Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Solar Power Plant Location Selection
Source abstract
Abstract
Vietnam is one of Southeast Asian countries with a rapid GDP growth rate, ranging from 6.5% to 7% annually, leading to an average increase in energy demand of 11% per year. This demand creates many new opportunities in the energy industry, especially renewable energy, to ensure sustainable development in the future for the country with applications of solar energy growing at the present, and other opportunities to expand in the future. In Vietnam, thanks to favorable weather, climate, terrain characteristics and many preferential support policies, there are many great opportunities in the field of solar energy exploitation and application. Location selection is an important problem in all renewable energy projects. Therefore, the author proposed a fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-Making Model (MCDM) model for solar power plant location selection in this study, and as a result, location 5 is the optimal solution. The contribution of this study is to propose a MCDM for solar power plant location selection in Vietnam under fuzzy environmental conditions.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Multi-Criteria Decision Making · Optimization and Mathematical Programming · Facility Location and Emergency Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Renewables 2021 Global Status Report · 2021
2. Energy
3. “BP,” BP p.l.c., 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html. [Accessed 2021].
4. Solargis, “Globalsolaratlas,” The World Bank Group, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.globalsolaratlas.info/download/vietnam?c=16.045813,105.820313,5. [Accessed 2019].
5. “Energy.gov,” U.S department of energy, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/solar.
6. Optimal hospital location selection by analytical hierarchical process
7. An intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach for effective hazardous waste management
8. Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111174 ↗
9. A Gis-based suitability analysis for siting a solid waste incineration power plant in an urban area case study: Alexandria governorate, Egypt10.4236/jgis.2015.76052 ↗
10. Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.135 ↗
11. Infectious waste management strategy during covid-19 pandemic in Africa: An integrated decision-making framework for selecting sustainable technologies10.1007/s00267-020-01375-5 ↗
12. Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.113 ↗
13. REN21, “Renewables 2010 Global Status Report,” Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH., Paris, 2010.
14. Performance evaluation of solar PV power plants in Taiwan using data envelopment analysis10.3390/en14154498 ↗
15. Multi‐criteria decision analysis for wind power plant location selection based on fuzzy AHP and geographic information systems10.1007/s10668-021-01438-5 ↗
16. Multi-criteria decision support system for wind farm site selection and sensitivity analysis: Case study of Alborz province, Iran10.1016/j.esr.2020.100478 ↗
17. An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.010 ↗
18. Application of multi-criteria decision making technique for the assessment of groundwater potential zones: A study on birbhum district, west bengal, India10.1007/s10668-018-0227-7 ↗
19. Selection of optimal renewable energy investment project via fuzzy ANP
20. Sustainable assessment of alternative sites for the construction of a waste incineration plant by applying WASPAS method with single-valued neutrosophic set10.3390/su71215792 ↗
21. Nuclear power plant location selection in Vietnam under fuzzy environment conditions10.3390/sym10110548 ↗
22. PV site suitability analysis using GIS-based spatial fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation10.1016/j.renene.2010.10.037 ↗
23. New location selection criterions for solar PV power plant
24. An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant investment projects10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.012 ↗
25. A decision support system for selection of solar power plant locations by applying fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: An empirical study10.4236/jsea.2013.69057 ↗
26. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Approaches for Solar Power Plant Location Selection in Viet Nam
27. Location optimization of solar plants by an integrated hierarchical DEA PCA approach10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.034 ↗
28. Optimal site selection for a solar power plant in Turkey using a hybrid AHP-TOPSIS method
29. An integrated decision-making model for the location of a PV solar plant10.3390/su71013522 ↗
30. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches for solar power plant location selection in viet Nam10.3390/en11061504 ↗
31. A hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making approach for evaluating solar power plant location sites10.1007/s13369-018-3604-5 ↗
32. Optimal site selection for a solar power plant in the central anatolian region of Turkey10.1155/2017/7452715 ↗
33. Selection of the best location for solar plants in Turkey10.17159/2413-3051/2016/v26i4a2093 ↗
34. Optimal site selection for solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants using GIS and AHP: A case study of malatya province, Turkey10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.078 ↗
35. Determining criteria for optimal site selection for solar power plants10.15576/GLL/2017.4.39 ↗
36. Saaty · Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: the Analytic Network Process · 1996
37. Fundamentals of the analytic network process
38. Note on group consistency in analytic hierarchy process10.1016/j.ejor.2007.07.007 ↗
39. Saaty · The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation · 1980
40. Vendor evaluation with performance variability: A max–min approach10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00230-8 ↗
41. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1 ↗