Evaluation of power plants to prioritise the investment projects using fuzzy PROMETHEE method

References

• Asady, B., and A. Zendehnam. 2007. “Ranking Fuzzy Numbers by Distance Minimization.” Applied Mathematical Modeling 31 (11): 2589–2598. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2006.10.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assari, A., T. Mahesh, and E. Assari. 2012. “Role of Public Participation in Sustainability of Historical City: Usage of TOPSIS Method.” Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5 (3): 2289–2294.
   Google Scholar
• Atmaca, E., and H. B. Basar. 2012. “Evaluation of Power Plants in Turkey Using Analytic Network Process (ANP).” Energy 44 (1): 555–563. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.05.046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmann, A., N. Hanley, and R. Wright. 2006. “Valuing the Attributes of Renewable Energy Investments.” Energy Policy 34 (9): 1004–1014. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büyüközkan, G., and S. Güleryüz. 2016. “An Integrated DEMATEL-ANP Approach for Renewable Energy Resources Selection in Turkey.” International Journal of Production Economics 182: 435–448. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.09.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatzimouratidis, A. I., and P. A. Pilavachi. 2007. “Objective and Subjective Evaluation of Power Plants and Their Non-radioactive Emissions Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Energy Policy 35 (8): 4027–4038. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatzimouratidis, A. I., and P. A. Pilavachi. 2008. “Multicriteria Evaluation of Power Plants Impact on the Living Standard Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Energy Policy 36 (3): 1074–1089. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatzimouratidis, A. I., and P. A. Pilavachi. 2009. “Technological, Economic and Sustainability Evaluation of Power Plants Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Energy Policy 37 (3): 778–787. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corona, B., and G. San Miguel. 2015. “Environmental Analysis of a Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Plant Hybridised with Different Fossil and Renewable Fuels.” Fuel 145: 63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois, D., and H. Prade. 1978. “Operations on Fuzzy Numbers.” International Journal of Systems Science 9 (6): 613–626. doi: 10.1080/00207727808941724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Energy-environment Software; Environment Department, Energy Affairs, Iran Ministry of Energy. 2013. http://www.moe.gov.ir/.
   Google Scholar
• Energy Year Book of Deputy Director of Energy. 2013. Balance Sheet of Iran’s Energy in 2011. Ministry of Power (in Persian). http://pep.moe.gov.ir/.
   Google Scholar
• Garg, R., V. Agrawal, and V. K. Gupta. 2007. “Coding, Evaluation and Selection of Thermal Power Plants – A MADM Approach.” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 29 (9): 657–668. doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2006.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gwo-Hshiung, T., S. Tzay-an, and L. Chien-Yuan. 1992. “Application of Multicriteria Decision Making to the Evaluation of New Energy System Development in Taiwan.” Energy 17 (10): 983–992. doi: 10.1016/0360-5442(92)90047-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Y., and P. Solana. 2013. “Optimization of a Hybrid Diesel-wind Generation Plant with Operational Options.” Renewable Energy 51: 364–372. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, C. L., and K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Kabalci, E. 2013. “Design and Analysis of a Hybrid Renewable Energy Plant with Solar and Wind Power.” Energy Conversion and Management 72: 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2012.08.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., İ. Kaya, and S. Cebi. 2009. “A Comparative Analysis for Multiattribute Selection among Renewable Energy Alternatives Using Fuzzy Axiomatic Design and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Energy 34 (10): 1603–1616. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaya, T., and C. Kahraman. 2011. “Multicriteria Decision Making in Energy Planning Using a Modified Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodology.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (6): 6577–6585. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatami Firouzabadi, A., and E. Ghazimatin. 2013. “Application of Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation Method in Energy Planning-regional Level.” Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems 10 (4): 67–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, A., B. Sah, A. R. Singh, Y. Deng, X. He, P. Kumar, and R. C. Bansal. 2017. “A Review of Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Towards Sustainable Renewable Energy Development.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69: 596–609. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, R., and S. K. Singal. 2015. “Penstock Material Selection in Small Hydropower Plants Using MADM Methods.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52: 240–255. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanjewar, P., R. Rao, A. Kale, J. Taler, and P. Ocłoń. 2016. “Evaluation and Selection of Energy Technologies Using an Integrated Graph Theory and Analytic Hierarchy Process Methods.” Decision Science Letters 5 (2): 237–348.
   Google Scholar
• Moradpour, S., S. Ebrahimnejad, E. Mehdizadeh, and A. Mohamadi. 2011. “Using Hybrid Fuzzy PROMETHEE II and Fuzzy Binary Goal Programming for Risk Ranking: A Case Study of Highway Construction Projects.” Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering 4 (9): 47–55.
   Google Scholar
• Ribeiro, F., P. Ferreira, and M. Araújo. 2013. “Evaluating Future Scenarios for the Power Generation Sector Using a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Tool: the Portuguese Case.” Energy 52: 126–136. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.12.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostamzadeh, R., and S. Sofian. 2011. “Prioritizing Effective 7Ms to Improve Production Systems Performance Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS (Case Study).” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (5): 5166–5177. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. 1996. The Analytical Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
   Google Scholar
• San Cristóbal, J. R. 2011. “Multi-criteria Decision-making in the Selection of a Renewable Energy Project in Spain: The Vikor Method.” Renewable Energy 36 (2): 498–502. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos-Alamillos, F., D. Pozo-Vázquez, J. Ruiz-Arias, L. Von Bremen, and J. Tovar-Pescador. 2015. “Combining Wind Farms with Concentrating Solar Plants to Provide Stable Renewable Power.” Renewable Energy 76: 539–550. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Şengül, Ü, M. Eren, S. E. Shiraz, V. Gezder, and A. B. Şengül. 2015. “Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Ranking Renewable Energy Supply Systems in Turkey.” Renewable Energy 75: 617–625. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streimikiene, D., T. Balezentis, I. Krisciukaitienė, and A. Balezentis. 2012. “Prioritizing Sustainable Electricity Production Technologies: MCDM Approach.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (5): 3302–3311. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taha, R. A., and T. Daim. 2013. Multi-criteria Applications in Renewable Energy Analysis, a Literature Review Research and Technology Management in the Electricity Industry, 17–30. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, J. J., Y. Y. Jing, C. F. Zhang, and J. H. Zhao. 2009. “Review on Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Aid in Sustainable Energy Decision-making.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (9): 2263–2278. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh, T. M., and Y. L. Huang. 2014. “Factors in Determining Wind Farm Location: Integrating GQM, Fuzzy DEMATEL, and ANP.” Renewable Energy 66: 159–169. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. 1965. “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control 8: 338–353. doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar