A Model for Selecting a Biomass Furnace Supplier Based on Qualitative and Quantitative Factors
Source abstract
Abstract
In developing countries, solar energy is the largest source of energy, accounting for 35%–45% of the total energy supply. This energy resource plays a vital role in meeting the energy needs of the world, especially in Vietnam. Vietnam has favorable natural conditions for this energy production. Because it is hot and humid, and it has much rainfall and fertile soil, biomass develops very quickly. Therefore, byproducts from agriculture and forestry are abundant and continuously increasing. However, byproducts that are considered natural waste have become the cause of environmental pollution; these include burning forests, straw, and sawdust in the North; and rice husks dumped into rivers and canals in the Mekong Delta region. Biomass energy is provided in a short cycle, is environmentally safe to use and is encouraged by organizations that support sustainable development. Taking advantage of this energy source provides energy for economic development and ensures environmental protection. Due to the abovementioned favorable conditions, many biomass energy plants are being built in Vietnam. Like other renewable energy investment projects, the selection of the construction contractor, the selection of equipment for the installation of the power plant, and the choice of construction site are complex multi-criteria decisions. In this case, decision-makers must evaluate many qualitative and quantitative factors. These factors interact with each other and it is difficult to use personal experience to choose the optimal solution for such complex decision-making problems, especially in a fuzzy decision-making environment. Therefore, in this study, the authors use a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) model that uses a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) model and the Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) algorithm to select biomass furnace suppliers utilizing both qualitative and quantitative factors. Furthermore, the results of this work will provide the first look at a hybrid CoCoSo/FAHP method that decision-makers in other fields can use to find the best supplier.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Engineering and Environmental Studies · Economic and Technological Systems Analysis · Sustainable Supply Chain Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. Fu · GDP Growth (Annual %) · 2019
2. P. Q. Tuan, Vì sao Việt Nam cần phát triển nhiệt điện than? (Bài 2). Vietnam: Vietnam Energy Online, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://nangluongvietnam.vn/news/vn/nhan-dinh-phan-bien-kien-nghi/phan-bien-kien-nghi/vi-sao-viet-nam-can-phat-trien-nhiet-dien-than-bai-2.html.
3. COVID-19 pandemic, economic loses and education sector management10.35877/454RI.qems162 ↗
4. Investigating the unexpected price plummet pnd volatility rise in energy market: A comparative study of machine learning approaches10.35877/454RI.qems12119 ↗
5. Birol · Vietnam Key Energy Statistics in 2018 · 2018
6. Biomass power for energy and sustainable development10.30638/eemj.2008.086 ↗
7. M. Henson, How a biomass power plant works: Technology & design, PNGbiomass, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://pngbiomass.com/how-a-biomass-power-plant-works/.
8. P. Poikonen, B. Asztemborski, O. Caba, M. Duca, J. Eronen et al., Promotion of regional bioenergy initiatives in Poland, Romania and Slovakia: Final report, PromoBio Project, 2014.
9. Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review of applications for sustainability issues10.1080/1331677X.2016.1237302 ↗
10. The effects of technical and fundamental factors on the investment decision and the company value in the agricultural sector10.35877/454RI.qems201 ↗
11. Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.095 ↗
12. Multi-criteria decision model for the selection of suppliers in the textile industry10.3390/sym12060979 ↗
13. Supplier selection and order allocation with green criteria: An MCDM and multi-objective optimization approach10.1016/j.cor.2016.11.005 ↗
14. A new integrated MCDM model for sustainable supplier selection under interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic environment10.1016/j.ins.2019.02.056 ↗
15. A grey combined compromise solution (CoCoSo-G) method for supplier selection in construction management10.3846/jcem.2019.11309 ↗
16. Pythagorean fuzzy MCDM method based on CoCoSo and CRITIC with score function for 5G industry evaluation10.1007/s10462-019-09780-x ↗
17. An evaluation model of quantitative and qualitative fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for hydroelectric plant location selection10.3390/en13112783 ↗
18. Optimal site selection for a solar power plant in the mekong delta region of Vietnam10.3390/en13164066 ↗
19. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007 ↗
20. Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194 ↗
21. Integrating MCDM and GIS for renewable energy spatial models: Assessing the individual and combined potential for wind, solar and biomass energy in southern Spain10.1007/s10098-019-01754-5 ↗
22. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for supplier evaluation and selection in a wind power plant project10.3390/met9040417 ↗
23. MCDM analysis of wind energy in Turkey: Decision making based on environmental impact10.1007/s11356-018-2004-4 ↗
24. Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a suitable biomass material for maximum bio-oil yield during pyrolysis10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118109 ↗
25. GIS-MCDM approach to scrutinize the suitable sites for a biomass power plant in southernmost provinces of Thailand
26. Evaluation of energy production technologies from biomass using analytical hierarchy process: The case of Iran10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.357 ↗
27. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach for selecting solar plants site and technology: A review10.14710/ijred.8.1.15-25 ↗
28. Linguistic hesitant fuzzy multi-criterion decision-making for renewable energy: A case study in Jilin10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.038 ↗
29. A hybrid MCDM model for improving GIS-based solar farms site selection
30. A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations’ sustainable development goals10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.215 ↗
31. An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.095 ↗
32. Key quality performance evaluation using fuzzy AHP10.1080/10170660409509433 ↗
33. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9 ↗
34. Fuzzy sets10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X ↗
35. Building an effective safety management system for airlines10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.10.002 ↗
36. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method10.1016/j.eswa.2005.12.005 ↗
37. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002 ↗
38. Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two-step Fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.013 ↗
39. A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458 ↗