4.8 Article

Developing a multicriteria decision support framework for CHP based combined district heating systems

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 345-368

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.016

关键词

District heating (DH); CHP; Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA); Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA)

资金

  1. China national key research and development program - China-Finland intergovernmental cooperation in science and technology innovation [2016YFE0114500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CHP based combined district heating (DH) systems with gas-fired boilers for peak load shaving have higher energy and environmental efficiencies compared to DH systems supplied heat by heat only boilers. However, proper multicriteria decision making method is lacking for them. This paper is dedicated to develop a decision support framework from economy, energy, technology and environment viewpoints, in order to facilitate the planning/retrofitting of the combined DH systems. Firstly, the installation strategy of gas-fired boilers is introduced, and then combined heating alternatives to be addressed are constructed by choosing different base load ratios of CHP. Secondly, a criterion aggregation system is developed, based on which weights can be elicited using complementary judgment matrix (CJM) plus feasible weight space (FWS) methods. Thirdly, an application-oriented, multicriteria decision support framework is demonstrated in a real-life DH system in Daqing, China. Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) is implemented to synthetically handle the decision problem, which is characterized by incommensurable measurements, conflicting preferences, uncertainties and imprecise information. The results indicate that the developed framework works well in the multicriteria decision making for the combined district heating systems. The optimal base load ratio in the demonstration case is between 0.66 and 0.77 with high confidence. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.8
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