Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

A novel hybrid grey-fuzzy optimization model for assessment of solar

technologies considering different scenarios of the Indian market
Shweta Singh a, Rathul Raj b, Atul Dhar c, Nikhil Khot d, Satvasheel Powar b, c, *
a
Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78758, USA
b
School of Technology and Business Studies, Energy Technology, Högskolan Dalarna, Borlänge 78170, Sweden
c
School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Kamand, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 175005, India
d
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, UN House, 55, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110003, India

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

Keywords: This paper examines the various solar photovoltaic technologies available in India. Seven commercially available
Solar photovoltaic photovoltaic technologies are compared using thirteen criteria that mainly contribute to sustainability, such as
Solar technologies social, economic, and environmental, along with technical criteria under various conditions. Three distinct cases
Multi-criteria decision making
were developed (case I: considering all the thirteen criteria, case II: considering twelve criteria and freezing LCOE
Levelized cost of energy
Grey theory
criteria, and case III: considering twelve criteria and freezing efficiency criteria) to determine the best technology
available for multiple stakeholders to invest in at different conditions. The assessment integrates grey system
theory, fuzzy set theory, and multi-criteria decision-making methods. The grey and fuzzy-based Analytical Hi­
erarchy Process is used to determine the significance of the criteria. In contrast, the grey and fuzzy-based
COmplex PRoportional ASsessment is used for ranking these technologies. According to the results, the most
favorable technology in all three cases is Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) if developed in the Indian zone. The CdTe
technology has a lower levelized cost of electricity and module cost, high efficiency, and, most importantly, high
technological maturity compared to other technologies.

1. Introduction
Environmental concerns and increased oil prices have led to
increasing interest in renewable energy sources and encouraged inten­
sive research for new, more efficient, green power plants with advanced
technology. The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) estimates that by
2030, the share of renewable energy generation in India will increase
from 18% to 44% (Renewable Energy Industry, 2022). India is also the
world’s third-largest consumer of electricity and renewable energy
producer, with 38% (136 GW out of 373 GW) of total installed energy
capacity in 2020 from renewable sources. Ernst and Young Global
Limited ranked India third behind USA and China in Renewable Energy
Country Attractiveness Index (RECAI) (Contributors, 2022).
Among renewable energy sources, solar energy has taken a central
place in India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, with the Na­
tional Solar Mission as one of the key missions. Solar power capacity has
increased more than elevenfolds in the last five years, from 2.6 GW in
March 2014 to 40.1 GW in March 2021 (Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy, 2022). The reason for such a noticeable growth in solar power
installation is the commitment of the Indian government to increase the
use of clean energy sources and the heavy promotion of green energy.
The continuous decrease in the cost of PV arrays and the increase in
efficiency imply a promising role for PV generating systems shortly
(Hussein et al., 1995; Zweibel, 1990). Unfortunately, the technologies
associated with photovoltaic (PV) power systems are not yet fully
established. Therefore, the price of an energy unit generated from a PV
system is an order of magnitude higher than conventional energy sup­
plied to city areas through the grid supply. Also, with increasing

List of Abbreviation: AHP, Analytical Hierarchy Process; CEA, Central Electricity Authority; CdTe, Cadmium Telluride; CIGS, Copper Indium Gallium Selenide;
COPRAS, COmplex PRoportional Assessment; G-AHP, Grey Analytical Hierarchy Process; G-COPRAS, Grey COmplex PRoportional Assessment; F-AHP, Fuzzy
Analytical Hierarchy Process; F-COPRAS, Fuzzy COmplex PRoportional Assessment; G-MCDM, Grey Multi-Criteria Decision Making; LCOE, Levelised Cost of Energy;
MCDM, Multi-Criteria Decision Making; mc-Si, Multicrystalline Silicon; PV, Photovoltaic; RECAI, Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index; sc-Si, Mono­
crystalline Silicon.
* Corresponding author at: School of Technology and Business Studies, Energy Technology, Högskolan Dalarna, Borlänge 78170, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: satvasheel@iitmandi.ac.in, spw@du.se (S. Powar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2024.01.059
Received 8 November 2023; Received in revised form 16 January 2024; Accepted 23 January 2024
Available online 2 February 2024
2352-4847/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S. Singh et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

environmental concerns, clean technologies are being intensively pur­
sued and investigated (Singh, 2013).
In the Indian market, there are numerous solar cell technologies.
Some technologies excel at efficiency, while others excel at design or
cost. Many researchers have investigated and attempted to explain this
technological competition (Van de Kaa et al., 2011; Suarez, 2004). With
increasing innovation in the field and the development of new and
hybrid technologies, studies covering essential aspects and the relative
importance of different factors for comparison must be updated. This
research aims to fill these gaps by developing a grey and fuzzy-based
multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework for comparing
technologies based on various critical factors affecting their perfor­
mance. This work expands on the study by including new cases
demonstrating the relative importance of multiple indicators over per­
formance and technological dominance. This study will also help iden­
tify the best available technology so that instead of investing money in
all the technologies, the investors and stakeholders can invest it for a
particular technology to be developed further with new design
innovations.

Table 1
Literature review.
Ref Alternatives considered Evaluation criteria MCDM methods Brief

Van De Kaa et al (Van Multi-crystalline silicon (mc-Si),
De Kaa et al., 2014). monocrystalline silicon (sc-Si),
cadmium telluride (CdTe), CuIn (Ga)
Se2, copper indium (gallium)
Selenide (CI(G)S), and amorphous
silicon (a-Si)
Yong Tang et al (Tang SG (solar grade) silicon production,
et al., 2014). bulk crystal growth for PV, silicon
wafers, cells, solar modules and
systems
M. Socorro García- Crystalline silicon (monocrystalline
Cascales et al ( and polycrystalline), an inorganic
Socorro thin layer (amorphous silicon), an
García-Cascales inorganic thin layer (CdTe and CIGS),
et al., 2012). an advanced III–V thin layer with
tracking systems for solar
concentration, and lastly, advanced,
low cost, thin layers (Organic and
hybrid cells)
Nasrollahi et al (
Nasrollahi et al.,
2023).
Tausif Ali et al (Ali Solar, wind, biomass to electricity,
et al., 2019). biogas to electricity, and solar-wind-
battery hybrid energy system
Financial strength, brand reputation,
and credibility, operational
supremacy, learning orientation,
technology superiority, flexibility,
pricing strategy, appropriability
strategy, timing of entry, marketing
communications, pre-emption of
scarce assets, commitment, and
diversity of the network
Improved Siemens process, Ethyl
Corporation process, czochralski,
directional solidification, wafering
technology, texturing, ion
implantation, inkjet printing, all rear
contact, rear passivation IBC cells,
boron emitter passivation, thinning
and anti-reflection, lithium-ion
battery and two-axis tracking
technology
Manufacturing cost, efficiency in
energy conversion, market share,
emission of greenhouse gases, and
energy payback time
The main criteria are economic,
technical, environmental, and socio-
political.
Crisp and fuzzy Analytic
Hierarchy Process method
Delphi-Analytical Hierarchy
Process method
Technique for Order
Preference by Similarity to
the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
method.
The fuzzy Delphi method
(FDM) and preference
ranking organization method
for enrichment evaluations
(PROMETHEE)
Shannon’s Entropy method
for criteria weightage and
Evaluation based on Distance
from Average Solution
(EDAS) method for ranking
The research investigated the best
technology that will emerge as the
dominant design. The most
influential criteria in the analysis
were the pricing strategy and
technological superiority in the
dominance process.
The first-generation technology
monocrystalline silicon PV has the
best chance of achieving dominance
(30% chance).
The paper studied the critical
technologies associated with silicon
solar cells to evaluate the potential
space for each technology in the
industrial chain of the solar cell. The
presented study was for China’s
silicon PV industry. The results
concluded that the technologies with
great potential for cost and energy
consumption are mainly distributed
at the front end, while technologies
for improving efficiency are mainly
concentrated at the back end.
The study analysed the best
photovoltaic cell available.
The research examined the current
wave energy technologies as an
alternative to employing green and
sustainable technology in the seas
and oceans. Major wave energy
extraction methods were listed along
with a framework. Strategic
considerations, availability,
technical expertise, technological
characteristics, economic, social, and
environmental considerations have
all been considered while evaluating
each technology. In all, 52 criteria
and 20 converters were considered.
The Caspian Sea was used as an
example, and a decision matrix was
created by fusing the information
obtained with the views of the
experts. Pelamis is regarded as the
best suitable technology to capture
wave energy in the Caspian Sea.
The paper investigated different
renewable energy technologies. The
southern region of Bangladesh was
selected as the geographical region
for the study. The study’s outcome
shows that the Solar-Wind-Battery
hybrid energy system is the best
option for the selected region.

2024
S. Singh et al.
1.1. Motivation and inspiration
A shift in energy sources is occurring today towards clean and
affordable energy for the masses, highlighting the need for solar energy
as an alternative due to its increased availability and affordability. The
government and policymakers have undertaken many initiatives to
establish India as a global leader in solar energy. Despite these efforts,
India faces several challenges, including a lack of innovation in solar
technologies that could otherwise provide more accessible energy-
efficient results.
There are numerous first- and second-generation technologies on the
market. Out of these, there is a need to identify one specific technology
that can dominate the market because it is critical for the organization to
understand the design; they should support the consumers to win the
business battle. Policymakers can change their strategies based on the
dominant technology, and the government can initiate funds for
advancing that technology’s design as the energy sector for any country
acts as a critical determinant of economic prosperity, environmental
quality, and social security, in short, crucial to growth. Along with that,
several factors can affect the performance of solar technologies, such as
efficiency, cost, location and climate, space availability, application,
environmental impact, incentives and regulations, reliability, durability,
etc. Deciding on the best course of action that satisfies individual energy
demands while also considering more significant factors is no easy feat.
Hence, these decisions need to be considered while selecting a solution
for solar energy.
2. Literature review and gap identified
2.1. Literature studies
Solar power is constantly being explored by decision-makers and
researchers worldwide for decision-making in many areas, such as the
best location for solar plant site selection, technology selection, best
renewable energy selection, and so on, attracting government, acade­
micians, and organizations. Table 1 flashes the light on literature from
the solar energy field to know the research going on and linked gaps.
2.2. Research gaps
To the best of our knowledge and based on a review of the relevant
literature, academic research on the evaluation of solar technology in
India is lacking. When comparing and assessing sustainability in­
dicators, most literature does not include all of them (Kaneesamkandi
et al., 2022). Other studies overlooked the relative importance of
various factors contributing significantly to the performance of the
technologies (Van de Kaa et al., 2011). The assessment studies were
mostly conducted using conventional multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) methods or fuzzy MCDM methods (Singh et al., 2022a) (Mary,
2022) (Memon and Patel, 2021). MCDM approaches are a
decision-making procedure developed to deal with cases where more
than one competing criterion or objective needed to be considered at the
same time. Incorporating fuzzy set theory into multi-criteria decision-­
making (MCDM) methods gives numerous benefits to the study, such as
handling linguistic variables, expressing degrees of disbelief, combining
qualitative and quantitative information, enhancing sensitivity analysis,
and most importantly, involves uncertainty, imprecision, and vague­
ness. Many articles can be found on MCDM and fuzzy set theory in the
solar energy field for various courses of decision. Very few articles used
grey-MCDM, which deals with uncertainties and vagueness and focuses
more on producing concrete results. Grey-MCDM can be beneficial
where information is limited, uncertain, or incomplete, deals with am­
biguity, and can incorporate partially known criteria. Articles that
include MCDM, fuzzy, and grey set theory for decision-making are
almost negligible in the study area.
Keeping this in mind, one such effort has been made in this research
2025
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034
to select the best solar technology (including first and second-generation
solar) for the Indian region while considering sustainable criteria for the
assessment using grey and fuzzy MCDM methods, assuming different
cases-based on solar growth trends. A comprehensive literature review
shows no studies have simultaneously evaluated this diverse range of
solar technologies. The present study simultaneously uses hybrid grey
and fuzzy techniques to check for certainty and vagueness. Also, the
different cases included in this study, considering real-world market
situations, will help stakeholders and design innovators to invest in one
technology irrespective of growth trends in the solar PV industry. The
scientific contribution of the paper will be that the research will assist
policymakers, stakeholders, and even customers in understanding under
a particular situation which solar technology is best to pick to invest in,
make policies on, and finance.
3. Problem statement
The best available solar technologies from the perspective of India
have been approximated in this study. The seven solar technologies
chosen for evaluation are Copper Indium Gallium Selenide (CIGS) thin
film, Cadmium Telluride (CdTe), amorphous silicon (a-Si) + micro­
crystal silicon, Perc half-cut monocrystalline silicon, monocrystalline
silicon, polycrystalline silicon, and heterojunction technology.
With reference to the literature review in the related field, the study
analysed the various sustainable criteria used for the purpose, some of
which are listed in the Fig. 1 fishbone/cause-effect diagram. The criteria
selected in this study are based on their effects on the performance of
these technologies as documented in the literature and after consulta­
tion with a group of decision-makers. To validate the feasibility of these
selected criteria given the performance of solar technologies, experts
from solar energy industries in Northern India and researchers who have
worked in this field for more than ten years are consulted, and brain­
storming sessions are held. Experts provided perspectives on the various
criteria and investigated their associated practicalities. Finally, based on
the data availability and experts’ opinion, thirteen critical criteria are
identified as given in Table 2 based on their importance concerning the
study.
Different cases have been considered based on the significance of
selected criteria on the performance of solar PV technologies. These are-
Case I. Considering all the thirteen criteria (given in Table 2) and
prioritizing the alternatives (solar technologies).
This case considers all thirteen criteria in the decreasing order of
significance- levelized cost of energy > total module cost per watt >
technological maturity > efficiency > temperature coefficient of Pmax >
energy payback time > module lifetime > CO2 emission per kWh pro­
duced > shadow tolerance > cumulative energy demand for production
> weight > highest available module wattage > aesthetics flexibility.
Case. II: Freezing ‘Levelized cost of energy (LCOE)’ and considering all
other criteria in the same significance order (as in Case I).
This case addresses the rapid technological growth and continuously
decreasing modules cost in recent years. This case will determine the
changes in the ranking of the technologies (compared to Case I) when
the LCOE is considered insignificant and assumed as fixed criteria. LCOE
is eliminated in this case, and the significance of the other twelve criteria
used is decided in decreasing order as total module cost per watt >
technological maturity > efficiency > temperature coefficient of Pmax >
energy payback time > module lifetime > CO2 emission per kWh pro­
duced > shadow tolerance > cumulative energy demand for production
> weight > highest available module wattage > aesthetics flexibility.
Case. III: Freezing the efficiency criterion and considering all other
criteria in the same significance order (as in Case I).
This case is considered as solar technologies are becoming increas­
ingly competitive nowadays, and numerous studies are being conducted
S. Singh et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

Fig. 1. Fishbone diagram indicating the various influencing criteria for technology selection.

technological maturity, efficiency, temperature coefficient of Pmax,

Table 2
module lifetime, CO2 emission per kWh produced, shadow tolerance,
Sustainable criteria selected for evaluating solar technologies with decreasing
cumulative energy demand for production, weight, and highest avail­
order of significance according to decision-makers considering case location
‘India’. able module wattage are taken from solar industries and technical re­
ports (First Solar Series) (Solar and HDT, 2024) (Solar, 2024) (Miasole,
S. Criteria References
2024) (Powitt Solar, 2024) (Thin-Film Silicon Products, 2024) (Green
No.
et al., 2020). The value for aesthetic flexibility is taken on a five-point
1 Levelised cost of energy (Hansen, 2019;Padmanathan et al., 2017)
scale during brainstorming sessions with decision-makers, where five
2 Total module cost per watt (Padmanathan et al., 2017)
3 Technological maturity (Van De Kaa et al., 2014)
corresponds to highly flexible and one corresponds to minimal flexi­
4 Efficiency (Ghasempour et al., 2019;Wu et al., 2018) bility. The values for the Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and the energy
5 Temperature coefficient of payback time (EPBT) are calculated by the authors by using the
Pmax following equations-
6 Energy payback time (Socorro García-Cascales et al., 2012;Wu et al.,
2018;Rath-Nagel and Stocks, 1982) Initial Investment + (Annual cost ∗ n) − Residual value
7 Module lifetime LCOE = (1)
∑
i=n
rate)i− 1
8 CO2 emission per kWh (Socorro García-Cascales et al., 2012;
First year yield∗(1− system degradation
i
(1+interest rate)
produced Kaneesamkandi et al., 2022) i=1
9 Shadow tolerance
10 Cumulative energy demand where, i = years and n = life of the system
for production
11 Weight Specific energy
EBPT = (2)
12 Highest available module Energy generation rate
wattage
13 Aesthetics flexibility (Van De Kaa et al., 2014) Next is to select the assessment methods. Here in this study, the grey
system theory and fuzzy set theory are chosen for evaluation because
they can deal with uncertainty and vagueness in decision-making
to improve the efficiency of solar modules. This case will examine problems and for the validation of results (Aytaç Adali et al., 2022).
changes in the ranking of technologies using efficiency as an insignifi­ As discussed in the previous section, two grey MCDM methods, the
cant indicator. Efficiency is eliminated in this case, and the significance grey-fuzzy- Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and grey-fuzzy- Com­
of the other twelve criteria used is decided in decreasing order as- lev­ plex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS), are used for evaluation in
elized cost of energy > total module cost per watt > technological three cases (Stewart, 1992) (Shah and Longsheng, 2022). Grey-AHP and
maturity > temperature coefficient of Pmax > energy payback time > fuzzy-AHP are used to determine the criteria weightage that will be used
module lifetime > CO2 emission per kWh produced > shadow tolerance to rank the alternatives, and grey-COPRAS and fuzzy-COPRAS are used
> cumulative energy demand for production > weight > highest to rank the alternatives. AHP and COPRAS are combined here as per the
available module wattage > aesthetics flexibility. characteristics of the decision problem. AHP is suitable in this study as
the problem here involves hierarchal structure and requires pairwise
4. Methodology comparison for relative weight.
On the other hand, the COPRAS method takes the interaction be­
This study used grey and fuzzy MCDM methods to evaluate solar tween criteria and alternatives, considering complexities and in­
technologies based on thirteen critical criteria, as shown in Table 2, to terdependencies. Fig. 2 depicts the research framework. The following
determine the best available solar technology for the location of India. section will describe the grey system theory and grey MCDM
Decision-makers gave the significance or preference of the criteria in the methodology.
assessment study. The seven solar technologies selected for comparison
are- CIGS thin film, CdTe, a-Si + microcrystal silicon, Perc half-cut
monocrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline sili­ 4.1. Grey system theory
con, and heterojunction technology. These seven technologies will be
compared based on thirteen sustainable criteria, and accordingly, a final Julong-Deng first proposed the grey system theory in 1982 to address
assessment will be carried out. The data collected for the assessment is uncertainties and vagueness in decision-making problems (Liu and Lin,
shown in Table 3. The data sources are various solar industries, aca­ 2010). The grey system deals with uncertainties, which means it trades
demic papers, technical reports, and author’s calculations. with varying degrees of information classified as black systems with
Out of the thirteen criteria, the data for total module cost per watt, completely unknown information, white systems with fully known

2026
S. Singh et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

information, and grey systems with partially known systems. As infor­

Initial data matrix collected to assess the solar technologies (A1-A7). The technologies will be compared based on the mentioned sustainable criteria in the table (First Solar Series 6TM 6TM 6TM; Solar and HDT, 2024;
mation is incomplete in real life, all problems can be treated as grey

flexibility
Aesthetic
systems. In contrast to statistics, grey system theory can make decisions
with a small sample size.

5
4
2

2
The grey number is represented by ⊗x = [x, x] where x represent the
lower bound and x represent the upper bound of the membership
function. The grey value lies between these lower and upper bounds and
available

wattage
Highest

module

their values are known. The Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI)

540
450
120

380

320

285

315
section S1 presents the basic arithmetic operation for the grey system
W

theory which will later be utilised in assessment.

Weight

kg/m2

14.57

15.11

11.37

11.37

11.55
11.4 4.2. Grey multi-criteria decision-making methods
2

One of the most important concepts in grey system theory is grey

energy demand
for production

multi-criteria decision-making (G-MCDM). When combined with fuzzy

Cumulative

sets and grey numbers, decision-making methods produce concrete re­

MJ/kWp

10,300

15,000

29,700

24,100

20,004
25000

sults in a wide range of applications. Fuzzy numbers combined with

6260

MCDM are an excellent way to reduce uncertainties in a problem,

whereas grey numbers combined with MCDM methods cover both un­
certainties and vagueness in the data (Tian et al., 2019) (Salameh et al.,
tolerance
Shadow

2021).
Section 3 describes three different cases that were considered for the
9
9
9

assessment of solar technologies for this study. Grey-MCDM, specifically

CO2 emissions

grey- analytical hierarchy process (G-AHP), will be used for criteria

Kg CO2 eq/

weightage and grey- complex proportional assessment (G-COPRAS) for

produced
per kWh

alternative ranking in all three cases.

0.036
0.018
0.019

0.025

0.035

0.029

0.036
kWh

G-AHP was chosen for the study because it is one of the oldest and
most well-known methods of decision-making (Al Garni and Awasthi,
2017) (Shahnazari et al., 2020). G-AHP has a wide range of applications
Lifetime
Module

Years

for dealing with complex decision-making problems at various levels

25
10
25

12

12

12

12

(Mathivathanan et al., 2017). It integrates subjective and objective

evaluations in a comparative scale-based structure and assists analysts in
establishing the fundamental aspects of a problem in a hierarchical
Payback
Energy

Years
Time

structure (Nguyen et al., 2022). The steps used for the calculation of
0.79
0.48
1.15

2.06

1.26
1.2

1.5

criteria weightage by G-AHP are as follows (Thakur, 2022):

Solar, 2024; Miasole, 2024; Powitt Solar, 2024; Thin-Film Silicon Products, 2024; Green et al., 2020).

Step 1: Construct the pairwise comparison matrix using the grey

coef. Of

number and expert’s evaluations. Table 4 shows the linguistic scale

Temp

Pmax

%/◦ C

-0.38
-0.32
-0.35

-0.36

-0.36

-0.38

-0.28

conversion in grey numbers. Using that, construct the integrated grey

comparison matrix as given in Eq. (3) as follows:
Efficiency

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
20.05

19.65

19.15

⊗x11 ⋯ ⊗x1n x11 , x11 ⋯ x1n , x1n

18.2

17.5
9.8

⎢ ⋮ ⎥ (3)
17

D=⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦=⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⎦
⊗xm1 ⋯ ⊗xmn x ,
m1 m1x ⋯ x mn , xmn
Technological

Step 2: Calculate the normalised grey comparison matrix as given in

Eqs. (4–6). The normalized grey comparison matrix is calculated by
maturity

72.96
95.79
79.67

77.12

75.58

71.72

69.38

dividing each column value by its column sum to obtain the normalized
%

weight or preference weight.

⎤ ⎡ ⎤
cost (total)

⎡
⊗x∗11 ⋯ ⊗x∗1n x∗11 , x∗11 ⋯ x∗1n , x∗1n ⎥
Module

⎢
13.33

⎢ ⎥ ⎢
Rs/W

⋮ ⎥ (4)
17.5

26.2

D∗ = ⎢ ⋮ ⎥
131

⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⎦=⎢ ⋮ ⋱
/W

⎥
25
20

15

⎣ ⎦
⊗x∗m1 ⋯ ⊗x∗mn x∗m1 , x∗m1 ⋯ x∗mn , x∗mn
Levelized

Rs/kWh
Energy
Cost of

xij 2xij
x∗ij = ∑ = ∑ (5)
9.46
2.72
2.87

2.74

2.49

2.45

3.3

1
m ∑
m m ∑m
2
( xij + xij ) ( xij + xij )
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
Perc half-cut mono c
a-Si + micro-crystal

xij 2xij
x∗ij = ∑ (6)
Hetero Junction
Monocrystalline

monocrystalline

= ∑
Polycrystalline

m ∑
m m ∑m
CIGS thin film

1
( xij + xij ) ( xij + xij )
Technology
Technology

2
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
Silicon

Silicon

Where ⊗xij is the pairwise comparison concerning the ith criterion over
CdTe

Si

Si

the jth criterion.

Step 3: By taking averages of the row, next is to calculate the grey
Criteria
Table 3

weight for each criterion by using Eq. (7).

A1
A2
A3

A4

A5

A6

A7

2027
S. Singh et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

Fig. 2. Framework adopted for the solar technology selection using grey fuzzy mcdm.

⎡ ⎤
Table 4 ⊗G11 ⋯ ⊗G1n
Conversion of linguistic scales into grey numbers (Nyaoga et al., 2016). ⊗G = ⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ (9)
Level Linguistic scale Symbol Grey number
⊗Gm1 ⋯ ⊗Gmn

1 Equivalent EI (Renewable Energy Industry, 2022; Step 2: Calculate the normalised decision matrix, using Eqs. (10–12).
importance Contributors, 2022) ⎡ ⎤
3 Medium MI (Contributors, 2022;Hussein et al., 1995) ⊗G∗11 ⋯ ⊗G∗1n
Importance ⎢ ⎥
5 Strong importance SI (Hussein et al., 1995;Singh, 2013)
⊗G∗ = ⎢
⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥⎦ (10)
7 Very strong VSI (Singh, 2013; Suarez, 2004)
∗ ∗
⊗Gm1 ⋯ ⊗Gmn
importance
9 Extreme EMI (Suarez, 2004; Tang et al., 2014)
importance
Ghg 2Ghg
G∗hg = ∑m ∑
m = ∑
m ∑m (11)
1
2
( Ghg + Gij ) ( Ghg + Ghg )
h=1 h=1 h=1 h=1
∑
n
⊗x∗ij
Ghg 2Ghg
(7) (12)
j=1 ∗
⊗wi = Ghg = ∑ = ∑
n 1
m ∑
m m ∑m
2
( Ghg + Ghg ) ( Ghg + Ghg )
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
Where n = {1,2,……,N} is the criterion set.
Step 4: Next is to calculate the whitenization of the grey weight by Where Ghg is the pairwise comparison concerning the hth alternative in
using Eq. (8). The whitened value is a crisp number whose value is be­ the gth criterion.
tween the grey weight’s upper and lower bound. Step 3: Calculate the weighted normalised grey decision matrix using
Mi = (1 − λ)wi + λwi (8) Eq. (13).
⎡ ⎤
⊗X11 ⋯ ⊗X1n
Where λ is the whitening coefficient and λ ϵ [0,1]. ⊗X = ⎣ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦where ⊗ Xhg = ⊗G∗hg × ⊗wg (13)
After determining the criteria weight, the G-COPRAS method will be ⊗Xm1 ⋯ ⊗Xmn
used to calculate the ranking for all cases. The G-COPRAS method is used
in a variable system to maximize and minimize values. It also compares Where ⊗ wg is the grey weight of each criterion from the G-AHP.
and verifies the results. The method’s typical feature is to evaluate Step 4: To calculate the relative significance of the criteria, first, we
variables describing hierarchically structured complex magnitudes and will find the sum Ph values using Eq. (14) where larger values are
placing them on the same hierarchical level (Kraujalienė, 2019; Singh preferable and the sums Rh using Eq. (15) where smaller values are
et al., 2022b). The steps used for G-COPRAS are as follows (Nguyen preferable.
et al., 2022; Mehta et al., 2022): 1∑ o

Step 1: After determining the weight (in this study weights are esti­ Ph = (X + X hg ), h = 1, 2, …., m; g = 1, 2, ……, o (14)
2 g=1 hg
mated with G-AHP), identify the decision matrix. Suppose that A = {A1 ,
A2 , …, Am } is a discrete set of m alternatives, which are ranked by
discrete set C = {C1 ,C2 ,…,Cn }of n criteria. Convert the linguistic values 1 ∑ n
Rh = (X + X hg ), h = 1, 2, …., m; g = o + 1, o + 2, ……, n (15)
into grey numbers using Table 4 to construct the grey decision matrix 2 g=o+1 hg
using Eq. (9).
After that the relative significance will be computed using Eq. (16) as
follows:

2028
S. Singh et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

∑m
h=1 Rh
higher level, respectively.
Qh = Ph + ∑ , h = 1, 2, ….., m (16)
Rh mh=1 R1h Step 3: Next step is the calculation of element weight. The Normal­
ization of the Geometric Mean (NGM) method is applied to compute
Step 5: Calculate the utility degree of each alternative. local weights and given by,
First, the optimality criterion ‘K′ is calculated using Eq. (17). Next,
gi
the utility degree of each alternative ‘U′ is determined by comparing the w i = ∑n (20)
i=1 gi
alternatives under consideration with the best alternative (i.e., 100% for
the best alternative), Eq. (18), as follows: Where,
K = Maxh Qh , h = 1, 2, ….., m (17) ∏n 1
(21)
n
gi = ( j=1 rij )
Qh
U= × 100%, h = 1, 2, ….., m (18) In the above equations, gi is geometric mean of criterion i. rij is the
Qmax
comparison value of criterion i to criterion j. wi is the ith criterion’s
∑
weight, where wi > 0 and ni = 1wi = 1, 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
4.3. Fuzzy set theory
Step 4: Last step is to calculate the fuzzy weight by dividing the
corresponding fuzzy geometric mean value by the inverse calculated.
Fuzzy set theory is a unique research approach that can solve prob­
After finding the criteria weight by fuzzy AHP, next step is to find the
lems relating to subjective, ambiguous, and imprecise judgments. Zadeh
ranking results of all the three cases using fuzzy COPRAS method.
initiated it in the early 1960 and Menger first coined term fuzzy set in
Zavadskas invented the COPRAS method in 1994 (Ganesan et al., 2022).
1951 (Introduction, 1980). The structure of Fuzzy Logic systems is
The method easily allows to check and compare the results, but is should
simple and justifiable. It can manage vulnerabilities in decision-making
be in same hierarchical level. The disadvantage of this method is that it
and can be programmed into circumstances. On the other hand, setting
is less stable in comparison to others, and the results can be very sen­
accurate, fuzzy guidelines and enrollment capacities can be a chal­
sitive to the variable changes (Yeo et al., 2022). The steps of F-COPRAS
lenging task.
are as follows:
Step 1: Gather the data as per the study and construct the initial data
4.4. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods matrix.
Step 2: Construct the fuzzy decision matrix as per the scale shown in
After the implication of grey-AHP for criteria weightage and grey- Table 5.
COPRAS for ranking of technologies, the fuzzy-analytical hierarchy Step 3: Normalize the fuzzy decision matrix (fij ). It is formed by
process (fuzzy-AHP) for weightage of criteria and fuzzy complex pro­ dividing each entry by the sum of all the entries in each column to
portional assessment (fuzzy-COPRAS) for the ranking will be applied to remove anomalies with different measurement units to form dimen­
adopt the methodologies given further for the validation of the results sionless criteria.
generated. Cross verifying the results generated by grey-MCDM with
Step 4: Calculate the weighted normalized decision matrix (̃ xij ) as
fuzzy-MCDM will add to the robustness of the results and cover uncer­
per Eq. (22). It is calculated by multiplying the weight of evaluation
tainty, vagueness, and ambiguity in the results at the first time. The
indicators (wj ) with normalized decision matrices.
selection of the fuzzy AHP in the methodology is because of its wide
range of applications in decision-making. The method has a unique ̃
xij = fij ∗ wj (22)
ability to consider the relative priorities of alternatives. It is relatively
simple and the most flexible method. Either objective or subjective Step 5: Pi and Ri values calculations.
factors or either quantitative or qualitative information enact a signifi­ Sums Pi (refer Eq. (23)) of criteria values are the one whose larger
cant role during the decision process. The main disadvantage is that values are required (maximise the optimization) for the computation of
sometimes there is no solution for the linear equations and only allow each alternative (line of the decision-making matrix) and Sums Ri of
triangular fuzzy numbers to be used (Tripathi et al., 2022). Following criteria values are whose smaller values are desirable (minimize the
are the steps to be utilised for determining the criteria weightage by optimization) computation for (refer Eq. (23)) each alternative (line of
fuzzy AHP: the decision-making matrix).
Step 1: The first step is to decompose the problem into a hierarchy ∑
k ∑
m
with a goal at the top, criteria, and sub-criteria at levels and sublevels, Pi = ̃xij and Ri = ̃
xij (23)
and decision alternatives at the bottom of the hierarchy. j=1 j=k+1

Step 2: The comparison matrix involves the comparison in pairs of Step 6: Decide the minimal value of Ri as per Eq. (24).
the elements of the constructed hierarchy. The aim is to set their relative
priorities with respect to each of the elements at the next higher level. Rmin = minRi ; i = 1, …., n. (24)
i
Accordingly, a fuzzy comparison matrix using triangular fuzzy scale
(Table 5) can be defined as follows: Step 7: Estimate the relative weight of each alternative Qi using Eq.
(25).
= [x11 ⋯x1n ⋮⋱⋮xn1 ⋯xnn ] (19)
∑
n
Rmin Ri
For instance, (x11=x11,L,x11,M, x11,U) shows the lower, middle, and
Q i = Pi + i=1
(25)
upper value of the 1st element compared with the 2nd element at the ∑
n
Rmin
Ri Ri
i=1

Table 5
Step 8: Determine the optimality criterion K as per Eq. (26).
Conversion scale from linguistic to triangular fuzzy (Gumus et al., 2013).
Saaty Scale Definition Triangular fuzzy scale K = minQi ; i = 1, n. (26)
i
1 Equally important (1,1,1)
3 Weakly important (2,3,4)
Step 9: Allocate the priority of the alternatives.
5 Fairly important (4,5,6) The greater is the relative weight of alternative Qi , the higher is the
7 Strongly important (6,7,8) priority or rank of the alternatives. In the case of Qmax , the satisfaction
9 Absolutely important (9,9,9) degree is the highest.

2029
S. Singh et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

Step 10: Determine the utility degree of each alternative using Eq. Table 7
(27). Grey weights by G-AHP (Case II: Considering twelve criteria and freezing the
LCOE criterion).
Qi
Ni = 100% (27) Criteria Grey weights Crisp weight
Qmax
Module cost (total) /W 0.174 0.271 0.223
where Qi and Qmax are the weight of the projects. Technological maturity 0.111 0.188 0.149
Efficiency 0.089 0.152 0.121
Temp coef. Of Pmax 0.089 0.148 0.119
5. Results, discussions, and validation Energy Payback Time 0.080 0.132 0.106
Module Lifetime 0.058 0.101 0.079
In this paper, three case studies are chosen and analyzed before being CO2 emissions per kWh produced 0.040 0.071 0.055
Shadow tolerance 0.033 0.056 0.045
ranked using the integrated grey and fuzzy multi-criteria decision-
Cumulative energy demand for production 0.029 0.047 0.038
making methods. G-AHP and F-AHP are used to calculate grey and fuzzy Module weight 0.026 0.040 0.033
weights, respectively, while G-COPRAS and F-COPRAS rank alterna­ Highest available module wattage 0.017 0.026 0.021
tives. Grey set theory and fuzzy set methods are used to validate the Aesthetics flexibility 0.010 0.012 0.011
ranking results. Three different cases for seven different technologies
have been considered to knowhow the significance of it in different
scenarios. A group of decision-makers decides on the criteria and their Table 8
significance. Table 2 lists the criteria in decreasing order of significance, Grey weights by G-AHP (Case III: Considering twelve criteria and freezing the
with LCOE being the most significant and module cost to aesthetics efficiency criterion).
flexibility being the least significant. Criteria Grey weights Crisp weight

Levelized Cost of Energy 0.194 0.282 0.238

Module cost (total) /W 0.152 0.234 0.193
5.1. Grey weight calculation by G-AHP and F-AHP method
Technological maturity 0.098 0.164 0.131
Temp coef. Of Pmax 0.078 0.129 0.104
In all three cases, G-AHP and F-AHP are used to determine criteria Energy Payback Time 0.069 0.111 0.090
weightage. A total of thirteen criteria are chosen for Case I (shown in Module Lifetime 0.050 0.084 0.067
CO2 emissions per kWh produced 0.032 0.056 0.044
Table 2), and twelve each for case II (freezing LCOE while maintaining
Shadow tolerance 0.029 0.048 0.039
the significance of all other criteria as in Case I) and case III (freezing Cumulative energy demand for production 0.026 0.040 0.033
efficiency and keeping the significance of all other criteria as it is as in Module weight 0.024 0.036 0.030
Case I). Highest available module wattage 0.016 0.024 0.020
G-AHP calculations for all three cases are given in ESI. The initial Aesthetics flexibility 0.010 0.012 0.011

grey comparison matrix and the normalized grey comparison matrix are
provided in Tables S1 and S2 for Case I, for case II in Tables S3 and S4,
and for case III in Tables S5 and S6, respectively. G-AHP combines grey Table 9
theory and the AHP method to reduce subjective judgement in decision- Fuzzy weight by F-AHP (for all the three cases).
making. Grey weights can be described using linguistic variables Weights by fuzzy-AHP
expressed in grey numbers, which include pessimistic and optimistic
Levelised Cost of Energy 0.154 0.238 0.373
values. The grey weights and crisp weights for Case I are shown in Module cost (total) /W 0.122 0.208 0.318
Table 6, case II in Table 7, and case III in Table 8. Table 6 shows that the Technological maturity 0.074 0.133 0.236
grey weight for the criterion ‘Levelized cost of energy’ has the lowest or Efficiency 0.061 0.107 0.187
Temp coef. Of Pmax 0.050 0.088 0.158
pessimistic value of 0.176 and the highest weight, or optimistic value, of
Energy Payback Time 0.037 0.065 0.121
0.264. Other criteria in all cases are explained in the same way. Grey Module Lifetime 0.024 0.045 0.085
weights can be converted to crisp values by averaging their lower and CO2 emissions per kWh produced 0.021 0.037 0.070
upper bound values. Shadow tolerance 0.017 0.029 0.051
After calculating the weight by grey set theory combined with AHP Cumulative energy demand for production 0.015 0.024 0.043
Module weight 0.011 0.017 0.028
MCDM method. Next is to calculate the fuzzy weight using F-AHP in
Highest available module wattage 0.007 0.009 0.014
fuzzy triangular set. For fuzzy weight, the initial comparison matrix for Aesthetics flexibility 0.007 0.009 0.014
all the three cases is given in ESI section S3 Table S7. Further calculation
for geometric mean value and final weights by F-AHP is given in Table 9
for all the three cases. 5.2. Ranking the technologies by G-COPRAS and F-COPRAS methods

Table 6
Grey numbers are used in the G-COPRAS method, and fuzzy numbers
Grey weights by G-AHP (Case I: Considering all the thirteen criteria). are used in F-COPRAS to define the performance rating of seven
different solar PV technologies, including CIGS thin film, CdTe, a-Si+
Criteria Grey weights Crisp weight
microcrystalline silicon, perc half-cut monocrystalline silicon, mono­
Levelized Cost of Energy 0.176 0.264 0.220 crystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, and heterojunction
Module cost (total) /W 0.134 0.210 0.172
technology.
Technological maturity 0.089 0.151 0.120
Efficiency 0.069 0.118 0.093 G-AHP obtains the grey weight for each criterion when calculating
Temp coef. Of Pmax 0.069 0.115 0.092 ranking by G-COPRAS. As defined in Section 4.2, the initial grey deci­
Energy Payback Time 0.062 0.100 0.081 sion matrix is first converted into a normalized grey decision matrix and
Module Lifetime 0.045 0.077 0.061
then into a weighted normalized decision grey matrix.
CO2 emissions per kWh produced 0.031 0.054 0.042
Shadow tolerance 0.026 0.044 0.035
The initial grey decision matrix, normalized grey decision matrix,
Cumulative energy demand for production 0.023 0.037 0.030 and weighted normalized decision matrix for Case I can be found in ESI
Module weight 0.021 0.032 0.026 Tables S8-S10, case II in Tables S11-S13, and case III in Tables S14-S16.
Highest available module wattage 0.014 0.021 0.018 The values of sums, relative significance, and utility degree are then
Aesthetics flexibility 0.009 0.011 0.010
calculated using the steps outlined in Section 4.2. Table 10 shows the

2030
S. Singh et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

Table 10 Table 12
Ranking of alternatives by G-COPRAS (Case I: Considering all the thirteen Ranking of alternatives by G-COPRAS (Case III: Considering twelve criteria and
criteria). freezing the efficiency criterion).
Technologies Sums Sums Relative Utility Rank by G- Technologies Sums Sums Relative Utility Rank by G-
(P) (R) Significance degree COPRAS (P) (R) Significance degree COPRAS
(Q) (U) (Q) (U)

CIGS thin film 0.0668 0.216 0.094 40.775 7 CIGS thin film 0.059 0.237 0.089 37.897 7
CdTe 0.1055 0.047 0.230 100 1 CdTe 0.098 0.052 0.235 100.000 1
a-Si + micro 0.0650 0.056 0.170 73.805 2 a-Si + micro 0.068 0.062 0.183 78.107 2
crystal Si crystal Si
Perc half cut mono 0.0550 0.064 0.147 63.861 4 Perc half cut mono 0.042 0.070 0.143 60.968 4
crystalline Si crystalline Si
Mono crystalline Si 0.0491 0.078 0.124 53.790 6 Mono crystalline Si 0.036 0.086 0.118 50.169 6
Poly crystalline Si 0.0359 0.065 0.126 54.647 5 Poly crystalline Si 0.025 0.071 0.124 52.871 5
HeteroJunction 0.0723 0.070 0.156 67.607 3 HeteroJunction 0.062 0.077 0.154 65.499 3
Technology Technology

values for case I, Table 11 shows the values for case II, and Table 12
Table 13
shows the values for case III. The utility degree (U) value is used to rank
Ranking of alternatives by F-COPRAS (Case I: Considering all the thirteen
the alternatives.
criteria).
Next is to find the ranking results by F-COPRAS utilizing criteria
weightage given by F-AHP (refer Table 9). For this, the methodology Alternatives Sums Sums Relative Utility Rank by F-
(Pi) (Ri) weight (Qi) degree COPRAS
given in section 4.5 should be followed and initial decision matrix, (Ni)
normalised decision matrix and weighted normalised matrix has been
CIGS thin film 1.767 6.640 2.142 30.471 7
formed (refer Table S17-S19 for case I, Table S120-S22 for case II and
CdTe 3.500 0.705 7.029 100.000 1
Table S23-S25 for case III for initial decision matrix, normalised matrix, a-Si + micro crystal 1.317 0.888 4.118 58.590 2
and weighted normalised matrix respectively). The values of sums, Si
relative weight, and utility degree for case I, case II and case III are given Perc half cut mono 1.453 1.154 3.609 51.336 4
in Table 13, Table 14, and Table 15 respectively. crystalline Si
Mono crystalline Si 1.267 1.832 2.625 37.346 6
For a better comparison of results generated by G-COPRAS and F- Poly crystalline Si 0.876 1.229 2.901 41.266 5
COPRAS methods, Table 16 shows the ranking results obtained by these HeteroJunction 2.233 1.478 3.916 55.708 3
methods together for all the three cases considered. As seen in Table 16, Technology
the top four technologies for India are CdTe, a-Si + microcrystal silicon,
heterojunction, and perc half-cut monocrystalline silicon as calculated
by both G-COPRAS and F-COPRAS. For the individual cases, G-COPRAS Table 14
and F-COPRAS gives the same results for case I. For case II and case III, Ranking of alternatives by F-COPRAS (Case II: Considering twelve criteria and
the position of only the last ranker technologies (rank 6 and rank 7) freezing the LCOE criterion).
interchanged. CIGS, monocrystalline and polycrystalline technologies Alternatives Sums Sums Relative Utility Rank by F-
are among the last positions. In all cases, when ranked with G-COPRAS, (Pi) (Ri) weight (Qi) degree COPRAS
monocrystalline silicon is positioned in sixth place. When comparing (Ni)
cases I, II and III, the fifth and seventh positions are interchanged for CIGS thin film 2.379 3.889 2.851 35.761 5
case II. The reason could be that case I and case III have the highest CdTe 4.785 0.577 7.973 100.000 1
significance given to the LCOE criterion, while for case II, LCOE is a-Si + micro crystal 1.808 0.811 4.076 51.126 2
Si
considered as insignificant criterion. Fig. 3 depicts the alternative
Perc half cut mono 1.918 1.137 3.535 44.338 4
ranking graphically. The results support ‘Cadmium Telluride’ technol­ crystalline Si
ogy to be developed for India region because of the high influential Mono crystalline Si 1.654 1.995 2.576 32.304 7
criteria such as levelized cost of energy and module cost, both are having Poly crystalline Si 1.129 1.217 2.639 33.102 6
less value for CdTe in comparison with other. Also, the technological HeteroJunction 2.782 1.545 3.972 49.816 3
Technology
maturity in India for CdTe is very high. Similar results have been
identified by Basol et al., where CdTe is referred to as the most successful
commercially available thin film technology, especially starting in the
Table 15
Ranking of alternatives by F-COPRAS (Case III: Considering twelve criteria and
Table 11 freezing the efficiency criterion).
Ranking of alternatives by G-COPRAS (Case II: Considering twelve criteria and
freezing the LCOE criterion). Alternatives Sums Sums Relative Utility Rank by F-
(Pi) (Ri) weight (Qi) degree COPRAS
Technologies Sums Sums Relative Utility Rank by G- (Ni)
(P) (R) Significance degree COPRAS
(Q) (U) CIGS thin film 1.625 6.757 2.094 30.153 6
CdTe 2.949 0.794 6.945 100.000 1
CIGS thin film 0.085 0.135 0.114 46.622 5 a-Si + micro crystal 1.613 1.027 4.700 67.676 2
CdTe 0.133 0.035 0.245 100.000 1 Si
a-Si + micro 0.083 0.047 0.167 68.253 2 Perc half cut mono 0.810 1.354 3.152 45.389 4
crystal Si crystalline Si
Perc half cut mono 0.070 0.057 0.139 56.811 4 Mono crystalline Si 0.546 2.212 1.980 28.505 7
crystalline Si Poly crystalline Si 0.375 1.434 2.586 37.241 5
Mono crystalline Si 0.062 0.076 0.114 46.565 6 HeteroJunction 1.732 1.762 3.532 50.857 3
Poly crystalline Si 0.046 0.059 0.113 46.011 7 Technology
HeteroJunction 0.093 0.066 0.153 62.268 3
Technology

2031
S. Singh et al. Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034

Table 16
Ranking of solar technologies by G-COPRAS and F-COPRAS for the three cases considered in this study.
Alternatives Case I: Considering all the thirteen criteria Case II: Considering twelve criteria and freezing the Case III: Considering twelve criteria and freezing the
LCOE criterion efficiency criterion

Rank by G-COPRAS Rank by F-COPRAS Rank by G-COPRAS Rank by F-COPRAS Rank by G-COPRAS Rank by F-COPRAS

CIGS thin film 7 7 5 5 7 6

CdTe
a-Si + micro crystal Si
Perc half cut mono crystalline Si
Mono crystalline Si
Poly crystalline Si
HeteroJunction Technology
1 1
2 2
4 4
6 6
5 5
3 3
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4
6 7 6 7
7 6 5 5
3 3 3 3

Fig. 3. Utility degree value showing the ranking of each alternative (seven solar technologies) for (a) Case I, (b) case II, and (c) case III.

early 2000s where one can see drastic increase in efficiency. The
restricted life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases and heavy metals,
tiny carbon footprint, and fast energy payback periods of CdTe tech­
nology make it appeal (Basol and McCandless, 2014). As per Mir­
anda-Jiménez et al., the result for solar irradiance also supports CdTe
technology for Mexico region to advance this technology further (Mir­
anda-Jiménez et al., 2023).
6. Conclusions and future studies
This study creates a framework for selecting the most effective solar
technology in three case scenarios. Case I considered thirteen criteria
and prioritized the alternatives. Case II freezes the ‘Levelized cost of
energy’ criteria and considers all other criteria in the same significance
order as in Case I, and Case III freezes the efficiency criterion and
considers all other criteria in the same significance order as in Case I.
The different scenarios are considered based on the solar market growth
with varying LCOE and changes in efficiency due to technological
advancement.
Seven different commercially available technologies in India that
belong to the first and second-generation solar have been selected for the
purpose. The evaluation was made using thirteen criteria identified
through proper interviews with industry experts, existing literature, and
discussions with research experts in institutes. Criteria were chosen
based on their relative importance and impact on the performance of
selected technologies. The grey set theory, fuzzy set theory, and multi-
criteria decision-making methods are used for the evaluation.
For all three cases studied, the results concluded that cadmium
Telluride’ is the optimum technology. The results are based on the
criteria preferences when the Levelized cost of energy is selected as the

2032
S. Singh et al.
most important, followed by module cost, technological maturity, and
efficiency in decreasing order of importance, and aesthetic flexibility as
the least preferred.
This study assumes the contribution of research in assisting stake­
holders and decision-makers in uncertain market conditions in selecting
the most dominant technology where they can invest, make advance­
ments, and effectively utilize solar resources. Investors can yield
maximum benefits from energy production and can identify the most
efficient and cost-effective solar technology. This study will also assist
stakeholders to mitigate risks associated with technological obsoles­
cence, unforeseen challenges, and market volatility. This research also
identified the factors that have the most influence over other technol­
ogies in the present scenario.
The present study considers only the first- and second-generation
solar technologies, given the fact that more than 90% of the market is
occupied by these two solar generations. Hence, the enthusiastic
researcher can conduct a similar technology comparison study with
third-generation solar technologies such as perovskite, organic photo­
voltaics, copper zinc tin sulfide (CZTS), dye-sensitized solar cells, and
quantum dot solar cells could be conducted in the future to know about
the likelihoods if these technologies could be a revolution to the studied
field or not and whether investing in the technology would be beneficial
or not. Criteria selection in this study is limited as per the availability of
the datasets from the industry. Therefore, researchers can include more
wide-ranging criteria such as economic and environmental footprint so
that a more comprehensive analysis can be done. Social acceptance and
awareness of these technologies, along with the policy and regulatory
framework criteria, can also be included in the study to know about all
the dimensions of these future and current technologies. Along with the
new hybrid MCDM methods integrated with a fuzzy set theory or grey
system theory, one can incorporate artificial intelligence and machine
learning algorithms to optimize the selection of solar technologies. Also,
these methods can be used to compare other renewable energy tech­
nologies. This study has selected India as its geographic location.
Therefore, comparative studies can be conducted in different geographic
locations, including different location-specific parameters.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dhar Atul: Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization,
Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project
administration. Khot Nikhil: Project administration, Resources, Su­
pervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Singh
Shweta: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualiza­
tion, Writing – original draft, Data curation. Raj Rathul: Conceptuali­
zation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Software. Powar Satvasheel:
Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
A deep sense of gratitude to the various solar industries for providing
the opportunity to carry out the project and extending their cooperation
for data collection and providing all the support for present research
work. The authors are highly thankful to the Indian Institute of Tech­
nology Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, India, and Dalarna University, Swe­
den, for the research facilities provided.
2033
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2024.01.059.
References
1980 Introduction. Mathematics in Science and Engineering, vol. 144, Elsevier; 1980,
p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-5392(09)60135-1.
Al Garni, H.Z., Awasthi, A., 2017. Solar PV power plant site selection using a GIS-AHP
based approach with application in Saudi Arabia. Appl. Energy 206, 1225–1240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2017.10.024.
Ali, T., Ma, H., Nahian, A.J., 2019. An analysis of the renewable energy technology
selection in the southern region of Bangladesh using a hybrid multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) method. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 9, 1838–1848. https://doi.org/
10.20508/IJRER.V9I4.9859.G7826.
Aytaç Adali, E., Öztaş, G.Z., Öztaş, T., Tuş, A., 2022. Assessment of European cities from
a smartness perspective: an integrated grey MCDM approach. Sustain Cities Soc. 84,
104021 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2022.104021.
Basol, B.M., McCandless, B., 2014. Brief review of cadmium telluride-based photovoltaic
technologies. J. Photonics Energy 4, 040996. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.
JPE.4.040996.
Contributors W. Renewable energy in India - Wikipedia. Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia n.d. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India
(Accessed May 12, 2022).
First Solar Series 6TM Next generation thin film solar technology more energy per
module n.d.
Ganesan, K.P., Dhilip, J.D.J., Sivalingam, V., Duraipalam, A., Seenivasan, G., Perumal, G.
K., et al., 2022. Machinability analysis and optimisation of EDM in AA6082/3wt%
BN/1wt% MoS2 hybrid composites using entropy method weights integrated with
complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) method. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
123, 4051–4064. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00170-022-10462-2/FIGURES/10.
Ghasempour, R., Nazari, M.A., Ebrahimi, M., Ahmadi, M.H., Hadiyanto, H., 2019. Multi-
criteria decision making (MCDM) approach for selecting solar plants site and
technology: a review. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 8, 15–25. https://doi.org/
10.14710/IJRED.8.1.15-25.
Green, M.A., Dunlop, E.D., Hohl-Ebinger, J., Yoshita, M., Kopidakis, N., Ho-Baillie, A.W.
Y., 2020. Solar cell efficiency tables (Version 55). Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 28,
3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/PIP.3228.
Gumus, A.T., Yesim Yayla, A., Çelik, E., Yildiz, A., 2013. A combined fuzzy-AHP and
fuzzy-GRA methodology for hydrogen energy storage method selection in Turkey.
Energ. (Basel) 6, 3017–3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN6063017.
Hansen, K., 2019. Decision-making based on energy costs: comparing levelized cost of
energy and energy system costs. Energy Strategy Rev. 24, 68–82. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ESR.2019.02.003.
Hussein, K.H., Muta, I., Hoshino, T., Osakada, M., 1995. Maximum photovoltaic power
tracking: an algorithm for rapidly changing atmospheric conditions. IEE Proc. Gener.
Transm. Distrib. 142, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1049/IP-GTD:19951577.
Kaneesamkandi, Z., Almujahid, A., Salim, B., 2022. Selection of an appropriate solar
thermal technology for solar vapor absorption cooling—an MADM approach. Energ.
(Basel) 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN15051882.
Kraujalienė, L., 2019. Comparitive analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods
evaluating the efficiency of technology transfer. Bus. Manag. Educ. 17, 72–93.
https://doi.org/10.3846/BME.2019.11014.
Liu, S., Lin, Y., 2010. Introduction to grey systems theory. Under Complex Syst. 68, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16158-2_1.
Mary, A.A., 2022. Optimal techno-economic potential and site evaluation for solar PV
and CSP systems in Ghana. A geospatial AHP multi-criteria approach. Renew. Energy
Focus 41, 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REF.2022.03.007.
Mathivathanan, D., Govindan, K., Haq, A.N., 2017. Exploring the impact of dynamic
capabilities on sustainable supply chain firm’s performance using grey-analytical
hierarchy process. J. Clean. Prod. 147, 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2017.01.018.
Mehta, P., Tandon, A., Sharma, H., 2022. Integration of FAHP and COPRAS-G for
software component selection. Springe Ser. Reliab. Eng. 263–282. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-78919-0_12.
Memon, S.A., Patel, R.N., 2021. An overview of optimization techniques used for sizing
of hybrid renewable energy systems. Renew. Energy Focus 39, 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.REF.2021.07.007.
MiasoleFlex-03W-2.6m 500W CIGS Thin Film Flexible Solar Module - China Flexible
SolarPanel and CIGS Solar Panel n.d. https://sinoltech.en.made-in-china.com/pro
duct/HwbfugRjEZYk/China-Miasole-Flex-03W-2-6m-500W-CIGS-Thin-Film-Flexi
ble-Solar-Module.html (Accessed January 9, 2024).
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. MNRE - Solar On-Grid 2019. https://mnre.gov.
in/solar/solar-ongrid (Accessed May 12, 2022).
Miranda-Jiménez, R., Vigil-Galán, O., González-Castillo, J.R., Terán-Cuevas, Á.R.,
Gutiérrez-Castillo, M.E., Tovar-Gálvez, L.R., 2023. Solar PV technologies selection
for the design of photovoltaic installations in Mexico based on the analysis of
meteorological satellite data from the region. Atmósfera. https://doi.org/10.20937/
ATM.53282.
Nasrollahi, S., Kazemi, A., Jahangir, M.H., Aryaee, S., 2023. Selecting suitable wave
energy technology for sustainable development, an MCDM approach. Renew. Energy
202, 756–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2022.11.005.
S. Singh et al.
Nguyen, N.-A.-T., Wang, C.-N., Dang, L.-T.-H., Dang, L.-T.-T., Dang, T.-T., 2022.
Selection of cold chain logistics service providers based on a grey AHP and grey
COPRAS framework: a case study in Vietnam, 2022;11:154 Axioms 11, 154. https://
doi.org/10.3390/AXIOMS11040154.
Nyaoga, R., Magutu, P., Wang, M., 2016. Application of grey-TOPSIS approach to
evaluate value chain performance of tea processing chains. Decis. Sci. Lett. 5,
431–446. https://doi.org/10.5267/J.DSL.2016.1.002.
Padmanathan, K., Govindarajan, U., Ramachandaramurthy, V.K., Sudar Oli Selvi, T.,
2017. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) based economic analysis of solar
PV system with respect to performance investigation for Indian market. Sustain.
(Switz. ) 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU9050820.
Powitt Solar Poly 270–285W Solar Panel Datasheet | ENF Panel Directory n.d. htt
ps://www.enfsolar.com/pv/panel-datasheet/crystalline/31915 (Accessed January
9, 2024).
Rath-Nagel, S., Stocks, K., 1982. Energy modelling for technology assessment: the
MARKAL approach. Omega 10, 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(82)
90006-8.
Renewable Energy Industry, Solar Energy Companies in India - IBEF n.d. https://www.ib
ef.org/industry/renewable-energy (Accessed May 12, 2022).
Salameh, T., Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Olabi, A.G., Rezk, H., 2021. Optimal
selection and management of hybrid renewable energy system: neom city as a case
study. Energy Convers. Manag 244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2021.114434.
Shah, S.A.A., Longsheng, C., 2022. Evaluating renewable and sustainable energy
impeding factors using an integrated fuzzy-grey decision approach. Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess. 51, 101905 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SETA.2021.101905.
Shahnazari, A., Rafiee, M., Rohani, A., Bhushan Nagar, B., Ebrahiminik, M.A.,
Aghkhani, M.H., 2020. Identification of effective factors to select energy recovery
technologies from municipal solid waste using multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM): a review of thermochemical technologies. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.
40, 100737 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SETA.2020.100737.
Singh, G.K., 2013. Solar power generation by PV (photovoltaic) technology: a review.
Energy 53, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2013.02.057.
Singh, S., Upadhyay, S.P., Powar, S., 2022a. Developing an integrated social, economic,
environmental, and technical analysis model for sustainable development using
hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods. Appl. Energy 308, 118235. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2021.118235.
Singh, S., Kawade, S., Dhar, A., Powar, S., 2022b. Analysis of mango drying methods and
effect of blanching process based on energy consumption, drying time using multi-
criteria decision-making. Clean. Eng. Technol. 8, 100500 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CLET.2022.100500.
Socorro García-Cascales, M., Teresa Lamata, M., Miguel Sánchez-Lozano, J., 2012.
Evaluation of photovoltaic cells in a multi-criteria decision making process. Ann.
Oper. Res 199, 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10479-011-1009-X.
2034
Energy Reports 11 (2024) 2023–2034
A.E. Solar | A.E. HDT 60G-DG 305W-315W | Solar Panel Datasheet | ENF Panel Directory
n.d. https://www.enfsolar.com/pv/panel-datasheet/crystalline/42925 (Accessed
January 9, 2024).
T.P.L. Solar | PERC Half-Cut cells Solar Panels 370W-400W | Solar Panel Datasheet | ENF
Panel Directory n.d. https://www.enfsolar.com/pv/panel-datasheet/crystalline
/40976 (Accessed January 9, 2024).
Stewart, T., 1992. A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making
theory and practice. Omega 20, 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(92)
90003-P.
Suarez, F.F., 2004. Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework. Res
Policy 33, 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2003.07.001.
Tang, Y., Sun, H., Yao, Q., Wang, Y., 2014. The selection of key technologies by the
silicon photovoltaic industry based on the Delphi method and AHP (analytic
hierarchy process): case study of China. Energy 75, 474–482. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2014.08.003.
Thakur, Dr.V., 2022. Locating temporary waste treatment facilities in the cities to handle
the explosive growth of HCWs during pandemics: a novel Grey-AHP-OCRA hybrid
approach. Sustain Cities Soc. 82, 103907 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCS.2022.103907.
Thin-Film Silicon Products｜Products｜KANEKA Solar Energy n.d. https://www.kaneka
-solar.com/product/thin-film/ (Accessed January 9, 2024).
Tian, G., Liu, X., Zhang, M., Yang, Y., Zhang, H., Lin, Y., et al., 2019. Selection of take-
back pattern of vehicle reverse logistics in China via Grey-DEMATEL and Fuzzy-
VIKOR combined method. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 1088–1100. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.01.086.
Tripathi, A.K., Agrawal, S., Gupta, R.D., 2022. Comparison of GIS-based AHP and fuzzy
AHP methods for hospital site selection: a case study for Prayagraj City, India.
GeoJournal 87, 3507–3528. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10708-021-10445-Y/
FIGURES/11.
Van de Kaa, G., Van den Ende, J., De Vries, H.J., Van Heck, E., 2011. Factors for winning
interface format battles: a review and synthesis of the literature. Technol. Forecast
Soc. Change 78, 1397–1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2011.03.011.
Van De Kaa, G., Rezaei, J., Kamp, L., De Winter, A., 2014. Photovoltaic technology
selection: a fuzzy MCDM approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 662–670.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.01.044.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.01.115.
Yeo, L.S., Teng, S.Y., Ng, W.P.Q., Lim, C.H., Leong, W.D., Lam, H.L., et al., 2022.
Sequential optimization of process and supply chains considering re-refineries for oil
and gas circularity. Appl. Energy 322, 119485. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2022.119485.
Zweibel, K., 1990. Harnessing solar power. Harness Sol. Power. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4899-6110-5.