An evaluation of power plants in Turkey: Fuzzy TOPSIS method

References

• Akay, D., Boran, F. E., Yilmaz, M., and Atak, M. 2013. The evaluation of power plants investment alternatives with grey relational analysis approach for Turkey. Energy Sources Part B 8:35–43.
   Google Scholar
• Boran, F. E. 2013. A multidimensional analysis to evaluate district heating systems. Energy Sources Part B 8:122–129.
   Google Scholar
• Boran, F. E. 2015. Forecasting natural gas consumption in Turkey using grey prediction. Energy Sources Part B 10:208–213.
   Google Scholar
• Boran, F. E., and Boran, K. 2012. Evaluation of natural gas systems: A comparison study for Turkey. Energy Sources Part B 7:222–229.
   Google Scholar
• Boran, F. E., Boran, K., and Dizdar, E. 2012a. A fuzzy multi criteria decision making to evaluate energy policy based on an information axiom: A case study in Turkey. Energy Sources Part B 7:230–240.
   Google Scholar
• Boran, F. E., Boran, K., and Menlik, T. 2012b. The evaluation of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Energy Sources Part B 7:81–90.
   Google Scholar
• Boran, F. E., Dizdar, E., Toktas, I., Boran, K., Eldem, C., and Asal, O. 2013a. A multidimensional analysis of electricity generation options with different scenarios in Turkey. Energy Sources Part B 8:44–55.
   Google Scholar
• Boran, F. E., Etoz, M., and Dizdar, E. 2013b. Is nuclear power an optimal option for electricity generation in Turkey?. Energy Sources Part B 8:382–390.
   Google Scholar
• Boran, F. E., Menlik, T., and Boran, K. 2010. Multi-criteria axiomatic design approach to evaluate sites for grid-connected photovoltaic power plants: A case study in Turkey. Energy Sources Part B 5:290–300.
   Google Scholar
• Buyukozkan, G., Feyzioglu, O., and Nebol E. 2008. Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113:148–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S. J., and Hwang, C. L. 1992. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods and Application. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, T. C. 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, T. C., Lin C. T., and Huang S. F. 2006. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 102:289–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, T. C. 2002. Selecting plant location via a fuzzy TOPSIS. Approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 20:859–864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, T. C., and Lin Y. C. 2003. A fuzzy TOPSIS method for robot selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 21:284–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertugrul, I., and Karakusoglu, N. 2008. Comparision of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 39:783–795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gungor, Z., and Arikan, F. 2000. A fuzzy outranking method in energy policy planning. Fuzzy Set Theory 114:115–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatipoglu, H., Boran, F. E., Avci, M., and Akay, D. 2014. Linguistic summarization of Europe Brent spot price time series along with the interpretations from the perspective of Turkey. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 29:946–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, C. L., and Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• International Energy Agency (IEA).Turkey 2001 Review. Paris: OECD/IEA; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., Cevik, S., Ates, N. Y., and Gulbay, M. T. 2007. Fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation of industrial robotic systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 52:414–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilic, F. C., and Kaya, D. 2007. Energy production, consumption, policies, and recent developments in Turkey. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 11:1312–1320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shih H. S., Shyurb, H. J., and Lee, E. S. 2007. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math. Comput. Modell. 45:801–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sozen, A., and Arcaklioglu E. 2007. Prospects for future projections of the basic energy sources in Turkey. Energy Sources Part B 2:183–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sozen, A., and Nalbant, M. 2007. Situation of Turkey’s energy indicators among the EU member states. Energy Policy 35:4993–5002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsaur, S. H., Chang, T. Y., and Yena, C. H. 2002. The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Manage. 23:107–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, T. C., and Chang, T. H. 2007. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 33:870–880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y. J. 2008. Applying FMCDM to evaluate financial performance of domestic airlines in Taiwan. Expert Syst. Appl. 34: 1837–1845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong, D. 2006. Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 28:839–844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, K. P., and Hwang, C. L. 1995. Multiple attributes decision-making: an introduction. Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social science, 07–104. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8:338–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar