Developing renewable energy alternative resources evaluation model based on

multiple criteria
Abraham Debebe Woldeyohannes, and Dereje Engida Woldemichael

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 2035, 050006 (2018); doi: 10.1063/1.5075577

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5075577
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/2035/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Developing Renewable Energy Alternative Resources
Evaluation Model based on Multiple Criteria
Abraham Debebe Woldeyohannes1, a) and Dereje Engida Woldemichael 2, b)
1
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Caledonian College of Engineering, CPO Seeb 111,
Sultanate of Oman
2
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
a)
Corresponding author: abraham@caledonian.edu.om
b)
dereje.woldemichael@utp.edu.my

Abstract. The variation in cost to develop renewable energy resources and the interest from stakeholders to consider
various evaluating criteria before implementing renewable energy alternatives is attracting interest from researchers.
Though cost is the leading factor to be considered for the selection of renewable energy alternatives, it is also equally
important to address other criteria such as useful life of the project, operation and maintenance of the given alternatives,
the impact of alternatives to the society and other factors. The number of alternative renewable energy resources to be
considered and the number of evaluating criteria depends on the involvement of various stakeholders. This paper focuses
on developing renewable energy alternative resources evaluating model considering multiple criteria. The proposed
model optimize each renewable energy alternative resources considering cost as prime factor and evaluate the alternatives
under different criteria using Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method for generating comprehensive ranking for all
alternatives. The model has been tested based on a region having a demand of 620 MWh per year. Five alternative
renewable energy resources have been evaluated based on six criteria. The alternative which includes a combination of
wind to supply 72.58% and biomass to supply 27.42% of energy requirement ranked as the best option considering all
criteria. The model can also be extended to any regions taking into account the local data and availability of resources for
the selected areas.

INTRODUCTION
The continuous depletion of conventional energy sources coupled with the serious impact on pollution to the
environment is forcing countries to consider renewable energy resources (RES) as the viable option for sustainable
use. However, the availability of the RES and cost of developing the available resources requires an in-depth
analysis before implementation. Nowadays, considering various alternative renewable energy resources and
evaluating them under different criteria is becoming the best practices in renewable energy project implementations.
As there are many stakeholders involved during development and utilization of renewable energy projects, it is
important to get the involvement of all stakeholders for smooth implementation and operation of renewable energy
projects.
Decision making considering only one factor is becoming less important in renewable energy alternative
evaluation. Hence, considering various factors such as social, economic, technological and environmental is
important in considering alternative projects for implementation. Cristobal [1] developed a multi-criteria decision-
making model for selecting renewable energy project. The method is developed based on compromising ranking
method to assign index based on particular measure of closeness to the ideal solution. The compromise Ranking
Method, also called as the VIKOR Method, is applied in Spain for evaluating thirteen renewable alternatives based
on seven criteria. The task of evaluating and selecting alternative renewable energy sources are usually vigorous as
different groups having multiple criteria are involved in the process of decision making [1]. VIKOR Method has

6th International Conference on Production, Energy and Reliability 2018

AIP Conf. Proc. 2035, 050006-1–050006-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5075577
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1761-8/$30.00

050006-1
been also implemented in [2] choose best appropriate RES alternative for installation at Banaras Hindu University
(BHU) cam- pus, India.
A multi-objective Genetic Algorithm using EnergyPlus and MATLAB® are used by Ascione et al [3] to
optimize the mix of renewable energy resources for a building. The method optimizes primary energy demand and
investment cost. The developed model considered three factors on multi-criteria decision making which includes the
minimum investment cost for RES systems (IC), minimum primary energy demand (PE), and the cost-optimal
solution: this is the mix of renewables that minimizes the global cost.
An optimization model to design and analyze renewable energy supply system to rural community is developed
by Kim et al [4]. The optimization model formulated as mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) technique to
identify system configuration and economic performance. Renewable energy sources from solar, wind, organic
wastes and biomass are considered for optimization implemented based on General Algebraic Modeling System
(GAMS) environment with the CPLEX 12.0 solver.
Multi-objective optimization for designing hybrid power generation systems has been developed by Fonseca et al
[5]. The authors developed an approach to select the optimal configuration of hybrid power generation systems for
isolated regions by means of integrating Mixture Design of Experiments (MDOE), multi-objective programming via
Normal Boundary Intersection method (NBI) and super-efficiency Data envelopment analysis (super-efficiency
DEA) in a single decision-making framework. The developed model is applied to four different areas in Brazil as
case study to validate the method.
Multi-objective optimization approach for planning future energy demand and cost based on scenario for three
different time zone has been presented in [6]. The concept of multi-objective design optimization for distributed
energy systems is presented in [7]. Wang et al [8] developed a multi-objective model and algorithm for optimizing
the size of a typical stand-alone Hybrid RES that is composed of photovoltaic (PV) panels, wind turbines, battery
banks and diesels. The proposed model considers minimization of annualized system cost, loss of power supply
probability and greenhouse gas emission, and enables a decision maker to optimize both the number and the type of
PV panel, wind turbine, battery and diesel generator as well as the PV panel installation angle, the wind turbine
installation height.
Though there have been numerous attempts to develop the various methodology to select and evaluate the
alternatives on the basis of multi criteria, the development of a comprehensive methodology to evaluate alternative
renewable energy resources considering different criteria to meet the requirement is yet challenging. This paper
proposes a model to optimize each alternatives taking cost as prime factor and evaluating the alternatives on the
basis of multi criteria. Five different RES alternatives are evaluated by taking six criteria into considerations to
satisfy the energy demand requirement.

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

Developing a multi criteria for evaluating and ranking the given alternative by taking the input from stakeholders
is the key for sustainable renewable energy utilization. In most cases developing cost of the project are used to be
the only consideration in evaluating the different RESs.
The availability of resources and the required demand depends on the geographic locations. As a result, it is
important to decide the location and identify the area of implementation for the selected region. Once the region is
identified, the next step is to assess the demand and renewable energy potential of the selected regions. As the
geographic location and the topographic of the region affects the availability of the different renewable energy
sources, it is important to assess thoroughly the area of installation and distribution system of the generated energy.
It is important to generate as many alternatives as possible and critically analyze the different options which
satisfy the demand requirement. The developed method optimizes the given alternatives considering cost as prime
factor before evaluating them on the basis of multi criteria. The optimization stage is used as preliminary screening
of alterative resources. Figure 1 shows the methodology adopted for optimizing and evaluating alternative renewable
energy resources to satisfy the given requirement.
Transportation algorithm [9] is used to optimize the given renewable energy resources. Four different renewable
energy resources which includes solar, hydro power, wind and biomass are considered to generate the different
alternatives. Let xi represents the amount of energy allocated from energy source i to energy demand station;
Ci represents the cost equivalent of generating and delivering a unit amount of energy from source i to demand
station; D represents the renewable energy demand of the region; Si represents the renewable energy supply

050006-2
station at remote area i. The optimization problem for optimum allocation of renewable energy resources with four
RES to satisfy the given demand can be expressed as:

Objective function:
4
Minimize: Z ¦C X
i 1
i i . (1)

Subject to:

Energy supplier side constraints:

X 1 d S1 ½
X 2 d S2 °
°
¾
X 3 d S3 °
X 4 d S4 °
¿ (2)

Energy demand side constraints:

X1  X 2  X 3  X 4 t D
(3)

The non-negative constraints:

X i , Ci t 0 . (4)

FIGURE 1. Multiple Criteria Decision for evaluating renewable energy alternative sources

050006-3
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL

The developed model is implemented on region having a demand of 620 MWh per year. The optimization model
is developed to optimize the three different scenarios which includes; demand and supply are equal, demand is
higher than the supply, demand is less than the supply. Five different alternatives are generated to be considered for
satisfying the required energy demand.
Table 1 shows the different alternative renewable energy resources considered. For instance, as shown Table 1,
alternative A1 includes hydro, solar, wind, biomass with zero capacity for hydro power. This indicate that the option
to generate energy from hydro is assumed to be expensive or the potential for hydro power is minimal. The total
power generated from alternative A1 is 765 MWh per year which is more than the required demand for the region.
Depending on the availability of the resources, it is possible to consider various composition of renewable energy
alternatives. Alternative A4 shows that only biomass energy source is considered to satisfy the required demand.

TABLE 1. Alternative renewable energy resources

Alternatives Supply kwh/year Total power Optimized composition Total Cost

supply based on cost ($)
A1 Hydro 0 0.00% 107400
Solar 280000 21.77%
765,000
Wind 335000 54.03%
Biomass 150000 24.19%
A2 Hydro 0 0.00%
Solar 650000 650,000 100.00%
279000
Wind 0 0.00%
Biomass 0 0.00%
A3 Hydro 0 0.00%
Solar 180000 0.00%
820000 59200
Wind 450000 72.58%
Biomass 190000 27.42%
A4 Hydro 0 0.00%
Solar 0 680000 0.00% 68200
Wind 0 0.00%
Biomass 680000 100.00%
A5 Hydro 20000 3.23%
Solar 0 645000 0.00% 64900
Wind 145000 23.39%
Biomass 480000 73.39%

The generated alternatives are optimized on the basis of minimizing cost of generating the renewable energy. As
the cost of development varies from one geographic location to the other, there could be variations in cost for
development RES from place to place. The cost of generation ($/kwh) implemented in [9] has been used in this
model. The cost of generating one kWh in $ is assumed to be 0.09 for hydro, 0.45 for solar, 0.09 wind energy and
0.11 for biomass. The data on implementation period, operation and maintenance cost, useful life has been adopted
[1].

050006-4
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In order to optimize each alternative, transportation algorithm [9] which implemented based on MS Excel Solver
is used determine the best composition of RES within each alternatives taking cost as prime factor. The complete
details regarding the possible alternative RES and their optimized composition to minimize the total cost is shown in
Table 1. For instance, the optimized composition of RES for alternative one (A1) is Hydro [0%], Solar (21.77%),
Wind (54.03%), Biomass (24.19%) with total cost of $ 107,400.

Multi Criteria Attributes

The key aspect in evaluating different renewable energy alternatives is considering as many criteria into
consideration for making the final decision for the development of RES. The criteria to be considered and the
emphasis made on each criterion depends on the geographic location and the perspectives of the decision maker. Six
different criteria which includes power supply [P, kWh/year] implementation period [IP, years], operation and
maintenance cost [O&M, $/kWh], useful life [UL, years], land requirement [LR, hectares] and total cost of
generation [TC, $/kWh]. As shown in Table 2 the detail of all the five alternatives are prepared along with the
various criteria to be considered for evaluation.

Application of SAW Method

In order to rank the given alternatives, the simple Additive weighting (SAW) method on the basis of Multi-
Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) applied in the model [10]. In order to apply the method, it is important to
determine the significance (weightage) of each criterion. Resistance-to-change- grid weighting method is applied to
determine the weightage of the six criteria. One of the significance of this method is that the method ensures that the
weights obtained reflect the decision maker’s actual preference in terms of the importance of the criteria [10]. Table
3 shows the weightage of each criteria considered during the evaluation of the five alternatives.

TABLE 2: Alternatives and the corresponding scores against different criteria

Alternatives P IP O&M UL LR TC [$/kWh]

[kWh/year] [years] [$/kWh] [years] [hectares]

A1 765000 1 1.47 22 20 107400

A2 650000 1.5 1.5 25 150 279000
A3 820000 2 0.8 21 145 59200
A4 680000 1.8 1.6 20 68 68200
A5 645000 2 1.2 20 35 64900

The criteria scores shown in Table 2 are converted to dimensionless number by calculating the ratio of each
criteria score relative to the best overall score from the available options under consideration [10]. The best raw
score in each case is assigned a 10-rating. In the case of IP, O&M, LR and TC, lowest is the best. On the other hand,
P & UL, highest is the best. For instance, considering power supply (P), alterative 3 (A3) is the best and will be
assigned a 10 rating. The rating for alternative 1 (A1) is obtained as (765000/820000) x10 = 9.33. The rating of the
remaining alternatives based on the criteria is shown in Table 4.
Once all the ratings are completed, the final step is multiplying the ratings by the relevant criteria weightings and
determine the total scores for each alternative to generate the ranking. A3 is ranked the best alternative while A2
took the worst alternatives considering the multi criteria.

050006-5
 TABLE 3. Implementation of SAW Method and weighted average

P IP O&M UL LR TC Row Normalized

Sum Weight
P x 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.33

IP 0 x 0 1 0 0 1 0.07

O&M 0 1 x 1 1 0 3 0.20

UL 0 0 0 x 1 0 1 0.07

LR 0 1 0 0 x 0 1 0.07

TC 0 1 1 1 1 x 4 0.26

Total 15 1.00

TABLE 4. Overall scores of the five alternatives

Criteria Weightage A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
P 0.333 9. 7.93 10. 8. 7.
33 00 29 87
IP 0.067 10 6.67 5 5. 5
56
O&M 0.200 5. 5.33 10. 5. 6.
44 00 00 67
UL 0.067 8. 10 8.4 8 8
8
LR 0.067 10 1.3 1.4 2. 5.
.0 9 7
TC 0.267 5. 2.12 10. 8. 9.
51 00 68 12
Final Score - 7. 5.47 8.9 7. 7.
59 9 18 64
Ranking - 3 5 1 4 2

CONCLUSION
The decision to select alternative renewable energy project to implement for satisfying the demand requirement
usually requires thorough analysis for taking into consideration various aspects. As different stakeholders are
involved in selecting and evaluating the alternative projects, the decision making process is usually categorized as
multi attributes problems. Multi criteria model on the basis of multi attributes utility theory using SAW method is
developed to evaluate five alternatives considering six criteria. The alternatives are optimized by taking cost as
prime factor as preliminary screening of the different options. The weighting system is developed on the basis of
resistance-to- change-grid method to ensure that the weightage are a true reflection of the decision maker preference.
The alternative with a combination of wind to supply 72.58% and biomass to supply 27.42% of energy requirement
ranked as the best option considering all criteria to satisfy the demand requirement of the region. It is yet
challenging to have complete information with certainty during the preparation of alternatives and the corresponding

050006-6
scores based on the different criteria. Thorough analysis to reflect the input from different stakeholders for
determining the weightage of the criteria is an important phase towards selecting best alternatives. Conducting
sensitivity analysis allows the decision makers to analyze the impact of incremental changes in criterion weights on
the impact of the final decision. The developed model can be adopted to other regions taking the local data into
considerations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Authors would like to thank the Caledonian College of Engineering and Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.
The Authors would also like to thank the IMechE for providing the conference grant to attend the ICPER 2018.

REFERENCES

1. J. R. San Cristóbal. Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in Spain: The
Vikor method. Renew. Energy 36 (2), 498–502 (2011).
2. M. Kumar and C. Samuel. Selection of Best Renewable Energy Source by Using VIKOR Method. Technol.
Econ. Smart Grids Sustain. Energy 2(1), 8-18 (2017).
3. F. Ascione, N. Bianco, R. F. De Masi, C. De Stasio, G. M. Mauro, and G. P. Vanoli. Multi-objective
optimization of the renewable energy mix for a building. Appl. Therm. Eng.101, 612–621 (2016).
4. M. Kim, D. Lee, and J. Kim. An optimization model for design and analysis of a renewable energy supply
system to the sustainable rural community. Energy Procedia 136, 342–348 (2017).
5. M. N. Fonseca, E. de Oliveira Pamplona, A. R. de Queiroz, V. E. de Mello Valerio, G. Aquila, and S. R. Silva.
Multi-objective optimization applied for designing hybrid power generation systems in isolated networks. Sol.
Energy 161, 207–219 (2018).
6. M. S. Mahbub, D. Viesi, S. Cattani, and L. Crema. An innovative multi-objective optimization approach for
long-term energy planning. Appl. Energy 208,1487–1504 (2017).
7. M. Di Bianco, N. Graditi, G. Luh, B. and L. Mongibello. Multi-objective design optimization of distributed
energy systems through cost and exergy assessments. Appl. Energy 204, 1299–1316 (2017).
8. R. Wang, G. Li, M. Ming, G. Wu, and L. Wang. An efficient multi-objective model and algorithm for sizing a
stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system. Energy 141, 2288–2299 (2017).
9. A. Woldeyohannes, D. Woldemichael, and A. Baheta. Sustainable renewable energy resources utilization in
rural areas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.66, 1–9 (2016).
10. M. Rogers, Engineering Project Appraisal, Second. Blackwell, 2006, pp. 195-238.

050006-7