Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Sustainable energy towards air pollution and climate change mitigation

Adedayo Rasak Adedeji a, *, Fauzi Zaini a, Sathyajith Mathew a, Lalit Dagar b,
Mohammad Iskandar Petra a, Liyanage C. De Silva a
a
Faculty of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Jalan Tungku Link, BE1410, Brunei Darussalam
b
Environmental Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Jalan Tungku Link, BE1410, Brunei Darussalam

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This is an evidence from a high-income economy in Southeast Asia and a support for scientific planning of the
TOPSIS energy sector in ensuring air pollution and climate change mitigation. A comparative analysis of the energy
Multi-objective optimization options for electricity generation in the nation was made considering availability, cost and greenhouse gases
Renewable energy
emission – CO2, N2O and CH4, using a two-stage method comprising multi-objective optimization and TOPSIS.
Greenhouse gas
Lifecycle
The renewable (RE) and non-renewable energy (NRE) options available were assessed through the lifecycle
Cost approach to determine the lifecycle greenhouse gas emission (LCGHG) and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) per
MWh of electricity. Considering historical electricity consumption, annual GDP and population growth from
1965, energy consumption for the year 2035 was forecasted using support vector machine regressor in Weka.
Future plans in energy diversification pathways were examined through various scenario multi-objective opti­
mizations with a constraint on resource availability and energy target using genetic algorithm in MATLAB. The
outputs were ranked using TOPSIS method. Results showed that greenhouse gases emission could be reduced by
10.3 percent compared to business as usual scenario while the energy mix could attain 10 percent renewable
energy in the grid at a relatively lower generation cost.

1. Introduction
Policymakers nowadays face critical choices in reconciling energy,
environmental and economic objectives (Energy Department Prime
Minister’s Office Tech. Report, 2013; Pacudan, 2018). The sustainability
of the energy sector and reduction of fossil fuel dependence has been a
major concern, not only in Brunei Darussalam but globally (Coady et al.,
2017). In technologically advanced nations such as the United Kingdom,
a projection from 2002 to 2020 reported only a 4% reduction for CO2
emissions, which is smaller compared to other air pollutants – sulfur
dioxide 64%, volatile organic compounds 26%, particulate matter
(PM10) 19%. Thus, a small CO2 increase from technologies and all
sectors were considered significant (Air Quality Expert Group, 2007).
Presently, Brunei Darussalam economy generates its electricity almost
entirely from thermal sources – natural gas and oil. Thermal power
stations generated 99.95 percent of total power, while 0.05 percent was
generated by the solar power plant Tenaga Suria Brunei (TSB) (Energy
Department Prime Minister’s Office Tech. Report, 2013). In 2015,
electricity generated from natural gas amounted to 4156 GWh and that
from oil was 42 GWh (Department of Statistics, 2015; Int. Energy
Agency, 2019a); while the total electricity production improved to
approximately 4269 GWh with a generation capacity of 777.7 MW in
2016 (Department of Statistics, 2016). The abundance of fossil fuel (oil
and natural gas) in Brunei Darussalam has led to the wide usage of this
resource for energy production and exportation. Consequently, there has
been continuous emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from energy
production and depletion of the hydrocarbon in the mature reservoirs.
Though, there are new offshore discoveries of petroleum reserves in the
country and the development of coal bed methane from Brunei Dar­
ussalam’s coal deposits could potentially add 0.35 billion BOE of gas
resource by 2035 if proved feasible (Energy Department Prime Minis­
ter’s Office Tech. Report, 2013), the increasing cost of production has
made the nation to consider viable sources of alternative energy and
diversification of its energy mix. The viability includes reliability and
commercial competitiveness without compromising the environment
and food security (Pacudan, 2018).
As noted in the Energy White Paper published in 2014, climate
change represents a significant threat both to Southeast Asia and Brunei

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rasaqdayo@gmail.com (A.R. Adedeji), kujizaini@gmail.com (F. Zaini), sathyajith.mathew@uia.no (S. Mathew), lalit.kumar@ubd.edu.bn
(L. Dagar), iskandar.petra@ubd.edu.bn (M.I. Petra), liyanage.silva@ubd.edu.bn (L.C. De Silva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109978
Received 15 November 2018; Received in revised form 27 November 2019; Accepted 8 December 2019
Available online 22 January 2020
0301-4797/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.R. Adedeji et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic view of sustainable energy planning towards climate change mitigation using a two-stage method (multi-objective optimization and TOPSIS).
Darussalam. Hydrocarbons production in the region has contributed to
higher levels of CO emissions in the atmosphere, thereby contributing to
global warming and causing climatic changes. This could pose signifi­
cant environmental challenges in the form of severe drought, heatwaves
and major floods - that could be a particular concern to small islands.
International Energy Agency (IEA) recommended that countries
improve the resiliency of energy systems to climate change – develop­
ment of renewable energy projects (Oxford Business Group, 2016).
Moreover, researchers (Cayir Ervural et al., 2018a, 2018b; Chalvatzis
et al., 2019; Ifaei et al., 2018; Lee and Chang, 2018; Ozcan
€ et al., 2017;
Solangi et al., 2019) have made valuable research findings on the role of
renewable energy technologies as future inexhaustible energy genera­
tion resources.
Renewable energy options such as hydropower, offshore wind and
solar, are among the viable alternatives that could be considered
available in Brunei Darussalam (IBP Inc., 2015; Oxford Business Group,
2013). These are potential energy options with capacities that could be
included in the grid in order to increase the renewable energy in the
total energy mix generated in the country (Dayana et al., 2016; Malik,
2011). In 2011, Brunei Darussalam set-up a demonstration project on
solar power referred to as Tenaga Suria Brunei (TSB). The solar farm in
TSB has 1.2 MW nominal capacity and consists of six advanced photo­
voltaic modules as follows: single-crystalline silicon, poly-crystalline
silicon, microcrystalline-Si tandem, amorphous silicon, CIS (copper-­
indium-selenium), and HIT (heterojunction with intrinsic thin-layer).
2
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978
Aside from the TSB demonstration project, the nation has initiatives
planned to scale-up market deployment of solar PV and promote
waste-to-energy technologies with the goal of increasing the share of
renewable energy in the total power generated by 2035 (Energy
Department Prime Minister’s Office Tech. Report, 2013).
The energy development plan for the nation included in the Wawa­
san vision 2035, described the targets for the nation to sustainably meet
its energy demand. His Majesty, the Sultan of Brunei Darussalam
announced during UN Climate Summit in New York on September 23,
2014, that Brunei Darussalam is targeting a 63% reduction in total en­
ergy consumption compared to business as usual scenario by 2035
which would be achieved by reducing fossil fuel demand for inland
energy use (Ministry of Development, 2015). The nation visions a mix of
new and renewable energy in its grid to make up at least 10% of the total
energy generated by 2035 (Dayana et al., 2016; Energy Department
Prime Minister’s Office Tech. Report, 2013). These were included in
Brunei Darussalam’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
(INDC) submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), Twenty-first Session of the Conference of
the Parties (COP21) and Eleventh Session of the Conference of the
Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
(CMP11) in Paris (2015) (Ministry of Development, 2015).
Meeting the goals of the vision 2035 in energy production for the
nation could be achieved in different pathways but an analysis of each
scenario relative to resource availability, energy cost and greenhouse
A.R. Adedeji et al.
Fig. 2. Lifecycle of electricity generation in Brunei Darussalam (a) natural gas; (b) oil (diesel).
gas emission, would be required to determine the best pathway and
energy mix. Various researchers (Cayir Ervural et al., 2018a, 2018b;
Chalvatzis et al., 2019; Ifaei et al., 2018; Lee and Chang, 2018; Ozcan
€ gramming method.
et al., 2017; Solangi et al., 2019) have presented different models for
evaluating energy options. Overall, the best pathway must meet the
energy demand targets within selection criteria such as minimum cost,
GHGs emission and maximum benefits. Therefore, this paper proposes a
two-stage method including multi-objective optimization and TOPSIS
technique to determine the best alternative option and pathway to
sustainably meet the electricity demand in the future while cutting back
accompanying GHGs emissions and increasing renewable energy (RE) in
the grid at minimum generating cost.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 1 presents the background
and the methodological framework for sustainable energy planning to­
wards climate chnage mitigation using two-stage method including
multi-objective optimization and TOPSIS technique. Section 2 presents
the application of the proposed method in Brunei. It estimated the
quantitative assessment of resource availability, life-cycle emission and
cost for each energy option following the method in section 1. It also
presents the long-term energy demand forecast within energy pathways
analyzed. It assesses the best alternative options and pathway by sub­
jecting the quantitative datasets obtained to multi-objective optimiza­
tion and TOPSIS analysis. Section 3 discusses the main results of this
analysis according to the proposed framework and summarized the
limitation of this technique. Section 4 which is the final section high­
lights the main conclusions obtained from this work and recommenda­
tions for future work.
1.1. Methodology
This model is composed of two main phases: (1) quantitative eval­
uation and; (2) best alternative options and pathway selection. In the
quantitative evaluation phase, resource availability and capacity of
generating electricity from natural gas, oil (diesel), solar PV, hydro­
power and offshore wind was assessed. Also, a cradle to grave approach
was adopted for greenhouse gas emission analysis of each energy option
to estimate the Lifecycle GHG emission (LCGHG) per unit power
generated. Hence, a comparison was made among the available energy
options based on their emitting potential. For cost analysis, levelized
cost of generating energy for each energy option was estimated to obtain
the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) per unit energy produced. Long-
term energy demand in Brunei Darussalam was forecasted. Then,
quantitative values obtained for each energy option based on resource
3
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978
availability, LCGHG, LCOE and energy target, were used as input in
different energy scenarios and optimized using a multi-objective pro­
In the selection phase, the optimization outputs from the previous
stage were evaluated using TOPSIS method to determine the best energy
alternatives to be included in the grid in order to meet the long-term
energy target with the objective of minimizing electricity generation
cost, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improving the share of
renewable energy in the mix. Among other multi-criteria decision-
making methods (MCDMs), TOPSIS method is preferred as a simple
approach and easily comprehensible for the decision-maker. Fig. 1
presents the framework for sustainable energy planning towards air
pollution and climate change mitigation through the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector.
1.2. Lifecycle GHG emission analysis
In assessing the lifecycle emission of the energy sources from oil
(diesel) and natural gas, the ‘well to tank’ and ‘tank to turbine’ emissions
were analyzed. The ‘well to tank’ assessment includes analysis at pro­
duction, processing, transmission, storage and distribution stages; while
the final stage assessment - electricity production in power plants, rep­
resents the ‘tank to turbine’ analysis. Electricity distribution to end-users
within the lifecycle of electricity generation was excluded since it has
negligible emissions (Fig. 2).
For renewable energy options such as solar photovoltaic (PV), hy­
dropower and offshore wind energy, the lifecycle GHG emission analysis
considered consists of the upstream, operational and downstream
stages.
The estimation procedure adopted for the LCGHG calculation
involved multiplying the yearly activity value Qi at each stage of the life
cycle with the corresponding emission factor EFij to obtain the amount of
GHGs emission Ej in a year. The calculated emission E at each stage was
summed up to get the total annual GHG emission in tonnes CO2-eq for
each energy option considered. The results were normalized against the
annual electricity produced to obtain the final LCGHG emission values in
kg CO2-eq/MWh. These results gave a good comparison of the energy
options in terms of emission potential in generating electricity.
X X
n X
E¼ Ej ¼ Qi EFij j ¼ x; y; z; i ¼ 1; …; n; (1)
j i¼1 j
where:
A.R. Adedeji et al. Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978

j (x, y, z) ¼ index for CO2, CH4 and N2O respectively; \ Subject to:
i ¼ index for stages in life-cycle of oil/gas with a total of n stages;
a þ b þ c þ d þ e � Gf (7)
E ¼ amount of GHGs emission from oil/gas at each stage (tonnes
CO2-eq);
am;n � a � 0 (8)
Ej ¼ GHG emission equivalent from gas x, y and z (tonnes CO2-eq);
Qi ¼ quantity of oil/gas in each stage of life cycle (tonnes). bm � b � 0 (9)
EFij ¼ Emission factor in each stage for each gas x, y and z (tonnes
CO2-eq/tonnes). cm;n � c � 0 (10)

1.3. Lifecycle cost analysis dm � d � 0 (11)

The assessments of the cost of energy production across the non- em � e � 0 (12)
renewable and renewable energy options were made through analysis
of the lifecycle cost (LCC) of each option. The net present value of the
1.5. Multi-objective optimization
LCC was estimated and normalized against the total life cycle electricity
generated with the assumption that all the costs and electricity gener­
Using different scenarios, the optimization procedure with the ob­
ated are constant annually. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) values
jectives of minimizing energy generation cost, GHGs emission and
obtained from this estimation presents a good comparison of the energy
maximizing the renewable energy ratio in the grid, are made within the
options in terms of cost.
constraints of the available renewable and non-renewable energy in
NPV of Total Cost Over Lifetime order to sustainably meet the long-term electricity target. The forecasted
LCOE ¼ (2)
NPV of Electricity Generated Over Lifetime electricity demand and estimated values of LCOE and LCGHG for each
energy alternative were used for the multi-objective optimization. This
PT �
was made using the multi-objective genetic algorithm gamultiobj in
t
t¼0 ðCtþ Ot þ Ft Þ ð1 þ rÞ
¼ PT � t (3) MATLAB-2018a environment. The optimum objective outputs in the
t¼0 Et ð1 þ rÞ
scenarios analyzed are transferred to the decision matrix of TOPSIS.
where:
1.6. TOPSIS method
Ct ¼ capital investment in year t
Ot ¼ operation and maintenance cost in year t The TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Ft ¼ fuel cost in year t Solution) is a classic MCDM method introduced by (Hwang and Yoon,
Et ¼ electricity generation in year t 1981).
r ¼ discount rate Step 1: MCDM problem with alternatives and criteria can be
T ¼ life of the system expressed in a matrix format. Ai is a feasible alternative (energy
pathway) and xij is an attribute (numerical, interval data or fuzzy
1.4. Optimization of quantitative alternatives number) of alternative Ai under a criteria (energy option) Cj , and may
possess incomparable unit.
In this stage, a multi-objective linear programming (MOLP) model is 0 1
formulated to estimate quantitative criteria. The MOLP evaluates three C1 ; … ; Cj ; … ; Cn
B x11 ; … ; x1j ; … ; x1n ; … C
quantitative criteria including life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, lev­ Ai ¼ B C
@ x21 ; … ; x2j ; … ; x2n ; … A; i ¼ 1; 2…; m; j ¼ 1; …; n
elized cost of electricity generation and the ratio of renewable energy in
xm1 ; … ; xmj ; … ; xmn
the electricity grid. The developed multi-objective linear programming
model for evaluating quantitative parameters is described as follows: Step 2: Calculate comparable ratings rij using the vector normaliza­
Parameters tion.
Z1 Z2 ,Z3 The total generation cost of electricity in BND, total LCGHG
emission in kg CO2-eq and the percentage RE in the grid xij
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; i ¼ 1; …; m; j ¼ 1; …; n
rij ¼ qP (13)
respectively. m 2
i¼1 xij
a; b; c; d; e Amount of electricity generated in MWh from natural gas, oil
(diesel), solar PV, hydropower and offshore wind respectively.
Step 3: Calculate weighted normalized ratings vij , where wj is the
While subscript m denotes the maximum availability of the energy
option, subscript n denotes availability without facility upgrade. weight of the jth attribute assessed by the DM.
X1 ; X2 ; X3 ; X4 ; Levelized cost of generating electricity in BND from natural gas, oil
X5 (diesel), solar PV, hydropower and offshore wind respectively.
vij ¼ wj rij ; i ¼ 1; …; m; j ¼ 1; …; n
Y1 ; Y2 ; Y3 ; Y4 ; LCGHGs emission in kg CO2-eq from natural gas, oil (diesel), solar
Step 4: Identify ideal solution and anti-ideal solution.
Y5 PV, hydropower and offshore wind respectively.
Gf Forecasted electricity demand in 2035 for Brunei Darussalam in
n o � � � � �� �
MWh.
Aþ ¼ vþ þ þ þ
1 ; v2 ; …; vj ; …; vn ¼ maxvij �j 2 J1 ; minvij �j 2 J2 �i ¼ 1; 2; …; m
i i

(14)
1.4.1. Mathematical model n o � � � � �� �
The objectives and constraints of the proposed model are described A ¼ v1 ; v2 ; …; vj ; …; vn ¼ minvij �j 2 J1 ; maxvij �j 2 J2 �i ¼ 1; 2; …; m
i i
as follows: (15)
min Z1 ¼ aX1 þ bX2 þ cX3 þ dX4 þ eX5 (4)
where J1 is a set of benefit attributes and J2 is a set of cost attributes.
min Z2 ¼ aY1 þ bY2 þ cY3 þ dY4 þ eY5 (5) The benefit attribute has the greater preference with the larger
attribute rating; the cost attribute has the lesser preference with the
ðc þ d þ eÞ100 larger attribute rating.
max Z3 ¼ (6) Step 5: Calculate Euclidean distances between each alternative and
Gf
ideal (positive) and anti-ideal (negative) solution.

4
A.R. Adedeji et al. Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978

Table 1
Life cycle GHG emission from natural gas and crude oil for electricity production in Brunei.
Life cycle of natural gas Emission Factor (GHGs) Unit Quantity of Unit GHGs emission in CO2 equivalent Total GHGs LCGHG
and crude oil for electricity Natural (tonnes CO2-e) emission Emission
production in brunei Gas/Crude (tonnes CO2- (kg CO2-
Oil e) e/MWh)

Adjusted from NGA Qi Ex ¼ EFxaQi Ey ¼ Ez ¼ E ¼ Ex þ Ey þ

(SAR) to IPCC (AR5) EFyaQi EFzaQi Ez
EFxyz

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O GHGs

Natural Production – 4.27E- – (tonnes 8,813,564a (tonnes – 37.61 – 10,613.88i

Gas and 06 CO2-e/ throughput)
Processing tonnes
(fugitive throughput)
emission)
Production 2.70 1.33E- 2.56E- (tonnes 45,127c (tonnes of 121,843.71 6016.97 1157.30 129,017.98
and 01 02 CO2-e/ fuel flared)
Processing tonnes of
(flaring fuel flared)
emission)
Transmission 0.02 11.60 – (tonnes 628d (km 12.56 7284.8 – 7297.36
(domestic) CO2-e/km pipeline
pipeline length)
length)
Natural Gas 0.76 – – (tonnes 3,754,000b (MWh) 2,834,270.00 – – 2,834,270.00
Combustion CO2-e/
for Electricity MWh)
Generation
Life Cycle 2,848,904.15 758.90
GHG
Emission
from Natural
Gas for
Electricity
Generation
Crude Production – 4.27E- – (tonnes 7,616,000b (tonnes – 32.49 – 9171.70i
Oil (fugitive 06 CO2-e/ throughput)
emission) tonnes
throughput)
Production 2.80 9.33E- 2.56E- (tonnes 138,828c (tonnes of 230,668.76 76,889.59 2112.69 309,671.04
(flared 01 02 CO2-e/ fuel flared)
emission) tonnes of
fuel flared)
Transport – 9.73E- – (tonnes 498,000b (tonnes of – 484.72 – 484.72
(domestic) 01 CO2-e/ oil
tonnes of oil transported)
transported)
Refining 2.10 1.33E- 2.56E- (tonnes 35,000c (tonnes 73,500.00 4666.67 897.58 79,064.25
(flared 01 02 CO2-e/ flared)
emission) tonnes
flared)
Refining – 9.47E- – (tonnes 498,000b (tonnes of – 471.44 – 471.44
(fugitive 04 CO2-e/ oil refined)
emission) tonnes of oil
refined)
Storage – 1.73E- – (tonnes 498,000b (tonnes of – 86.32 – 86.32
(fugitive 04 CO2-e/ oil stored)
emission) tonnes of oil
stored)
Oil 0.77 – – (tonnes 38,000b (MWh) 29,260.00 – – 29,260.00
Combustion CO2-e/
for Electricity MWh)
Generation
Life Cycle 50,505.83 1329.10
GHG
Emission
from Crude
Oil (Diesel)
for
Electricity
Generation
a
United Nations (2010) data.
b
IEA (2010) data.
c
Extrapolated data.
d
CIA World Factbook.
i
Emissions due to leakage included (1.2E-03*Qi).

5
A.R. Adedeji et al.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uX
u n
Dþ
i ¼
t vij vþ j ; i ¼ 1; …; m
j¼1
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uX
u n
Di ¼ t vij vj ; i ¼ 1; …; m
j¼1
Step 6: Compute the relative closeness of each alternative.
Cþ
Di
�; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m
i ¼
Dþ
i þ Di
Step 7: Rank alternatives based on their relative closeness Cþ
i , where
larger relative closeness means better performance of the alternatives.
2. Application of the proposed method in Brunei
2.1. Lifecycle GHG emission data
The emergence of climate change as a major environmental concern
has led to a rapid increase in lifecycle assessments focusing on the
emission of greenhouse gases. However, it should be pointed out that
there are also lifecycle assessments that cover only a part of the green­
house gases (Reijnders, 2012). The greenhouse gases considered within
the scope of this article are CO2, N2O and CH4 since they are more sig­
nificant to this study (Dotse et al., 2016). The emissions of SF6 and CFCs
are negligible in fossil fuel combustion and during the electricity life
cycle (Bauer et al., 2015), thus these gases are not considered in the
present work. Following equation (1), the lifecycle GHG emission for the
non-renewable and renewable energy options in Brunei considered in
this paper has been estimated in this section. Table 1 presents the
calculated GHG emission for non-renewable energy options including
natural gas and crude oil.
2.1.1. Non-renewable energy options
2.1.1.1. Natural gas. In Brunei, the amount of natural gas transformed
in electricity plants was 48,279 TJ (877,800 tonnes) amounting to 9.96
percent of the gross natural gas production in 2010 (8,813,564 tonnes)
(United Nations Data Retrieval System, 2019). Therefore, to evaluate the
absolute GHG emission from natural gas in electricity generation, the
lifecycle GHG emission from ‘well-to-tank’ was estimated using the ratio
of natural gas transform in electricity plant to the gross production of
natural gas. This was added to the GHG emission from natural gas
combustion in electricity plant – ‘tank-to-turbine’, to obtain the ‘well-­
to-turbine’ GHG emission and normalized against the annual electricity
production to evaluate the lifecycle GHG (LCGHG) in CO2-eq/MWh of
electricity.
2.1.1.2. Crude oil. Crude oil production in 2010 was 7,616,000 tonnes,
while only 9000 tonnes of diesel was used for electricity generation from
a total of 169,000 tonnes of diesel produced from crude oil in the same
year (Int. Energy Agency, 2019b). Therefore, to evaluate the absolute
GHG emission from diesel used in electricity generation, the lifecycle
emission from ‘well-to-tank’ was divided by the proportion of diesel
used to the total diesel produced in 2010 (i.e. 9/169). This was added to
the GHG emission from oil (diesel) combustion in electricity plant –
‘tank-to-turbine’, to obtain the ‘well-to-turbine’ GHG emission and
normalized against the annual electricity production to evaluate the
lifecycle GHG (LCGHG) in CO2-eq/MWh of electricity.
2.1.2. Renewable energy options
The renewable energy options in Brunei Darussalam considered
within this work include solar photovoltaics (PV), hydropower and
offshore wind energy.
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978
2.1.2.1. Solar PV. The power output of each of the solar PV modules
�2
(16) was obtained directly and used with the harmonized emission factor
from the NREL in estimating the GWP of the Brunei Solar Power - Tenaga
Suria Brunei (TSB).
�2
(17) 2.1.2.2. Hydropower. NREL completed a comprehensive review and
analysis of lifecycle assessments on run of river, reservoir, and pumped
storage hydropower systems published between 1980 and 2010 with the
majority of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission estimates for hy­
(18) dropower cluster between about 4 and 14 kg CO2-eq/MWh (Kumar
et al., 2011; Natl. Renew. Energy Lab., 2019a). The median of the
harmonized emission factor for hydropower calculated is 9 kg
CO2-eq/MWh. This value and the estimated amount of hydropower
available for generating electricity annually in the Temburong Basin was
used in evaluating the potential GWP of hydroelectric power in Brunei
Darussalam.
2.1.2.3. Offshore wind. Land-based and offshore wind technologies
have similar life cycle GHGs emission; the median life cycle GHG
emission estimated for both technologies was 11 kg CO2eq/MWh after
harmonization (Natl. Renew. Energy Lab., 2019b). Harmonized emis­
sion factor for offshore wind energy from the NREL literature and the
amount of hydropower available for generating electricity annually was
used in evaluating the potential GWP of hydroelectric power in Brunei
Darussalam.
2.2. Levelized cost of electricity
2.2.1. Natural gas (gas turbines)
The gas thermal plant stations in Brunei Darussalam considered for
analysis include the Department of Electrical Services (DES) and Berakas
Power Company (BPC) – combined capacity equal 759 MW. Their power
generation both represents almost 90% of the total power generated in
the nation annually. The total assumed investment cost is BND 760
million. The operation and maintenance costs were estimated as BND
30.4 million - assumed to be 4% of the capital investment. Thirty percent
overall thermal efficiency was considered for the plant turbines and the
fuel cost was estimated as BND 33.09 per MWh - $7.66 per MMBtu -
average natural gas import price in Japan over 25 years between
January 1992 and December 2016 (Adedeji et al., 2019). Japan remains
the largest net importer of LNG from Brunei Darussalam, therefore the
LNG import price in Japan would be around the actual price of Brunei
natural gas.
From the present running capacity of plants, a baseload assumption
with a 20% spinning reserve was made to estimate yearly electricity
generated as 4,088,000 MWh. The total fuel cost yearly was estimated as
BND 450, 906, 400. The final levelized energy cost was calculated as
BND 70.61 per MWh using 25 years as the life cycle of gas turbines and
5.5% discount rate – assumed to be equivalent to the prevailing prime
lending rate (Autoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam, 2019).
2.2.2. Oil (diesel generators)
This represents only one percent of total electricity generated in
Brunei Darussalam and the power station is located in Temburong which
is 12 MW capacity (4 generators with 3 MW each). The assumed in­
vestment cost is BND 15 million, also the operation and maintenance
cost taken as 4% of capital investment (BND 0.6 million). The total
yearly electricity generated is taken as 38,000 MWh (Int. Energy
Agency, 2019b) and the capacity factor of the plant is around 36.15%.
Total fuel used yearly for electricity generation was 9000 tonnes of
diesel – equivalent to 10, 817, 309 L of diesel while the density of diesel
was taken as 0.832 kg/L. Total diesel cost estimated was BND 9,843,750
annually when commercial diesel price (without subsidy) was BND 0.91
per L – adapted from May 24, 2010 Energy Day (Abdul Rashid’s Blog,
2010; The BT Archives, 2015). The final estimated levelized energy cost
6
A.R. Adedeji et al. Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978

Table 2
Emission, cost, resource availability and capacity of electricity production in Brunei.
Energy Options In Brunei Assumed Capacity Available Capacity Maximum Availability (MWh/ LCOE (BND/ LCGHG (kg CO2-eq/
Darussalam Factor (MW) year) MWh) MWh)

Gas turbine (A) 64% 759a Unlimited (4,255,257.60)a 70.61 758.90

Oil (diesel) gen. (B) 40% 12a 42,048 163.25 1329.10
Solar PV (C) 17% 1.2a (50) 74,460 (1787.04)a 358.55 (586.49)a 44
Hydropower (D) – 70–80 300,000 114.30 9
Offshore wind (E) – 372 1,314,000 280.42 11
a
Without facility upgrade.

was BND 163.25 per MWh when a discount rate of 5.5% and expected
life cycle of 25 years was assumed for the diesel generators.
2.2.3. Solar PV (photovoltaic)
The new Tenaga Suria Brunei solar photovoltaic plant generates on
average 1730 MWh on a yearly basis with a nominal capacity of 1.2 MW.
The estimated capacity factor is 16.46%. The investment cost is taken as
BND 20 million and the maintenance cost assumed at 2% of the capital
investment cost. The levelized energy cost estimated for solar PV is BND
586.49 per MWh when a discount rate of 5.5% and expected life cycle of
25 years was assumed. For the future upgrade plan from 1.2 MW to 50
MW, the levelized cost of solar PV energy reduced to BND 358.55 per
MWh at the same rate and life cycle.
2.2.4. Offshore wind and hydropower generators
Since renewable resources such as offshore wind energy and hy­
dropower are yet to be exploited in Brunei Darussalam, the region-
specific value for the levelized energy cost was not calculated like the
others - using equations (2) and (3) but obtained from the literature. The
values were accessed from the levelized cost of new generation resources
in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (US Energy Information Adminis­
tration, 2013). The values were BND 280.42 and BND 114.30 per MWh
for offshore wind and hydropower respectively (assuming BND ¼ $
0.79).
The summary of the estimated life-cycle GHG emission, cost,
resource availability and capacity of the electricity generating facilities
in Brunei Darussalam is presented in Table 2 (Energy Department Prime
Minister’s Office Tech. Report, 2013; IBP Inc., 2015).
2.3. Energy scenarios and optimization
In a report compiled by the Asia Development Bank Institute (ADBI),
Brunei Darussalam’s electricity demand is expected to grow by about
3–4% annually (Irving et al., 2014). Also, the Brunei Darussalam Energy
White Paper reported that power demand is expected to grow organi­
cally at 4% year-on-year basis (Energy Department Prime Minister’s
Office Tech. Report, 2013). In this work, a comparative study was made
to validate this projection by adopting a time-series forecasting method
to project the electricity consumption in Brunei Darussalam using
electricity consumption, population growth and GDP (current BND)
between the year 1965–2016 as input variables. The forecasted elec­
tricity consumption using support vector machine regression analysis
with Weka tool predicted 6,069,149 MWh of electricity to be demanded
in 2035 in Brunei Darussalam (equivalent to 3% annual growth in
electricity demand from 2000 to 2035), while the national GDP and
population would be around BND 38.07 billion (current BND) and 537,
369 respectively in the same year.
Optimization with the objectives of minimizing cost of generating
power and GHGs emission was made within the constraints of the
available fossil fuel and renewable sources to meet the energy demand
targets. First, we estimate without optimization the base scenario in
2011 and another case where nothing changes except an increase in
fossil fuel usage to meet electricity demand in 2035. Then, values esti­
mated for the LCOE and the LCGHG for each option were used for the
multi-objective optimization which was carried out using the multi-
objective genetic algorithm gamultiobj in MATLAB-2018a environ­
ment. There were different scenarios considered for the optimization
process. These include (1) Business-As-Usual (BAU); (2) Base Case Sce­
nario (Solar þ Hydro) and; (3) Base Case Scenario (Solar þ Hydro þ
Offshore wind).
2.3.1. Base Scenario (2011)
This scenario was made to understand the present condition such as
the cost of generating energy within the available facility. The electricity
production in Brunei Darussalam for the year 2011 was 3,722,980 MWh
while the consumption was 3,389,439 MWh (Department of Statistics,
2015). Therefore, the ratio of electricity consumption to production is
91 percent – energy consumed from each source would be 0.91 percent
of its generation. The installed capacities for natural gas turbines, diesel
generators and solar PV were 759 MW, 12 MW and 1.2 MW respectively
(Table 2).
The proportion of energy sources in the total energy consumed in
2011 was estimated as:
Natural gas (a) ¼ 3,349,531.14 MWh
Oil (diesel) (b) ¼ 38,280.93 MWh
Solar PV (c) ¼ 1626.94 MWh
Generation Cost (Z1) ¼ BND 243, 713, 939
GHG Emission (Z2) ¼ 2,592, 909, 946 kg CO2-eq
2.3.2. Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario (2035)
In the first BAU scenario, it was assumed that there was no optimi­
zation and no renewable energy facility upgraded or added from 2011
till 2035. The energy demanded from oil and solar is the total available
and around the same ratio to the base scenario in 2011. Since natural gas
is the most abundant energy resource in Brunei Darussalam, the impli­
cation of the increase in energy demand from 3,391,000 MWh in 2011 to
around 6,069,149 MWh (forecasted using SMOreg tool in Weka) by the
year 2035 would result in having higher proportion of natural gas in the
energy mix while other energy sources maintained maximum output as
BAU.
Natural gas (a) ¼ 6,025,313.96 MWh
Oil (diesel) (b) ¼ 42,048.00 MWh
Solar PV (c) ¼ 1, 787.04 MWh
Generation Cost (Z1) ¼ BND 433, 359, 836
GHG Emission (Z2) ¼ 4,628, 575, 391 kg CO2-eq
In the second BAU scenario, the objective of the optimization made
was meeting the energy demand for the year 2035 at minimum gener­
ating cost and greenhouse gas emission without any change in the fa­
cilities except for natural gas; no RE improvement, therefore Z3 is
constant at 0.02 percent. Relative to the non-optimized business as
usual, the result from this case would give a better combination of the
energy options to achieve the objectives. The following fuzzy was
formulated from equations (4) and (5) and (7)–(10).
min Z1 ¼ a70:61 þ b163:25 þ c586:49
min Z2 ¼ a758:90 þ b1; 329:10 þ c44:00

7
A.R. Adedeji et al. Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978

Table 3 1. Solar PV (upgraded) þ hydropower

Pareto front for optimized BAU scenario.
No Z1 106 BND Z2 106 kg CO2 Z3 % a MWh b MWh c MWh The fuzzy developed for this scenario following equations (4)–(11) is
as follows:
1 429.19 4604.98 0.02 6,067,893 0 1256
2 429.19 4604.98 0.02 6,067,893 0 1256 min Z1 ¼ a70:61 þ b163:25 þ c358:55 þ d114:30
3 429.19 4604.98 0.02 6,067,897 1 1252
4 429.18 4604.99 0.02 6,067,904 2 1243
5 429.18 4605.00 0.02 6,067,909 4 1236
min Z2 ¼ a758:90 þ b1; 329:10 þ c44:00 þ d9
6 429.18 4605.00 0.02 6,067,911 3 1235
7 429.18 4605.00 0.02 6,067,914 4 1231 ðc þ dÞ100
max Z3 ¼
8 429.18 4605.00 0.02 6,067,917 3 1228 6; 069; 149
9 429.18 4605.00 0.02 6,067,919 3 1226
10 429.17 4605.00 0.02 6,067,922 4 1224 Subject to:
a þ b þ c � 6; 069; 149
Subject to:
a�0
a þ b þ c � 6; 069; 149
42; 048 � b � 0
a�0
74; 460 � c � 0
42; 048 � b � 0
300; 000 � d � 0
1; 787:04 � c � 0

2.3.3. Base case scenario (2035) 2. Solar PV (upgraded) þ hydropower þ offshore wind
This scenario was assumed as a case where there would be renewable
energy facility upgrade and the natural gas capacity would be boundless. This scenario includes energy from upgraded solar PV, hydropower
The forecasted electricity demand would be met by combining available and offshore wind. Fuzzy developed following equations (4)–(12) is as
fossil and renewable energy sources considered in this study. The overall follows:
projected renewable energy options accessible include solar PV with the min Z1 ¼ a70:61 þ b163:25 þ c358:55 þ d114:30 þ e280:42
capacity increased from 1.2 MW to 50 MW, as well as an addition of
hydropower (80 MW) and/or offshore wind energy (375 MW). The min Z2 ¼ a758:90 þ b1; 329:10 þ c44:00 þ d9 þ e11
maximum available energy from hydropower in Brunei is 300 GWh
annually according to a statistical report from DES (Irving et al., 2014). ðc þ d þ eÞ100
max Z3 ¼
Using the same capacity factor for the present solar PV at TSB (1.2 MW), 6; 069; 149
the 50 MW solar PV assumption would be generating up to 74,460 MWh
Subject to:
annually. The two pathways considered for the renewable energy op­
tions in the base case scenario are (1) Solar PV (upgraded) þ hydro­ a þ b þ c � 6; 069; 149
power; (2) Solar PV (upgraded) þ hydropower þ offshore wind.
a�0

Table 4
Pareto front for optimized Base Case scenario - solar PV and hydropower energy.
No Z1 106 BND Z2 106 kg CO2 Z3 % a MWh b MWh c MWh d MWh

11 466.98 4351.65 6.17 5,652,650 42,039 74,460 300,000

12 464.16 4373.73 5.64 5,688,079 38,766 69,900 272,404
13 459.22 4412.43 4.71 5,750,152 33,031 61,911 224,055
14 456.76 4431.67 4.25 5,781,006 30,181 57,940 200,023
15 454.64 4448.28 3.85 5,807,645 27,720 54,511 179,273
16 445.35 4520.99 2.11 5,924,281 16,944 39,499 88,425
17 443.38 4536.36 1.74 5,948,940 14,666 36,325 69,217
18 441.23 4553.26 1.33 5,976,041 12,162 32,837 48,108
19 438.57 4574.04 0.84 6,009,373 9083 28,547 22,146
20 437.25 4584.38 0.59 6,025,949 7552 26,414 9234

Table 5
Pareto front for Base Case scenario – solar PV, hydropower and offshore wind energy.
No Z1 106 BND Z2 106 kg CO2 Z3 % a MWh b MWh c MWh d MWh e MWh

21 742.68 3368.91 27.82 4,338,641 42,048 74,460 300,000 1,314,000

22 627.87 3772.28 18.76 4,901,543 29,042 58,710 281,908 797,945
23 586.00 3919.39 15.46 5,106,833 24,299 52,966 275,310 609,740
24 537.44 4090.01 11.62 5,344,942 18,798 46,304 267,657 391,448
25 520.57 4149.28 10.29 5,427,651 16,887 43,990 264,999 315,623
26 497.94 4228.79 8.51 5,538,602 14,323 40,885 261,433 213,905
27 487.97 4263.82 7.72 5,587,485 13,194 39,518 259,862 169,090
28 476.86 4302.85 6.84 5,641,964 11,935 37,993 258,111 119,146
29 456.66 4373.84 5.25 5,741,032 9646 35,221 254,927 28,323
30 450.36 4395.98 4.75 5,771,926 8932 34,357 253,934 0

8
A.R. Adedeji et al. Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978

Table 6 2.4. Ranking of fuzzy outputs using TOPSIS method

Preference ranking of energy alternative pathways with cost, GHG emission and
RE ratio. Step 1: The fuzzy outputs from the multi-objective optimization of
No Z1 106 BND Z2 106 kg CO2 Z3 % Di Dþ
i Cþ
i
Rank alternatives in different energy scenarios (see Tables 3–5) were
combined to make a decision matrix.
5 429.18 4605.00 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 1
Step 2: A normalized decision matrix was formed filled with crisp
6 429.18 4605.00 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 1
7 429.18 4605.00 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 1 values after normalizing the decision matrix using equation (13)
8 429.18 4605.00 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 1 (Adedeji et al., 2019).
9 429.18 4605.00 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 1 Step 3: Equal weight was subjectively adopted i.e. wj ¼ f0:33; 0:33;
10 429.17 4605.00 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 6 0:33g. This was used to form the weighted normalized decision
4 429.18 4604.99 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 7
1 429.19 4604.98 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 8
matrix (Adedeji et al., 2019).
2 429.19 4604.98 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 8 Step 4: Ideal solution and anti-ideal solution were determined using
3 429.19 4604.98 0.02 0.040 0.209 1.209 8 equations (14) and (15) as Aþ ¼ f0:0547; 0:0466; 0:2089g and A ¼
20 437.25 4584.38 0.59 0.039 0.205 1.205 11 f0:0946; 0:0637; 0:00015g respectively. Electricity generation cost
19 438.57 4574.04 0.84 0.039 0.203 1.203 12
and GHG emission are the cost attributes, and percentage RE is the
18 441.23 4553.26 1.33 0.040 0.200 1.200 13
17 443.38 4536.36 1.74 0.040 0.197 1.197 14 benefit attribute.
16 445.35 4520.99 2.11 0.041 0.194 1.194 15 Step 5: Distances between each alternative and ideal (positive) and
15 454.64 4448.28 3.85 0.047 0.181 1.181 16 anti-ideal (negative) solution were evaluated using equations (16)
14 456.76 4431.67 4.25 0.048 0.178 1.178 17
and (17) as Dþ i and Di respectively (Table 6).
13 459.22 4412.43 4.71 0.051 0.174 1.174 18
30 450.36 4395.98 4.75 0.052 0.174 1.174 19 Step 6: The relative closeness Cþ i of each energy alternative was
29 456.66 4373.84 5.25 0.054 0.170 1.170 20 evaluated using equation (18).
12 464.16 4373.73 5.64 0.055 0.167 1.167 21 Step 7: Based on their relative closeness Cþ i , where larger relative
11 466.98 4351.65 6.17 0.058 0.163 1.163 22
28 476.86 4302.85 6.84 0.062 0.158 1.158 23
closeness means better performance of the alternatives, each alter­
27 487.97 4263.82 7.72 0.066 0.152 1.152 24 native was ranked (Table 6).
26 497.94 4228.79 8.51 0.071 0.146 1.146 25
25 520.57 4149.28 10.29 0.082 0.133 1.133 26 3. Discussion
24 537.44 4090.01 11.62 0.091 0.123 1.123 27
23 586.00 3919.39 15.46 0.118 0.095 1.095 28
22 627.87 3772.28 18.76 0.142 0.073 1.073 29 Comparing the base scenario in 2011 where electricity consumption
21 742.68 3368.91 27.82 0.209 0.040 1.040 30 stands at 3,389,439 MWh, to the ‘business as usual’ scenario in 2035
where the demand was projected to be 6,069,149 MWh, without any
renewable facility upgraded or added, the total annual electricity
generating cost rose from around BND 243.71 million to BND 433.36
million respectively. The annual GHGs emission due to electrical power
consumption also increased to approximately 4.63 million tonnes CO2
from around 2.59 million tonnes CO2 (around 79 percent increase in
GHGs emission). Whereas the case for the optimized ‘business as usual’
scenario would meet the energy target at a lower cost and GHG emission
– BND 429.17 million and 4.61 million tonnes CO2. This confirms that
optimizing the scenarios considered would yield lower electricity
generating cost and GHGs emission.
The highest-ranked alternative is from the BAU scenario and mainly
include natural gas as the main source of energy (Table 6) (Fig. 2). This
could be due to the relative lower cost of natural gas compare to all the
RE. Unfortunately, the total RE achievable in the BAU scenario is only
0.02 percent. This would not be a suitable pathway to meet the policy
target in 2035.
In the second base case scenario, the addition of hydropower and
offshore wind energy into the grid would enable improving the total RE
ratio in the electricity grid from 4.75 percent to 27.82. Although the
investment in RE would increase, it would be possible to significantly
cut-back GHGs emission accompanying electricity generation.
Equal weighting has been adopted in this work but a different
weighting ratio for alternatives determined by policymakers (DM) could
influence the overall ranking output. Although TOPSIS technique is very
Fig. 3. Thirty energy alternative pathways in ðDi ; Dþ
i Þ space. basic and simple to comprehend by decision-maker, the result is sensi­
tive to the weighting and may not always select an alternative that is
42; 048 � b � 0 closest to the best alternative and farthest from the worst alternative
simultaneously (Yoon and Kim, 2017). Therefore, there are limitations
74; 460 � c � 0 to alternative selection using this method due to varying subjectivity and
sensitivity.
300; 000 � d � 0 In order to meet the 10 percent RE target in Brunei, the “Alternative
25” in Table 6 which was ranked 26th would be cost-effective among
1; 314; 000 � e � 0 other options to adopt in this case – corresponding to the green point
(Fig. 3). This includes RE such solar PV, hydropower and offshore wind
energy incorporated into the grid with overall generating cost around

9
A.R. Adedeji et al.
BND 520.57 million and accompanying life-cycle GHG emission of up to
4.149 million tonnes CO2.
4. Conclusion and recommendations
This quantitative analysis using two-stage method of multi-objective
optimization and selection based on TOPSIS technique supports the
science-based planning of the energy sector towards global warming and
climate change abatement. The benefits for high-income economy to
proactively research future energy plan include diversifying the energy
mix to reducing air pollutant emissions such as greenhouse gases in the
power generating sector and energy sustainability. This evidence based
on the energy sector in Brunei Darussalam, would guide the nation in
meeting the electricity demand for 2035 at relatively low generating
cost and emissions. Also, the vision 2035 in reducing energy intensity in
the country could be achieved directly by exploring cheaper and alter­
native energy resources with an economic and environmental advantage
than conventional fossil fuel. Exploring the renewable energy options
would not only prevent the excessive environmental damage caused by
over-reliance on oil and gas for electricity production, but it would also
be a means to create jobs and attract foreign investment in the renew­
able energy sector in Brunei Darussalam. The green industry in Brunei
Darussalam could create job opportunities up to at least 2000 jobs by
2035 (Energy Department Prime Minister’s Office Tech. Report, 2013).
This reveals that aside from the environmental benefits, the economic
and social benefits would justify the extra cost of investment into
renewable energy options.
The abundance of natural gas with a relative lower cost than all RE
favored the alternatives in the BAU scenario than others - ranked higher
than other alternatives. An economic sacrifice would be required to
achieve the RE target of 10 percent since the BAU scenario had only 0.02
percent RE. Therefore, meeting the target for vision 2035 of 10 percent
renewable energy source in the grid could only be achieved at the lowest
cost with a mix of renewable energy sources from offshore wind, hy­
dropower and solar PV. Natural gas would still remain the major source
of energy for the Brunei Darussalam.
Investing BND 520.57 million to meet the energy target in 2035
following the ‘base case’ scenario with solar PV, hydropower and
offshore wind energy as renewable energy sources added to the grid in
the proportion of 43,990 MWh, 264,999 MWh and 315,623 MWh
respectively, could attain around 10.3 percent renewable energy in the
total energy generated. Most importantly, the greenhouse gas emission
(GHG) cut-back would be up to 10.4 percent as compared to ‘business as
usual’ scenario. This would contribute significantly towards the goal of
decelerating global warming and mitigating climate change effects.
Investment diversification in the renewable energy sector is recom­
mended for Brunei Darussalam to meet its vision 2035 targets. Also,
there should be continuous research to understand and plan the best
pathways for the energy investments. For instance, when solar PV in­
vestments become cost-effective compared to fossil fuel, that would
enable the nation to consider investing widely into it to help reduce its
fossil fuel dependence for energy generation. Increased investment in
renewable energy would enable rigorous GHG emission cut-back.
Considering other indicators such as employment creation, the invest­
ment cost would also be a long-term investment in the job sector which
has economic and social benefits. Overall, natural gas could remain the
dominant fossil fuel to balance the future energy demand while sus­
tainable alternatives and renewable energy sources are being improved
and included in the grid.
TOPSIS method is preferred as a simple approach and easily
comprehensible for the decision-maker. Although the proposed method
had taken care of the life-cycle components in the assessments, it still has
several limitations, especially in the selection stage. The choice of
weighting using TOPSIS method would influence the overall result,
revealing that real-life scenarios may differ to analytical results if the
qualitative aspect was not adequately assessed.
10
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978
There are some directions for expanding this proposed research. The
method proposed in this paper can be more adapted with real-world
cases if it included a qualitative analysis of selection criteria such as
cost, emissions and RE ratio. Aside from adopting qualitative assessment
approaches to these selection criteria, a survey on the impact of other
criteria including technological, social and policy, could be conducted in
order to include them and allocate suitable weights to each.
Credit author statement
Adedayo Rasak Adedeji: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft­
ware, Formal analysis, Data Curation, Visualization, Writing - Original
Draft Fauzi Zaini: Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing Dr.
Sathyajith Mathew: Conceptualization, Supervision Dr. Lalit Dagar:
Software, Validation, Supervision Dr. Mohammad Iskandar Petra:
Resources, Supervision Prof. Liyanage Chandratilka De Silva: Project
administration, Supervision.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and UBD Graduate
Scholarship (UBDGS) provided by Universiti Brunei Darussalam for this
research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109978.
References
Abdul Rashid’s Blog, 2010. Fuel Prices in Brunei Darussalam on Brunei’s Energy Day
2010. http://abdulrashidtahir.blogspoti.com/2010/05/fuel-prices-in-brunei-darussa
lam-on.html. (Accessed 16 November 2019).
Adedeji, A.R., Mathew, S., Zaini, F., Dagar, L., Petra, M.I., De Silva, L.C., 2019. Analysis
of Resource Availability, Cost and GHG Emission of Energy Options in Brunei
Darussalam towards 2035, vol. 4. Mendeley Data. https://doi.org/10.17632/726
kcswc5y.4.
Air Quality Expert Group, 2007. Air Quality and Climate Change: A UK Perspective.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Autoriti Monetari Brunei Darussalam, 2019. Banks’ Charges and Corporate Rates. http
://www.ambd.gov.bn/corporate-lending-financing-rates. (Accessed 16 November
2019).
Bauer, C., Treyer, K., Heck, T., Hirschberg, S., 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions from
energy systems, comparison and overview. In: Reference Module in Earth Systems
and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-
9.09276-9.
Chalvatzis, K.J., Malekpoor, H., Mishra, N., Lettice, F., Choudhary, S., 2019. Sustainable
resource allocation for power generation: the role of big data in enabling
interindustry architectural innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 144, 381–393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.031.
Coady, D., Parry, I., Sears, L., Shang, B., 2017. How large are global fossil fuel subsidies?
World Dev. 91, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.004.
Dayana, K.B., Mathew, S., Petra, I., Lim, C.M., 2016. Sustainable and secure energy
future for oil-rich economies: a case study from Brunei Darussalam. In: 2016
International Conference on Cogeneration, Small Power Plants and District Energy
(ICUE). IEEE, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/COGEN.2016.7728950.
Department of Statistics, 2015. Brunei Darussalam Statistical Yearbook, 39th ed.
Deparment of Economic Planning and Development Prime Minister’s Office, Bandar
Seri Begawan.
Department of Statistics, 2016. Brunei Darussalam Statistical Yearbook, 40th ed.
Deparment of Economic Planning and Development Prime Minister’s Office, Bandar
Seri Begawan.
Dotse, S.Q., Dagar, L., Petra, M.I., De Silva, L.C., 2016. Evaluation of national emissions
inventories of anthropogenic air pollutants for Brunei Darussalam. Atmos. Environ.
133, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.024.
Energy Department Prime Minister’s Office Tech Report, 2013. Brunei Darussalam
Energy White Paper (Bandar Seri Begawan).
Ervural, B.C., Evren, R., Delen, D., 2018a. A multi-objective decision-making approach
for sustainable energy investment planning. Renew. Energy 126, 387–402. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.051.
Ervural, B.C., Zaim, S., Demirel, O.F., Aydin, Z., Delen, D., 2018b. An ANP and fuzzy
TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 82, 1538–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.095.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications, A State of the Art Survey. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
A.R. Adedeji et al.
IBP Inc, 2015. In: International Business Publications USA (Ed.), Brunei Energy Policy,
Laws and Regulations Handbook - Strategic Information and Regulations. World
Energy Policy, Business & Investment Opportunities Library, Washington.
Ifaei, P., Farid, A., Yoo, C.K., 2018. An optimal renewable energy management strategy
with and without hydropower using a factor weighted multi-criteria decision making
analysis and nation-wide big data - case study in Iran. Energy 158, 357–372. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.043.
Int Energy Agency, 2019a. Brunei Darussalam: Electricity and Heat for 2015. https
://www.iea.org/classicstats/statisticssearch/report/?country¼BRUNEI&product
¼electricityandheat&year¼2015. (Accessed 16 November 2019).
Int Energy Agency, 2019b. Brunei Darussalam: Oil for 2010. https://www.iea.org/class
icstats/statisticssearch/report/?year¼2010&country¼BRUNEI&product¼Oil.
(Accessed 16 November 2019).
Irving, J., Inoue, Y., Prakoso, K., 2014. An Evaluation of the Prospects for
Interconnections Among the Borneo and Mindanao Power Systems. Asian
Development Bank, Indonesia.
Kumar, A., Schei, T., Ahenkorah, A., Caceres, R.R., Devernay, J.M., Freitas, M., Hall, D.,
Killingtveit, Å., Liu, Z., 2011. Hydropower. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R.,
Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G.,
Schl€omer, S., von Stechow, C., Matschoss, P. (Eds.), Renewable Energy Sources and
Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 437–496.
Lee, H.C., Chang, C.T., 2018. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking
renewable energy sources in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 92, 883–896.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007.
Malik, A.Q., 2011. Assessment of the potential of renewables for Brunei Darussalam.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2010.08.014.
Ministry of Development, 2015. Brunei Darussalam’s Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution. UNFCCC.
Natl Renew Energy Lab, 2019a. Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization (Hydropower).
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html. (Accessed 16 November
2019).
11
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 109978
Natl Renew Energy Lab, 2019b. Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization (Wind LCA
Harmonization). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57131.pdf. (Accessed 16
November 2019).
Oxford Business Group, 2013. Brunei Darussalam: US Offers Helping Hand with
Renewable Energy. https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/news/brunei-darussalam-us-o
ffers-helping-hand-renewable-energy. (Accessed 16 November 2019).
Oxford Business Group, 2016. Brunei Darussalam Prioritises Renewable Energy to
Confront Climate Change. https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/analysis/embracing-re
newables-confronting-reality-climate-change-has-become-priority-sultanate.
(Accessed 16 November 2019).
Ozcan,
€ E.C., Ünlüsoy, S., Eren, T., 2017. A combined goal programming – AHP approach
supported with TOPSIS for maintenance strategy selection in hydroelectric power
plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 1410–1423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.04.039.
Pacudan, R., . Feed-in tariff vs incentivized self-consumption: options for residential solar
PV policy in Brunei Darussalam. Renew. Energy 122, 362–374. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.102.
Reijnders, L., 2012. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Chen, W.Y.,
Seiner, J., Suzuki, T., Lackner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation.
Springer US, New York, pp. 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7991-9_2.
Solangi, Y.A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N.H., Valasai, G.D., Khan, M.W.A., Ikram, M., 2019. An
integrated Delphi-AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach toward ranking and selection of
renewable energy resources in Pakistan. Processes 7, 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/
pr7020118.
The BT Archives, 2015. Brunei Price Subsidy Masks the True Value of Energy as Fossil
Fuel. https://btarchive.org/news/national/2015/11/26/brunei-price-subsidy-mas
ks-true-value-energy-fossil-fuel. (Accessed 16 November 2019).
United Nations Data Retrieval System, 2019. UNdata | Record View | Natural Gas
(Including LNG). http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q¼naturalþgas
&d¼EDATA&f¼cmID%3ANG. (Accessed 16 November 2019).
US Energy Information Administration, 2013. Annual Energy Outlook 2013. DOE/EIA-
0383 (2013).
Yoon, K.P., Kim, W.K., 2017. The behavioral TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 89, 266–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.07.045.