2836-7863ISSN (Online)
Volume 1 , Issue 1 , PP: 17-26, 2023 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
Ahmed M. Ali 1 *
Doi: https://doi.org/10.54216/NIF.010102
In this age of ecological sustainability, energy planning has grown more complicated as a result of the inclusion of numerous standards, including technological, political, financial, and environmental considerations. As a result, this places significant limitations on the ability of policymakers to independently and covertly optimize energy sources, which is particularly problematic for rural populations. In contrast, the constraints imposed by the topography of the land on renewable energy (REEN) systems, which are for the most part dispersed across the natural environment, make energy planning more difficult. In these kinds of situations, decision analysis plays a crucial part in the process of creating these kinds of systems by taking into account a wide range of requirements and goals, even at fragmented levels of digitization. Many criterion decision making, often known as MCDM, is a subfield of operational research that focuses on finding optimum outcomes in complicated situations that include various measures, competing goals, and multiple criteria. Because it enables decision-makers to make choices while simultaneously taking into account all of the standards and goals, this tool is gaining traction in the area of energy planning, which is one of the reasons why it is becoming more famous. In this paper, the TOPSIS MCDM methodology is integrated with the triangular neutrosophic sets to rank and select best source of REEN in Egypt. The neutrosophic sets used due to incomplete and uncertainty in this ranking.
Triangular Neutrosophic Sets , TOPSIS , Renewable Energy , Fuel , MCDM
[1] R. Alizadeh, L. Soltanisehat, P. D. Lund, and H. Zamanisabzi, “Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method,” Energy Policy, vol. 137, p. 111174, 2020.
[2] K. Nigim, N. Munier, and J. Green, “Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources,” Renewable energy, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1775–1791, 2004.
[3] H.-C. Lee and C.-T. Chang, “Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 92, pp. 883–896, 2018.
[4] A. Kumar et al., “A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 69, pp. 596–609, 2017.
[5] I. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, E. K. Zavadskas, and D. Streimikiene, “Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) for the assessment of renewable energy technologies in a household: A review,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 1164, 2020.
[6] P. Díaz-Cuevas, J. Domínguez-Bravo, and A. Prieto-Campos, “Integrating MCDM and GIS for renewable energy spatial models: assessing the individual and combined potential for wind, solar and biomass energy in Southern Spain,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, vol. 21, pp. 1855–1869, 2019.
[7] M. Kabak and M. Dağdeviren, “Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology,” Energy conversion and management, vol. 79, pp. 25–33, 2014.
[8] M. Çolak and İ. Kaya, “Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey,” Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, vol. 80, pp. 840–853, 2017.
[9] M. Lak Kamari, H. Isvand, and M. Alhuyi Nazari, “Applications of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods in renewable energy development: A review,” Renewable Energy Research and Applications, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 47–54, 2020.
[10] S. Ishfaq, S. Ali, and Y. Ali, “Selection of optimum renewable energy source for energy sector in Pakistan by using MCDM approach,” Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, vol. 2, pp. 61–71, 2018.
[11] M. Ramezanzade et al., “Implementing MCDM techniques for ranking renewable energy projects under fuzzy environment: A case study,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 22, p. 12858, 2021.
[12] G. Büyüközkan and S. Güleryüz, “Evaluation of Renewable Energy Resources in Turkey using an integrated MCDM approach with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations,” Energy, vol. 123, pp. 149–163, 2017.
[13] T. Li, A. Li, and X. Guo, “The sustainable development-oriented development and utilization of renewable energy industry——A comprehensive analysis of MCDM methods,” Energy, vol. 212, p. 118694, 2020.
[14] A. Sadeghi, T. Larimian, and A. Molabashi, “Evaluation of renewable energy sources for generating electricity in province of Yazd: a fuzzy MCDM approach,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 62, pp. 1095–1099, 2012.
[15] A. Chakraborty, S. P. Mondal, A. Ahmadian, N. Senu, S. Alam, and S. Salahshour, “Different forms of triangular neutrosophic numbers, de-neutrosophication techniques, and their applications,” Symmetry, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 327, 2018.
[16] H.-K. Chiou, G.-H. Tzeng, and D.-C. Cheng, “Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach,” Omega, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 223–234, 2005.
[17] V. Y. C. Chen, H.-P. Lien, C.-H. Liu, J. J. H. Liou, G.-H. Tzeng, and L.-S. Yang, “Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan,” Applied soft computing, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 265–275, 2011.
[18] S.-H. Tsaur, T.-Y. Chang, and C.-H. Yen, “The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM,” Tourism management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 107–115, 2002.
[19] T.-C. Chu and Y. Lin, “An extension to fuzzy MCDM,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 445–454, 2009.
[20] A. Baležentis, T. Baležentis, and A. Misiunas, “An integrated assessment of Lithuanian economic sectors based on financial ratios and fuzzy MCDM methods,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 34–53, 2012.
[21] H.-Y. Wu, G.-H. Tzeng, and Y.-H. Chen, “A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard,” Expert systems with applications, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 10135–10147, 2009.
[22] M. Dursun and E. E. Karsak, “A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection,” Expert Systems with applications, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 4324–4330, 2010.
[23] S. Önüt, T. Efendigil, and S. S. Kara, “A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey,” Expert systems with applications, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 1973–1980, 2010.
[24] G. Van de Kaa, J. Rezaei, L. Kamp, and A. de Winter, “Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 32, pp. 662–670, 2014.
[25] S. A. Edalatpanah, “A direct model for triangular neutrosophic linear programming,” International journal of neutrosophic science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 19–28, 2020.
[26] S. K. Das and S. A. Edalatpanah, “A new ranking function of triangular neutrosophic number and its application in integer programming,” International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 82–92, 2020.
[27] M. Mullai and R. Surya, “Neutrosophic inventory backorder problem using triangular neutrosophic numbers,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 31, pp. 148–155, 2020.
[28] S. A. Edalatpanah, “Data envelopment analysis based on triangular neutrosophic numbers,” CAAI transactions on intelligence technology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 94–98, 2020.
[29] S. K. De and I. Beg, “Triangular dense fuzzy Neutrosophic sets,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 13, pp. 24–37, 2016.
[30] W. Yang, L. Cai, S. A. Edalatpanah, and F. Smarandache, “Triangular single valued neutrosophic data envelopment analysis: application to hospital performance measurement,” Symmetry, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 588, 2020.
