4.7 Article

Location selection of seawater pumped hydro storage station in China based on multi-attribute decision making

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 139, 期 -, 页码 410-425

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.091

关键词

SPHS; Site selection; lambda-Fuzzy measures; AHP and entropy weight method; VIKOR method

资金

  1. 2017 Special Project of Cultivation and Innovation Base [Z171100002217024]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018ZD14]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71803046]
  4. Research Funds of Beijing Social Science [16GLC069]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the urgent need for energy conservation and intrinsic intermittence optimization, seawater pumped hydro energy storage (SPHS) is developing rapidly in the foreign countries but no one has been built in China. Nevertheless, with vast resources, our country pays much attention on SPHS site selection lately since its superiority and the need for long-term energy development. To select the most ideal SPHS site from numerous candidate alternatives, 18 evaluation criteria are set in this paper. Due to vague relevance among criteria, lambda-fuzzy measure combining Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and entropy weight method are proposed to determine criteria weights. Later, fuzzy Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method is applied to sort an optimal solution for the SPHS construction. Simultaneously, the published data from National Energy Administration (NEA) combining experts' scoring and public opinions are calculated as a case and the Fu Ying Island in Ning De is proved to be the best. In order to ensure the validity and stability of the result, comparative and sensitive analysis are proposed. Overall, the proposed model can provide a reference to the government and electricity grid for further evaluation since SPHS site selection has not been deeply studied in China. (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