4.7 Article

The determinants of renewable energy sources for the fueling of green and sustainable economy

期刊

ENERGY
卷 238, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122029

关键词

Renewable energy; Pakistan; DEA; Fuzzy-AHP; Green hydrogen production (GHP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluates potential solutions to Pakistan's energy shortages with a focus on renewable green hydrogen sources from geothermal, wind, biomass, and solar energy. Wind energy is found to be the most efficient source for producing hydrogen energy in Pakistan, helping to meet local energy needs and reduce fossil fuel usage.
This study seeks to evaluate potential solutions to Pakistan's energy shortages based on a renewable green hydrogen source provided by geothermal, wind, biomass, and solar energy. To this end, the application of multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and the Fuzzy-analytical hierarchical process was tested on four primary criteria: social acceptance, economic, commercialization, and environmental. The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used to analyze the development of hydrogen energy using existing renewable sources under the set parameters. Based on results from the fuzzy-led DEA study, the efficiency of wind energy sources is best adapted to produce hydrogen energy for all four criteria in Pakistan. The DEA-led analysis also deems wind energy to be Pakistan's effective source of hydrogen energy. In other words, to produce hydrogen energy, the findings revealed the best optimal rank 1.00 for wind energy, second highest score 0.97 for biomass, third rank for solar energy with a score of 0.75, and geothermal ranked at last position with a score of 0.662. The findings emphasize that the development of wind energy projects will help to fulfill local energy requirements and minimize fossil energy usage. This study can assist policymakers design fact-based initiatives in their particular regions of hydrogen energy. (c) 2021 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