Two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areas
The paper dwells upon the problem of multi-criteria choice of ways to develop generating capacities to supply power to remote consumers. We herein propose a two-step multi-criteria analysis method: choosing promising power-generation technology first, and then specifying the generating-capacity stru...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
EDP Sciences
2019-01-01
|
Series: | E3S Web of Conferences |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20197702009 |
id |
doaj-75422feb39b74d72aee5a857543ce424 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-75422feb39b74d72aee5a857543ce4242021-02-02T08:56:34ZengEDP SciencesE3S Web of Conferences2267-12422019-01-01770200910.1051/e3sconf/20197702009e3sconf_repar18_02009Two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areasNefedov AleksandrShakirov VladislavThe paper dwells upon the problem of multi-criteria choice of ways to develop generating capacities to supply power to remote consumers. We herein propose a two-step multi-criteria analysis method: choosing promising power-generation technology first, and then specifying the generating-capacity structure. The paper describes the structure of the proposed multi-criteria methods: the interval TOPSIS method for Step 1; for Step 2, an upgraded analytic hierarchy process based on identifying the structure of the decision maker’s preferences. We demonstrate the use of this method with evidence from the Penzhinsky District, Kamchatka Krai. Thermal power plants, hydroelectric power plants, diesel power plants, as well as solar and wind power are analyzed as power sources. Step 1 includes: analyzing the potential power-supply loads in a specific area; formulating alternative power-generation technology; formulating goals and criteria; criterion-based evaluation of alternative options using objective and subjective models; multi-criteria evaluation of alternatives; analyzing the sensitivity of results and the selection of promising technology. Step 2 includes: formulating goals and criteria on the basis of the selected power-generation technologies; formulating the available alternatives; criterion-based evaluation of alternatives; multi-criteria evaluation and final decision-making.https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20197702009 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Nefedov Aleksandr Shakirov Vladislav |
spellingShingle |
Nefedov Aleksandr Shakirov Vladislav Two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areas E3S Web of Conferences |
author_facet |
Nefedov Aleksandr Shakirov Vladislav |
author_sort |
Nefedov Aleksandr |
title |
Two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areas |
title_short |
Two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areas |
title_full |
Two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areas |
title_fullStr |
Two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areas |
title_full_unstemmed |
Two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areas |
title_sort |
two-step procedure for multi-criteria choice of generating-capacity structure in remote areas |
publisher |
EDP Sciences |
series |
E3S Web of Conferences |
issn |
2267-1242 |
publishDate |
2019-01-01 |
description |
The paper dwells upon the problem of multi-criteria choice of ways to develop generating capacities to supply power to remote consumers. We herein propose a two-step multi-criteria analysis method: choosing promising power-generation technology first, and then specifying the generating-capacity structure. The paper describes the structure of the proposed multi-criteria methods: the interval TOPSIS method for Step 1; for Step 2, an upgraded analytic hierarchy process based on identifying the structure of the decision maker’s preferences. We demonstrate the use of this method with evidence from the Penzhinsky District, Kamchatka Krai. Thermal power plants, hydroelectric power plants, diesel power plants, as well as solar and wind power are analyzed as power sources. Step 1 includes: analyzing the potential power-supply loads in a specific area; formulating alternative power-generation technology; formulating goals and criteria; criterion-based evaluation of alternative options using objective and subjective models; multi-criteria evaluation of alternatives; analyzing the sensitivity of results and the selection of promising technology. Step 2 includes: formulating goals and criteria on the basis of the selected power-generation technologies; formulating the available alternatives; criterion-based evaluation of alternatives; multi-criteria evaluation and final decision-making. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20197702009 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT nefedovaleksandr twostepprocedureformulticriteriachoiceofgeneratingcapacitystructureinremoteareas AT shakirovvladislav twostepprocedureformulticriteriachoiceofgeneratingcapacitystructureinremoteareas |
_version_ |
1724296026283573248 |