Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods For The Evaluation of Optimum Green Energy Sources A Case Study

International Journal of Decision Support System Technology
Volume 11 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019
Comparative Analysis of MCDM

Methods for the Evaluation of
Optimum Green Energy Sources:
A Case Study
Chiranjib Bhowmik, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Parul Institute of Engineering and Technology, Parul
University, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9338-7715
Sreerupa Dhar, MCKV Institute of Engineering, Howrah, India

Amitava Ray, Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College, Jalpaiguri, India
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to select the optimum green energy sources for sustainable planning from a
given set of energy alternatives. This study examines the combined behavior of multi-criteria decision-
making approaches-TOPSIS, MOOSRA and COPRAS are used to evaluate the green energy sources–
solar, hydro, biogas and biomass and to identify the optimum source by appraising its functioning
features based on entropy probability technique. An illustrative case study is presented in order to
demonstrate the application feasibility of the combined approaches for the ranking of optimum green
energy sources. The analyzed results show that biogas is the optimum green energy source having the
highest score value obtained by combined approaches. The sensitivity analysis shows the robustness
of the combined approaches with the highest effectiveness. The study not only considers the various
cost criteria but other actors like power generation, implementation period and useful life are also
considered to select the optimum green energy sources for future project investment.
Keywords
Comparative Analysis, COPRAS, Entropy, Green Energy Source Selection, MOOSRA, Sensitivity
Analysis, TOPSIS
1. INTRODUCTION
Energy is considered one of the crucial elements in modern life for sustainable development.
Globalization leads the modern society towards green energy resources (Bhowmik et al., 2017).
Green energy sources are the sources of cleaner form of energy including solar, wind, hydro, biomass,
geothermal and wave energy. In today’s life, high demand of energy can also boost the economy of
the nation through implementation of green energy technologies (Bhowmik et al., 2017; Tsagarakis
DOI: 10.4018/IJDSST.2019100101

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

1
et al., 2018). In recent trends, a newly adopted concept is flying in the mind of researcher’s milieu
which is defined as Green Energy Engineering, primarily aiming at combining the fossil and green
era towards the implementation of clean and sustainable future (Tsagarakis et al., 2018). Due to the
crisis in energy supply from green resources, various researchers are attracted to investigate or select
the optimum sources of energies to secure the environment and promote those sources for regional
development (Mardani et al., 2015). Research also shows that green energy entrepreneurship and
green energy programs are better implemented when they are supported by the government policies
(Wu et al., 2018). Policies also plays an important role for the nation in the promotion of green energy
business towards energy sustainability (Mardani et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2018; Buyukozkan & Guleryuz,
2017). The green energy technologies for energy production are different, encompassing solar, wind,
hydro, biogas, biomass, geothermal etc. Since each and every technology captures different earth
resources in different ways, the environmental, economic, social, political and market impacts also
vary compared to each technology (Moula et al., 2013). Thus, technology changes play a significant
role in energy source evaluation dilemma. Green energy sources evaluation is fundamental for
sustainable development in context with various conflicting criterion such as environmental, social,
economic, technical, risk, security issues (Ervural et al., 2017; Colak & Kaya, 2017; Baul et al., 2018).
Therefore, the need for green energy sources evaluation techniques with multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) approaches is quite obvious for optimal evaluation (Dutta et al., 2011; Ozcan et al., 2011).
There is a vast evidence of MCDM techniques used in different real-life engineering problems such
as energy sources selection, material selection, supplier selection, location selection, management
applications and so on for sustainable planning (Nigim et al., 2004). Some of the relevant studies by
past researchers are highlighted below.
Nigim et al. (2004) studied the behavior of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for ranking
of renewable energy sources in Canada. Assessment of cooking energy substitution in India was
investigated by Pohekar and Ramachandran (2004) using Preference Ranking Organisation Method
for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) method. Patlitzianas et al. (2007) used Ordered Weighted
Averaging (OWA) for evaluation of renewable energy products in Greece. Kahraman et al. (2009)
employed fuzzy-AHP for evaluation of renewable energy alternatives in Turkey. Mohamadabadi
(2009) used PROMETHEE for selection of best fuel-based vehicles in Canada based on the renewable
and non-renewable assessment. Heo et al. (2010) applied fuzzy-AHP for assessment of renewable
energy factors in the area of the Republic of Korea. Fuzzy-AHP was employed by Shen et al. (2010)
in the nationality of Taiwan for evaluation of renewable energy sources. San Cristóbal (2011) utilized
compromise ranking method i.e., VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR)
method combined with AHP for selection of renewable energy projects in Spain. Sustainability
assessment of renewable energy in Canada was investigated by Reza et al. (2011) using AHP method.
The evaluation of offshore wind energy for sustainable development in United Kingdom (UK) was
investigated by Lozano-Minguez et al. (2011) using Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity
to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. Davoudpour et al. (2012) utilized AHP in Iran for selection of
renewable technology portfolio. Shiue et al. (2012) proposed an evaluation model based on Analytical
Network Process (ANP), benefits, opportunities, costs and risks (BOCR) and balance scorecard
(BSC) to evaluate the various recycling strategies for obtaining optimal strategies in the solar energy
industry. Streimikiene et al. (2012) used TOPSIS and Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis
(MOORA) plus full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) for sustainable energy sources selection
in Lithuania. Perera et al. (2013) developed a mathematical model combining MCDM; such as fuzzy-
TOPSIS, multi-objective optimization (MOO) and level diagram for standalone hybrid energy system
considering techno-economic and environmental constraints. Assessed renewable energy development
in Turkey was investigated by Ertay et al. (2013) based on fuzzy-AHP method. Yazdani-Chamzini et
al. (2013) employed COPRAS-AHP for selection of renewable energy in Iran. Selection of biomass
power plant in Italy was investigated by Cannemi et al. (2014) using analytical network process (ANP).
Kabak and Dağdeviren (2014) utilized ANP for ranking of renewable energy resources in Turkey.
2
Kucukvar et al. (2014) applied fuzzy-TOPSIS for ranking the life-cycle sustainability performance
of renewable energy in the United States of America (USA). Sánchez-Lozano et al. (2014) applied
ELECTRE-TRI for selection of photovoltaic solar farms site in Spain. Şengül et al. (2015) used
fuzzy-TOPSIS for ranking of renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Karaca et al. (2015) used
AHP for selection of energy and water sustainability in the area of Turkey. Nuuter et al. (2015)
employed COPRAS for evaluation of sustainability of housing market in Estonia. Selection of wind
farm site for sustainability was investigated by Latinopoulos and Kechagia (2015) using Weighted
linear combination (WLC) method in Greece. Kuleli Pak et al. (2015) evaluated renewable energy
development in Turkey by TOPSIS and ANP method. Ren and Sovacool (2015) applied AHP and
TOPSIS for ranking of low-carbon energy sources in Italy. Sánchez-Lozano et al. (2016) identified
suitable locations using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), to build a solar firm in the southeast
of Spain based on AHP, TOPSIS and ELECTRE methods. Alidrisi and Al-Sasi (2017) utilized
TOPSIS method to rank the G20 countries with respect to the electricity production from various
energy resources. Gigović et al. (2017) developed a combined reliable model based on GIS using
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), ANP and Multi-Attributive Border
Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC) for the identification of location for the installation of
wind farms in Vojvodina, Serbia. Pamučar et al. (2017) utilized combination of GIS with MCDM
techniques of Best-Worst method (BWM) and Multi-Attributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis
(MAIRCA) approach for site selection and installation of wind farm in the province of Vojvodina.
Badi et al. (2018) utilized COmbinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) method for selection
of supplier in the steelmaking company in Libya using the concept of Euclidean distance and the
Taxicab distance in order to determine the desirability of an alternative. Vesković et al. (2018) applied
an integrated hybrid model based on Delphi, step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA)
and MABAC for evaluation of railway management system. Badi and Ballem (2018) utilized BWM
and MARICA methods to select the optimal medical supplier for a pharmaceutical company in Libya.
Boran (2018) proposed an intuitionistic fuzzy-VIKOR method for evaluation of renewable energy
sources in Turkey. Green energy for sustainable development was investigated by Bhowmik et al. (2018)
using entropy-TOPSIS method. Yazdani et al. (2018) proposed a novel hybrid Decision Making Trial
and Evaluation Laboratory and analytic network process (DEMATEL-ANP) model for evaluation of
renewable energy sources based on the causal relationship between criteria in European Union (EU).
The earlier studies mentioned in this research is an evidence of comprehensive literature available
in different fields of MCDM applications. Moreover, this study represents the diversified behavior in
the selection methodology considering various conflicting criteria. Therefore, the main contribution
of this study in this research is to evaluate the optimum green energy sources based on various
combined techniques for sustainable future energy investment projects in north eastern India. The
proposed methodology is based on a combination of entropy, MOOSRA and COPRAS methods of
multi-criteria decision-making analysis. The scientific contribution of this research is seen in the
application of different MCDM techniques, which are combined in different forms, and used as an
evolutionary tool for green energy sources selection problem (Gigovic et al., 2017). Firstly, entropy
method is utilized to find the weight of the criteria from the vagueness of data. Secondly, TOPSIS
is used to rank and prioritize the sources alternatives followed by MOOSRA and COPRAS method
respectively. Thirdly, comparative analysis and the sensitivity analysis shows the robustness of the
evaluation strategy. The application feasibility of the proposed methodology is substantiated through
the analysis of a specific case in the region of north-eastern India. It is anticipated that this study will
guide the government and non-government organizations to a better understanding of the potential
investment on green power, which is still in its nascent stages of development in Tripura.
The reminder of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 describes the detailed information
about energy structure, strength and green energy sources potential in Tripura. Section 3 discusses
the multi-perspective analysis and research strategy of this study. Section 4 demonstrates the research
design followed by a case study. Comparison between various MCDM techniques used in this study
3
are presented in section 5. Sensitivity analysis establishes the ranking strategy in section 6. The last
section concludes the paper suggesting for future research in this area.
2. ENERGY STRUCTURE AND CURRENT STRENGTH OF TRIPURA
Tripura is considered one of the few states in north-eastern India which have adequate conventional
resources and renewable potential. In case of green energy scenario Tripura is not new, but for the
utilization purpose and selection of optimum green resources, the state holds a quite less rank compared
to any other states in India. Tripura has its own 243.76 MW of firm power excluding share from
unallocated quota from different states. Electricity demand in Tripura have been rising dramatically
day-by-day in recent past due to impressive economic growth and social development (Ahmad &
Tahar, 2014). At present, the state has four main players in the generation field; Rokhia Gas based
Power Station, Baramura Power Station, Gumti Hydroelectric Project and ONGC Tripura Power
Company Limited (OTPC). These organizations have their own generation capacities along with
supply from independent power producers. Also 35 MW capacity addition at Rokhia and 25 MW at
Baramura through combined cycle power generation and NEEPCO’S 101 MW combined cycle plant
at Monarchak is under execution. Another 5 MW capacity solar plant has been accredited by Tripura
Renewable Energy Development Agency (TREDA) at Monarchak, Tripura.
Presently Tripura’s total installed capacity is 894.6 MW; the geographical distribution is shown
in Figure 1 (Power for all Tripura, 2018). Although, Tripura has got largest (196 MW) allocated share
from OTPC but it received only 148 MW during FY 14-15. The reason behind this drastic fall in
energy share is less availability of fuel gas, due to which OTPC is capable to produce 526 MW only
out of expected 726.6 MW. One of the reports revealed that, for the financial year (FY) 14-15 energy
requirement was 1.125 MU which would rise to 1.568 Mu in FY 18-19. Tripura’s peak demand was
266 MW in the FY 14-15 which was successfully supplied from different power units. But, according
to electricity consumption the demand will increase to 384 MW in FY 18-19. As per Government
of India (GoI) census 2011, state fulfil their 79% of demand from gas-based power stations and rest
21% from hydro based power stations. As per Central Electricity Authority (CEA) annual report (FY
13-14), the per capita consumption in Tripura has shown a steady growth pattern from 179 kWh in
FY 07 to 303 kWh in FY 15 (Power for all Tripura, 2018).
For the last 58 years, electricity consumption has growing tremendously as depicted
in Figure 2 (www.tsecl.in, 2018). But the trend of fossil fuel and natural gas-based power
Figure 1. Installed capacity in Tripura (Power for all Tripura, 2018)
4
Figure 2. Electricity consumption rate (www.tsecl.in, 2018)
generation is meaningless to the energy managers who deals with green sources only. Around
80% of electricity is generated from gas-based power plants in Tripura. Various hydro and
gas-based power generation are connected to the grid according to intrastate policy and their
production capacity as depicted in Figure 3 (Power for all Tripura, 2018). On the other hand,
there are plenty of green energy sources but till date these are not exploited properly for their
best utilization. Figure 2 and Figure 3 reveals that the present energy demand is totally fulfilled
by fossil-based power which has a harmful effect on the environment. Because fossil-based
power emits various toxic gases such as CO2, SOX, and NOX etc. to the atmosphere. For cleaner
future, the government should take more initiative to increase the utilization of green energy
sources that may fulfil the future energy demands in a sustainable way. Therefore, the government
should invest or chair any individual agency to tackle this situation. Moreover, it is also part of
sustainable energy planning under intrastate policy and strategies to replace fossil energies by
various green sources. Next sub-section emphasizes various green energy sources potential in
Tripura and their corresponding criteria.
Figure 3. Power generation scenario of Tripura (Power for all Tripura, 2018)
5
2.1. Solar(S)
Tripura on an average receives monthly solar irradiance of 4.33-4.37 kWh/m2 as depicted in Figure
4 (www.synergyenviron.com; 2017) with around 6.4 hours of daily sunlight (www.weather-and-
climate.com;2018). There are mainly four places in Tripura such as Agartala, Ambasa, Kailashahar
and Udaipur where solar irradiance is more as shown in Figure 5 (www.synergyenviron.com; 2017).
From the figure, it can be concluded that, in Agartala and Udaipur has the higher solar irradiance
compared to other two places (Due to data insufficiency this research highlights only four places
data). Now-a-day small solar power generation units are available in Tripura. Solar power of 670 kW
has been installed in Tripura for the FY 14-16, although the installed capacity is still quite low. But,
most of the government, semi-government health-centers and official buildings are operated by this
solar power. It is presumed that within few years Tripura will be the first state in India, which will
operate its all health centers by green (solar) power. Solar is considered as the cleanest form of energy
Figure 4. Average monthly solar irradiance (www.synergyenviron.com; 2017)
Figure 5. Solar irradiance for four places (www.synergyenviron.com; 2017)
6
source, however, if not handled properly it may cause environmental problems. Growing technology
and improved manufacturing capabilities can take care of this problem (Kadir et al., 2010).
2.2. Biogas (Bg)

Degradation of organic waste exhale biogas and landfill gas. The main sources for biogas generation
in Tripura are cattle dung, dry rice straw, and water hyacinth effluents from livestock (Kumar et al.,
2016). On the other hand, landfill gas can be generated from municipal solid waste at landfill sites.
The main product of landfill gas is methane, which is considered more harmful than CO2, but has
the potential to produce electric power. As a rapidly growing population and developing state, solid
waste production in Tripura is 414.8 MTPD (Cannemi et al., 2014). Figure 6 (www.google.co; 2018)
shows the various districts of Tripura and Figure 7 (Report of Solid Waste, 2018) stands for district
wise solid waste generation in MTPD. In Tripura, mostly two types of biogas plants are available;
HDPE material based pre-fabricated floating type biogas plant and Deenabandhu model fixed type
biogas plant. Apart from the landfill gas generation the state has produced 390 CUM of biogas for
the purpose of power generation in the FY 14-16.
2.3. Biomass (Bs)

Biomass is used worldwide to provide heat, make fuel and generate electricity (Ahmad & Tahar,
2014). In Tripura, largest source of biomass is wood, which has been used to provide heat for many
decades. But, various types of biomass-such as wood, plants, residue from agriculture or forestry and
organic component from municipal and industrial waste-those can be used as an energy source. Figure
8 (biomasspower.gov.in; 2018] shows the biomass potential in Tripura. Now in Tripura, a family type
cook stove and community type cook stove programme have been initiated by the Ministry of New
and Renewable Energy (MNRE). These installed cook stoves are capable to produce 1483 CUM of
Figure 6. District map of Tripura (www.google.co; 2018)
7
Figure 7. Solid waste generated in MTPD (Report of Solid Waste, 2018)
Figure 8. Biomass potential in Tripura (biomasspower.gov.in, 2018)
biomass for cooking purpose. The potential can further be enhanced by including other agricultural
refuses. District wise biomass potential form agro-residues and forest and waste land residues are
shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10 (biomasspower.gov.in, 2018). Impediments of biomass include
greenhouse gases emission, high land and water requirements, and biodiversity loss (Ahmad & Ahar,
2014; Ulutas, 2005).
2.4. Hydro (H)

A small hydel power station is located in south Tripura district named Gumti hydel project. The
capacity of the project is 15 MW based on three units having 5 MW each. The yearly energy generated
from the reservoir of Gumti project is approximately 60 Million units. Most of the time 2 units of
5 MW runs at a continuous load of 8 MW and the third one is kept as a stand by for an emergency.
For the last few years it has been observed that with this arrangement the project is capable to meet
its desired generation.
8
Figure 9. District wise biomass potential from agro-residues (biomasspower.gov.in, 2018)
Figure 10. District wise biomass potential from forest and wasteland residues (biomasspower.gov.in, 2018)
2.5. Power Generation (PG)

Power generation or gross generation is the total generation of energy produced by an electric power
plant. It is measured at the plant terminal right before the power leaves the station and is measured
in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh).
2.6. Installation Cost (IC)

Installation cost is the total cost needed to upgrade any project to a commercially operable status.
The IC is fixed in nature and one time chargeable.
2.7. Implementation Period (IP)

It measures the time frame from the placement of work order to installation.
9
2.8. Useful Life (UL)

It indicates the durability of the plant from the date of commissioning.
2.9. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost

Cost is the crucial part for any economic or sustainable development. Beyond capital cost, all
operating; replacement and maintenance cost, transport and connection costs of the technologies are
to be considered (Datta et al., 2011).
3. MULTI-PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH STRATEGY
Decisions ensuring green energy source selection for sustainable planning are complex. Various
complexity arises from the interaction of considering long term horizon, irreversibility of decisions,
technology choice, acquisition of data, deployment delays, resource potentials, and uncertainty of
future demand. However, it is observed that, the state has plenty of green resources that can be used
to build a non-toxic cleaner future considering the motto “Green Resources for Clean Environment”
for benchmark. On the basis of above consideration, a roadmap is required to achieve sustainable
power generation for cleaner future. Hence, in this study green energy source selection problem is
tackled from power generation (PG), installation cost (IC), implementation period (IP), useful life
(UL) and operation & maintenance (O&M) cost. This study also considers four green energy sources
namely solar (S), biogas (Bg), biomass (Bs) and hydro (H) which are available in that particular
region. Firstly, Shannon’s entropy probability technique is applied to find the precise weight of each
criterion from the vagueness of information present in the data collected through survey and various
MNRE reports. Secondly, TOPSIS is utilized to rank the green energy alternatives. Thereafter, two
different MCDM methods viz. entropy based MOOSRA and COPRAS are also employed to show
the effect in ranking orders respectively. After that a comparative study of those methodologies are
employed. Finally, from the comparative study the best fit results are evoked for the sensitivity analysis.
To make this study self-contained the proposed combined methodology is shown in Figure 11. The
generalised calculation procedure for each and every aforesaid MCDM techniques are delineated in
the subsequent sub-sections.
3.1. Entropy Method

Shannon’s entropy is a well-known method used in obtaining the weight for a multi-attribute
decision-making (MADM) problem when significant weight based on preferences and decision
makers experiments are not possible (Boran, 2018; Lotfi & Fallahnejad, 2010; Bhowmik et al., 2018;
Kumar & Ray, 2015).
Step 1: Normalize the decision matrix:
kij
mij = m
,i = 1, …, m, j = 1, …, n (1)
∑ i =1
kij
where kij is the performance value of i th alternative on j th criterion, m is the number of alternatives
and n is the number of criteria, mij is the normalized performance value of i th alternative on j th
criterion.
Step 2: Calculate the entropy value:
10
Figure 11. Proposed combined methodology
bj = −c ∑mij .lnmij (2)

i =1
where c is the entropy constant and is equal to (ln n )−1 and mij .lnmij is defined as 0 if mij = 0 .
Step 3: Degree of divergence calculation:
l j = 1 − bj (3)
Step 4: Set weight:
lj
wj = n
(4)
∑ s =1
ls
where w j is the weight of j th criterion.
3.2. TOPSIS Method

TOPSIS is based upon the concept that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance
from the Positive Ideal Solution (PIS) and the furthest distance from the Negative ideal Solution
(NIS) (Ervural et al., 2017; Bhowmik et al., 2018; Chakraborty & Chatterjee, 2013; Chakraborty &
Chatterjee, 2017).
11
k ij
mij = m
(5)
∑ i =1
kij
Step 2: Calculate weighted normalized decision matrix:
hij = w j × mij (6)
where hij is the weighted normalized value.
Step 3: Identify ideal solution and non-ideal solution by:
{
A+ = a1+ , a2+ , …, an+ = } {(Max h j ij
j ∈ j ′),(Min j hij j ∈ j ′′ )} (7)
{
A− = a1−, a2−, …, an− = } {(Min h j ij
j ∈ j ′),(Max j hij j ∈ j ′′ )} (8)
where j ′ is related to benefit factors and j ′′ is related to non-benefit factors.
Step 4: Distance from each alternative is calculated by:
∑ (h )
2
Di+ = ij
− Aj+ (9)
j =1
∑ (h )
2
Di− = ij
− Aj− (10)
j =1
where, Di+ and Di− are the distance from the target alternative to the best and worst condition
respectively. In this step study usages, the multidimensional Euclidean distance.
Step 5: Calculation of relative closeness to the perfect solution:
Di−
Ci = (11)
Di− + Di+
Step 6: Prioritize the maximum value of C i where, C i is the relative closeness of an alternative i .
12
3.3. MOOSRA Method

The application steps of MOOSRA method are similar to the MOORA method and is considered of
the of the multi-objective optimization methods when compared with MOORA method, the negative
performance scores do not appear and the MOOSRA method is less sensitive in case of large variation
of criteria values (Karande & Chakraborty, 2012; Adalr & Isk, 2017; Jagadish & Ray, 2014).
K ij*
mij* = m
(12)
∑ i =1
K ij*
Step 2: Computation of weighted normalized matrix by:
hij* = w j × mij* (13)
Step 3: Performance value measurement:
n
∑ h mij*
*
s =1 ij
y *
i
= n
(14)
∑s = j +1
hij* mij*
where yi* is the performance scores for beneficial and non-beneficial criteria respectively, and the
highest performance score obtained by any alternative is chosen as the best.
3.4. COPRAS Method

COPRAS is a preference ranking method which assumes direct and proportional dependences of the
significance and utility degree of the available alternatives under the presence of mutually conflicting
criteria. This method selects the best option considering both the ideal and non-ideal solutions with
respect to different criteria and corresponding criteria weights (Nutter et al., 2015; Chatterjee &
Chakraborty, 2012; Chatterjee et al., 2011; Majty et al., 2012; Chatterjee & Chakraborty, 2012).
kij**
mij** = m
(15)
∑ i =1
kij**
Step 2: Calculation of weighted normalized matrix:
hij** = wi × kij** (16)
Step 3: Calculation of sums for beneficial and non-beneficial criteria:
13
Si + = ∑kij** (17)
i =1
∑k (18)
**
Si − = ij
i = j +1
Step 4: Computation of comparative significance measurement:
Qi = Si + +
∑ S
i =1 i −
(19)
m 1
Si − ∑
i =1 S
i−
where Qi is the relative significance value of the i th alternative.
Step 5: Compute the performance index by:
 Q 
Pi =  i  ×100% (20)
Qmax 
where Pi is the quantitative performance for the i th alternative and Qmax is the maximum relative
significance value.
4. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS AND OUTCOMES
To demonstrate the applicability, simplicity and accuracy of the proposed combined methodology,
a real-life case of north-eastern India is considered. The very next sub-sections show the various
methods implemented in this research for green energy sources evaluation for future project investment.
4.1. Case 1: An Application of Entropy-TOPSIS Approach

Energy sources evaluation depends on enormous criterion available for the selected location.
This research only considers PG, IC, IP, UL and O&M cost because of geographical location data
unavailability. Study also considers four green energy sources which are available in that particular
region likely S, Bg, Bs and H. For a multi-objective decision-making problem firstly, a hierarchy
is prepared. Hierarchy uphold the bottoms-up approach maintaining that the goal at the top end, in
middle various criterion and in the bottom, alternatives are placed. Figure 12 represents the hierarchy
of the proposed problem. After identifying all the constructs related to the hierarchy a decision matrix
is created based on the available/collected data as shown in Table 1.
Then the mentioned decision matrix is normalized using Equation (1). This procedure is carried
out because of qualitative transformation with different data measurement units into a consistent unit.
The normalized matrix is shown in Table 2. Thereafter, entropy value is computed taking the log of
that normalized values shown in Table 3. Based on the entropy value degree of divergence is calculated
using Equation (3) and shown in Table 4. Entropy method helps to determine the objective weight of
the criterion from the set of data using Equation (4). This study firstly calculates the criterion weight
using entropy method described in section 3.1. The computed weight for each criterion is shown in
14
Figure 12. Hierarchy of the proposed problem
Table 1. Decision matrix
Criteria
Alternative O&M(Lakh/
PG (MW) IC (Lakh/MWh) IP (Days) UL (Years)
MWh)
S 10 81.5 90 25 8.1
Bg 15 89.6 390 75 8.9
Bs 3.89 7.5 14 15 0.75
H 15.73 15.5 45 3 1.5
Table 2. Normalize decision matrix
Criteria
Alternative
PG IC IP UL O&M
S 0.261 0.869 0.166 0.211 0.869
Bg 0.152 0.055 0.025 0.127 0.055
Bs 0.579 0.011 0.083 0.025 0.011
H 0.005 0.064 0.723 0.635 0.063
Table 3. Calculation of entropy value
Criteria
PG IC IP UL O&M
bj -1563.701 -440.322 -279.681 -71.292 -43.929
Table 4. Calculation of degree of divergence value
Criteria
PG IC IP UL O&M
lj 1564.701 441.322 280.681 72.292 44.929
15
Table 5. Further information related to entropy method can be found in different published scholarly
articles (Bhowmik et al., 2018; Lotfi & Fallahnejad, 2010; Bhowmik et al., 2018; Kumar & Ray, 2015).
Then the TOPSIS method is applied to rank and select the optimum alternatives described
in section 3.2. TOPSIS is known as a simple well known MCDM technique which determines
solutions from a finite set on the basis of maximizing the distance from negative ideal solution
and minimizing the distance from positive ideal solution (Bhowmik et al., 2018). Case 1 of the
combined methodology helps to ranks the optimal alternatives based on the closeness coefficient
values under conflicting criterion.
After normalization of the decision matrix, the weighted normalized decision matrix is computed
using Equation (6). In this case entropy weight (shown in Table 5) of each criterion is used and
shown in Table 6.
Then ideal and non-ideal solutions are calculated using Equations (7) and (8), respectively, as
shown in Table 7.
As TOPSIS is a distance-based approach, distance from the best alternative and worst alternative
acknowledging all the criterion are computed using Equation (9) and (10), respectively, as shown
in Table 8.
Thereafter, for every alternative related closeness is measured using Equation (11). The closeness
results are depicted in Table 9. From Table 9 this research is able to rank the alternatives according
to their merit. Form the magnitude values, this research reveals that Bs scored the highest value
followed by Bg, S and H. Therefore, Bs is chosen as the optimum alternative.
4.2. Case 2: Application of Entropy-MOOSRA Approach

In this case MOOSRA, an MCDM method is applied to show the ranking order variation for the
proposed green energy sources selection problem based on the weights shown in Table 5. The
Table 5. Criteria weight
Criterion
PG IC IP UL O&M
Weight 0.605 0.183 0.116 0.030 0.018
Table 6. Weighted normalized decision matrix by TOPSIS method
Criterion
Alternatives
PG IC IP UL O&M
S 0.170 0.159 0.019 0.006 0.016
Bg 0.099 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.001
Bs 0.377 0.002 0.009 0.007 0.002
H 0.003 0.011 0.084 0.019 0.001
Table 7. Ideal and non-ideal values
Criterion
PG IC IP UL O&M
A +
0.377 0.002 0.003 0.019 0.002
A- 0.003 0.159 0.084 0.007 0.016
16
Table 8. Distance measurement
Alternatives
S Bg Bs H
Di+ 0.261 0.278 0.019 0.382
Di− 0.178 0.195 0.412 0.149
Table 9. Relative closeness and ranking by entropy-TOPSIS method
Alternatives
S Bg Bs H
Relative closeness 0.406 0.412 0.954 0.281
Ranking 3 2 1 4
application steps of MOOSRA method is described in section 3.3. The first step is constructing the
decision matrix of the problem and second step is the normalization of the decision matrix using
Equation (12). The normalization procedure is similar to the TOPSIS method and the normalized
values are shown in Table 2. Thereafter, acquiring weighted normalized decision matrix Equation (13)
is used for the computing purpose and the values are found similar to TOPSIS approach as tabulated in
Table 6. MOOSRA method uses simple ratio of the sum of the normalized values for beneficial criteria
to the sum of the normalized values for non-beneficial criteria to measure the overall performances
(Karande & Chakraborty, 2012; Adalt & Isrk, 2017; Jagadish & Ray, 2014) score of each alternative
using Equation (14) and shown in Table 10. Form the performance score values shown in Table 10
this research reveals that Bs scored the highest value followed by Bg, S and H. Which is similar that
found from entropy-TOPSIS methodology. Therefore, Bs is chosen as the optimum source.
4.3. Case 3: An Application of Entropy-COPRAS Approach

Similar to the previous section, this case also handles to find the weight of each criterion using entropy
method. In any MCDM method, each criterion usually has different units of measures. In order to
transform the performance of decision matrix into comparable dimensionless values, this phase also
follows normalization technique using Equation (15) and the normalized values are analogous (in
entire study same normalization procedure is followed) as depicted in Table 2. After normalization
of the decision matrix by COPRAS method the weighted normalized decision matrix is computed
using Equation (16) and the values are similar to Table 6. Then the weighted decision matrix values
are utilized to calculate the sums of the maximizing criteria using Equation (17). Also, to the previous
the sum of minimizing criteria is calculated using Equation (18) as depicted in Table 11.
Table 10. Performance score and ranking by entropy-MOOSRA method
Alternatives
S Bg Bs H
Performance score 0.905 7.257 31.524 0.235
Ranking 3 2 1 4
17
Table 11. Sums of beneficial and non-beneficial criteria
Alternatives
S Bg Bs H
Si+ 0.785 0.462 1.04 0.01
Si- 163.009 10.941 5.214 39.379
After calculating sums of the beneficial and non-beneficial criteria comparative significance of
the alternatives are computed using Equation (19) and tabulated in Table 12.
The performance index of the compared alternatives is determined on the basis of their relative
weight using Equation (20). The alternative with higher relative weight is given the highest priority
and selected as an optimum alternative. The performance index and ranking are presented in Table
13. The presented procedure of entropy based COPRAS method indicates that Bs scored the highest
value followed by Bg, H and S.
5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
A comparative analysis of this research is presented to highlight the consistency of the performance
ranking of the alternatives. In this study Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Kumar & Ray, 2015)
is used to determine the degree of connotation ranks obtained by different combined techniques. The
Spearman correlation coefficient (R) is calculated using Equation (21) as depicted:
6 × ∑ M A2
R = 1− (21)
(
A A2 − 1 )
where A stands for the number of alternatives; M A is the difference between the ranks. The value
of R varies from 1 to -1. Generally, the value of R is considered as a perfect correlation when its
nearer to 1 compared to other rank and vice-versa. The results of R is shown in Table 14 and the
values vary from 0.800 to 1.000.
Table 12. Comparative significance measurement
Alternatives
S Bg Bs H
Significance 5.045 63.930 134.222 18.644
Table 13. Performance index and ranking by entropy-COPRAS method
Alternatives
S Bg Bs H
Performance index 3.758 47.629 100 13.891
Ranking 4 2 1 3
18
The best correlation exists between entropy-TOPSIS and entropy-MOOSRA followed by entropy-
TOPSIS and entropy-MOOSRA as depicted in Table 14. It is seen from the table that the optimal
green energy sources evaluation obtained by the entropy-TOPSIS and entropy-MOOSRA gives the
same rank. In other words, entropy-COPRAS method gives different rank to the evaluation strategy.
Actually, the performance parameter varies with the prospect parameters in case of different MCDM
techniques, sometimes these can give the similar rank too. It’s purely depends on the evaluation
methodology and the nature of data. Therefore, the methodology used in this study are more effective
for the evaluation of optimal green energy sources.
6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The primary reason for evaluation of green energy sources are to intensify production of energy
from green resources in terms of economic viability. Thus, there is a need to make the proposed
combined methodology more robust. Green energy sources selection considers various beneficial
and non-beneficial factors. Most of the previously published articles considered only the cost factor
and the rankings of different MCDM methods for sensitivity analysis purpose (Bhattacharya et al.,
2005; Mukhametzyanoy & Pamucar, 2018; Pamucar et al., 2017). But study differs from the
previously published ones and incorporating all the parameters in the analysis for measuring the
robustness of the proposed combined methodology. The detail about sensitivity analysis can be
found in various published articles (Mukhametzyanoy & Pamucar, 2018; Pamucar et al., 2017).
The sensitivity analysis is the robust way of showing the uncertainties by varying the perception
of the decision maker ( δ ) and presenting the subsequent effects of the variety of the alternatives.
Literature shows that the value of δ vary with the perception of decision maker (Mukhametzyanoy
& Pamucar, 2018; Pamucar et al., 2017). In this study, the value of δ varies from 0 to 1 with an
increment of 0.1. A mathematical model is considered based on the published literature (Datta et
al., 2011Bhattacharya et al., 2005) to combine the prospective criteria with the ranking orders
found from the comparative analysis. This research converted the mathematical Equations (22)
and (23), respectively, into a simple MATLAB program:
SI i = δ × SFW + (1 − δ ) ×OFW (22)
where SI i is the sensitivity index, SFW is the subjective factor weight, OFW is the objective
factor weight and δ is the perception of the decision maker:
 n 
OFWi = OFD ∑OFD −1  ^ −1 (23)
 i =1 
where OFD is the objective factor dimension and n is the number of alternatives, study considers
n = 4 . To compute OFWi and SI i the following calculation are made and shown in Table 15 and
Table 16 respectively and so on.
Table 14. Spearman rank correlation coefficient values
Variables Entropy-MOOSRA Entropy-TOPSIS

Entropy-COPRAS 0.800 0.800
Entropy-MOOSRA 1.000
19
Table 15. Calculation of OFWi (for power generation)
Alternatives
S Bg Bs H
Normalized values 0.197 0.200 0.464 0.136
Table 16. Calculation of SI i (for power generation)
δ=0 δ = 0.1 δ = 0.2 δ = 0.3 δ = 0.4 δ = 0.5 δ = 0.6 δ = 0.7 δ = 0.8 δ = 0.9 δ =1
0.020 0.038 0.056 0.074 0.091 0.109 0.127 0.144 0.162 0.180 0.197
0.035 0.052 0.068 0.085 0.101 0.118 0.134 0.151 0.167 0.184 0.200
0.009 0.055 0.100 0.146 0.191 0.237 0.282 0.328 0.373 0.419 0.464
0.933 0.854 0.774 0.694 0.615 0.535 0.455 0.376 0.296 0.216 0.136
Since, this research considers five prospective criteria, to show the effect of each criteria changes
the ranking or not sensitivity analysis is carried out. Research reveals that entropy-TOPSIS and
entropy-MOOSRA shows the best fit derived by Spearman correlation coefficient. Therefore, the
second best fit i.e. entropy-COPRAS with respect to entropy-TOPSIS priority ranking is used for
this analysis. For this purpose, four scenarios are created by changing the criteria as shown in below.
Figure 13 shows the sensitivity index with respect to power generation:
• When the value of δ is 0.81 then the optimum alternatives are H, Bg, Bs and S;
• When δ = 0.63 then the optimum alternatives are Bs, Bg, H and S;
• When δ = 0.08 then the optimum alternatives are Bs, Bg and S;
• When δ = 0.02 the optimum alternatives are Bs and S.
Figure 14 shows the sensitivity index with respect to implementation period:
• When δ = 0.59 then the optimum alternatives are Bs, Bg, H and S which is similar to the rank
found from combined entropy-COPRAS approach;
• When δ = 0.56 then the optimum alternatives are H and S.
Figure 15 shows the sensitivity index with respect to useful life:
• When δ = 0.47 then the optimum alternatives are H and S.
Figure 16 and Figure 17 shows the sensitivity index with respect to installation cost and
O & M cost.
In this scenario there is no changes observed by the decision maker during the analysis and
the priority rankings are similar that found from combined entropy-COPRAS approach. From the
analysis, this study reveals that the evaluation of green energy alternatives is robust because it gives
the same priority rankings.
20
Figure 13. Sensitivity index with respect to power generation
Figure 14. Sensitivity index with respect to implementation period
7. CONCLUSION
Evaluating the green energy sources is the crucial part in selection strategy. MCDM techniques are
utilized to solve this issue in an optimum manner. However, classical MCDM techniques cannot
be operated in the uncertain environment. Therefore, combination of various MCDM techniques
is applied to select the optimum green energy sources. Firstly, a case study of north-eastern India
is selected to illustrate the feasibility rate of the combined techniques. The comprehensive criteria
system is customized based on the various state government’s energy reports, which decomposes the
complex goal hierarchy into five criteria and four alternatives. Secondly, entropy method is applied
to evaluate the criteria weight based on the collected data. Thirdly, three different MCDM techniques
gives different rankings to measure the performance values of the alternatives. The weight results
21
Figure 15. Sensitivity index with respect to useful life
Figure 16. Sensitivity index with respect to installation cost
show that power generation, installation cost and implementation period are the main influencing
criteria. And the priority results suggest that biomass is the optimum alternative, followed by biogas,
hydro and solar. After that, comparative analysis of the results also show that the entropy-COPRAS
performance rankings are case sensitive based on the perception of the decision maker. Furthermore,
sensitivity analysis shows the robustness of the combined methodology.
This research contribution can be summarized as follows:
• It is the first application of these combined techniques in literature due to lack of research using
entropy method for weight calculation in green energy sources evaluation problems;
• In order to validate, a real-life case study is considered and identify the optimum green
energy sources.
22
Figure 17. Sensitivity index with respect to O & M cost
One of the main limitations of this study is that, the selected case study uses its own
empirical data, limited to north-eastern India. Research finding may vary for other locations
also. For future research more, automatic evaluation techniques can be adopted in order to
facilitate the computational work.
23
REFERENCES
24X7 Power For All Tripura. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://powermin.nic.in/sites/default/files/uploads/joint_

initiative_of_govt_of_india_and_tripura.pdf
Ab Kadir, M. Z. A., & Rafeeu, Y. (2010). A review on factors for maximizing solar fraction under wet climate
environment in Malaysia. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(8), 2243–2248. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2010.04.009
Adalı, E. A., & Işık, A. T. (2017). The multi-objective decision making methods based on MULTIMOORA and
MOOSRA for the laptop selection problem. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 13(2), 229–237.
doi:10.1007/s40092-016-0175-5
Ahmad, S., & Tahar, R. M. (2014). Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of
electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 63,
458–466. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.001
Alidrisi, H., & Al-Sasi, B. O. (2017). Utilization of energy sources by G20 countries: A TOPSIS-BASED
approach. Energy Sources. Part B, Economics, Planning, and Policy, 12(11), 964–970. doi:10.1080/1556724
9.2017.1336812
Badi, I., Abdulshahed, A., & Shetwan, A. (2018). A case study of supplier selection for steelmaking company
in Libya by using Combinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) model. Decision Making: Applications
in Management and Engineering, 1(1), 1–12.
Badi, I., & Ballem, M. (2018). Supplier selection using the rough BWM-MAIRCA model: A case study
in pharmaceutical supplying in Libya. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering.
doi:.10.31181/dmame1802016b
Baul, T. K., Datta, D., & Alam, A. (2018). A comparative study on household level energy consumption and
related emissions from renewable (biomass) and non-renewable energy sources in Bangladesh. Energy Policy,
114, 598–608. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.037
Bhattacharya, A., Sarkar, B., & Mukherjee, S. K. (2005). Integrating AHP with QFD for robot selection
under requirement perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 43(17), 3671–3685.
doi:10.1080/00207540500137217
Bhowmik, C., Baruah, A., Bhowmik, S., & Ray, A. (2018, June). Green energy sources selection for sustainable
energy planning using multi-criteria decision-making approach. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering (Vol. 377, No. 1, p. 012029). IOP Publishing. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/377/1/012029
Bhowmik, C., Bhowmik, S., Ray, A., & Pandey, K. M. (2017). Optimal green energy planning for sustainable
development: A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 71, 796–813. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.105
Bhowmik, C., Gangwar, S., Bhowmik, S., & Ray, A. (2018). Selection of Energy-Efficient Material: An
Entropy–TOPSIS Approach. In Soft Computing: Theories and Applications (pp. 31–39). Singapore: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5699-4_4
Boran, F. E. (2018). A new approach for evaluation of renewable energy resources: A case of Turkey. Energy
Sources. Part B, Economics, Planning, and Policy, 13(3), 196–204. doi:10.1080/15567249.2017.1423414
Büyüközkan, G., & Güleryüz, S. (2017). Evaluation of Renewable Energy Resources in Turkey using an integrated
MCDM approach with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations. Energy, 123, 149–163. doi:10.1016/j.
energy.2017.01.137
Cannemi, M., García-Melón, M., Aragonés-Beltrán, P., & Gómez-Navarro, T. (2014). Modeling decision
making as a support tool for policy making on renewable energy development. Energy Policy, 67, 127–137.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.011
Chakraborty, S., & Chatterjee, P. (2013). Selection of materials using multi-criteria decision-making methods
with minimum data. Decision Science Letters, 2(3), 135–148. doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2013.03.005
24
Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V. M., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Materials selection using complex proportional
assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials & Design, 32(2), 851–860. doi:10.1016/j.
matdes.2010.07.010
Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Materials selection using COPRAS and COPRAS-G methods.
International Journal of Materials and Structural Integrity, 6(2-4), 111–133. doi:10.1504/IJMSI.2012.049951
Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Materials &
Design, 35, 384–393. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.09.027
Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2017). Development of a meta-model for the determination of technological
value of cotton fiber using design of experiments and the TOPSIS method. Journal of Natural Fibers, 15(6), 1–14.
Çolak, M., & Kaya, İ. (2017). Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy
MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 840–853.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194
Datta, A., Ray, A., Bhattacharya, G., & Saha, H. (2011). Green energy sources (GES) selection based on
multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 5(2), 271–286.
doi:10.1108/17506221111146020
Davoudpour, H., Rezaee, S., & Ashrafi, M. (2012). Developing a framework for renewable technology portfolio
selection: A case study at a R&D center. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 4291–4297.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.035
Ertay, T., Kahraman, C., & Kaya, I. (2013). Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using MACBETH and
fuzzy AHP multicriteria methods: The case of Turkey. Technological and Economic Development of Economy,
19(1), 38–62. doi:10.3846/20294913.2012.762950
Ervural, B. C., Zaim, S., Demirel, O. F., Aydin, Z., & Delen, D. (2017). An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based
SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews.
Gigović, L., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Ljubojević, S. (2017). Application of the GIS-DANP-MABAC multi-
criteria model for selecting the location of wind farms: A case study of Vojvodina, Serbia. Renewable Energy,
103, 501–521. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.057
Government of India. (n.d.). Biomass power Tripura. Retrieved from http://biomasspower.gov.in/tripura.php
Heo, E., Kim, J., & Boo, K. J. (2010). Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination
program evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(8), 2214–2220. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2010.01.020
Jagadish., & Ray, A. (2014). Green cutting fluid selection using MOOSRA method. International Journal of
Research in Engineering and Technology, 3(3), 559-563.
Kabak, M., & Dağdeviren, M. (2014). Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid
MCDM methodology. Energy Conversion and Management, 79, 25–33. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2013.11.036
Kahraman, C., Kaya, İ., & Cebi, S. (2009). A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable
energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy, 34(10), 1603–1616.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.008
Karaca, F., Raven, P. G., Machell, J., & Camci, F. (2015). A comparative analysis framework for assessing the
sustainability of a combined water and energy infrastructure. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
90, 456–468. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.04.008
Karande, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Application of multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis
(MOORA) method for materials selection. Materials & Design, 37, 317–324. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.01.013
Kucukvar, M., Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements:
An intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making method. Automation in Construction, 40, 33–43. doi:10.1016/j.
autcon.2013.12.009
25
Kuleli Pak, B., Albayrak, Y. E., & Erensal, Y. C. (2015). Renewable energy perspective for Turkey using
sustainability indicators. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 8(1), 187–197.
doi:10.2991/ijcis.2015.8.1.15
Kumar, R., & Ray, A. (2015). Optimal selection of material: an eclectic decision. Journal of The Institution of
Engineers (India): Series C, 96(1), 29-33.
Kumar, V., Goud, V. V., & Kalambdhad, A. (2016). An alternative for the daily household fuel needs for cooking
through biogas with a special reference to Tripura. International Journal of Management and Applied Science,
2(10), 52–57.
Latinopoulos, D., & Kechagia, K. (2015). A GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation for wind farm site selection.
A regional scale application in Greece. Renewable Energy, 78, 550–560. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.041
Lotfi, F. H., & Fallahnejad, R. (2010). Imprecise Shannon’s entropy and multi attribute decision making. Entropy
(Basel, Switzerland), 12(1), 53–62. doi:10.3390/e12010053
Lozano-Minguez, E., Kolios, A. J., & Brennan, F. P. (2011). Multi-criteria assessment of offshore wind turbine
support structures. Renewable Energy, 36(11), 2831–2837. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.04.020
Maity, S. R., Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Cutting tool material selection using grey complex
proportional assessment method. Materials & Design (1980-2015), 36, 372-378.
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Cavallaro, F., & Khalifah, Z. (2015). Sustainable and renewable energy:
An overview of the application of multiple criteria decision-making techniques and approaches. Sustainability,
7(10), 13947–13984. doi:10.3390/su71013947
Mohamadabadi, H. S., Tichkowsky, G., & Kumar, A. (2009). Development of a multi-criteria assessment model
for ranking of renewable and non-renewable transportation fuel vehicles. Energy, 34(1), 112–125. doi:10.1016/j.
energy.2008.09.004
Moula, M. M. E., Maula, J., Hamdy, M., Fang, T., Jung, N., & Lahdelma, R. (2013). Researching social
acceptability of renewable energy technologies in Finland. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment,
2(1), 89–98. doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2013.10.001
Mukhametzyanov, I., & Pamucar, D. (2018). A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: A statistical approach.
Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng, 1, 51–80. doi:10.31181/dmame1802050m
Nigim, K., Munier, N., & Green, J. (2004). Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local
viable renewable energy sources. Renewable Energy, 29(11), 1775–1791. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.02.012
Nuuter, T., Lill, I., & Tupenaite, L. (2015). Comparison of housing market sustainability in European countries
based on multiple criteria assessment. Land Use Policy, 42, 642–651. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.022
Özcan, T., Çelebi, N., & Esnaf, Ş. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methodologies
and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8),
9773–9779. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.022
Pamučar, D., Gigović, L., Bajić, Z., & Janošević, M. (2017). Location selection for wind farms using GIS multi-
criteria hybrid model: An approach based on fuzzy and rough numbers. Sustainability, 9(8), 1315. doi:10.3390/
su9081315
Pamučar, D. S., Božanić, D., & Ranđelović, A. (2017). Multi-criteria decision making: An example of sensitivity
analysis. Serbian journal of management, 12(1), 1-27.
Patlitzianas, K. D., Ntotas, K., Doukas, H., & Psarras, J. (2007). Assessing the renewable energy producers’
environment in EU accession member states. Energy Conversion and Management, 48(3), 890–897. doi:10.1016/j.
enconman.2006.08.014
Perera, A. T. D., Attalage, R. A., Perera, K. K. C. K., & Dassanayake, V. P. C. (2013). A hybrid tool to combine
multi-objective optimization and multi-criterion decision making in designing standalone hybrid energy systems.
Applied Energy, 107, 412–425. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.049
Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Multi-criteria evaluation of cooking energy alternatives for promoting
parabolic solar cooker in India. Renewable Energy, 29(9), 1449–1460. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2003.12.017
26
Ren, J., & Sovacool, B. K. (2015). Prioritizing low-carbon energy sources to enhance China’s energy security.
Energy Conversion and Management, 92, 129–136. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.044
Reza, B., Sadiq, R., & Hewage, K. (2011). Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of Tehran:
An AHP-based life cycle analysis. Construction & Building Materials, 25(4), 2053–2066. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2010.11.041
San Cristóbal, J. R. (2011). Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in
Spain: The VIKOR method. Renewable Energy, 36(2), 498–502. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.031
Sánchez-Lozano, J. M., Antunes, C. H., García-Cascales, M. S., & Dias, L. C. (2014). GIS-based photovoltaic
solar farms site selection using ELECTRE-TRI: Evaluating the case for Torre Pacheco, Murcia, Southeast of
Spain. Renewable Energy, 66, 478–494. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.038
Sánchez-Lozano, J. M., García-Cascales, M. S., & Lamata, M. T. (2016). Comparative TOPSIS-ELECTRE TRI
methods for optimal sites for photovoltaic solar farms. Case study in Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127,
387–398. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.005
Şengül, Ü., Eren, M., Shiraz, S. E., Gezder, V., & Şengül, A. B. (2015). Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking
renewable energy supply systems in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 75, 617–625. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.045
Shen, Y. C., Lin, G. T., Li, K. P., & Yuan, B. J. (2010). An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources
with concerns of policy and technology. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4604–4616. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.016
Shiue, Y. C., & Lin, C. Y. (2012). Applying analytic network process to evaluate the optimal recycling strategy
in upstream of solar energy industry. Energy and Building, 54, 266–277. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.07.032
Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T., Krisciukaitienė, I., & Balezentis, A. (2012). Prioritizing sustainable electricity
production technologies: MCDM approach. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 3302–3311.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.067
Synergy Enviro Engineers. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.synergyenviron.com/tools/solar-irradiance
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tsecl.in/irj/go/km/docs/internet/
TRIPURA/webpage/pages/Home.html
Tripura State Pollution Control Board. (n.d.). Report of Solid Waste Management of Tripura State, Data Collected,
Compiled and Analyzed by TSPCB-ENVIS Centre.
Tsagarakis, K. P., Mavragani, A., Jurelionis, A., Prodan, I., Andrian, T., Bajare, D., & Stasiuliene, L. et al. (2018).
Clean vs. Green: Redefining renewable energy. Evidence from Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania. Renewable
Energy, 121, 412–419. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.020
Ulutaş, B. H. (2005). Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey. Energy, 30(7), 1146–1161.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.08.009
Vesković, S., Stević, Ž., Stojić, G., Vasiljević, M., & Milinković, S. (2018). Evaluation of the railway management
model by using a new integrated model DELPHI-SWARA-MABAC. Decision Making: Applications in
Management and Engineering. doi:.10.31181/dmame1802034v
Weather and Climate. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainfall-
Temperature,-Sunshine,-Agartala–Tripura-in,-India
Wu, Y., Xu, C., & Zhang, T. (2018). Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on
cumulative prospect theory: A case in China. Energy, 147, 1227–1239. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.115
Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Streimikiene, D. (2018). A novel integrated decision-
making approach for the evaluation and selection of renewable energy technologies. Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, 20(2), 403–420. doi:10.1007/s10098-018-1488-4
Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Fouladgar, M. M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Moini, S. H. H. (2013). Selecting the optimal
renewable energy using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(5),
957–978. doi:10.3846/16111699.2013.766257
27
Chiranjib Bhowmik is currently working as an Assistant Professor at Parul Institute of Engineering & Technology,
Parul University, Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Mr. Bhowmik has submitted his Ph.D. thesis from National Institute
of Technology Silchar under the Department of Mechanical Engineering. His field of research includes energy
management, MCDM, sustainability, soft computing, policy analysis, SCM and TOC.
Sreerupa Dhar works as a bachelor student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, MCKV Institute of
Engineering, Howrah, India.
Amitava Ray is currently working as a Principal of Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College. His research
interests are soft computing techniques, MCDM, TOC, and supply chain management. He has published more
than fifty peer-reviewed journal articles.
28

Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods For The Evaluation of Optimum Green Energy Sources A Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods For The Evaluation of Optimum Green Energy Sources A Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Decision Support System Technology

Volume 11 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

Comparative Analysis of MCDM

Sreerupa Dhar, MCKV Institute of Engineering, Howrah, India

2. ENERGY STRUCTURE AND CURRENT STRENGTH OF TRIPURA

Figure 1. Installed capacity in Tripura (Power for all Tripura, 2018)

Figure 2. Electricity consumption rate (www.tsecl.in, 2018)

Figure 4. Average monthly solar irradiance (www.synergyenviron.com; 2017)

Figure 5. Solar irradiance for four places (www.synergyenviron.com; 2017)

2.2. Biogas (Bg)

2.3. Biomass (Bs)

Figure 6. District map of Tripura (www.google.co; 2018)

Figure 7. Solid waste generated in MTPD (Report of Solid Waste, 2018)

Figure 8. Biomass potential in Tripura (biomasspower.gov.in, 2018)

2.4. Hydro (H)

Figure 9. District wise biomass potential from agro-residues (biomasspower.gov.in, 2018)

2.5. Power Generation (PG)

2.6. Installation Cost (IC)

2.7. Implementation Period (IP)

2.8. Useful Life (UL)

2.9. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost

3. MULTI-PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH STRATEGY

3.1. Entropy Method

Step 1: Normalize the decision matrix:

Step 2: Calculate the entropy value:

Figure 11. Proposed combined methodology

bj = −c ∑mij .lnmij (2)

Step 3: Degree of divergence calculation:

Step 4: Set weight:

where w j is the weight of j th criterion.

3.2. TOPSIS Method

Step 1: Normalize the decision matrix:

Step 2: Calculate weighted normalized decision matrix:

hij = w j × mij (6)

where hij is the weighted normalized value.

Step 3: Identify ideal solution and non-ideal solution by:

where j ′ is related to benefit factors and j ′′ is related to non-benefit factors.

Step 4: Distance from each alternative is calculated by:

Step 5: Calculation of relative closeness to the perfect solution:

3.3. MOOSRA Method

Step 1: Normalize the decision matrix:

Step 2: Computation of weighted normalized matrix by:

hij* = w j × mij* (13)

Step 3: Performance value measurement:

3.4. COPRAS Method

Step 1: Normalize the decision matrix:

Step 2: Calculation of weighted normalized matrix:

hij** = wi × kij** (16)

Step 3: Calculation of sums for beneficial and non-beneficial criteria:

Step 4: Computation of comparative significance measurement:

where Qi is the relative significance value of the i th alternative.

Step 5: Compute the performance index by:

4. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS AND OUTCOMES

4.1. Case 1: An Application of Entropy-TOPSIS Approach

Figure 12. Hierarchy of the proposed problem

Table 1. Decision matrix

Table 2. Normalize decision matrix

Table 3. Calculation of entropy value

Table 4. Calculation of degree of divergence value

4.2. Case 2: Application of Entropy-MOOSRA Approach

Table 5. Criteria weight

Table 6. Weighted normalized decision matrix by TOPSIS method

hij = wi × kij (16)