Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process

Energy Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 1074-1089

  Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I ^a   Pilavachi, Petros A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN MACEDONIA   (Greece)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Living standard; Power plant evaluation

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; FOSSIL FUELS; NUCLEAR ENERGY; POWER PLANTS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

MULTICRITERIA EVALUATION; POWER PLANT OPERATION;

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES;

EID: 39149130281     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.028     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Ball, Roberts, Simpson, 1994. Research Report #20, Centre for Environmental & Risk Management, University of East Anglia.
2. Bantayan N.C., and Bishop I.D. Linking objective and subjective modelling for land use decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1998) 35-48
3. Beccali M., Cellura M., and Mistretta M. Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 2063-2087
4. Beér J.M. High efficiency electric power generation: the environmental role. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 33 (2007) 107-134
5. Bertolini M., Braglia M., and Carmignani G. Application of the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public work contract. International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 422-430
6. 2 emissions between combined and conventional cycles with natural gas and fuel oil consumption over the Spanish thermal power plants. Fuel 85 (2006) 1280-1285
7. Bond T.C., Wehner B., Plewka A., Wiedensohler A., Heintzenberg J., and Charlson R.J. Climate-relevant properties of primary particulate emissions from oil and natural gas combustion. Atmospheric Environment 40 (2006) 3574-3587
8. BP, 2005. Statistical review of world energy.
9. BP, 2006. Quantifying energy: BP statistical review of world energy.
10. 2.5 in urban environment in South Brazil. Atmospheric Environment 39 (2005) 1801-1815
11. Buchanan J., and Vanderpootenb D. Ranking projects for an electricity utility using ELECTRE III. International Transactions in Operational Research 14 (2007) 309-323
12. Chatzimouratidis A.I., and Pilavachi P.A. Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 35 (2007) 4027-4038
13. Cook W.D., and Green R.H. Evaluating power plant efficiency: a hierarchical model. Computers & Operations Research 32 (2005) 813-823
14. Cragle D., McLain R., Qualters J., Hickey J., Wilkinson G., Tankersley W., and Lushbaugh C. Mortality among workers at a nuclear fuels production facility. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 14 (1988) 379-401
15. Diakoulaki D., and Karangelis F. Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11 (2007) 716-727
16. Elkarmi F., and Mustafa I. Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in Jordan: analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 21 (1993) 978-984
17. Energy Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2001. California renewable technology market and benefits assessment. Appendix C, Table C-3: Payroll, taxes and other values. Report no. 1001193.
18. European Community (EESD Programme), 2005. Externalities of energy: extension of accounting framework and policy applications. Technical Report. ExternE-Pol.
19. European Environment Agency (EEA), 2006. EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook.
20. Georgopoulou E., Lalas D., and Papagiannakis L. A multicriteria decision aid approach for energy planning problems: the case of renewable energy option. European Journal of Operational Research 103 (1997) 38-54
21. Heller M.C., Keoleian G.A., Mann M.K., and Volk T.A. Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1023-1042
22. Hirschberg, S., Spiekermann, G., Dones, R., 1998. Severe accidents in the energy sector. Report no. 98-16. Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland.
23. Hirschberg S., Burgherr P., Spiekerman G., and Dones R. Severe accidents in the energy sector: comparative perspective. Journal of Hazardous Materials 111 (2004) 57-65
24. Hung M.-L., Yang W.-F., Ma H.-W., and Yang Y.-M. A novel multiobjective programming approach dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for environmental management. Ecological Economics 56 (2006) 584-593
25. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories-vol. 2, Energy.
26. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2002. Reference Technology Database.
27. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2005. World Energy Outlook.
28. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2006. Key World Energy Statistics.
29. Kablan M.M. Decision support for energy conservation promotion: an analytic hierarchy process approach. Energy Policy 32 (2004) 1151-1158
30. Kaldellis J.K., and Kavadias K.A. Cost-benefit analysis of remote hybrid wind-diesel power stations: case study Aegean Sea Islands. Energy Policy 35 (2007) 1525-1538
31. Kaldellis J.K., Vlachou D.S., and Korbakis G. Techno-economic evaluation of small hydro power plants in Greece: a complete sensitivity analysis. Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1969-1985
32. Karami E. Appropriateness of farmers' adoption of irrigation methods: the application of the AHP model. Agricultural Systems 87 (2006) 101-119
33. Kim P.O., Lee K.J., and Lee B.W. Selection of an optimal nuclear fuel cycle scenario by goal programming and the analytic hierarchy process. Annals of Nuclear Energy 26 (1999) 449-460
34. Koch, F., 2000. Hydropower-internalised costs and externalised benefits. Implementing agreement for hydropower technologies and programmes. International Energy Agency (IEA), Ottawa, Canada.
35. Kuprianov V.I., and Tanetsakunvatana V. Assessment of gaseous, PM and trace element emissions from a 300-MW lignite-fired boiler unit for various fuel qualities. Fuel 85 (2006) 2171-2179
36. Kwiesielewicz M., and Van Uden E. Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in the AHP. Computers & Operations Research 31 (2004) 713-719
37. Liberatore M.J., and Nydick R.L. Decision Technology-Modeling, Software and Applications (2003), Wiley, New York
38. Lipfert F.W. Statistical studies of mortality and air pollution: multiple regression analyses stratified by age group. The Science of The Total Environment 15 (1980) 103-122
39. López M.T., Zuk M., Garibay V., Tzintzun G., Iniestra R., and Fernández A. Health impacts from power plant emissions in Mexico. Atmospheric Environment 39 (2005) 1199-1209
40. McBride J.P., Moore R.E., Witherspoon J.P., and Blanco R.E. Radiological impact of airborne effluents of coal and nuclear plants. Science 202 (1978) 1045-1050
41. Meyer P. Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis (2002), University of Wisconsin-Madison
42. Mokdad A., Marks J., Stroup D., and Gerberding J. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association 291 (2004) 1238-1245
43. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 1987a. Public radiation exposure from nuclear power generation in the United States. Report no. 92. pp. 72-112.
44. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 1987b. Radiation exposure of the US population from consumer products and miscellaneous sources. Report no. 95. pp. 32-36, 62-64.
45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2003. Nuclear electricity generation: what are the external costs?
46. Ottinger R., Wooley D.R., Robinson N.A., Hodas D.R., and Babb S.E. Environmental Costs of Electricity (1991), Oceana Publications, New York
47. Ozdemir M.S. Validity and inconsistency in the analytic hierarchy process. Applied Mathematics and Computation 161 (2005) 707-720
48. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2003. Nuclear electricity generation: what are the external costs?
49. Park C.-S., and Han I. A case-based reasoning with the feature weights derived by analytic hierarchy process for bankruptcy prediction. Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 255-264
50. Pimentel D., Rodrigues G., Wang T., Abrams R., Goldberg K., Staeker H., Ma E., Brueckner L., Trivato L., Chow C.U.G., and Boerke S. Renewable energy: economic and environmental issues. Bioscience 44 (1994) 536-547
51. Pope A., Burnett R., Thun M., Calle E., Krewski D., Ito K., and Thurston G. Cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association 287 (2002) 1132-1141
52. 2.5 in metropolitan New York City. Atmospheric Environment 40 Suppl (2006) 312-332
53. Ramanathan R., and Ganesh L.S. Energy resource allocation incorporating qualitative and quantitative criteria: an integrated model using goal programming and AHP. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 29 (1995) 197-218
54. Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP), 2001. The work that goes into renewable energy. Research Report no. 13.
55. Rossetti di Valdalbero D., and Kovacs T.G. Energy: the real cost. IEE Power Engineer 18 (2004) 23-25
56. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1980), McGraw-Hill, New York
57. Saaty T.L. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48 (1990) 9-26
58. Saaty T.L. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1990), RWS, Pittsburgh
59. San Martin, R.L., 1989. Environmental emissions from energy technology systems: the total fuel cycle. US Department of Energy (USDOE).
60. Shilnikova N.S., Preston D.L., Ron E., Gilbert E.S., Vassilenko E.K., Romanov S.A., Kuznetsova I.S., Sokolnikov M.E., Okatenko P.V., Kreslova V.V., and Koshurnikovaa N.A. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Research 159 (2003) 787-798
61. Tiwari M.K., and Banerjee R. A decision support system for the selection of a casting process using analytic hierarchy process. Production Planning & Control 12 (2001) 689-694
62. US Department of Energy (USDOE), 1997. Clean power for 21st century dollars from sense: the economic benefits of renewable energy.
63. Uranium Information Centre (UIC) Ltd., 2003. Nuclear Electricity, seventh ed.
64. Vaidya O.S., and Kumar S. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research 169 (2006) 1-29
65. Virdis, M.R., 2002. Energy policy and externalities: the life cycle approach. In: Workshop Proceedings, 15-16 November 2001, OECD, France.
66. Walker G. Energy, land use and renewables: a changing agenda. Land Use Policy 12 (1995) 3-6
67. Wang L., Chu J., and Wu J. Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics 107 (2007) 151-163
68. Wang X., and Mauzerall D.L. Evaluating impacts of air pollution in China on public health: implications for future air pollution and energy policies. Atmospheric Environment 40 (2006) 1706-1721
69. Wedley W.C. Combining qualitative and quantitative factors-an analytic hierarchy approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 24 (1990) 57-64
70. World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2006. Supply of uranium.
71. World Wind Energy Association (WWEA), 2006. Wind Energy International. World Wind Energy Association.
72. Wu C.-R., Lin C.-T., and Chen H.-C. Optimal selection of location for Taiwanese hospitals to ensure a competitive advantage by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis. Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1431-1444
73. Zhang C., Yao Q., and Sun J. Characteristics of particulate matter from emissions of four typical coal-fired power plants in China. Fuel Processing Technology 86 (2005) 757-768
74. Zhu X., and Dale A.P. JavaAHP: a web-based decision analysis tool for natural resource and environmental management. Environmental Modelling & Software 16 (2001) 251-262