Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Energy Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 778-787

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN MACEDONIA   (Greece)

Author keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process; Power plant economics; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANTS; FOSSIL FUELS; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; POWER PLANTS; RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TUNNELING (EXCAVATION);

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; DATA CHANGES; MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS; PAIR-WISE COMPARISONS; POWER PLANT ECONOMICS; POWER PLANT EVALUATIONS; POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; SUSTAINABILITY;

DECISION THEORY;

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; POWER PLANT; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 59249098791     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.10.009     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Beér J.M. High efficiency electric power generation: the environmental role. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 33 (2007) 107-134
2. BP, 2005. Statistical review of world energy.
3. Chang T.-J., and Tu Y.-L. Evaluation of monthly capacity factor of WECS using chronological and probabilistic wind speed data: A case study of Taiwan. Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 1999-2010
4. 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
5. Chatzimouratidis A.I., and Pilavachi P.A. Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy 36 (2008) 1074-1089
6. Chatzimouratidis A.I., and Pilavachi P.A. Sensitivity analysis of power plants impact on the living standard using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 3599-3611
7. Chatzimouratidis A.I., and Pilavachi P.A. Sensitivity analysis of technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy 37 (2008) 788-798
8. Cook W.D., and Green R.H. Evaluating power plant efficiency: A hierarchical model. Computers & Operations Research 32 (2005) 813-823
9. Elkarmi F., and Mustafa I. Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in Jordan : Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy 21 (1993) 978-984
10. Feretic D., and Tomsic Z. Probabilistic analysis of electrical energy costs comparing: Production costs for gas, coal and nuclear power plants. Energy Policy 33 (2005) 5-13
11. Franco A., and Casarosa C. Thermoeconomic evaluation of the feasibility of highly efficient combined cycle power plants. Energy 29 (2004) 1963-1982
12. Hamed O.A., Al-Washmi H.A., and Al-Otaibi H.A. Thermoeconomic analysis of a power/water cogeneration plant. Energy 31 (2006) 2699-2709
13. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2002. Reference Technology Database.
14. Kablan M.M. Decision support for energy conservation promotion: An Analytic Hierarchy Process approach. Energy Policy 32 (2004) 1151-1158
15. 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
16. 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
17. Kasseris E., Samaras Z., and Zafeiris D. Optimization of a wind-power fuel-cell hybrid system in an autonomous electrical network environment. Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 57-79
18. Klaassen G., and Riahi K. Internalizing externalities of electricity generation: An analysis with MESSAGE-MACRO. Energy Policy 35 (2007) 815-827
19. Lentz A., and Almanza R. Solar-geothermal hybrid system. Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 1537-1544
20. Li K., and Horne R.N. Comparison and verification of production prediction models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 55 (2007) 213-220
21. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 2006. The future of geothermal energy-Impact of enhanced geothermal systems on the United States in the 21st century.
22. Ogaji S., Sampath S., Singh R., and Probert D. Novel approach for improving power-plant availability using advanced engine diagnostics. Applied Energy 72 (2002) 389-407
23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2003. Nuclear electricity generation: What are the external costs?
24. Persaud S., Flynn D., and Fox B. Potential for wind generation on the Guyana coastlands. Renewable Energy 18 (1999) 175-189
25. 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
26. Pohekar S.D., and Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning-A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 8 (2004) 365-381
27. Rafaj P., and Kypreos S. Internalisation of external cost in the power generation sector: Analysis with global multi-regional MARKAL model. Energy Policy 35 (2007) 828-843
28. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1980), McGraw-Hill, New York
29. Saaty T.L. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1990), RWS, Pittsburgh
30. Saaty T.L. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 74 (1994) 426-447
31. Sinden G. Characteristics of the UK wind resource: Long-term patterns and relationship to electricity demand. Energy Policy 35 (2007) 112-127
32. Tarjanne R., and Luostarinen K. Competitiveness Comparison of Electricity Production Alternatives (2003), Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland (Research report EN N-56)
33. Tarjanne, R., Rissanen, S., 2000. Nuclear power: Least-cost option for base load electricity in Finland. The Uranium Institute 25th Annual Symposium.
34. Trevisani L., Fabbri M., and Negrini F. Long-term scenarios for energy and environment: Energy from the desert with very large solar plants using liquid hydrogen and superconducting technologies. Fuel Processing Technology 87 (2006) 157-161
35. US Department of Energy (US DOE), 1997. Clean power for 21st century dollars from sense: The economic benefits of renewable energy.
36. US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (US DOE/EIA), 2005. Annual Energy Outlook.
37. US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (US DOE/EIA), 2006. Electric Power Annual.
38. Virdis, M.R., 2002. Energy policy and externalities: The life cycle approach. Workshop Proceedings, 15-16 November 2001, OECD, Paris.
39. 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
40. Wijayatunga P.D.C., Siriwardena K., Fernando W.J.L.S., Shrestha R.M., and Attalage R.A. Strategies to overcome barriers for cleaner generation technologies in small developing power systems: Sri Lanka case study. Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 1179-1191
41. World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2006. Supply of uranium.