Risk assessment of renewable energy projects using a novel hybrid fuzzy approach

References

• Ahmad, S., A. Nadeem, G. Akhanova, T. Houghton, and F. Muhammad-Sukki. 2017. Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable and nuclear resources for electricity generation in Kazakhstan. Energy 141:1880–91. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alizadeh, R., L. Soltanisehat, P. D. Lund, and H. Zamanisabzi. 2020. Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method. Energy Policy 137:111174. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alkan, Ö., and Ö. Karadağ Albayrak. 2020. Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Renewable Energy 162:712–26. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amirhossein, K., W. Desheng, J. H. Lambert, and C. Luo. 2022. Risk assessment of renewable energy projects using uncertain information. International Journal of Energy Research 46 (13):18079–99. n/a (n/a). doi:10.1002/er.8428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ancot, J. -P., and J. H. P. Paelinck. 1982. Recent experiences with the qualiflex multicriteria method. In Qualitative and quantitative mathematical economics, edited by Badi H. Baltagi,Yongmiao Hong,Gary KoopWalter, Krämer and László Mátyás, 217–66. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Büyüközkan, G., and S. Güleryüz. 2017. Evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey using an integrated MCDM approach with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations. Energy 123:149–63. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büyüközkan, G., Y. Karabulut, and E. Mukul. 2018. A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Energy 165:290–302. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamandoust, H., G. Derakhshan, S. Mehdi Hakimi, and S. Bahramara. 2020. Tri-objective scheduling of residential smart electrical distribution grids with optimal joint of responsive loads with renewable energy sources. Journal of Energy Storage 27:101112. doi:10.1016/j.est.2019.101112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, Y., Z. Fang, and L. Yanfei. 2016. Renewable energy policies in promoting financing and investment among the East Asia summit countries: Quantitative assessment and policy implications. Energy Policy 95:427–36. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chebotareva, G., W. Strielkowski, and D. Streimikiene. 2020. Risk assessment in renewable energy projects: A case of Russia. Journal of Cleaner Production 269:122110. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, T.Y., C.H. Chang, and J.F. Rachel Lu. 2013. The extended QUALIFLEX method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and applications to medical decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 226 (3):615–25. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.S., H.M. Chuang, A. Kumar Sangaiah, C.K. Lin, and W.B. Huang. 2019. A study for project risk management using an advanced MCDM-based DEMATEL-ANP approach. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 10 (7):2669–81. doi:10.1007/s12652-018-0973-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu, W.Y., G.H. Tzeng, and L. Han-Lin. 2013. A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business. Knowledge-Based Systems 37:48–61. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2012.06.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çolak, M., and İ. Kaya. 2017. Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80:840–53. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colmenar-Santos, A., A.M. Muñoz-Gómez, E. Rosales-Asensio, and Á. López-Rey. 2019. Electric vehicle charging strategy to support renewable energy sources in Europe 2050 low-carbon scenario. Energy 183:61–74. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compernolle, T., K. Welkenhuysen, E. Petitclerc, D. Maes, and K. Piessens. 2019. The impact of policy measures on profitability and risk in geothermal energy investments. Energy Economics 84:104524. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Luca, G., S. Fabozzi, N. Massarotti, and L. Vanoli. 2018. A renewable energy system for a nearly zero greenhouse city: Case study of a small city in southern Italy. Energy 143:347–62. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir, C., and R. Cergibozan. 2020. Does alternative energy usage converge across Oecd countries? Renewable Energy 146:559–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirel, H., E. Akyuz, E. Celik, and F. Alarcin. 2019. An interval type-2 fuzzy QUALIFLEX approach to measure performance effectiveness of ballast water treatment (BWT) system on-board ship. Ships and Offshore Structures 14 (7):675–83. doi:10.1080/17445302.2018.1551851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinçer, H., S. Yüksel, and L. Martinez. 2019. Interval type 2-based hybrid fuzzy evaluation of financial services in E7 economies with DEMATEL-ANP and MOORA methods. Applied Soft Computing 79:186–202. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2019.03.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong, J.Y., Y. Chen, and S.P. Wan. 2018. A cosine similarity based QUALIFLEX approach with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for financial performance evaluation. Applied Soft Computing 69:316–29. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2018.04.053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong, K., R. Sun, and G. Hochman. 2017. Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy 141:1466–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elshkaki, A., and L. Shen. 2019. Energy-material nexus: The impacts of national and international energy scenarios on critical metals use in China up to 2050 and their global implications. Energy 180:903–17. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erfani, A., and M. Tavakolan. 2020. Risk evaluation model of wind energy investment projects using modified fuzzy group decision-making and monte carlo simulation. Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice Practice 0976747920963222. doi:10.1177/0976747920963222.
   Google Scholar
• Garni, A., A. K. Hassan, A. Awasthi, D. Komljenovic, and K. Al-Haddad. 2016. A multicriteria decision making approach for evaluating renewable power generation sources in Saudi Arabia. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16:137–50. doi:10.1016/j.seta.2016.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, S., N. Das Chatterjee, and S. Dinda. 2021. Urban ecological security assessment and forecasting using integrated DEMATEL-ANP and CA-Markov models: A case study on Kolkata Metropolitan Area, India. Sustainable Cities and Society 68:102773. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.102773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heiskanen, E., M. Jalas, J. K. Juntunen, and H. Nissilä. 2017. Small streams, diverse sources: Who invests in renewable energy in Finland during the financial downturn? Energy Policy 106:191–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoang Phong, L., and S. Asumadu Sarkodie. 2020. Dynamic linkage between renewable and conventional energy use, environmental quality and economic growth: Evidence from emerging market and developing economies. Energy Reports 6:965–73. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2020.04.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilbahar, E., C. Kahraman, and S. Cebi. 2022. Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP. Energy 239:121907. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.121907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jing, H., R. Harmsen, W. Crijns-Graus, and E. Worrell. 2018. Barriers to investment in utility-scale variable renewable electricity (VRE) generation projects. Renewable Energy 121:730–44. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., B. Öztayşi, İ. Uçal Sarı, and E. Turanoğlu. 2014. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowledge-Based Systems 59:48–57. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2014.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karamoozian, A., and W. Desheng. 2020. A hybrid risk prioritization approach in construction projects using failure mode and effective analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 27 (9):2661–86. doi:10.1108/ECAM-10-2019-0535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karamoozian, A., and D. Wu. 2022. A hybrid approach for the supply chain risk assessment of the construction industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1–16. doi:10.1109/TEM.2022.3210083.
   Google Scholar
• Karamoozian, A., D. Wu, C. L. P. Chen, and C. Luo. 2019. An approach for risk prioritization in construction projects using analytic network process and decision making trial and evaluation laboratory. IEEE Access 7:159842–54. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlova, M., S.E. Fleten, and V. Hagspiel. 2019. Investment timing and capacity choice under rate-of-return regulation for renewable energy support. Energy 174:591–601. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishankumar, R., D. Pamucar, M. Deveci, M. Aggarwal, and K. Soundarapandian Ravichandran. 2022. Assessment of renewable energy sources for smart cities’ demand satisfaction using multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic based choquet integral approach. Renewable Energy 189:1428–42. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kul, C., L. Zhang, and Y. Ahmed Solangi. 2020. Assessing the renewable energy investment risk factors for sustainable development in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production 276:124164. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LAZAROIU, G., D.A. CIUPAGEANU, and T. VATUIU. 2020. Highlights of renewable energy integration impact: Evolution and perspectives in Romania. Paper presented at the 2020 21st International Symposium on Electrical Apparatus & Technologies (SIELA), Bourgas, Bulgaria.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H.C., and C.T. Chang. 2018. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 92:883–96. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leng, Z., J. Shuai, H. Sun, Z. Shi, and Z. Wang. 2020. Do China’s wind energy products have potentials for trade with the “Belt and Road” countries?–a gravity model approach. Energy Policy 137:111172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ligus, M., and P. Peternek. 2018. Determination of most suitable low-emission energy technologies development in Poland using integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method. Energy Procedia 153:101–06. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.10.046.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., J. Carlos R Alcantud, R. M. Rodríguez, K. Qin, and L. Martínez. 2020. Intertemporal hesitant fuzzy soft sets: Application to group decision making. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 22 (2):619–35. doi:10.1007/s40815-020-00798-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, X., and M. Zeng. 2017. Renewable energy investment risk evaluation model based on system dynamics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73:782–88. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maqbool, R. 2018. Efficiency and effectiveness of factors affecting renewable energy projects; an empirical perspective. Energy 158:944–56. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPherson, M., and S. Tahseen. 2018. Deploying storage assets to facilitate variable renewable energy integration: The impacts of grid flexibility, renewable penetration, and market structure. Energy 145:856–70. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ming, L., L. Ying, Q. Peng, J. Wang, and Y. Chunxia. 2021. Evaluating community question-answering websites using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy DANP and TODIM methods. Applied Soft Computing 99:106918. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorthy, K., N. Patwa, Y. Gupta, Seetharaman, Saravanan. 2019. Breaking barriers in deployment of renewable energy. Heliyon 5 (1):e01166. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, A., V. Dobravec, L. Pavlinek, G. Krajačić, and N. Duić. 2018. Integration of renewable energy and demand response technologies in interconnected energy systems. Energy 161:447–55. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian, C., L. Haoren, L. Chufu, S. Singh, B. Liming, X. Zhao, and A. Y. Ku. 2018. China baseline coal-fired power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture: 1. Definitions and performance. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 78:37–47. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.07.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rani, P., A. Raj Mishra, K. Raj Pardasani, A. Mardani, H. Liao, and D. Streimikiene. 2019. A novel VIKOR approach based on entropy and divergence measures of Pythagorean fuzzy sets to evaluate renewable energy technologies in India. Journal of Cleaner Production 238:117936. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117936.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, R. M., A. Labella, and L. Martínez. 2016. An overview on fuzzy modelling of complex linguistic preferences in decision making. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 9 (sup1):81–94. doi:10.1080/18756891.2016.1180821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadiqa, A., A. Gulagi, and C. Breyer. 2018. Energy transition roadmap towards 100% renewable energy and role of storage technologies for Pakistan by 2050. Energy 147:518–33. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahnazi, R., and M. Alimohammadlou. 2022. Investigating risks in renewable energy in oil-producing countries through multi-criteria decision-making methods based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets: A case study of Iran. Renewable Energy 191:1009–27. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sim, J. 2018. The economic and environmental values of the R&D investment in a renewable energy sector in South Korea. Journal of Cleaner Production 189:297–306. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šíma, J. 2022. Stronger separation of analog neuron hierarchy by deterministic context-free languages. Neurocomputing 493:605–12. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.12.107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, S., L. Haoren, Q. Cui, L. Chufu, X. Zhao, X. Wenqiang, and A. Y. Ku. 2018. China baseline coal-fired power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture: 2. Techno-economics. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 78:429–36. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.09.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, S., H. Zhou, and W. Song. 2019. Sustainable shelter-site selection under uncertainty: A rough QUALIFLEX method. Computers & Industrial Engineering 128:371–86. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, E. W. 2013. A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy production technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 22:640–54. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, Z., and H. Dinçer. 2019. Selecting the house-of-quality-based energy investment policies for the sustainable emerging economies. Sustainability 11 (13):3514. doi:10.3390/su11133514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, G., J. Long, G. Xiaowei, F. Chiclana, P. Liu, and F. Wang. 2022. Interval type-2 fuzzy programming method for risky multicriteria decision-making with heterogeneous relationship. Information Sciences 584:184–211. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.10.044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tasri, A., and A. Susilawati. 2014. Selection among renewable energy alternatives based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in Indonesia. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 7:34–44. doi:10.1016/j.seta.2014.02.008.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y.M. 2009. Centroid defuzzification and the maximizing set and minimizing set ranking based on alpha level sets. Computers & Industrial Engineering 57 (1):228–36. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2008.11.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., L. Xu, and Y. Ahmed Solangi. 2020. Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: Based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustainable Cities and Society 52:101861. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiangrong, L., S. Zhu, S. Yüksel, H. Dinçer, and G. Gülseven Ubay. 2020. Kano-based mapping of innovation strategies for renewable energy alternatives using hybrid interval type-2 fuzzy decision-making approach. Energy 211:118679. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.118679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie, Q., T. Sunday Adebayo, M. Irfan, and M. Altuntaş. 2022. Race to environmental sustainability: Can renewable energy consumption and technological innovation sustain the strides for China? Renewable Energy. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2022.07.138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xin-Gang, Z., L. Pei-Ling, and Z. Ying. 2020. Which policy can promote renewable energy to achieve grid parity? Feed-in tariff vs. renewable portfolio standards. Renewable Energy 162:322–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue, Y.X., J.X. You, X. Zhao, and H.C. Liu. 2016. An integrated linguistic MCDM approach for robot evaluation and selection with incomplete weight information. International Journal of Production Research 54 (18):5452–67. doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1146418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Y.Y., X.W. Liu, and F. Liu. 2020. Trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS using alpha-cuts. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 22 (1):293–309. doi:10.1007/s40815-019-00777-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yunna, W., X. Chuanbo, and T. Zhang. 2018. Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China. Energy 147:1227–39. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yunna, W., J. Wang, J. Shaoyu, and Z. Song. 2020. Renewable energy investment risk assessment for nations along China’s Belt & Road Initiative: An ANP-cloud model method. Energy 190:116381. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.116381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yunna, W., B. Zhang, X. Chuanbo, and L. Lingwenying. 2018. Site selection decision framework using fuzzy ANP-VIKOR for large commercial rooftop PV system based on sustainability perspective. Sustainable Cities and Society 40:454–70. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.04.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8 (3):338–53. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, S., C. Jiang, M. Chen, and S. Bin. 2018. Investment efficiency of the new energy industry in China. Energy Economics 70:536–44. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2017.12.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, P., P. Zhou, S. Yüksel, H. Dinçer, and G. Sena Uluer. 2019. Balanced scorecard-based evaluation of sustainable energy investment projects with it2 fuzzy hybrid decision making approach. Energies 13 (1):82. doi:10.3390/en13010082.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar