东南亚和中欧的天然气供应方案的评价.docx

东南亚和中欧的天然气供应方案的评价.docx

《东南亚和中欧的天然气供应方案的评价.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《东南亚和中欧的天然气供应方案的评价.docx（25页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

东南亚和中欧的天然气供应方案的评价

EnergyConversionandManagement

Volume49,Issue8,August2008,Pages2345–2353

EvaluationofnaturalgassupplyoptionsforSoutheastandCentralEurope:

Part2.Multi-criteriaassessment

NaimH.Afgana,

MariaG.Carvalhob,

PetrosA.Pilavachic,

NelsonMartinsd,

aTechnicalUniversityofLisbon,Av.RoviscoPais1049-001,Lisbon,Portugal

bBEPA–BureauofEuropeanPolicyAdvisers,EuropeanCommission,Brussels,Belgium

cUniversityofWesternMacedonia,Kozani,Greece

dUniversityofAveiro,EngenhariaMecânica,CampusSantiago,3810-193Averio,Portugal

Received3June2007.Accepted14January2008.Availableonline7March2008.

http:

//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.01.024,HowtoCiteorLinkUsingDOI

Permissions&Reprints

Abstract

Decisionmakingmethodsareusedasatoolfortheselectionofalternativestobeevaluatedonthebasisofseveralcriteria.EvaluationofthepotentialroutesfornaturalgassupplytotheSoutheastandCentralEuropeancountriesisstudiedusingsingleandmulti-criteriaevaluation.Thepotentialoptionsincludedinthisanalysisarethe:

YamalRoute;NabuccoRoute;WestBalkanRoute;LNGNeumRoute;andGasbyWireRoute.Inpart1,thepaperwasdevotedtothedefinitionoftheindicatorsandtosingleindicatoranalysis.Inpart2,theanalysisisbasedonmulti-criteriaevaluation,whichcomprisesthepossibilitytoassesstheoptionsunderpredefinedconstraintsamongstindicators.Thepaperalsodescribesdifferentmethodsusedformulti-criteriaevaluation.Thisanalysisfocusesoncaseswithdifferentprioritiesdefinedamongindividualweightingcoefficientswiththeothershavingthesamevalue.Itwasshownthatalloptionsunderspecificconstraintscanbequalifiedaspromisinginthedecisionmakingprocess.Itisalsoconcludedthatfavouriteindicatorconstraintsmayexaggeratesomeoptions.

Keywords

Naturalgasrouteevaluation;

Decisionmakingmethods;

SoutheastEurope

1.Introduction

Decisionmakingmethodsareusedasatoolforselectionandrankingofalternativesonthebasisofanevaluationwithseveralcriteria.Extensivestudiesdevotedtotheoverviewofmulti-criteriadecisionmethods,appliedtotheanalysisofsustainableenergysystemscanbefoundatRefs.[1]and[2].Decisionsare,mosttimes,basedonatradeofforcompromiseamongstanumberofcriteria,whichareinconflictwitheachother.Thesemethodsprovideabetterunderstandingoftheinherentfeaturesofdecisionproblems,promotetheroleofparticipantsindecisionmakingprocesses,facilitatecompromiseandcollectivedecisionsandprovideagoodplatformforunderstandingtheperceptionofmodelsbyanalystsinarealisticscenario.Asinglecriterionapproach,aimedtoidentifythemostenergyefficientsupplyoptionatlowcosthasbeenquitepopular.However,inthe1980s,agrowingenvironmentalawarenesshasslightlymodifiedtheabovedecisionframework[3].Theneedtoincorporateenvironmentalandsocialconsiderationsinenergyplanningresultedinanincreasinguseofmulti-criteriaapproaches.

Multi-attributedecisionmakingandthemulti-objectivedecisionmakingareamongthemulti-criteriadecisionmakingmethods.Multi-objectivelinearprogrammingisaplanningmethodologyusedforillustratingthetradeoffbetweenenvironmentalandeconomicparametersandforassistingintheselectionofacompromisesolution[4],[5]and[6].Thiswaspopularinenergyplanningwithconventionalfuelsinthe1970s.

Nowadays,renewableenergysourcesarebeingpromotedforawidevarietyofapplicationsworldwide.Thiscompelsplannersanddecisionmakerstoidentifythebarriersforpenetrationandsuggestinterventionstoovercomethem.Theroleofdifferentactorsindecisionmaking,thus,becomesimportant.Methodsofgroupdecisionsare,therefore,ofprimaryinterestforimplementationofthedecisionsciencesinreallifeproblems.

1.1.Multi-criteriadecisionmaking（MCDM）

Multi-criteriadecisionmakingisawellknownbranchofdecisionmaking.Itisabranchofageneralclassofoperationalresearchmodels,whichdealwithdecisionproblemsunderthepresenceofanumberofcriteria.ThismajorclassofmodelsisveryoftencalledMCDM.Thisisfurtherdividedintomulti-objectivedecisionmaking（MODM）andmulti-attributedecisionmaking（MADM）methods[7].Multi-criteriadecisionmaking（MCDM）methodsdealwiththeprocessofmakingdecisionsinthepresenceofmultipleobjectives.Adecisionmakerisrequiredtochooseamongquantifiableornon-quantifiableandmultiplecriteria.

Thereareseveralmethodsineachoftheabovecategories.Prioritybased,outranking,distancebasedandmixedmethodsarealsoappliedtovariousproblems.Eachmethodhasitsowncharacteristics,andthemethodscanalsobeclassifiedasdeterministic,stochasticandfuzzy.Theremaybecombinationsoftheabovemethods.Dependinguponthenumberofdecisionmakers,themethodscanbeclassifiedassingleorgroupdecisionmakingmethods.Decisionmakingunderuncertaintyanddecisionsupportsystemsarealsoprominentdecisionmakingtechniques[8].

1.2.Theeliminationandchoicetranslatingreality（ELECTRE）

TheELECTREmethodiscapableofhandlingbothquantitativeandqualitativediscretecriteriaandprovidescompleteorderingofthealternatives.Theproblemistobeformulatedinsuchawaythatitchoosesalternativesthatarepreferredovermostofthecriteriaandthatdonotcauseanunanticipatedlevelofdiscontentforanyofthecriteria.Concordance,discordanceindicesandthresholdvaluesareusedinthismethod.Basedontheseindices,graphsforstrongandweakrelationshipsaredeveloped.Thesegraphsareusedinaniterativeproceduretoobtaintherankingofthealternatives[9].Thisindexisdefinedintherange0–1,providesajudgmentonthedegreeofcredibilityofeachoutrankingrelationandrepresentsatesttoverifytheperformanceofeachalternative.Finally,theELECTREmethodyieldsawholesystemofbinaryoutrankingrelationsbetweenthealternatives.Becausethesystemisnotnecessarilycomplete,theELECTREmethodissometimesunabletoidentifythepreferredalternative.Itonlyproducesacoreofleadingpossibilitiesbyeliminatinglesseralternativesinadecisionmakingproblem[10].

1.3.Preferencerankingorganizationmethodforenrichmentevaluation（PROMETHEE）

ThePROMETHEEmethodusestheoutrankingprincipletorankthealternativesandcombineseaseofuseanddecreasedcomplexity.Itperformsapairwisecomparisonofthealternativesinordertorankthemwithrespecttoanumberofcriteria.Bransetal.[11]haveofferedsixgeneralizedcriteriafunctionsforreference,namely,usualcriterion,quasi-criterion,criterionwithlinearpreference,levelcriterion,criterionwithlinearpreferenceandindifferenceareaandGaussiancriterion.ThemethodusesapreferencefunctionPj（a,b）,whichisafunctionofthedifferenceδjbetweentwoalternativesforanycriterionj,i.e.δj=f（a,j）−f（b,j）,wheref（a,j）andf（b,j）arevaluesofthetwoalternativesaandbforcriterionj.Theindifferenceandpreferencethresholdsq′andp′arealsodefineddependinguponthetypeofcriterionfunction.

1.4.Analyticalhierarchyprocess（AHP）

TheanalyticalhierarchyprocesswasdevelopedbySaaty[12]and[13].Theessenceoftheprocessisthedecompositionofacomplexproblemintoahierarchywithgoal（objective）atthetopofthehierarchy,criteriaandsub-criteriaatlevelsandsub-levelsofthehierarchyanddecisionalternativesatthebottomofthehierarchy.Theelementsatagivenhierarchylevelarecomparedinpairstoassesstheirrelativepreferenceswithrespecttoeachoftheelementsatthenexthigherlevel.Theprocedureisrepeatedupwardsforeachleveluntilthetopofthehierarchyisreached.Theoverallweightcoefficientwithrespecttothegoalforeachdecisionalterativeisthenobtained.Thealterativewiththehighestweightcoefficientvalueshouldbetakenasthebestalternative.OneofthemajoradvantagesoftheAHPisthatitcalculatestheinconsistencyindexasaratioofthedecisionmaker’sinconsistencyandrandomlygeneratedindex.Thisindexisimportantforthedecisionmakertoassurehimthathisjudgmentswereconsistentandthatthefinaldecisioniswellmade.

1.5.Multi-attributeutilitytheory（MAUT）

Multi-attributeutilitytheorytakesintoconsiderationthedecisionmakers’preferenceintheformoftheutilityfunctionthatisdefinedoverasetofattributes.Theutilityvaluecanbedeterminedthroughsingleattributeutilityfunctionsfollowedbyverificationofpreferentialandutilitydependentconditionsandderivationofmulti-attributeutilityfunctions.Theutilityfunctioncanbeeitheradditivelyseparableormultiplicativelyseparablewithrespecttosingleattributeutility.Themultiplicativeequationfortheutilityvalueisdefinedasfollows:

（1）

wherejistheindexofeachattribute,kistheoverallscalingconstant（greaterthanorequalto−1）,u（…）istheoverallutilityfunctionoperator,kk,isthescalingconstantforattributejanduj（…）istheutilityfunctionoperatorforeachattribute[14].

2.Multi-criteriaevaluationofnaturalgassupplyoptions

2.1.ASPID–analysisandsynthesisofparametersunderinformationdeficiencymethod

“Uncertainty”:

“ambiguity,”“fuzziness”andothersimilarconceptsarequiteusualinmulti-criteriaevaluationofreallargescalesystems,timelongprojects,variantsofcrucialfinancialdecisionsandothercomplexobjects.Thus,itseemsrathernaturaltousetheflexiblelanguageandapparatusoffuzzysetstheoryforanewmulti-criteriadecisionmakingtechniqueexpoundingandrepresentingthetechnique’scomputerrealizati