Sustainability Assessment of Solar Technologies Based on Linguistic Information

Chapter
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN, volume 129)

Abstract

The leading role in the decision-making process is generally assigned to the decision maker who evaluates the various alternatives and ranks them. In some circumstances the decision is based on the use of different types of information often affected by uncertainty; thus the decision maker is not able to produce all the information necessary to make a strictly rational choice. In many cases the information can be expressed only by using linguistic labels, e.g. “very low”, “medium”, “high”, “fair”, “very high”, etc. It is not easy to precisely quantify the rating of each alternative and precision-based methods are often inadequate. Vagueness results when language is used, whether professional or not, to describe the observation or to measure the result of an experiment. This happens particularly when it is necessary to work with experts’ opinions which are translated into linguistic expressions. The use of fuzzy set theory has yielded very good results for modelling qualitative information because of their ability to handle the impreciseness that is common in rating alternatives. In this chapter a modified multicriteria method (F-PROMETHEE) that uses fuzzy sets is proposed to handle linguistic information in comparing a set of solar energy technologies using only linguistic variables.

Keywords

Entropy Europe Steam Transportation Helium 

References

  1. Abouelnaga AE, Metwally A, Nagy ME, Saeed Agamy S (2009) Optimum selection of an energy resource using fuzzy logic. Nucl Eng Des 239:3062–3068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Yahyai S, Charabi Y, Gastli A, Al-Badi A (2012) Wind farm land suitability indexing using multi-criteria analysis. Renew Energy 44:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulos K, Doukas H, Psarras J (2008) A linguistic multicriteria analysis system combining fuzzy sets theory, ideal and anti-ideal points for location site selection. Expert Syst Appl 35(4):2041–2048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage Sci 17:141–164MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilsel RU, Büyüközkan G, Ruan D (2006) A fuzzy preference-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital web sites. Int J Intell Syst 21:1181–1197MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brans JP, Mareschal B (1994) The Promcalc and Gaia decision support system for multicriteria decision aid. Decis Support Syst 12:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brans JP, Mareschal B (1998) Multicriteria decision aid the PROMETHEE-gaia solution. Working paper STOOTW/288. Vrije Universiteit BrusselGoogle Scholar
  8. Brans JP, Vincke Ph (1985) PROMETHEE. A new family of outranking methods in MCDM. Manage Sci 31:647–656MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brans JP, Vincke Ph, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 24:228–238MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan JT, Erez J, Henig MI (1998) Objectivity and subjectivity in the decision making process. Ann Oper Res (Issue on Preference Modelling) 80:333–345MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavallaro F (2008) Electricity from renewable energy sources: a multi-criteria evaluation frame-work of technologies. In: O’Sullivan CO (ed) Leading-edge electric power research. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Hauppauge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavallaro F(2009a) Multi-criteria decision aid to assess concentrated solar thermal technologies. Renew Energy 34:1678–1685Google Scholar
  13. Cavallaro F (2009b) Managing energy data using fuzzy-sets In: Vargas RE (ed) Decision making fuzzy logic: theory, programming and applications. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Hauppauge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavallaro F (2010) Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for assessing thermal-energy storage in concentrated solar power (CSP) systems. App Ener 87: 496–503Google Scholar
  15. Chang YH, Yeh CH (2002) A survey analysis of service quality for domestic airlines. Eur J Oper Res 139:166–177MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen CB, Klein CM (1997) An efficient approach to solving fuzzy MADM problems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 88:51–67MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen CT, Hung WZ, Cheng HL (2011a) Applying linguistic PROMETHEE method in investment portfolio decision-making. Int J Electron Bus Manage 9(2):139–148Google Scholar
  18. Chen CT, Pai PF, Hung WZ (2011b) Handling fuzzy decision making problem based on linguistic information and intersection concept. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, Taipei, Taiwan, 27–30 June 2011Google Scholar
  19. Chen CT, Pai PF, Hung WZ (2012) A two-phase fuzzy decision-making method based on multigranular linguistic assessment. Afr J Bus Manage 6(24):7198–7213Google Scholar
  20. Chen SJ, Chen SM (2003) A new method for handling multi-criteria fuzzy decision making problems using FN-IOWA operators. Cybern Syst 34:109–137MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen M-F, Tzeng GH (2004) Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Math Comput Model 40:1473–1490MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chiou HK, Tzeng GH, Cheng DC (2005) Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach. Omega 33:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chou TY, Lin WT, Lin CY, Chou WC (2007) Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE technique to evaluate suitable ecotechnology method: a case study in Shihmen reservoir watershed, Taiwan. Ecol Eng 31:269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Degani R, Bortolan G (1988) The problem of linguistic approximation in clinical decision making. Int J Approximate Reasoning 2:143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Delgado D, Verdegay JL, Vila MA (1993) On aggregation operations of linguistic labels. Int J Intell Syst 8(3):351–370MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deng H, Lau M, Millar K (2000) Defuzzification in fuzzy multicriteria analysis. In: 19th international conference of the north american fuzzy information processing society (NAFIPS), Atlanta, USA, 13–15 July 2000Google Scholar
  27. Dongrui W, Mendel JM (2007) Aggregation using the linguistic weighted average and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(6):1145–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Doukas H, Karakosta C, Psarras J (2009) A linguistic TOPSIS model to evaluate the sustainability of renewable energy options. Int J Global Energy 32(1–2):102–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doukas H, Marinakis V, Karakosta C, Psarras J (2012) Promoting renewables in the energy sector of Tajikistan. Renew Energy 39(411):418Google Scholar
  30. Doukas H, Psarras J (2009) A linguistic decision support model towards the promotion of renewable energy. Energy Sources Part B 4(2):166–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dubois D, Prade H (1978) Operations on fuzzy numbers. Int J Syst Sci 9:613–626MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT (2007) Solving a decision problem with linguistic information. Pattern Recogn Lett 28(16):2284–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT, Sánchez-Lozano JM (2012) Evaluation of photovoltaic cells in a multi-criteria decision making process. Ann Oper Res 199(1):373–391MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment. Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115:45–65MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Giannopoulos G, Founti M (2010) A fuzzy approach to incorporate uncertainty in the PROMETHEE multicriteria method. Int J Multicriteria Decis Making 1:80–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goumas M, Lygerou V (2000) An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. Eur J Oper Res 123:606–613MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Halouani N, Martínez L, Chabchoub H, Martel JM, Liu J (2009) A multi-granular linguistic Promethee model. In: Proceedings of the joint 2009 international fuzzy systems association world congress and 2009 European society of fuzzy logic and technology conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 20–24 July 2009Google Scholar
  38. Henig MI, Buchanan JT (1996) Solving MCDM problems: process concepts. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 5:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Martìnez L (2000) A fusion approach for managing multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision-making. Fuzzy Set Syst 114:43–58MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herrera F, Martinez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8(6):746–752MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herrera F, Martinez L (2001) The 2-tuple linguistic computational model. Advantages of its linguistic description, accuracy and consistency. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 9:33–49MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herrmann U, Kelly B, Price H (2004) Two-tank molten salt storage for parabolic trough solar power plants. Energy 29:883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kabak O, Ruan DA (2011) Cumulative belief degree-based approach for missing values in nuclear safeguards evaluation. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 23(10):1441–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kahraman C, Kaya I, Cebi S (2012) Renewable energy system selection based on computing with words. Int J Comput Intell Syst 3(4):461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kalogirou S (1998) Use of parabolic trough solar energy collectors for sea-water desalination. Appl Energy 60:65–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaya T, Kahraman C (2011) Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):6577–6585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kosko B, Isaka S (1993) Logica sfumata. Le Scienze (Italian edition of Scientific American) 301:52–60Google Scholar
  48. Le Téno JF, Mareschal B (1998) An interval version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of building products’ design with ill-defined data on environmental quality. Eur J Oper Res 109:522–529MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee M-C, To C (2010) Linguistic variables and PROMETHEE method as tools in evaluation of quality of portal website service. Int J Res Rev Comput Sci (IJRRCS) 1(3):20–28Google Scholar
  50. Li W, Li B (2009) An extension of the PROMETHEE II method based on generalized fuzzy numbers. In: Proceedings of 2009 IEEE international conference on grey systems and intelligent services, Nanjing, China, 10–12 Nov 2009Google Scholar
  51. Liu P, Guan Z (2009) Evaluation research on the quality of the railway passenger service based on the linguistic variables and the improved PROMETHEE-II method. J Comput 4(3):265–270Google Scholar
  52. Marketaki K, Gekas V (1999) Use of the thermodymamic cycle stirling for electricity production. In: Proceedings of the 6th Panhellenic symposium of soft energy sources 283–290Google Scholar
  53. Martin O, Klir GJ (2006) On the problem of retranslation in computing with perceptions. Int J Gen Syst 35(6):655–674MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martìnez L (2007) Sensory evaluation based on linguistic decision analysis. Int J Approximate Reasoning 44(2):148–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martìnez L, Herrera F (2012) An overview on the 2-tuple linguistic model for computing with words in decision making: extensions, applications and challenges. Inf Sci 207:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martìnez L, Liu J, Yang JB (2006) A fuzzy model for design evaluation based on multiple criteria analysis in engineering systems. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 14(3):317–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martìnez L, Ruan D, Herrera F (2010) Computing with words in decision support systems: an overview on models and applications. Int J Comput Intell Syst 3:382–395Google Scholar
  58. Mendel JM (2002) An architecture for making judgement using computing with words. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 12(3):325–335MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Moreira MP, Dupont CJ, Vellasco MMBR (2009) PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE multicriteria methods for ranking equipment failure modes. In: 15th international conference on intelligent system application to power systems (ISAP), Curitiba, Brazil, 8–12 Nov 2009Google Scholar
  60. Munda G, Nijkamp P, Rietvald P (1994) Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management. Ecol Econ 10:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Oberschmidt J, Geldermann J, Ludwig J, Schmehl M (2010) Modified PROMETHEE approach for assessing energy technologies. Int J Energy Sect Manage 4:183–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. OECD/IEA (2010) Technology roadmap. Concentrating solar power. International Energy Agency, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  63. Pitz-Paal R, Dersch J, Milow B (eds) (2003) European concentrated solar thermal road-mapping—roadmap document (SES-CT-2003-502578) ECOSTARGoogle Scholar
  64. Price H, Kearney D (1999) Parabolic-trough technology roadmap: a pathway for sustained commercial development and deployment of parabolic- trough technology. NREL ReportGoogle Scholar
  65. Reilly HE, Kolb GJ (2001) An evaluation of molten salt power towers including results of the solar two project. Sandia National Laboratories, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ruan D, Lu J, Laes E, Zhang G, Ma J, Meskens G (2010) Multi-criteria group decision support with linguistic variables in long-term scenarios for Belgian energy policy. J Universal Comput Sci 16(1):103–120Google Scholar
  67. Schlaich J, Bergermann R, Schiel W, Weinrebe G (2005) Design of commercial solar updraft tower systems—utilization of solar induced convective flows for power generation. J Sol Energy Eng 127:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shirinfar M, Haleh H (2011) Supplier selection and evaluation by fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology. Int J Ind Eng Prod Res 22(4):271–280Google Scholar
  69. Simon HD (1957) Models of man. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. Turksen IB (2002) Type 2 representation and reasoning for CWW. Fuzzy Sets Syst 127:17–36MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tuzkaya G, Gülsün B, Kahraman C, Özgen D (2010) An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application. Expert Syst Appl 37:2853–2863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van der Heide A, Triviño G (2009) Automatically generated linguistic summaries of energy consumption data. In: 2009 Ninth international conference on intelligent systems design and applicationsGoogle Scholar
  73. Von Backstrom TW, Gannon AJ (2004) Solar chimney turbine characteristics. Sol Energy 76:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wang JH, Hao J (2006) A new version of 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 14(3):435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu Y, Xu L (2012) Research on fuzzy linguistic synthetic evaluation of renewable distributed energy generation investment. Adv Inf Sci Serv Sci 4(18):513–518Google Scholar
  76. Xie WT, Dai YJ, Wang RX, Sumathy K (2011) Concentrated solar energy applications using Fresnel lenses: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:2588–2606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xu XS (2004) A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 166(1–4):19–30MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yager RR (1981a) A new methodology for ordinal multiobjective decisions based on fuzzy sets. Decis Sci 12:589–600MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yager RR (1981b) A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval. Inf Sci 24:143–161MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yager RR (1993) Non-numeric multi-criteria multi-person decision making. Group Decis Negot 2(1):81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yan HB, Ma T, Nakamori Y, Huynh VN (2011) A computing with words based approach to multicriteria energy planning. In: Tang Y, Huynh VN, Lawry J (eds) Integrated uncertainty in knowledge modelling and decision making. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin 7027:48–59Google Scholar
  82. Yang GK, Jen CT, Hung KC (2012) A novel intuitionistic fuzzy PROMETHEE II approach for military affair outsourcing decision analysis. In: International conference on business and information, Sapporo, 3–5 July 2012Google Scholar
  83. Yuen KKF, Ting TO (2012) Textbook selection using fuzzy PROMETHEE II method. Int J Future Comput Commun 1(1):76–78Google Scholar
  84. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353Google Scholar
  85. Zadeh LA (1975a) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Part I. Inf Sci 8(3):199–249MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zadeh LA (1975b) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Part II. Inf Sci 8(4):301–357MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zadeh LA (1975c) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Part III. Inf Sci 9(1):43–80MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhang K, Kluck C, Achari G (2009) A comparative approach for ranking contaminated sites based on the risk assessment paradigm using fuzzy PROMETHEE. Environ Manage 44:952–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zimmermann HJ (1983) Using fuzzy sets in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 13:201–216MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Management, Society and InstitutionsUniversity of MoliseCampobassoItaly
  2. 2.Department RIAMUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations