty," Vision, , vol. 27(1), pages 93-109, February.
    6. Qin, Guangyu & Zhang, Meijuan & Yan, Qingyou & Xu, Chuanbo & Kammen, Daniel M., 2021. "Comprehensive evaluation of regional energy internet using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on cloud model: A case in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    7. Zhao, Haoran & Guo, Sen & Zhao, Huiru, 2019. "Comprehensive assessment for battery energy storage systems based on fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 450-461.
    8. Rujee Rodcha & Nitin K. Tripathi & Rajendra Prasad Shrestha, 2019. "Comparison of Cash Crop Suitability Assessment Using Parametric, AHP, and FAHP Methods," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-22, May.
    9. Elena Arce, María & Saavedra, Ángeles & Míguez, José L. & Granada, Enrique, 2015. "The use of grey-based methods in multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of sustainable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 924-932.
    10. Mehdi Salimi & Mahboubeh Khodaparast, 2019. "Providing a combined model of fuzzy AHP and numerical taxonomy analysis for sport organizational ranking and performance appraisal," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 10(5), pages 1133-1144, October.
    11. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Dinesh Kumar Tripathi & Fausto Cavallaro & Pratibha Rani & Santosh K. Nigam & Abbas Mardani, 2022. "Assessment of Battery Energy Storage Systems Using the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Removal Effects of Criteria and the Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking Based on Compromise Solution Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-23, October.

    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. Elena Arce, María & Saavedra, Ángeles & Míguez, José L. & Granada, Enrique, 2015. "The use of grey-based methods in multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of sustainable energy systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 924-932.
    2. Wang, Zhiwei & Lei, Tingzhou & Chang, Xia & Shi, Xinguang & Xiao, Ju & Li, Zaifeng & He, Xiaofeng & Zhu, Jinling & Yang, Shuhua, 2015. "Optimization of a biomass briquette fuel system based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process: A study using cornstalks in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 523-532.
    3. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.
    4. Murat İnce & Tuncay Yiğit & Ali Hakan Işik, 2020. "A Novel Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-GA Method for Test Sheet Question Selection," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 629-647, April.
    5. Lee, Seong Kon & Mogi, Gento & Hui, K.S., 2013. "A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)/data envelopment analysis (DEA) hybrid model for efficiently allocating energy R&D resources: In the case of energy technologies against high oil prices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 347-355.
    6. Gitinavard, Hossein & Mousavi, S. Meysam & Vahdani, Behnam, 2017. "Soft computing based on hierarchical evaluation approach and criteria interdependencies for energy decision-making problems: A case study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 556-577.
    7. 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).
    8. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin, 2020. "Prospective assessment of methanol vehicles in China using FANP-SWOT analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 60-75.
    9. Martin Kügemann & Heracles Polatidis, 2019. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    10. Sehatpour, Mohammad-Hadi & Kazemi, Aliyeh & Sehatpour, Hesam-eddin, 2017. "Evaluation of alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles in Iran using a multi-criteria approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 295-310.
    11. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    12. Dinçer, Hasan & Yüksel, Serhat, 2019. "An integrated stochastic fuzzy MCDM approach to the balanced scorecard-based service evaluation," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 93-112.
    13. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Whalley, Stephanie, 2015. "Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 127-149.
    14. Ozgur Demirta, 2013. "Evaluating the Best Renewable Energy Technology for Sustainable Energy Plannin," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 3(Special), pages 23-33.
    15. Sahika Ozdemir & Yavuz Ozdemir, 2018. "Prioritizing store plan alternatives produced with shape grammar using multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 45(4), pages 751-771, July.
    16. Fatih Tüysüz, 2017. "A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach for the Assessment of Renewable Energy Resources Under Uncertainty," Alphanumeric Journal, Bahadir Fatih Yildirim, vol. 5(2), pages 317-328, December.
    17. Song, Yongze & Thatcher, Dominique & Li, Qindong & McHugh, Tom & Wu, Peng, 2021. "Developing sustainable road infrastructure performance indicators using a model-driven fuzzy spatial multi-criteria decision making method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    18. Kahraman, Cengiz & Kaya, İhsan & Cebi, Selcuk, 2009. "A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1603-1616.
    19. 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.
    20. Chia-Nan Wang & Ngoc-Ai-Thy Nguyen & Thanh-Tuan Dang & Chen-Ming Lu, 2021. "A Compromised Decision-Making Approach to Third-Party Logistics Selection in Sustainable Supply Chain Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR Methods," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-27, April.

    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:6:y:2013:i:6:p:3017-3032:d:26577. 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.