4.7 Article

Evaluating future scenarios for the power generation sector using a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool: The Portuguese case

期刊

ENERGY
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 126-136

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.12.036

关键词

Multi-criteria decision tools; Energy scenarios; Power supply

资金

  1. QREN Operational Programme for Competitiveness Factors
  2. European Union - European Regional Development Fund
  3. National Funds - Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-011377, Pest-OE/EME/UI0252/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool was designed and used to support the evaluation of different electricity production scenarios. The MCDA tool is implemented in a user-friendly Excel worksheet and uses information obtained from a mixed integer optimization model, to produce a set of optimal schemes under different assumptions. Given the input, the MCDA allowed ranking different scenarios relying on their performance on 13 criteria covering economic, job market, quality of life of local populations, technical and environmental issues. The MCDA tool was used by a group of experts and academics with background in economics, engineering and environment. Regarding the totality of results, both the most and least expensive scenarios ranked first the same amount of times. These scenarios were, respectively, Coal, relying mainly in new coal power plants and Maximum Renewable, relying mainly in new wind and hydro power facilities. The opinions were divided towards these two solutions with different fundamental characteristics: Maximum Renewable with costs higher than Coal but leading to substantial reduction of the external energy dependency. Sensitivity analysis suggests that, although the costs are regarded as the most important criterion, those who had different rankings in their preferences have different attitudes towards other criteria. (C) 2013 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