4.5 Article

A two-stage decision framework for inland nuclear power plant site selection based on GIS and type-2 fuzzy PROMETHEE II: Case study in China

期刊

ENERGY SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 1941-1961

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ese3.640

关键词

geographic information system; inland nuclear power plant; interval type-2 fuzzy numbers; PROMETHEE II; two-stage decision framework

资金

  1. National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences [19AGL027]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018ZD14, 2019QN061]
  3. Special Project of Cultivation and Development of Innovation Base [Z171100002217024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Site selection is a critical strategic decision for inland nuclear power plants which have broad prospects of development. However, several shortcomings exist in current researches, such as the incomplete decision frameworks, the indiscriminately treated properties, and the information loss. To handle the above flaws, this study establishes a two-stage site selection framework. In the first stage, the geographic information system and preselection criteria are applied to identify suitable alternative sites. And in the second stage, the interval type-2 fuzzy PROMETHEE II and suitability criteria are utilized to rank alternatives and select the optimal site, where different preference functions are selected accordingly. Thereinto, the interval type-2 fuzzy numbers are adopted to describe the uncertainty and vagueness in calculation, without being transformed to exact value. Finally, based on the proposed two-stage decision framework, a case of Hunan, Hubei, and Jiangxi provinces is studied, to demonstrate its validity and practicability. The results show that S8 is selected as the optimal site for its strong government support, convenient fuel transport, and land availability. This study not only enriches the material databases for inland nuclear power plant site selection, but also offers theoretical reference for site selection studies of various objects.

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

4.5
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