Renewable energy has been actively researched and developed in many countries to replace the conventional energy resources that come from fossil fuels. As social and environmental awareness of the renewable energy has grown, it is essential to address both quantitative factors and qualitative factors in determination of the optimal renewable energy portfolio. This paper proposes a novel approach to integrate a financial model and a fuzzy model to analyze both quantitative and qualitative factors. The financial model is utilized to calculate the quantitative factors, thereby assisting experts make judgments more accurately in the fuzzy model. The fuzzy model is utilized to evaluate the qualitative factors based on the expert judgements. Moreover, this paper proposes multi-segment judgment model that analyzes the evaluation of different groups, including government, investor and user groups. The results show that each group has different priority order. For example, the highest-priority factor of Government, Investor and User is environmental (with a score of 0.665), economic (with a score of 0.854), and technological criteria (with a score of 0.771), respectively. The results also indicated that small-scale onshore wind energy, large-scale onshore wind energy and solar energy is the best option for Government, Investor and User, respectively.
EvansAStrezovVEvansTJ.Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2009;
13: 1082–1088.
2.
Murdock HE, Collier U, Adib R, Hawila D, Bianco E, Muller S, et al. Renewable energy policies in a time of transition. International Renewable Energy Agency 2018.
3.
NguyenTATChouS-Y.Maintenance strategy selection for improving cost-effectiveness of offshore wind systems. Energy Convers Manage2018;
157: 86–95.
4.
NguyenTATChouS-Y.Impact of government subsidies on economic feasibility of offshore wind system: implications for Taiwan energy policies. Appl Energy2018;
217: 336–345.
5.
ChouS-YNguyenTATYuTH-K, et al.
Financial assessment of government subsidy policy on photovoltaic systems for industrial users: a case study in Taiwan. Energy Policy2015;
87: 505–516.
6.
ChungMShinK-YJeouneD-S, et al.
Economic evaluation of renewable energy systems for the optimal planning and design in Korea – a case study. J Sustain Dev Energy Water Environ Syst2018;
6: 725–741.
7.
de Simón-MartínMde la Puente-GilÁBorge-DiezD, et al.
Wind energy planning for a sustainable transition to a decarbonized generation scenario based on the opportunity cost of the wind energy: Spanish Iberian peninsula as case study. Energy Proc2019;
157: 1144–1163.
8.
OconJDBertheauP.Energy transition from diesel-based to solar photovoltaics-battery-diesel hybrid system-based island grids in the Philippines – techno-economic potential and policy implication on missionary electrification. J Sustain Dev Energy Water Environ Syst2019;
7: 139–154.
9.
De JonghDGhoorahDMakinaA.South African renewable energy investment barriers: an investor perspective. J Energy South Afr2014;
25: 15–27.
10.
ApergisNEleftheriouS.Renewable energy consumption, political and institutional factors: evidence from a group of European. Singapore Econ Rev2015;
60: 1550008.
11.
Ata NK. The impact of government policies in the renewable energy investment: developing a conceptual framework and qualitative analysis. Global Journal of Management and Business Research 2015; 42(2): 067–081.
12.
PolzinFMigendtMTäubeFA, et al.
Public policy influence on renewable energy investments – a panel data study across OECD countries. Energy Policy 2015;
80: 98–111.
13.
SpiegelT.Impact of renewable energy expansion to the balancing energy demand of differential balancing groups. J Sustain Dev Energy Water Environ Syst; 2018;
6: 784–799.
14.
YangXHeLXiaY, et al.
Effect of government subsidies on renewable energy investments: the threshold effect.Energy Policy 2019;
132: 156–166.
15.
ZhangQWangGLiY, et al.
Substitution effect of renewable portfolio standards and renewable energy certificate trading for feed-in tariff. Applied Energy 2018;
227: 426–435.
16.
ZhaoRMinNGengY, et al.
Allocation of carbon emissions among industries/sectors: an emissions intensity reduction constrained approach. Journal of cleaner production 2017;
142: 3083–3094.
17.
AlobaidMHughesBO’ConnorD, et al.
Improving thermal and electrical efficiency in photovoltaic thermal systems for sustainable cooling system integration. J Sustain Dev Energy Water Environ Syst2018;
6: 305–322.
18.
CiullaGD’AmicoADi DioV, et al.
Modelling and analysis of real-world wind turbine power curves: assessing deviations from nominal curve by neural networks. Renewable Energy2019;
140: 477–492.
19.
HerrandoMPantaleoAMWangK, et al.
Solar combined cooling, heating and power systems based on hybrid PVT, PV or solar-thermal collectors for building applications. Renewable Energy2019;
143: 637–647.
20.
MarinoCNucaraAPanzeraM, et al.
Energetic and economic analysis of a stand alone photovoltaic system with hydrogen storage. Renewable Energy2019;
142: 316–329.
21.
AhmadJImranMKhalidA, et al.
Techno economic analysis of a wind-photovoltaic-biomass hybrid renewable energy system for rural electrification: a case study of Kallar kahar. Energy2018;
148: 208–234.
22.
AlbinoVArditoLDangelicoRM, et al.
Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: a patent analysis. Appl Energy2014;
135: 836–854.
23.
ChoSKimJ.Feasibility and impact analysis of a renewable energy source (RES)-based energy system in Korea. Energy2015;
85: 317–328.
24.
DoğanBAkçiçek Ö.
On the causal relationship between economic growth and renewable energy consumption: the case of Turkey. Int J Sci Res2013; 4(4): 2768–2777.
25.
IslamMS.A techno-economic feasibility analysis of hybrid renewable energy supply options for a grid-connected large office building in southeastern part of France. Sustainable Cities Soc2018;
38: 492–508.
26.
LiuGLiMZhouB, et al.
General indicator for techno-economic assessment of renewable energy resources. Energy Convers Manage2018;
156: 416–426.
27.
MalikIAAbdullahABAlamA, et al.
Turn on the lights: macroeconomic factors affecting renewable energy in Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014;
38: 277–284.
28.
NoorollahiYItoiRYousefiH, et al.
Modeling for diversifying electricity supply by maximizing renewable energy use in Ebino city Southern Japan. Sustain Cities Soc2017;
34: 371–384.
29.
OmriADalySNguyenDK.A robust analysis of the relationship between renewable energy consumption and its main drivers. Appl Econ2015;
47: 2913–2923.
30.
ØstergaardPASperlingK.Towards sustainable energy planning and management. Int J Sustain Energy Plann Manage2014;
1: 1–5.
31.
SalehinSFerdaousMTChowdhuryRM, et al.
Assessment of renewable energy systems combining techno-economic optimization with energy scenario analysis. Energy2016;
112: 729–741.
32.
UguluAIAigbavboaC.Assessing urban households’ willingness to pay for standalone solar photovoltaic systems: a case study of Lagos, Nigeria. J Sustain Dev Energy Water Environ Syst2019;
7: 553–566.
33.
WaennAConnollyDGallachóirBÓ.Investigating 100% renewable energy supply at regional level using scenario analysis. Int J Sustain Energy Plann Manage2014;
3: 21–32.
34.
AtaN.The impact of government policies in the renewable energy investment: developing a conceptual framework and qualitative analysis. Glob Adv Res J Manag Bus Stud2015;
4: 067–081.
35.
Vidal-AmaroJJSheinbaum-PardoC.A transition strategy from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources in the Mexican electricity system. J Sustain Dev Energy Water Environ Syst2017;
6: 47–66.
36.
SolangiYATanQMirjatNH, et al.
An integrated Delphi-AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach toward ranking and selection of renewable energy resources in Pakistan. Processes 2019;
7: 118.
37.
YazdaniMTorkayeshAESantibanez-GonzalezEDR, et al.
Evaluation of renewable energy resources using integrated Shannon entropy – EDAS model. Sustain Operat Comput2020;
1: 35–42.
38.
ŞengülÜErenMShirazSE, et al.
Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking.Renew Energy Supply Syst Turkey2015;
75: 617–625.
39.
SitorusFBrito-ParadaPR.A multiple criteria decision making method to weight the sustainability criteria of renewable energy technologies under uncertainty. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2020;
127: 109891.
40.
RaziMAliYJES. Decisions ranking renewable energy production methods based on economic and environmental criteria using multi-criteria decision analysis. Environment Systems and Decisions 2019;
39: 198–213.
41.
TroldborgMHeslopSHoughRL.Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014;
39: 1173–1184.
42.
PakBKAlbayrakYEErensalYC.Renewable energy perspective for Turkey using sustainability indicators. IJCIS2015;
8: 187–197.
43.
KahramanCKayaİ.A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst Appl2010;
37: 6270–6281.
44.
KumarASahBSinghAR, et al.
A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017;
69: 596–609.
45.
MardaniAZavadskasEKKhalifahZ, et al.
A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: two decades from 1995 to 2015. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017;
71: 216–256.
46.
ShaoMHanZSunJ, et al.
A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection. Renewable Energy2020;
157: 377–403.
47.
TavoosiJA. New type-2 fuzzy sliding mode control for longitudinal aerodynamic parameters of a commercial aircraft a new type-2 fuzzy sliding mode control for longitudinal aerodynamic parameters of a commercial aircraft. Journal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés 2020; 53: 479-485.
48.
TavoosiJ. Automation sliding mode control of a class of nonlinear systems based on recurrent type-2 fuzzy RBFN. International Journal of Mechatronics and Automation 2020;
7: 72–80.
49.
TavoosiJ. Stable backstepping sliding mode control based on ANFIS2 for a class of nonlinear systems. Jordan Journal of Electrical Engineering 2020;
6: 49–62.
50.
ShafieeMBrennanFEspinosaIA.A parametric whole life cost model for offshore wind farms. Int J Life Cycle Assess2016;
21: 961–975.
51.
MyhrABjerkseterCÅgotnesA, et al.
Levelised cost of energy for offshore floating wind turbines in a life cycle perspective. Renewable Energy2014;
66: 714–728.
52.
VoormolenJJungingerHVan SarkW.Unravelling historical cost developments of offshore wind energy in Europe. Energy Policy2016;
88: 435–444.
53.
IoannouAAngusABrennanF.A lifecycle techno-economic model of offshore wind energy for different entry and exit instances. Appl Energy2018;
221: 406–424.
54.
RosellJIbanezM.Modelling power output in photovoltaic modules for outdoor operating conditions. Energy Convers Manage2006;
47: 2424–2430.
55.
SkoplakiEBoudouvisAPalyvosJA.Simple correlation for the operating temperature of photovoltaic modules of arbitrary mounting. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells2008;
92: 1393–1402.
56.
CilibertiCJordaanSMSmithSV, et al.
A life cycle perspective on land use and project economics of electricity from wind and anaerobic digestion. Energy Policy2016;
89: 52–63.
57.
SmarandacheF.Neutrosophic set – a generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. Int J Pure Appl Math2005;
24(3): 287–297.
58.
PengJ-jWangJ-qZhangH-y, et al.
An outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems with simplified neutrosophic sets. Appl Soft Comput2014;
25: 336–346.
59.
TzengG-HHuangJ-J.Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications.
London:
Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011.
WangHSmarandacheFSunderramanR, et al. Interval neutrosophic sets and logic: theory and applications in computing: theory and applications in computing. Infinite Study 2005; 5.
62.
ZhangH-yWangJ-qChenX-h.Interval neutrosophic sets and their application in multicriteria decision making problems. Sci World J2014;
2014: 1–15.
63.
KaraşanAKahramanC. Interval-valued neutrosophic extension of EDAS method. In: Kacprzyk J., Szmidt E., Zadrożny S., Atanassov K., Krawczak M. (eds) Advances in fuzzy logic and technology. Springer 2017;
642:343–357.
64.
ChiPLiuP.An extended TOPSIS method for the multiple attribute decision making problems based on interval neutrosophic set. Neutrosophic Sets Syst2013;
1: 63–70.
65.
BiswasPPramanikSGiriBC. Neutrosophic TOPSIS with group decision making. In: Kahraman C., Otay İ. (eds) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making using neutrosophic sets. Berlin: Springer 2019;
369: 543–585.
66.
XuZHuH.Projection models for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Int J Info Tech Dec Mak2010;
09: 267–280.
67.
BOE.Energy statistics handbook 2015. Taiwan: Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2016.
68.
ChenHHLeeAH.Comprehensive overview of renewable energy development in Taiwan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014;
37: 215–228.
ZieglerLGonzalezERubertT, et al.
Lifetime extension of onshore wind turbines: a review covering Germany, Spain, Denmark, and the UK. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2018;
82: 1261–1271.
71.
BüyüközkanGGüleryüzSJE. Evaluation of renewable Energy resources in Turkey using an integrated MCDM approach with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations. Energy 2017;
123: 149–163.
