IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i6p4707-d1089786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability Assessment of Energy Storage Technologies Based on Commercialization Viability: MCDM Model

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoyang Shu

    (School of Computer and Artificial Intelligence, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Wenjiang District, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Raman Kumar

    (Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana 141006, Punjab, India)

  • Rajeev Kumar Saha

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, J.C. Bose University of Science and Technology, YMCA, Faridabad 121006, Haryana, India)

  • Nikhil Dev

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, J.C. Bose University of Science and Technology, YMCA, Faridabad 121006, Haryana, India)

  • Željko Stević

    (Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of East Sarajevo, 74000 Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

  • Shubham Sharma

    (Mechanical Engineering Department, University Centre for Research and Development, Chandigarh University, Mohali 140413, Punjab, India
    School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266520, China)

  • Mohammad Rafighi

    (Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Sivas University of Science and Technology, Sivas 58000, Türkiye)

Abstract

Advances in developed and developing countries are more attributable to growth in industrial activities that directly impact increasing energy demand. Energy availability has been inconsistent globally, necessitating energy storage (ES) for use as per requirement. Various energy storage technologies (ESTs) are available in mechanical, electrochemical, electrical, chemical, and thermal forms to fulfil the energy demand of a user as and when required. The factors responsible for making a commercially viable energy storage product are further being researched for an eco-friendly and optimal solution to store energy for a longer duration. Researchers are employing different strategies to evaluate the energy efficiency of storage technologies. This paper uses the VIKOR technique to analyze ESTs while assigning objective weights with the entropy weights method based on identified energy performance indicators and ranking them according to their commercialization viability. The method helps a consumer choose better ESTs as per their requirement while manufacturers compete with each other to enhance the commercial value of their energy storage products. Sensitivity analysis has been performed to understand the uncertainties, pros, and cons with the limitations and scope of using the decision model and thus taking an informed decision. The analysis of different energy storage technologies has indicated Hydrogen Fuel Cells (HFC) to be impressive and promising for the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoyang Shu & Raman Kumar & Rajeev Kumar Saha & Nikhil Dev & Željko Stević & Shubham Sharma & Mohammad Rafighi, 2023. "Sustainability Assessment of Energy Storage Technologies Based on Commercialization Viability: MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:4707-:d:1089786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4707/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4707/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumann, Manuel & Weil, Marcel & Peters, Jens F. & Chibeles-Martins, Nelson & Moniz, Antonio B., 2019. "A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 516-534.
    2. Abbas Mardani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Kannan Govindan & Aslan Amat Senin & Ahmad Jusoh, 2016. "VIKOR Technique: A Systematic Review of the State of the Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-38, January.
    3. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    4. Jerry L. Holechek & Hatim M. E. Geli & Mohammed N. Sawalhah & Raul Valdez, 2022. "A Global Assessment: Can Renewable Energy Replace Fossil Fuels by 2050?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Luo, Xing & Wang, Jihong & Dooner, Mark & Clarke, Jonathan, 2015. "Overview of current development in electrical energy storage technologies and the application potential in power system operation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 511-536.
    6. Ander Zubiria & Álvaro Menéndez & Hans-Jürgen Grande & Pilar Meneses & Gregorio Fernández, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problem for Energy Storage Technology Selection for Different Grid Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Yu-Ping Ou Yang & How-Ming Shieh & Jun-Der Leu & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2009. "A Vikor-Based Multiple Criteria Decision Method For Improving Information Security Risk," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(02), pages 267-287.
    8. O'Callaghan, O. & Donnellan, P., 2021. "Liquid air energy storage systems: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    9. Kebede, Abraham Alem & Kalogiannis, Theodoros & Van Mierlo, Joeri & Berecibar, Maitane, 2022. "A comprehensive review of stationary energy storage devices for large scale renewable energy sources grid integration," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Nan Li & Haining Zhang & Xiangcheng Zhang & Xue Ma & Sen Guo, 2020. "How to Select the Optimal Electrochemical Energy Storage Planning Program? A Hybrid MCDM Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    12. 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.
    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. Roksana Yasmin & B. M. Ruhul Amin & Rakibuzzaman Shah & Andrew Barton, 2024. "A Survey of Commercial and Industrial Demand Response Flexibility with Energy Storage Systems and Renewable Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-41, January.

    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. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    2. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Reprint of “Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method”," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 334-347.
    3. Hsu, C.-H. & Wang, Fu-Kwun & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2012. "The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 95-111.
    4. Audrius Čereška & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ina Tetsman & Irina Grinbergienė, 2016. "Sustainable Assessment of Aerosol Pollution Decrease Applying Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Pedro Jose Gudiel Pineda & Chao-Che Hsu & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2018. "A Hybrid Model for Aircraft Type Determination Following Flight Cancellation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1147-1172, July.
    6. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    7. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 125-138.
    8. Amy H. I. Lee & He-Yau Kang & You-Jyun Liou, 2017. "A Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Photovoltaic Solar Plant Location Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Shuwei Jing & Zhanwen Niu & Pei-Chann Chang, 2019. "The application of VIKOR for the tool selection in lean management," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 2901-2912, December.
    10. Jamal Ouenniche & Kais Bouslah & Blanca Perez-Gladish & Bing Xu, 2021. "A new VIKOR-based in-sample-out-of-sample classifier with application in bankruptcy prediction," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 495-512, January.
    11. Abel Tablada & Vesna Kosorić & Huajing Huang & Ian Kevin Chaplin & Siu-Kit Lau & Chao Yuan & Stephen Siu-Yu Lau, 2018. "Design Optimization of Productive Façades: Integrating Photovoltaic and Farming Systems at the Tropical Technologies Laboratory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    12. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Virgilijus Skulskis, 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Selection of Insulation Materials in Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Ander Zubiria & Álvaro Menéndez & Hans-Jürgen Grande & Pilar Meneses & Gregorio Fernández, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problem for Energy Storage Technology Selection for Different Grid Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-25, October.
    14. Ertunç, Ela & Uyan, Mevlut, 2022. "Land valuation with Best Worst Method in land consolidation projects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    15. Zamani-Sabzi, Hamed & King, James Phillip & Gard, Charlotte C. & Abudu, Shalamu, 2016. "Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 92-117.
    16. Jiang, Yinghua & Kang, Lixia & Liu, Yongzhong, 2020. "Optimal configuration of battery energy storage system with multiple types of batteries based on supply-demand characteristics," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    17. Bartosz Radomski & Tomasz Mróz, 2023. "Application of the Hybrid MCDM Method for Energy Modernisation of an Existing Public Building—A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Minaei, Foad & Minaei, Masoud & Kougias, Ioannis & Shafizadeh-Moghadam, Hossein & Hosseini, Seyed Ali, 2021. "Rural electrification in protected areas: A spatial assessment of solar photovoltaic suitability using the fuzzy best worst method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 334-345.
    19. Wen-Hsien Tsai & Pei-Ling Lee & Yu-Shan Shen & Elliott Hwang, 2014. "A combined evaluation model for encouraging entrepreneurship policies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 221(1), pages 449-468, October.
    20. Hannan, M.A. & Faisal, M. & Jern Ker, Pin & Begum, R.A. & Dong, Z.Y. & Zhang, C., 2020. "Review of optimal methods and algorithms for sizing energy storage systems to achieve decarbonization in microgrid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:4707-:d:1089786. 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.