Advertisement

Efficiency Assignment of Hydropower Plants by DEMATEL-MAPPAC Approach

  • Priyanka Majumder
  • Apu Kumar Saha
Original Paper
  • 146 Downloads

Abstract

The ever-growing demand for luxury has increased the stress on conventional energy sources and encourages scientists and engineers to look for alternatives. Hydro power is by far the most inexpensive but reliable source of energy which is deemed to have the capacity to substitute for conventional energy sources. The worldwide contribution of hydro power plants (HPP) in supplying the demand for electricity is 1106 TWh. The problem with hydro power lies with the fact that its efficiency depends on multiple factors which are a function of climatic, hydraulic and socio-economic parameters. All these parameters again depend upon hydraulic loss imposed due to time in use, change in energy requirements, locational interference and quality of the machine installed. The operational efficiency of hydro power plants depends on various factors with different levels of influence but till now extensive numerical or computational models for identification of most significant parameter is rarely developed. The need of perceptive and objective numerical frameworks for feature selection of a renewable energy system is gradually increasing with growing dependence on renewable power for socio-economical sustenance. That is why the present study proposes a new hybrid model based on Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) with Multi-criterion Analysis of Preferences by Means of Pairwise Actions and Criterion Comparisons method (MAPPAC). The sensitivity of each of the criteria is objectively defined by the implementation of the former method whereas the importance of the input variables for representation of plant performance is carried out by the MAPPAC method. According to the results of this study, the efficiency of the generator would be the most significant factor to increase the output of HPPs.

Keywords

Efficiency Hydropower DEMATEL MAPPAC 

References

  1. 1.
    Bell D, Raiffa H, Tversky A (1988) Decision making: descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge University. Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag Sci 17(4):141–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cordova MM, Finardi EC, Ribas FAC, Matos VL, Scuzziato MR (2014) Performance evaluation and energy production optimization in the real-time operation of hydropower plants. Electr Power Syst Res 116:201–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2014.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flavin C, Aeck MH (2005) Energy for development: the potential role of renewable energy in meeting the millennium development goals. Prepared for the Renewable Energy Policy Network by the Worldwatch InstituteGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fombu AM, Kenne G, Ndongmo JDN, Fochie RK (2016) Decentralized nonlinear coordinated excitation and steam valve adaptive control for multi-machine power systems. Electrical Power Energy Systems 75:117–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.08.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gabus A, Fontela E (1972) World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johansson TB, Patwardhan AP, Nakićenović N, Gomez-Echeverri L, editors (2012) Global energy assessment: toward a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793677
  8. 8.
    Hanafi J, Riman A (2015) Life cycle assessment of a mini hydro power plant in Indonesia: a case study in Karairiver. Procedia CIRP 29:444–449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making 58–191, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
  10. 10.
    Ishikawa K, Kono Y, Haga A, Kato K, Sugawara K (2009) Experimental study on dynamic pipe fracture in consideration of hydropower plant model. Water Sci Engineering 2(4):60–68Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iemsomboon P, Pati T, Bhumkittipich K (2013) Performance study of micro hydro turbine and PV for electricity generator, case study: Bunnasopit school, Nan Province, Thailand. Energy Procedia 34:235–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson N, Kang J, Hathway EA (2014) Acoustics of weirs: potential implications for micro-hydropower noise. Renew Energy 71:351–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahraman G, Yücel HL, Öztop HF (2009) Evaluation of energy efficiency using thermodynamics analysis in a hydropower plant: a case study. Renew Energy 34(6):1458–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.10.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleindorfer PR, Kunreuther H, Schoemaker PJ (1993) Decision sciences: an integrative perspective. Cambridge University Press, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173537
  15. 15.
    Locatelli G, Palerma E, Mancini M (2015) Assessing the economics of large energy storage plants with an optimisation methodology. Energy 83:15–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Majumder P, Majumder M, Saha AK (2016) An optimization-MCDM approach of multi criteria decision analysis, international. J Control Theory Applications 9(40):417–423Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Majumder P, Saha AK, Majumder M. (2016) Evaluation of hydropower plants with respect to cost incurred by fuzzy decision making. Journal of civil and construction Engineering 2(3). https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Majumder+P%2C+Saha+AK%2C+Majumder+M.+%282016%29+Evaluation+of+Hydropower+Plants+with+respect+to+Cost+Incurred+by+Fuzzy+Decision+Making.+Jou
  18. 18.
    Majumder P, Saha AK, Majumder M (2016) MACBETH-GMDH based efficiency assessment indicator development for performance optimization of hydro power plants. J Basic Appl Res Int 21(3):106–121Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Majumder P, Majumder M, Saha AK (2016) Application of decision making for optimal condition method to analyze operational efficiency of hydropower plants. International. J Control Theory Applications 9(42):79–94Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Matarazzo B (1986) Multicriterion analysis of preferences by means of pairwise actions and criterion comparisons (MAPPAC). Appl Math Comput 18(2):119–141Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matarazzo B (1988) Preference ranking global frequencies in multicriterion analysis (PRAGMA). Eur J Oper Res 36(1):36–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90005-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paruccini M, Matarazzo B (1994) The use of MAPPAC and PRAGMA methods to support decision on industrial waste management. InApplying multiple criteria aid for decision to Environ Manag 95–110. https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=22.%09Paruccini+M%2C+Matarazzo+B+%281994%29+The+Use+of+MAPPAC+and+PRAGMA+Methods+to+Support+Decision+on+Industrial+Waste+Management.+In110.&btnG=
  23. 23.
    Rahi OP, Kumar A (2016) Economic analysis for refurbishment and uprating of hydro power plants. Renew Energy 86:1197–1204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang B, Nistor I, Murty T, Wei YM (2014) Efficiency assessment of hydroelectric power plants in Canada: a multi criteria decision making approach. Energy Econ 46:112–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon HA (1977) The new science of management decision. Prentice Hall PTR, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Energy Resources. (2015). Charting the upsurge in hydropower development 2015. Hydropower World Energy CouncilGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsNational Institute of TechnologyJiraniaIndia

Personalised recommendations