4.7 Article

Investment risk assessment of coal-fired power plants in countries along the Belt and Road initiative based on ANP-Entropy-TODIM method

期刊

ENERGY
卷 176, 期 -, 页码 623-640

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.038

关键词

Belt and Road initiative; Coal-fired power plants; Risk assessment; Analytic network process; Entropy; An acronym in Portuguese for interactive multi-criteria decision making

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018ZD14]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71673085]
  3. Beijing Social Science Fund [16YJB027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coal is an irreplaceable part of the world energy structure and the condition will not be changed in the near future. Under the Belt and Road initiative, more and more Chinese energy enterprises are planning to invest in coal-fired power plant (CFPP) abroad. However, there are multiple potential risks in investing in CFPP overseas. So, assessing the risk level can help the investors avoid too risky countries and at the same time facilitate the government to take measures to reduce the potential risks to attract more investors. To reasonably assess overseas investment risk of CFPP in countries along the Belt and Road initiative, this paper establishes an evaluation criteria system from eight dimensions which consists of a total of 39 criteria. Then, these criteria weights are determined through a combined analytic network process-Entropy method. Furthermore, considering the psychological characteristics of decision-makers, a TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese for Interactive Multi-criteria Decision Making) approach is used to rank the overall risk level of CFPP investment for 23 nations. The findings indicate that the criterion of economic foundation owns the largest weight Moreover, among these evaluated nations, Singapore have the lowest risk for China's CFPP investment, followed by New Zealand and Thailand. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据