Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 201–212 | Cite as

Target-oriented robust optimization of emissions reduction measures with uncertain cost and performance

  • Kathleen B. Aviso
  • Janne Pauline S. Ngo
  • Charlle L. Sy
  • Raymond R. TanEmail author
Original Paper


Emissions can be reduced through the implementation of various combinations of control or prevention measures, or combinations thereof. However, the total cost and performance of such emissions reduction measures can often be difficult to predict precisely. Such uncertainties result in techno-economic risks that firms will have to deal with when implementing a project aimed at cutting emissions. In this work, an integer linear programming model is extended using the target-oriented robust optimization (TORO) framework for determining the best mix of emissions reduction measures. This framework allows optimization to be carried out with uncertain model parameters given in the form of intervals. A range of potential solutions can then be generated and subjected to Monte Carlo simulation to gauge their robustness. The decision maker can select a solution to implement based on the information regarding the expected performance, cost and robustness of the mix of emissions reduction measures. Case studies on reduction of hydrogen fluoride emissions from brick manufacturing and CO2 emissions from maritime vessels are solved to illustrate the methodology. The examples demonstrate the capability of the TORO model to identify good solutions that are able to perform well despite variations in techno-economic conditions.

Graphical abstract


Target-oriented robust optimization Integer linear programming Emissions reduction Pollution control Pollution prevention 



We wish to acknowledge the support of the Philippine Commission on Higher Education (CHED) via the Philippine Higher Education Research Network (PHERNet) Sustainability Studies Program.


  1. Ahmad MA, van den Berg LJL, Shah HU, Masood T, Buker P, Emberson L, Ashmore M (2012) Hydrogen fluoride damage to vegetation from peri-urban brick kilns in Asia: a growing but unrecognised problem? Environ Pollut 162:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandyopadhyay S, Foo DCY, Tan RR (2016) Feeling the pinch? Chem Eng Prog 112:46–49Google Scholar
  3. Barbaro A, Bagajewicz MJ (2004) Managing financial risk in planning under uncertainty. AIChE J 50:963–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouman EA, Lindstad E, Rialland AI, Strømman AH (2017) State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping: a review. Transp Res Part D 58:408–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DETR (1999) Reducing fluoride emissions in brick, tile and pipe manufacture, Environmental technology best practice programme GG166. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  6. Diwekar UM, Shastry YN (2010) Green process design, green energy, and sustainability: a systems analysis perspective. Comput Chem Eng 34:1348–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fordyce FM (2018) Fluoride: human health risks. In: Nriagu JO (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental health, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 776–785Google Scholar
  8. Garcia-Ten J, Monfort E, Gomez-Tena MP, Sanz V (2011) Use of coating to minimise acid emissions during ceramic tile firing. J Clean Prod 19:1110–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geoffrion AM (1976) The purpose of mathematical programming is insight, not numbers. Interfaces 7:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grossmann IE, Apap RM, Calfa BA, Garcia-Herreros P, Zhang Q (2016) Recent advances in mathematical programming techniques for the optimization of process systems under uncertainty. Comput Chem Eng 91:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hong T, Piette MA, Chen Y, Lee SH, Taylor-Lange SC, Zhang R, Sun K, Price P (2015) Commercial building energy saver: an energy retrofit analysis toolkit. Appl Energy 159:298–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang X (2007) Optimal project selection with random fuzzy parameters. Int J Prod Econ 106:513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IMO MEPC (2011) Marginal abatement costs and cost effectiveness of energy-efficiency measures. Marine Environmental Protection Committee, International Maritime Organization. 62 Inf. 7Google Scholar
  14. Jia X, Xin G, Qian Y, Qian Y (2016) Sectoral co-control of air pollutants: case of a chlor-alkali/polyvinyl chloride sector in China. J Clean Prod 112:1667–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kantardgi I, Purvis MRI, Cherviakov L, Khudoshina M (2006) Approaches to the modelling of energy utilisation in product life cycles. Clean Technol Environ Policy 8:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liesiö J, Mild P, Salo A (2007) Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection. Eur J Oper Res 181:1488–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matthews J, Fink K (2004) Numerical methods using Matlab. Prentice-Hall Inc, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  18. Mavrotas G, Pechak O (2013) Combining mathematical programming and Monte Carlo simulation to deal with uncertainty in energy project portfolio selection. In: Cavallero F (ed) Assessment and simulation tools for sustainable energy systems: theory and applications. Springer, London, pp 333–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McLaren D (2012) A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions technologies. Process Saf Environ Prot 90:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monfort E, Garcia-Ten J, Celades I, Gomar S (2010) Monitoring and possible reduction of HF in stack flue gases from ceramic tiles. J Fluor Chem 131:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ng TS, Sy C (2014) An affine adjustable robust model for generation and transmission network planning. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 60:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nikipoulou Z (2017) Incremental costs for reduction of air pollution from ships: a case study on North European emission control area. Marit Policy Manag 44:1056–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olinto AC (2015) Robustness of the vector space theory of sustainability assessment of industrial processes. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:1707–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pintarič ZN, Kravanja Z (2015) The importance of proper economic criteria and process modeling for single-and multi-objective optimizations. Comput Chem Eng 83:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pistikopoulos EN (1995) Uncertainty in process design and operations. Comput Chem Eng 19(553):563Google Scholar
  26. Qian L, Chun T, Long H, Li J, Di Z, Meng Q, Wang P (2018) Emission reduction research and development of PCDD/Fs in the iron ore sintering. Process Saf Environ Prot 117:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quaglia A, Sin G, Gani R (2014) Financial risk analysis in the synthesis and design of processing networks: balancing risk and return. Comput Aided Chem Eng 33:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rico-Ramirez V, Lopez-Villareal F, Hernandez-Castro S, Diwekar UM (2011) A mixed-integer programming model for pollution trading. Comput Aided Chem Eng 29:1256–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roychaudhuri PS, Bandyopadhyay S (2018) Financial pinch analysis: minimum opportunity cost targeting algorithm. J Environ Manag 212:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roychaudhuri PS, Kazantzi V, Foo DCY, Tan RR, Bandyopadhyay S (2017) Selection of energy conservation projects through financial pinch analysis. Energy 138:602–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sahinidis NV (2004) Optimization under uncertainty: state-of-the-art and opportunities. Comput Chem Eng 28:971–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sikdar SK (2009) On aggregating multiple indicators into a single metric for sustainability. Clean Techn Environ Policy 11:157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sy CL, Aviso KB, Ubando AT, Tan RR (2016) Target-oriented robust optimization of polygeneration systems under uncertainty. Energy 116:1334–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sy CL, Aviso KB, Ubando AT, Tan RR (2017) Synthesis of cogeneration, trigeneration, and polygeneration systems using target-oriented robust optimization. In: De S, Bandyopadhyay S, Assadi M, Mukherjee DA (eds) Sustainable energy technology and policies: a transformational journey, vol 1. Springer, Singapore, pp 155–171Google Scholar
  35. Sy CL, Aviso KB, Ubando AT, Tan RR (2018) Multi-objective target oriented robust optimization for the design of an integrated biorefinery. J Clean Prod 170:496–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tan RR (2007) Hybrid evolutionary computation for the development of pollution prevention and control strategies. J Clean Prod 15:902–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tan RR, Abdul Aziz MK, Ng DKS, Foo DCY, Lam HL (2016) Pinch analysis-based approach to industrial safety risk and environmental management. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:2107–2117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uy L, Uy P, Siy J, Chiu ASF, Sy CL (2018) Target-oriented robust optimization of a microgrid system investment model. Front Energy. (in press) Google Scholar
  39. Varbanov PS, Sikdar SK, Lee CT (2018) Contributing to sustainability: addressing the core problems. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20:1121–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xidonas P, Doukas H, Mavrotas G, Pechak O (2016) Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model. Ann Oper Res 247:395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xie ZM, Wu WH, Xu JM (2003) Study on fluoride emission from soils at high temperature related to brick-making process. Chemosphere 50:763–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yuan J, Ng SH (2017) Emissions reduction measures ranking under uncertainty. Appl Energy 188:270–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yuan J, Ng SH, Sou WS (2016) Uncertainty quantification of CO2 emission reduction for maritime shipping. Energy Policy 88:113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yue X, Pye S, DeCarolis J, Li FGN, Rogan F, Gallachoir BO (2018) A review of approaches to uncertainty assessment in energy system optimization models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 21:204–217Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen B. Aviso
    • 1
  • Janne Pauline S. Ngo
    • 1
  • Charlle L. Sy
    • 2
  • Raymond R. Tan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering DepartmentDe La Salle UniversityManilaPhilippines
  2. 2.Industrial Engineering DepartmentDe La Salle UniversityManilaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations