Decision Making Applications in Modern Power Systems

Kingdom

Chapter 1

Multicriteria decision-making methodologies and their applications in sustainable energy system/microgrids

Abhishek Kumar¹, Bikash Sah², Arvind R. Singh³, Yan Deng¹, Xiangning He¹, Praveen Kumar² and Ramesh Bansal⁴,    ¹College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, P.R. China,    ²Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Guwahati, Guwahati, India,    ³School of Electrical Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, P.R. China,    ⁴Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

The energy demand of the world is increasing day by day with the increase in the population. The exhaustion of fossil fuels and the rise in global temperature incurred due to drastic climate change have shifted the attention of nations toward the renewable energy sources. For developing nations the microgrid energy systems based on renewables are the key players to meet their overall energy demand that is anticipated with economic growth. However, the microgrid project deployment for the electrification of rural villages as well as modern cities seeks the attention of the utility, governments, institutions, and other major private institutions. The efficient designing and deployment of microgrids is one of the major concerns of various stakeholders in developing nations. The complexity increases as the number of objectives and criteria is increased. In this chapter, various methods with the fundamental designing concept based on decision-making models are introduced and illustrated with the suitable algorithm for microgrid energy system design based on sustainability perspective.

Keywords

Sustainable development; renewable energy; multicriteria decision-making; rural electrification; microgrids

1.1 Introduction

As per International Energy Organization, currently, more than 38% of the global population suffers from energy poverty [1]. Around 2792 million people are deprived of access to clean cooking and electricity access. This condition is even worse in the case of India (834 million without clean cooking and 240 million without electricity) and sub-Saharan Africa (846 million without clean cooking and 588 million without electricity) where a combined population of the United States and Europe also do not have any access to energy for their general livelihood [1,2]. This situation is anticipated to become worse due to population growth, rapid industrialization, and economic development, especially in the case of India [3]. The overall development of a country is proportional to the increase in the requirements of energy; therefore, many policies are being framed by the governments to embrace on the suitable energy planning strategies leading to sustainable development [4,5]. Underscoring the importance of energy issues for overall development, United Nation (UN) general assembly has unanimously declared the decade 2014–24 as the Decade of Sustainable Energy for All. Adding weight to the declaration, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was formulated and adopted in 2015 by the UN. Among the multiple goals in the agenda, three are focused on the energy. These are [6]:

1. to provide energy access for everyone by 2030;

2. prominent action plans in order to fight global climatic change; and

3. to reduce the emissions that cause air pollution.

Moreover, rising energy demand along with the depletion of fossil fuels and environmental issues associated with the use of conventional energy resources has motivated governments globally to use the renewable energy sources [7,8]. In the recent few decades, microgrids based on renewable energy technologies have become popular for electrifying the remote and isolated areas mostly in developing nations and can certainly provide a solution for providing energy access to such areas [9,10]. A number of methods and models exist in the literature for designing the microgrids based on the renewable energy technologies [11–14]. Sustainable energy design recently has become a tedious process due to the involvement of multiple performance indices having several targets and scenarios [15]. The participation of many actors having differing perceptions based on numerous aspects of sustainability has made the planning and analysis of systems more difficult [16].

The problem is no longer seen as a singular perspective; rather it is seen from multiple perspectives and needs to be evaluated based on several traits or key performance indicators to achieve the perspective of sustainability [17]. For a successful design of the energy systems with sustainability perspective, a wholesome cooperation is required between differing perspectives of stakeholders when various scenarios based on different criteria are pondered [18]. For such complex designs, multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and tools can be effectual while solution accommodating multiple criteria, stakeholders and differing views in the same framework [19]. In this chapter a detailed illustration of MCDM methods, such as analytical hierarchical process (AHP), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solutions (TOPSIS), elimination and choice translating reality (ELECTRE), fuzzy, and hybrid MCDM models such as AHP–TOPSIS and fuzzy–AHP is discussed, which can be efficiently utilized to renewable energy planning and design.

1.1.1 A general perspective

MCDM is a branch of operational research, which uses analytical methods to make proper decisions. It helps in addressing complex problems dealing with inconsistent objectives, heterogeneous data, interest, and uncertainty. A general classification of the various fields of the operational research is given in Fig. 1.1.

Figure 1.1 A general classification of operational research [20–23].

Multiattribute decision-making (MADM) aims to find distinct alternatives from a set of alternatives. Multiobjective decision-making (MODM), on the other hand, is inclined for decision problems that involve multiple objectives as well as alternatives. The hybrid extracts the best of the both methods to draw necessary conclusions for a decision maker. Energy management and policy making considering sustainability has become one of the topics of global benefits, and researchers and agencies (public and private) are inclining their interests to use MODM to get the best decision. Energy management and policy making involves multiple technical, economic, social, and environmental issues and objectives to attain. For example, in a process to select a site for a power plant, a decision maker needs to consider multiple objectives as well as alternatives. The objectives can be least capital investment, topographically suitable for generation, ease to access by all stakeholders, socially acceptable, environmentally safe for deploying the power plants and its supporting services, etc. Each of the objectives is arranged into various categories and indicators. The techniques in MCDM allow us to consider all the hues and cries to be taken care by the decision makers.

Apart from energy management and policy making, the MCDM is also applicable in formulating suitable strategies for management and control on the generation and distribution of electrical power as well. The decision science has grown deep roots in the power sector with microgrids and distributed energy resources utilization gaining popularity. Numerous studies are endeavored using MCDM techniques for energy and resource saving objectives. Apart from the objectives related to technical, social, environmental, and economic, sustainability analysis has also become a part of MCDM [20–23].

Renewable energy is playing a major role in the power and energy management. Its numerous benefits include local availability, environment friendliness, and it can be widely distributed depending on the topography and demography of the place. The projects based on renewable energy are running all round the globe. MCDM has been applied in various fields such as planning, integration, and management of renewable energy. MCDM is used to define the priority of projects to be funded by the agencies, deciding location, effectiveness, and feasibility analysis of the projects.

1.2 Multicriteria decision-making in energy planning

Two types of methods are discussed in this chapter: general and hybrid. The following general methods are used in the energy planning:

• weighted sum method (WSM);

• weighted product method (WPM);

• AHP;

• TOPSIS;

• ELECTRE; and

• preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHE).

The hybrid methods are based on fuzzy, and two types of hybrid methods are discussed in the chapter: fuzzy with AHP and fuzzy with TOPSIS. Each method is described with detailed description of steps and a flowchart to briefly describe the process to the readers. Each method and its utilization in energy planning are cited from the literature.

1.2.1 Weighted sum method

This method is most commonly used for single-dimension problem. This method is widely used in the structural optimization and energy planning. The ease in the computation to select alternatives brings in the significance of this method for utilization. The selection of alternatives is made by using the following mathematical equation:

(1.1)

where Ws is the value of weighted sum, n is the number of alternative, and m is the function of the formulated vector and calculated as the normalized value for nth alternative and mis the weight of mcan also be used for ranking the alternatives based on the scores. This method provides a basic estimate of the function and fails to integrate multiple preferences [24].

1.2.2 Weighted product method

Alike WSM, this method performs multiplication. The comparison of each alternative is done by multiplying the ratios based on the number of criteria. While multiplying, the ratio is raised to the power of a value equivalent to the relative weight of the corresponding criteria. The comparison of the two alternatives can be defined by the following mathematical expression:

(1.2)

where the number of criteria is represented by mare the actual values of the Kth and Lth alternative w.r.t. the iis the weight of the idetermines the desirability of an alternative [25].

is found to be closer to 1. The value closer to 1 signifies that the selected alternative is closest to all other alternatives. An alternative approach to this is considered by avoiding the use of ratios. This is given by

(1.3)

, which is the performance index of (PK)pK .

It is to be noted that the first method of WPM is a dimensionless approach, whereas the later has dimensions. The first method that is based on the relative method is found to be beneficial than the latter [8].

1.2.3 Analytic hierarchy process

The AHP, proposed by R.W. Saaty in 1977 [26], is widely used by the energy planners to manage resources, making public policies, logistics, and transportation engineering worldwide. The method was later revised and updated in 1980. This method converts the operational problem to a hierarchical model. The detailed explanation of AHP model has been illustrated thoroughly with a real case study for the design of rural microgrids based on renewable energy sources in Ref. [27]. Table 1.1 provides a summary of few studies based on AHP in energy planning.

Table 1.1

AHP, Analytical hierarchical process; MCDM, multicriteria decision-making.

1.2.4 Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solutions

TOPSIS, originally developed by Hwang and Yoon in 1981, is one of the popular MCDM models, which has the ability and applicability to provide solutions to real-world problems [40,41]. This method has a wide application area ranging from microgrid/energy planning, energy management, supply chain and logistics, water and waste resource management, manufacturing and design engineering, business and industrial management, etc. [41]. This MCDM method is based on the concepts of geometric distances where the best alternatives have a very short distance from the positive ideal solution (PIA+) and a precisely longer distance from the negative ideal solution (NIA−) [42].

Fig. 1.2 shows the detailed process for the implementation of TOPSIS method. It consists of major six steps that are as follows [27,43]:

Figure 1.2 Flowchart to rank of alternatives using TOPSIS method [27,43]. TOPSIS, Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solutions.

Step 1. Structure the initial alternatives/criteria decision matrix and derive the normalized matrix

Articulate an initial alternative/criteria decision matrix having a dimension of a×c, where a is the number of alternatives and c is the number of performance indictors/criteria.

Calculate normalized values from the initial decision matrix to get normalized matrix. The normalized value (acvgh) is given by

(1.4)

where fgh is the value of the gth criterion function for the alternative Ah (h=1,…, a and g=1,…, c).

Step 2. Obtain the weighted normalized decision matrix

Calculate the weighted normalized value vgh as

(1.5)

where the weight of the criterion/performance indicator g is such that

(1.6)

The weight of the criteria/performance indicators can be determined by using AHP method as described in the previous subsection or using specialized software packages such as Triptych or Expert Choice as given in [8].

Step 3. Obtain the possible solutions as positive ideal and negative ideal

First, the classification of the selected essential performance indicators (EPIs)/criteria into two groups has to be done, which is as follows:

Maximum value/benefit criterion: The EPI whose maximum value is sought among the alternatives is termed benefit criterion. The criteria, such as renewable fraction, total electrical energy production, storage autonomy, and grid sells whose maximum values are advantageous for the microgrid alternatives, fall under this category.

Minimum value/performance/economic criterion: Minimum value criterion is that whose low value is better for the microgrid alternatives. These consist of economic indicators such as capital cost, net present cost, and cost of electricity as well as performance criteria such as storage power losses, excess electricity, and grid energy purchase whose minimal values are sought.

After the classification of the EPIs/criteria, the PIA+ and NIA− can be obtained as

(1.7)

(1.8)

is the EPIs associated with the performance/minimum value criterion.

Step 4. Determine the geometrical separation measures for alternatives

Compute the geometrical separation measures of the alternatives using the PIA+ and NIA− solutions obtained from Step 3.

) based on the PIA+ of each alternative is given by the following equation:

(1.9)

) is given as

(1.10)

Step 5. Find out the relative closeness to the ideal solution for alternatives

) of the alternative from the ideal solution can be calculated using the following equation:

(1.11)

lies between 0 and 1, where 0 signifies the worst and 1, the best possible solution.

Step 6. Determine the ranking of alternatives based on preference order

should be ranked first and proposed as the best possible solution. Table 1.2 illustrates a few studies based on TOPSIS with its applicability to design and evaluation of energy system.

Table 1.2

RES, Renewable energy sources; SD, Sustainable Development.

1.2.5 Elimination and choice translating reality

ELECTRE also called elimination and choice translating reality was proposed by Benayoun et al. in 1966 [52]. The method finds its application in energy, financial and business management, information technology and communication, logistics and transportation engineering. This is an outranking method as it develops a binary association between alternatives w.r.t. to all criteria [53]. The literature gives several forms of ELECTRE. A brief description of this method is given in the following subsections [54].

1.2.5.1 Elimination and choice translating reality I

This is based on the concordance and discordance indexes. The concept of concordance and discordance determines the outranking of alternatives. The concordance states and measures the intensity of favoring an argument placed for an alternative under analysis, whereas discordance gives the intensity of the opposition for the same. This method is designed for the selection of problems.

1.2.5.2 Elimination and choice translating reality II

This method is similar to the ELECTRE I. The only difference is the addition of a threshold value to the outranking matrices formed. This method is suitable for ranking problems.

1.2.5.3 Elimination and choice translating reality III

This method is considered an interaction method as it involves the direct participation of decision maker and the process. The quantitative and qualitative criterion can be analyzed. This method is used when there is a necessity to quantify a certain criterion.

1.2.5.4 Elimination and choice translating reality IV

The ELECTRE IV method allows the construction of several (nested) upgrade relationships when it is not possible to assign weights to each of the pseudocriteria. Instead, the decision maker must allow that none of the criteria is dominant or negligible (so able to deal with any grouping of one-half of the pseudocriteria).

Three basic steps are involved in the formulation:

1. finding the threshold function;

2. calculation of concordance and discordance indexes; and

3. determining the outranking degree.

A detailed flowchart illustrating the ELECTRE method is given in Fig. 1.3. A detailed explanation of the previous steps is as follows:

Step 1: Decision matrix

Figure 1.3 Flowchart for the implementation of ELECTRE method. ELECTRE, Elimination and choice translating reality.

The decision matrix is formed similar to those mentioned in Section 1.2.4.

Step 2: Normalization

In this step the decision matrix formulated is normalized. This is done by making the entries of decision matrix as dimensionless by using the following equation:

(1.12)

is the actual value of the kth alternative w.r.t. ith criteria, m is the number of alternatives, n is the normalized value of the ith alternative in terms of jth criteria. The normalized decision matrix is given by the following equation:

(1.13)

Step 3: Calculation of weighted matrix

The decision matrix X mentioned in Eq. (1.13) is associated with the respective weights, which resembles the significance of corresponding criteria. Let the weight determined by the decision maker be denoted by w1, w2, …, wn, and W be the weighted matrix. W can be calculated as

(1.14)

where Y is a diagonal matrix defined as

(1.15)

Thus the weighted matrix W can be given by

(1.16)

Step 4: Concordance and discordance matrix formulation

This step involves three substeps.

Step 4a: Calculation of concordance and discordance set

be two alternatives, m k and l is given by

(1.17)

) set is given by

(1.18)

Step 4b: Calculation of concordance and discordance indexes

The concordance index presents the relative importance of one alternative w.r.t. other. It is calculated as a sum of weights associated with a criterion. Let ckl be the concordance index.

(1.19)

be the discordance index. This measures the triviality of one alternative w.r.t. other. It is calculated as

(1.20)

Step 4c: Calculation of concordance and discordance matrices

The concordance and discordance matrices are expressed in terms of the concordance and discordance indices. The concordance matrix C and discordance matrix D are given by

(1.21)

(1.22)

It is to be noted that the value elements of D are undefined for k=l, and it is nonsymmetric square matrix.

Step 5: Calculating the concordance and discordance dominance matrices

be the threshold values that are calculated as an average value of the concordance and discordance indexes.

(1.23)

(1.24)

). Let cdkl and ddkl be the elements of the matrices. Mathematically, it is given by

(1.25)

and

(1.26)

Step 6: Calculation of the aggregate dominance matrix (ADM)

The elements of the ADM are calculated as the product of concordance and discordance indexes and threshold values (cdkl and ddkl).

(1.27)

Step 7: Preference ordering based on the value of the ADM

The best alternatives will be the one that dominates all the other alternatives. The dominance is determined based on the presence of 1. If any of the value in a column is equal to 1, it can be stated that the column with 1 is preferred over the corresponding row.

The ELECTRE is preferred over the other method as it can deal with the heterogeneous scales. The drawbacks of this method are related to its versatility, and it needs a very good understanding of the objective a decision maker is working with, especially for quantitative features. Few applications of ELECTRE in energy planning are given in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3

ELECTRE, Elimination and choice translating reality.

1.2.6 Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation

PROMETHE was developed by Brans et al. [61]. This method is dominantly utilized in the field of risk and structural analysis, and mining engineering. This method encompasses a group level involvement in the decision-making. It also deals with both qualitative and quantitative information. In this method, there are various categories of analysis in this method, and each of them is named as versions—PROMETHE I, PROMETHE II, PROMETHE III, PROMETHE IV, PROMETHE V, and PROMETHE VI. The type of analysis the method focuses on is given in Table 1.4 [61–64].

Table 1.4

This method involves the selection of transfer function and fixing the value of threshold. The transfer function, also called preference, is given in Table 1.5 [61,65,66].

Table 1.5

PROMETHE II is the most commonly used method to calculate the rank of various alternatives. The flowchart of the process for PROMETHE is given in Fig. 1.4. The steps that are described later have been followed while calculating the rank of the alternatives.

Step 1: Calculation of preference degree

Figure 1.4 Steps for PROMETHE. PROMETHE, Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation.

be the value of criterion j for decisions a and bis calculated between the values given in the following equation:

(1.28)

The preference degree of a criterion j be the preference degree. It is defined as

(1.29)

Step 2: Calculation of global preference index

be the weight associated with the criterion jis computed as

(1.30)

Step 3: Calculation of outranking flows

Two outranking flows are calculated: positive and negative; let F+ and F− be the positive and negative outranking flows.

(1.31)

and

(1.32)

where m is the possible number of decisions.

Step 4: Calculation of net outranking

is the net outranking of the decision a.

(1.33)

The selected applications of PROMETHE in the area of energy planning are given in Table 1.6.

Table 1.6

1.3 Fuzzy logic in multicriteria decision-making

Conventional MCDM methods are based on the assigning values, which act as weights. These values are always a fixed number, generally called crisp values. The ranking and all other procedures are carried out based on the assigned crisp values. In a practical world application involving a real-world scenario, most of the quantities cannot be defined quantitatively in terms of numbers. They are expressed as a function or any linguistic variable. The real-world decision problems are dependent on multiple constraints of which the significance and consequences are not exactly defined and determined. Another situation is when the available data or information is not sufficient to judge or the crisp values are incompetent to determine the model of a real situation. Thus, in the situations mentioned previously, it becomes very difficult to use the classical MCDM methods. The MCDM models are suitable for dealing with situations and problems in which it is assumed that the performance or the outputs of any operation is known and can be further represented in the form of crisp