IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i17p9822-d627120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Utilization of Renewable Energy Based on Carbon Emission Reduction—Evaluation of Multiple MCDM Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Tao Li

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Ang Li

    (School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Yimiao Song

    (Economics & Management School, Beijing University of Agriculture, Beijing 100096, China)

Abstract

With the proposed target of carbon peak and carbon neutralization, the development and utilization of renewable energy with the goal of carbon emission reduction is becoming increasingly important in China. We used the analytic hierarchy process (ANP) and a variety of MCDM methods to quantitatively evaluate renewable energy indicators. This study measured the sequence and differences of the development and utilization of renewable energy in different regions from the point of view of carbon emission reduction, which provides a new analytical perspective for the utilization and distribution of renewable energy in China and a solution based on renewable energy for achieving the goal of carbon emission reduction as soon as possible. The reliability of the evaluation system was further enhanced by confirmation through a variety of methods. The results show that the environment and carbon dimensions are the primary criteria to evaluate the priority of renewable energy under carbon emission reduction. In the overall choice of renewable energy, photovoltaic energy is the best solution. After dividing regions according to carbon emission intensity and resource endowment, areas with serious carbon emissions are suitable for the development of hydropower; areas with sub-serious carbon emissions should give priority to the development of photovoltaic or wind power; high-carbon intensity area I should vigorously develop wind power; high-carbon intensity area II should focus on developing photovoltaic power; second high-carbon intensity areas I and II are suitable for the development of wind power and photovoltaic power; and second high-carbon intensity areas III and IV are the most suitable for hydropower.

Suggested Citation

  • Tao Li & Ang Li & Yimiao Song, 2021. "Development and Utilization of Renewable Energy Based on Carbon Emission Reduction—Evaluation of Multiple MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9822-:d:627120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9822/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9822/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Zhijian & Ben Jebli, Mehdi & Madaleno, Mara & Doğan, Buhari & Shahzad, Umer, 2021. "Does export product quality and renewable energy induce carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from leading complex and renewable energy economies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 360-370.
    2. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.
    3. Fuquan Zhao & Feiqi Liu & Han Hao & Zongwei Liu, 2020. "Carbon Emission Reduction Strategy for Energy Users in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    5. Fan, Jing-Li & Da, Ya-Bin & Wan, Si-Lai & Zhang, Mian & Cao, Zhe & Wang, Yu & Zhang, Xian, 2019. "Determinants of carbon emissions in ‘Belt and Road initiative’ countries: A production technology perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 268-279.
    6. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    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. Sedef E. Kara & Mustapha D. Ibrahim & Sahand Daneshvar, 2021. "Dual Efficiency and Productivity Analysis of Renewable Energy Alternatives of OECD Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-14, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Dogan, Eyup & Seker, Fahri, 2016. "The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1074-1085.
    11. 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.
    12. Osmani, Atif & Zhang, Jun & Gonela, Vinay & Awudu, Iddrisu, 2013. "Electricity generation from renewables in the United States: Resource potential, current usage, technical status, challenges, strategies, policies, and future directions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 454-472.
    13. 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.
    14. Raugei, Marco & Leccisi, Enrica, 2016. "A comprehensive assessment of the energy performance of the full range of electricity generation technologies deployed in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 46-59.
    15. Hanif, Imran & Aziz, Babar & Chaudhry, Imran Sharif, 2019. "Carbon emissions across the spectrum of renewable and nonrenewable energy use in developing economies of Asia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 586-595.
    16. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    17. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    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. Syed Hammad Mian & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah & Mustufa Haider Abidi & Faraz Ahmed & Faraz Hussain Hashmi, 2023. "Mechanisms for Choosing PV Locations That Allow for the Most Sustainable Usage of Solar Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Eglė Tumelienė & Jūratė Sužiedelytė Visockienė & Vida Maliene, 2022. "Evaluating the Eligibility of Abandoned Agricultural Land for the Development of Wind Energy in Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Xin Lyu & Tong Zhang & Liang Yuan & Ke Yang & Juejing Fang & Shanshan Li & Shuai Liu, 2022. "Pumped Storage Hydropower in Abandoned Mine Shafts: Key Concerns and Research Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-14, November.

    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. Li, Tao & Li, Ang & Guo, Xiaopeng, 2020. "The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Yu, Shiwei & Zheng, Yali & Li, Longxi, 2019. "A comprehensive evaluation of the development and utilization of China's regional renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 73-86.
    7. 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.
    8. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.
    9. Dorokhov, V.V. & Kuznetsov, G.V. & Vershinina, K.Yu. & Strizhak, P.A., 2021. "Relative energy efficiency indicators calculated for high-moisture waste-based fuel blends using multiple-criteria decision-making," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Małgorzata Trojanowska & Krzysztof Nęcka, 2020. "Selection of the Multiple-Criiater Decision-Making Method for Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Development: A Case Study of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, November.
    15. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Chiranjib Bhowmik & Sumit Bhowmik & Amitava Ray, 2020. "Optimal green energy source selection: An eclectic decision," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(5), pages 842-859, August.
    18. Anissa Frini & Sarah Benamor, 2018. "Making Decisions in a Sustainable Development Context: A State-of-the-Art Survey and Proposal of a Multi-period Single Synthesizing Criterion Approach," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(2), pages 341-385, August.
    19. Zhang, Ling & Zhou, Peng & Newton, Sidney & Fang, Jian-xin & Zhou, De-qun & Zhang, Lu-ping, 2015. "Evaluating clean energy alternatives for Jiangsu, China: An improved multi-criteria decision making method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P1), pages 953-964.
    20. 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.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9822-:d:627120. 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.