Multicriteria/multi-stakeholders comparative assessment of electricity generation scenarios in the sustainability context: A Swiss case study

International Journal of Sustainable Development

Volumn 5, Issue 1-2, 2002, Pages 102-124

  Haldi, P A ^a   Frei, Ch ^a   Beurskens, L ^a   Zhuikova, N ^a  

^a EPFL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Electricity generating scenarios; Multicriteria decision aid; Multicriteria multi stakeholders approach; Sustainability assessment; Swiss electric sector planning

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGY; ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION; PUBLIC POLICY; RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES; STRATEGIC PLANNING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ELECTRICITY GENERATING MECHANICS; MULTICRITERIA DECISION AID; MULTICRITERIA/MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS APPROACH; SUSTAINABLITY ASSESSMENT; SWISS ELECTRIC SECTOR PLANNING;

ELECTRIC INDUSTRY;

DECISION MAKING; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 27644449662     PISSN: 09601406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijsd.2002.002562     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. 2 emissions reductions', Int. J. Sustainable Development, this issue.
2. 2 emissions, competition and stranded costs', Int. J. Sustainable Development, this issue.
3. The Alliance for Global Sustainability is a unique university partnership with global reach involving the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology (ETHZ: Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Zürich, EPFL: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, as well as the associated research institute PSI : Paul Scherrer Institut), and the University of Tokyo (UT).
4. IAEA (1999) Indicators for sustainable energy development (ISED), Consultancy Meeting on Identification and Categorisation of Indicators for Sustainable Energy Development, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, 15-16 November 1999.
5. 'Potential action' is the sanctioned generic expression coined by the European Multicriteria Decision Aid community to design the 'objects' considered in a decision-making process.
6. Originally, an even bigger number of scenarios had been generated in the SESAMS study, namely 1296, owing to the consideration of additional technico-economic options. This initial number was later reduced to 216, i.e. a division by 6, leaving aside questions of prices and economic environment. The number of basic scenarios retained here is 72 because the variations of 'imported bulk generation' (three possibilities) are left to sensitivity analysis.
7. Roy, B. and Bouyssou, D. (1993) Aide multicritère à la décision: méthodes et cas, Economica, collection Gestion, Paris.
8. Maystre, L. et al. (1994) Méthodes multicritères ELECTRE, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, collection Gérer l'environnement, Lausanne.
9. Jolliet, O. (1994) 'Critical surface-time: an evaluation method for life cycle assessment', in Integrating Impact Assessment into LCA, Proceedings of the 4th SETAC-Europe Congress.
10. Jolliet, O. and Crettaz, P. (1997) 'Critical Surface-Time 95: A life cycle impact assessment methodology including exposure and fate', Workshop of the EU Concerted Action on Harmonization of Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Lyngby, DK, 15-19 January 1996 (available, as well as related other publications, at EPFL, Institute of Soil and Water Management, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland).
11. A comparison of the CST methods with other approaches of the same kind (in particular those developed in the SETAC-Europe framework), as well as a discussion of the respective merits of these different methods, are given in ref. 10.
12. Frei, Ch. et al. (1996) Set of criteria for a multicriteria analysis of electricity production scenarios, guidance for comparative assessment of the health and environmental impacts of electricity generation systems, Working Material IAEA-J4-TC-733.6, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
13. EGEAS (1991) Electric Generation Expansion Analysis System, Version 6.12, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Englewood, CO.
14. Schärtig A. (1990) Décider sur plusieurs critères. Panorama de l'aide à la décision multicritère, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne, seconde édition.
15. Brans, J.-P. et al. (1984) Prométhée: A new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis, Proceedings of the IFORS 84 Conference, Washington, USA.
16. Roy, B. (1978) ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classement fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de critères multiples, Cahier du CERO, Vol. 20, No 1, pp. 3-24.
17. Simos, J. (1990) Evaluer l'impact sur l'environnement, une approche originale par l'analyse multicritère et la négociation, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, collection Gérer l'environnement, Lausanne, pp. 98-99.
18. Kaufman, L. and Rousseeuw, P.J. (1990) Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis, Wiley, New York.
19. PROMETHEE I and PROMETHEE II differ only in the way they treat the 'power' and 'weakness' of the different actions to establish the final ranking. PROMETHEE I uses an intersection algorithm between the two partial and antagonist rankings defined respectively by the action 'power' (number of actions to which it is preferred) and 'weakness' (number of actions preferred to it), introducing this way a possible incomparability relation between certain actions, while PROMETHEE II directly ranks each action on the basis of its computed difference between these two values (difference defining the so-called 'qualification' of the action; incomparability being in this case not considered).
20. Geldermann, J. and Rentz, O. (2000) Bridging the gap between American and European MADM-approaches?, French-German Institute for Environmental Research, University of Karlsruhe, paper presented at the 51st Meeting of the European Working Group Multicriteria Aid for Decisions, Madrid, 30-31 March, 2000.