|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
097428
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This study presents a comparative analysis of three different energy production process (EPP) scenarios for Turkey. Main goal is to incorporate the prioritization criteria for the assessment of various energy policies for power alternatives, and evaluating these policies against these criteria. The three types of EPPs reviewed in this study are: electricity production from wind farms in the future, existing coal-based thermal power plants and planned nuclear power plants. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is utilized to assess the main and sub-factors of EPPs. Main factors such as economic, technical, social and environmental are assigned in first level of the AHP. The importance weights of factors are produced and priority values with realistic numbers are obtained using Fuzzy-AHP Chang's Model. Priority value for wind energy was determined as two times higher than the others when making the ultimate decision. On aggregate, importance weights of environmental (0.68) and social (0.69) factors make wind power leader. Sub-factors such as public acceptance, waste-emission and environmental impacts cause both nuclear and thermal power to have the lowest priority numbers. Additionally, the CO2 emissions trade was determined to be a very important criterion associated with both economic and environmental factors according to Kyoto Protocol. This study concludes that Turkey's existing thermal power stations should gradually be substituted by renewable energy options according to a schedule of Turkish energy policies in future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
103486
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Alternative fuels for the transport sector are gaining growing attention as a means against fossil fuel dependence and towards greener forms of energy. At the same time, however, they are surrounded with doubts concerning sustainability of their production. This work presents the basic framework for a decision support tool to evaluate biofuel production pathways, with the purpose of providing the decision maker with a structured methodology that will lead him to the final decision. The tool integrates the most important aspects along the entire value chain (i.e. from biomass production to biofuel end-use), namely the technical, economic, environmental and social aspect. The tool consists of a computational part, which can be combined with the personal preferences of the user. The analysis provides a score for the respective pathway that can be used to rank different options and select among them the optimal solution. The functionality of the tool has been tested for the case of biodiesel from rapeseed in Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
125453
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Before commissioning any energy projects, conducting robust assessments of different options in terms of their economic and socio-environmental impacts is important for successful project implementation. Yet, there is currently a lack of tools that simultaneously assess sustainability impacts; instead, they are often investigated separately, which gives decision makers somehow disintegrated information. Thus the main objective of this study is to examine how to incorporate socio-environmental considerations into project assessment models. The multi-criteria analysis is applied to the case study of Sri Lankan hydropower projects as an illustrative example. The estimated quantitative relationship between economic, environmental and social impacts of hydropower development is presented in this study. Such estimation, using sustainability indicators of hydropower projects, enables us to understand marginal trade-offs among economic, environmental and social objectives of hydropower development. Hence, this would provide an overview of potential impacts of different scenarios that are designed to be implemented and indicate an optimum mix of hydropower generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
101393
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) is a methodology to evaluate different policy measures, whereby different stakeholders' opinions are explicitly taken into account. In this paper, the framework is used to assess several biofuel options for Belgium that can contribute to the binding target of 10% renewable fuels in transport by 2020, issued by the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). Four biofuel options (biodiesel, ethanol, biogas and synthetic biodiesel (also referred to as "biomass-to-liquid" or BTL)) together with a reference fossil fuel option, are evaluated on the aims and objectives of the different stakeholders involved in the biofuel supply chain (feedstock producers, biofuel producers, fuel distributors, end users, vehicle manufacturers, government, NGOs and North-South organizations). Overall, the MAMCA provided insights in the stakeholder's position and possible implementation problems for every biofuel option. As such, it helps decision makers in establishing a supportive policy framework to facilitate implementation and to ensure market success, once they have decided on which biofuel option (or combination of options) to implement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
128333
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper proposes a new approach to deal with the problem of building national energy efficiency (EE) plans, considering multiple objectives instead of only energy savings. The objectives considered are minimizing the influence of energy use on climate change, minimizing the financial risk from the investment, maximizing the security of energy supply, minimizing investment costs, minimizing the impacts of building new power plants and transmission infrastructures, and maximizing the local air quality. These were identified through literature review and interaction with real decision makers. A database of measures is established, from which millions of potential EE plans can be built by combining measures and their respective degree of implementation. Finally, a hybrid multi-objective and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model is proposed to search and select the EE plans that best match the decision makers' preferences. An illustration of the working mode and the type of results obtained from this novel hybrid model is provided through an application to Portugal. For each of five decision perspectives a wide range of potential best plans were identified. These wide ranges show the relevance of introducing multi-objective analysis in a comprehensive search space as a tool to inform decisions about national EE plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
121384
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper considers several policy options which have been proposed to improve the functioning of the ETS. These options require an intervention either on the ETS cap (-30% target, set-aside, carbon central bank, long-term target) or on the carbon price (European and national price floor). We analyse the impact of each policy on the ETS carbon price and emissions. A multi-criteria evaluation method is applied to compare the policy options against a plurality of environmental, economic and procedural criteria. We find that the final ranking depends on the goals to be achieved, i.e., the relative weights attributed to the criteria. When policymakers want mainly to support the carbon price both in the short and long-run, while improving ETS flexibility and harmonization, the CCB and the EU price floor are, respectively ranked as first and second-best options. As the preference for environmental and implementation goals gradually increases, the position of the EU price floor and CCB options tend to invert. The -30% target should be adopted when reducing emissions is the priority goal, while a national price floor is the worst option, in this case. Nevertheless, self-interested States looking for a relatively quick, feasible solution, may find it optimal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|