Resetting Priorities of Near-Zero Emission Energy Projects: Multi-Criteria Analysis

Figures & data

Table 1. Selected evaluation criteria.

Main	Sub	Objective	Type	Source
Technical	Dispatchability of System (binary)	Max	TB	Suggested by author
	Lifetime (years)	Max	TB	Demirtas (2013)
	Efficiency (%)	Max	TB	Shaaban et al. (2018), Abdellatif (2016)
	Capacity Factor (%)	Max	PS	Suggested by author
Economic	Fixed Operation & Maintenance ($/kW-YR)	Min	TB	Malik et al. (2014), Abdellatif (2016)
	Non-fuel Variable Oper. and Maint. ($/MWh)	Min	TB	Abdellatif (2016)
	Internal Rate of Return (%)	Max	TB	Pramangioulis et al. (2019)
	Total Project Value (M$)	Min	PS	Pramangioulis et al. (2019)
Environmental	CO2 (kgCO2/kWh)	Min	TB	Afgan and Carvalho (2002), Demirtas (2013), Pramangioulis et al. (2019)
	EROI (%)	Min	TB	Pramangioulis et al. (2019)
	Heat Rate (BTU/kWh)	Min	TB	Abdellatif (2016)
	Foot Print Area (km^2/ kW)	Min	TB	Afgan and Carvalho (2002)
Social	Employment (jobs//MWp)	Max	TB	Demirtas (2013)
	Social Acceptability	Max	TB	Demirtas (2013), Shaaban et al. (2018)
Planning	Nameplate Capacity (MW)	Max	PS	Demirtas (2013), Abdellatif (2016)
	Distance to Grid Connection (Km)	Min	PS	Suggested by author

Table 2. Scored Tradeoff Matrix.

Criteria	Unit	Benban SP	El Dabaa NP	Attaqa PSHPP	Hamrawein CC-US	Ras Ghareb WF
Technical
Dispatchability of System	binary	0	1	1	1	0
Lifetime (years)	YR	20	60	60	30	20
Efficiency	%	0.175	0.35	0.75	0.45	0.4
Capacity factor	%	0.26	0.92	0.34	0.684	0.35
Economic
Fixed O&M	$/kW-YR	24.68	93.23	30.8	31.16	39.53
Non-fuel Variable O&M	$/MWh	0	2.14	2.48	4.47	0
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)	%	0.175	0.081	0.17	0.185	0.17
Total value of the project	$ billion	2	28.75	2.6	3.7	0.4
Environmental
CO2	kgCO2/kWh	0.1	0.025	0.04	0.82	0.02
EROI	%	0.04	0.75	0.35	0.3	0.16
Heat Rate	BTU/kWh	0	10479	0	8800	0
Social
Area (Footprint)	km^2/kW	0.024	0.008	0.039	0.2	0.474
Employment	jobs//MWp	13	1.4	18	1.6	3
Social Acceptance	score	22.76	8.6	15.28	9.42	32.38
Planning
Nameplate Capacity	MW	1650	4800	2400	6600	262.5
Grid connection	km	22	53	0.5	58	93

Table 3. Weights of main criteria obtained by different investigators.

Criteria	Demirtas	Malik	Shaaban
Technical	0.279	0.206	0.230
Economic	0.197	0.265	0.290
Environmental	0.315	0.060	0.200
Social	0.209	0.000	0.280
Planning	0.000	0.206	0.000
Governmental	0.000	0.263	0.000

Table 4. Main criteria average weights.

Criteria	Demirtas	Malik	Shaaban	Average
Technical	0.279	0.280	0.230	0.263
Economic	0.197	0.360	0.290	0.282
Environmental	0.315	0.081	0.200	0.199
Social	0.209	0.000	0.280	0.163
Planning	0.000	0.280	0.000	0.093

Table 5. Weights of biased scenarios.

Criteria	Economic	Environmental	Social
Technical	0.183	0.164	0.157
Economic	0.500	0.176	0.169
Environmental	0.138	0.500	0.119
Social	0.114	0.102	0.500
Planning	0.065	0.058	0.056

Table 6. Outranking matrix.

	Benban SP	El Dabaa NP	Attaqa PSHPP	Hamrawein CC-US	Ras Ghareb WF
Benban SP	0	8	6	9	5
El Dabaa NP	8	0	6	6	7
Attaqa PSHPP	9	8	0	12	8
Hamrawein CC-US	7	8	3	0	10
Ras Ghareb WF	7	9	5	6	0

Figure 2. Min-Max standardisation method with different aggregation formulas.

Figure 3. Max standardisation method with different aggregation formulas.

Figure 4. Projects ranking based on biased scenarios.

Demirtas, O. 2013. “Evaluating the Best Renewable Energy Technology for Sustainable Energy Planning.” International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 3 (4): 23–33.

 Google Scholar

Shaaban, M., J. Scheffran, J. Böhner, and M. S. Elsobki. 2018. “Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies in Egypt Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.” Energies 11 (5): 1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051117.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abdellatif, D., R. AbdelHady, A. M. Ibrahim, and E. A. El-Zaha. 2018. “Conditions for Economic Competitiveness of Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Power Plants in Egypt.” Renewables: Wind, Water, and Solar 5 (1): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-018-0048-1.

 Google Scholar

Malik, A., M. Al Badi, A. Al Kahali, Y. Al Nabhani, A. Al Bahri, and H. Al Barhi. 2014. “Evaluation of Renewable Energy Projects Using Multi-Criteria Approach.” In IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC 2014), 350–355. IEEE.

 Google Scholar

Abdellatif, D. 2016. “Economic Assessment of Installing Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Power Plant In Egypt.” A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, MSc Electrical Power and Machines Engineering, Giza, Egypt, 2016.

 Google Scholar

Pramangioulis, D., K. Atsonios, N. Nikolopoulos, D. Rakopoulos, P. Grammelis, and E. Kakaras. 2019. “A Methodology for Determination and Definition of Key Performance Indicators for Smart Grids Development in Island Energy Systems.” Energies 12 (2): 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12020242.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Afgan, N. H., and M. G. Carvalho. 2002. “Multi-criteria Assessment of New and Renewable Energy Power Plants.” Energy 27 (8): 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(02)00019-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar