Sustainable and renewable implementation multi-criteria energy model (SRIME)—case study: Sri Lanka

Abstract

Sustainable and renewable are certainly very appreciated terms nowadays. These words may summarize a whole new attitude towards our world and the people who live in it. This paper’s goal is to define an original multi-criteria energy model, named SRIME, specially designed for developing countries. First, an extensive research will be carried out on: energy demand; potential renewable energy, its current know-how and potential future development; potential avoided emissions (CO 2 , NO X , SO 2 ); and the possible international support versus the in-country possibilities. The precedence constraints will be applied to establish in which degree renewable energy may be substituting for the fossil fuel: the purely economic approach will give way to a sustainable, renewable, development focused energy planning. It must be noted that an innovative function has been specifically included in the SRIME, which evaluates, applying the precedence constraints, the influence renewable energy may have on developing countries rural health and education. Six functions have been established: replaceable amount of fossil energy; CO 2 , NO X and SO 2 avoidable emissions; rural health and education development maximization; and the cost function. These functions will be optimized through the Chebyshev distance ( L ∞ ) compromise programming minimization, so that the Pareto optimal solution may be obtained.

Introduction

The MCDM has been used over the years [ 1 , 2 ], and is indeed a currently widely used tool for energy applications [ 3 – 6 ]. The aim of this paper is to focus on a set of sustainable and renewable factors that will be assessed through a precedence constraints evaluation. The optimal solution will be then chosen among the possible solutions for every one of the six equations, applying the Linear Programming Computation (LPC). The best compromised solution is then found among the Pareto optimal solutions [ 7 ], which will allow rejection of the solutions corresponding to any of the six optimizing equations that are found to be situated furthest from the rest of the optimal values obtained for the remaining equations. This way the dominating solutions will be softened, letting energy planners base their decisions on a solution that can not be improved without making at least one of the variables worse off.

This method’s greatest challenge is how investigators and then planners will decide to calculate the weights to be applied to every one of the six equations. This decision will require a broad consensus among a wide range of experts so that decisions are not postponed, generating conflict, wasting time and, therefore, damaging future programming.

The subjective part of the compromise programming is also a demanding issue, which has to be carefully and professionally performed. The value given to the different subjects must be thoroughly assessed, avoiding a personal opinionated view from the experts.

SRIME model

Figure  1 shows the steps that are proposed in this model, which has been specifically designed for low materially developed countries. The first stage is to carry out a thorough evaluation of the current energy demand, and subsequent future needs. Secondly, the possible renewable solutions will be assessed, taking into account the in-country possibilities, along with the international support, aiming to enunciate the first function, using the precedence constraints. 1 The third step will be to study the potentially avoidable emissions so that the corresponding three functions may be stated ( F 2 , F 3 , F 4 ). Then the fifth function will come from a deep study of the possible interactions between health and education and renewable energy, according to the parameters described by the UN and other international organizations. The last phase is to enunciate the cost function ( F 6 ).

Fig. 1

SRIME energy model. Own construction

The L k distances will then be minimized, according to the chosen weights, so that a compromised solution may be selected among the several obtained by the preferred optimization tool. 2

Functions

Maximization of RE potential capacity: F1

The so-called green economy focuses on the various advantages our world shall enjoy if we were to go green [ 8 – 11 ]. Not only climate change is involved here but also the potential enhancement of the overall development factors, especially the health co-benefits. You may find the corresponding equation and Table  1 below, which includes a summary of the potential precedence constraints the authors have chosen to be applied [ 12 – 14 ]. 3

Table 1

Precedence constraints

Technological factors

Application

Energy planning

Fossil fuel environmental impact

Technological demand

Operating time

Political interest

Fossil fuel environmental impact

Potential investigation

Implementation issues

Current price compared with conventional energies

Know-how up-to-date

Integration possibility

Social demand

Technology improvement (possibly locally manufactured equipment)

Potential demand

Legislative forecast

Current technological level to apply the alternative energy

Supply availability

Own construction

F1x11,x12,…,xij,…,xnm=A11x11+A12x12+⋯+Anmxnm

Environmental impact minimization: F2, F3,F4

Environmental impact has ben a major concern in the world for the past ten years. Local researchers are indeed looking into potential present and future sustainable possibilities [ 15 , 16 ].

These are the three corresponding functions:

F2x11,x12,…,xij,…,xnm=B11x11+B12x12+⋯+Bnmxnm
F3x11,x12,…,xij,…,xnm=C11x11+C12x12+⋯+Cnmxnm
F4x11,x12,…,xij,…,xnm=D11x11+D12x12+⋯+Dnmxnm

B ij / C ij / D ij : life cycle CO 2 /NO x /SO 2 avoided emissions (ton/energy unit)

For all B ij  ≥ 0; C ij  ≥ 0; D ij  ≥ 0 ⇒ max F 2 ; F 3 ; F 4  ⇒ optimal avoided emissions maximization

Coefficients B ij , C ij , D ij are obtained from official statistics and specialized publications.

Maximization of the most rural development friendly types of RE, aiming to improve health and education

One of the most usual indicators to estimate energy demand is the GDP growth rate. LEC and LRY commonly enjoy a high degree of causality. However, while HMDP show a bidirectional causality, LMDP only dictate a uni-directional causality from LRY to LEC [ 17 ]. As you can see below in Fig.  2 , this is confirmed by the SL official data.

Fig. 2

SL expenditure vs energy consumption. Prepared by the authors based on official data [ 18 – 23 ]

This is the corresponding equation:

F5x11,x12,…,xij,…,xnm=E11x11+E12x12+…+Enmxnm

Coefficients E ij are non-dimensional and obtained through precedence constraints, where no energy or cost quantification is involved. These precedence constraints are based on:

  • Identified health and education ad-hoc applications.

  • Low overnight capital cost/unnecessary donor support for health and education enhancing applications.

  • Low maintenance cost.

  • Unnecessary maintenance contract.

  • Long lasting systems for health and education purposes.

  • Short distance from health and education centres to energy source.

  • Safe from being stolen in rural environment.

  • Low rural environmental impact.

  • Predictability.

  • Batteries not required for health and education purposes.

  • Alternating current.

  • Possible modularity/size accommodation for schools and hospitals.

  • Added benefits for rural development.

  • In-country development: manufacturing, training, etc.

  • Low LEC.

  • Hospitals and schools space efficiency for rural development.

  • Low or inexistent waste generation.

Cost minimization of substitution of renewable for existing conventional energy: F6

F6x11,x12,…,xij,…,xnm=G11x11+G12x12+⋯+GnmxnmGij=initial investment or production cost/energy unitGij≥0or0≤Gij.

This function can also consider the renewable energy subsidies, therefore affecting the C coefficients. Another possibility can be to modify the coefficients, aiming to reach the best possible subsidy for every RE.

As per coefficients B ij , C ij and D ij , coefficients G ij are also obtained from official sources.

Restrictions

The restrictions to be applied are described below in Table  2 , having in mind the following [ 1 , 3 , 12 and own construction]:

Table 2

Restrictions

Non-electric energy use

Electric energy use

RE potential production

Current RE systemsa

∑j=1nXij≤Sj (7)

∑i=1lXie≤Se (8)

Xie+∑j=1mXij≤Pi (9)

Xie+∑j=1mXij≤Ri (10)

Own construction

a  This restriction may also establish certain priorities in terms of advising the type of plant to be planned, always respecting the previous restrictions

S j :

Energy demand of application j , calculated as: S j  =  p j −  i j ; where p j is the energy demand corresponding to sector j and i j is the amount of fossil fuel renewable sources can not replace.

 S e :

Energy demand of application i , calculated as: S e  =  p e  −  i e ; where p e is the energy demand corresponding to sector e and i e. is the amount of fossil fuel renewable sources can not replace.

 P i :

Potential application of renewable source i in the corresponding sector.

 R i :

Minimum amount of conventional energy renewable sources can replace, as RE has already replaced this amount.

Compromise programming

As indicated by Linares et al. [ 24 – 26 ], to obtain the set of compromised solutions, both the normalized Manhattan distance, L 1 or the Chebyshev distance, L ∞ , may be minimized [ 27 , 28 ]. Nonetheless, L k will also help us obtain the optimal solution. Equation (11) below shows the general definition for L d . Equations (12), (13) and (14) show the normalization to be carried out and Table  3 the distances that must be minimized.

Table 3

Normalized distances to be minimized

L1

Lk

L∞

L1=∑i=13WiFi∗+-FixFi∗+-F∗i (12)

Lk=λW1f1xF1∗+-F∗1+W2f2(x)F2∗+-F∗2+W3f3(x)F3∗+-F∗3+1-λD0≤λ≤1 (13)

MinL∞=D (14)

Own construction

d=∑j=1nx1j-x2jd1/d

Taking into account that W i is the weight or preference assigned by the decision makers, the distances to be minimized may be found below in Table  4 .

Table 4

Restrictions summary

Distance

d = 1: Manhattan distance, L1

d = 2: Euclidean distance, L2

d = ∞: Chebyshev distance, L∞

Restrictions

∑j=1nXij≤Sj (15)

∑j=1nXij≤Sj (15)

∑j=1nXij≤Sj (15)

∑i=1lXie≤Se (16)

∑i=1lXie≤Se (16)

∑i=1lXie≤Se (16)

Xie+∑j=1mXij≤Pi (17)

Xie+∑j=1mXij≤Pi (17)

Xie+∑j=1mXij≤Pi (17)

Xie+∑j=1mXij≤Ri (18)

Xie+∑j=1mXij≤Ri (18)

Xie+∑j=1mXij≤Ri (18)

W1F1∗+-F1(x)F1∗+-F∗1≤D (19)

W1F1∗+-F1(x)F1∗+-F∗1≤D (19)

W2F2∗+-F2(x)F2∗+-F∗2≤D (20)

W2F2∗+-F2(x)F2∗+-F∗2≤D (20)

W3F3∗+-F3(x)F3∗+-F∗3≤D (21)

W3F3∗+-F3(x)F3∗+-F∗3≤D (21)

Source: own construction

Case study: Sri Lanka

The authors have prepared a sectorial energy consumption forecast for 2015 (see Table  5 ; Fig.  3 ) and the estimated generation and capacity mix (see Figs.  4 , 5 ). The global electricity data has been obtained from the Long Term Generation Expansion Plan 2013–2032, prepared by the Ceylon Electricity Board, and the rest of he energy consumption and the electricity sectorial data has been estimated by the authors based, on official and private documentation [ 29 – 50 ].

Table 5

2015 SL sectorial energy consumption forecast (ktoe) [ 29 – 50 ]

Electricity

LPG

Gasoline

Naphta

Avgas

Kerosene

Avtur

Diesel

Foil

Coal

Bagasse

Fwood

Agriculture

3.1

8.6

Industries

372.4

36

25.1

85.6

180.7

83

65.1

1961

Transport

1.8

981.8

2.7

0.2

486.5

1924

2.7

Education

3.9

Religious

6.7

HH

428.6

105.4

143.1

3739.2

Hotels

20.9

1.9

8.3

Street light

14.6

Health

15.7

1.2

2.4

Commercial

236.1

137.1

15.3

14.7

13.8

427.8

Fig. 3

2015 Sri Lanka sectorial energy consumption forecast [ 29 – 50 ]

Fig. 4

SL 2015 estimated capacity mix [ 29 – 50 ]

Fig. 5

SL 2015 estimated generation mix [ 29 – 51 ]

The optimization equations

F1. Maximization of RE potential capacity

SL is very much dependent on petroleum, which currently accounts for approximately 24 % of SL import bill and 45 % of exports. The demand has been doubled, in value terms, during the last 3 years [ 52 ]. The geo-climatic settings are particularly conducive, though, to harnessing hydro resources. The climate is largely determined by the meteorological conditions caused in the Indian sub continent due to the tropical circulation [ 53 ]. The current hydro power stations are operated to meet both peak and base electricity generation requirements. A 400 MW potential has been identified for small hydropower projects [ 54 ], typically characterised with less than 10 MW capacities [ 53 ]. 128 projects, totalling 271 MW, have been already commissioned as of 31/12/2014 [ 55 ]. Once these projects are available for power generation, will be carefully followed-up by PUCSL [ 56 ]. In terms of wind power, GOSL would like to go from the current 5 % to reach 10 % by 2017 and 14.1 % by 2022 [ 56 ]. There are close to 500 km 2 of windy areas with good-to-excellent wind resource potential. However, only a portion of this is deemed feasible to be harnessed because of technical and system limitations [ 57 ]. As of 31/12/2013, there are 10 commissioned projects, which will add 78.45 MW capacity to the grid [ 55 ] and also some possible future WPPs [ 58 – 61 ]. The wind potential has been estimated as 20,000 MW. In terms of biomass, Gliricidia sepium has been recently appointed as the fourth plantation crop after tea, rubber and coconut. Biomass application in electricity generation is not yet widespread, but it is gaining momentum [ 54 ]. As of 31/12/2014, 2 Agricultural and Industrial Waste Power projects have been commissioned (11 MW); and another 2 Dendro Power (5.5 MW) [ 55 ]. A 1000 MW of Dendro thermal potential has been estimated [ 59 ]. Biofuels are also planned to be developed to claim a 20 per cent share by 2020 [ 58 , 62 ]. Although the village biogas power is at an early stage, as it has not been an easy task to introduce it [ 63 , 64 ], there are indeed a number of projects going on. This NCRE seems to be following the increasing tendency currently shown in South Asia [ 59 ]. A 300 MW MSW biogas generation potential has been identified [ 65 ].

As showed on Table  6 above, the use of SHSs has been spreading fast in the rural areas of Sri Lanka, mainly because of the financial incentives provided by the donor agencies, and also due to the aggressive marketing strategies of the SHS dealers in rural areas [ 66 , 67 ]. As of 31/12/2013, 4 solar projects have been commissioned, totalling 1,4 MW. As of 31/12/2012, the installed PV capacity was 10.10 MWp [ 68 ]. Concerning geothermal energy resources, SL is still at a preliminary stage, although a 700–1300 MWe potential has been recently estimated. As a first step in the development, a USD 10 M investment would cover a site selection study, surface exploration at the most promising site followed by deep drilling, and commissioning of a 2 MW binary power plant if the wells are successful [ 69 ]. Regarding off-grid schemes, a pilot project was recently conducted to connect two village micro hydro power plants (10 and 20 kW) to the national grid. This pilot project has become instrumental in removing the technical, social, and legal barriers for grid interconnection. It is necessary, though, to review these fees structure and try to reduce them, taking into account the capacity of the project [ 70 ] and the potential funding [ 71 – 73 ]. The overall target for NCRE is to reach 10 % by 2016 and 20 % by 2020 [ 63 ]. Some authors are praising SLs NCRE implementation [ 64 ], while others believe that lack of financing instruments, along with high initial cost and lack of assurance of resource supply or availability are the main barriers for renewable technologies expansion in SL [ 65 , 66 ]. Reaching the above mentioned targets is not just an environmental matter, but are related in one way or another to at least five other MDG [ 67 , 74 ]:

Table 6

2012 status of Sri Lanka off-grid energy technologies

Technology

Number of units installed

Capacity of a unit (KW)

Estimated total capacity (MW)

Number of households electrified

Number of units still in use (estimated)

Solar home systems (PV)

120,000

0.03–0.06

3.6

120,000

100,000

Village micro hydro power

300

3–50

4.5

10,500

80

Village dendro power

11

10–30

0.1

100

–

Wind home systems

30

0.25–3.0

0.007

30

–

Village biogas power

10

0.3–2.0

0.006

30

2

Pico hydro power

40

0.3–1.5

0.012

40

40

Total

8.2

130,700

Data from Apergis and Payne [ 50 ]

Taking into account all of the above, the authors have estimated that the following energy is considered to be substitutable in 2015 (see below Table  7 ).

Table 7

Substitutable energy in 2015 (ktoe)

Electricity

LPG

Gasoline

Naphta

Avgas

Kerosene

Avtur

Diesel

Foil

Coal

Bagasse

Fwood

Agriculture

0.5

1.3

Industries

74.5

12.8

27.1

Transport

147.3

288.6

0.4

Education

0.8

Religious

1.3

HH

85.7

Hotels

4.2

1.2

Street light

2.9

Health

3.1

0.4

Commercial

47.2

2.2

2.1

The authors have defined the following variables:

The restrictions for this case study have been established by the authors as per below:

A: Based on energy demand and RE real potential (in ktoe):

SH+PV+WPP+MSW+BEG≤219.8

B: Based on the already existing RE (in ktoe):

To determine the coefficients corresponding to function F 1 , the authors have established the precedence constraints included below in Table  8 .

Table 8

Precedence constraints [ 54 , 75 – 103 ]

BEG

BT

LBF

MSW

PV

SH

WPP

Technological demand

2

2

2

3

4

5

3

Potential investigation

5

5

5

5

5

4

5

Know-how up-to-date

4

5

3

4

4

3

5

Technology improvement (possibly locally manufactured equipment)

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

Current technological level to apply the alternative energy

2

3

2

2

4

Operating time

3

5

2

3

3

4

2

Implementation issues

3

5

2

3

3

5

3

Integration possibility

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Potential demand

2

2

2

4

4

5

4

Supply availability

3

3

2

4

4

4

4

Political interest

2

2

2

3

3

5

4

Current price compared with conventional energies

1

2

2

1

2

5

3

Social demand

1

2

1

2

2

5

2

Legislative forecast

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Environmental impact

5

3

5

5

5

5

5

The following values are then calculated (see Table  9 below):

Table 9

Calculation of N and M factors

Alternative

M

N

Coefficient

SH

216

3.4 × 109

2.5

WPP

82,944

108

2.5

PV

186,624

9 × 107

2

BT

248,832

2.4 × 107

2

MSW

466,560

2.3 × 107

2

BEG

3.1 × 106

1.9 × 106

1.5

LBF

8,847,360

864,000

1

Source: own construction

Mij=Πi=1naij
Nij=Πi=1n6-aij

Once the coefficients are applied, this is the final equation for F 1 :

F 1  = 2.5 SH + 2.5 WPP + 2 PV + 2 BT I  + 2 BT H  + 2 BT HE  + 2 BT C  + 2 MSW + 1.5 BEG + LBF A  + LBF T

Environmental impact minimization

CEB expected generation system for 2015 [ 20 ] has been taken into account (see below Table  10 ) to establish the potentially avoided emissions. According to the different types of fuel and their corresponding GWh in 2015, a 9.9 tCO 2 /toe weighted average will be considered as the amount of avoided emission as well as 0.028 tNO x /toe and 0.041 tSO 2 /toe [ 20 , 104 – 114 ].

Table 10

Generation forecast data from the Long Term Generation Expansion Plan 2013–2032, prepared by the CEB [ 20 ]

Capacity balance (MW)

Energy balance (GWh)

2013

2014

2015

2013

2014

2015

Plant name

 Hydro

  Existing major hydro

1335

1335

1335

4112

4112

4112

  New major hydro

0

0

0

0

0

0

  Mini hydro

219

232

244

–

–

–

  Sub total

1554

1567

1579

4112

4112

4112

  NCRE-wind

90

90

90

–

–

–

  NCRE-solar

1.3

21

31

–

–

–

  Total NCRE

613

658

692

Thermal existing and committed

 Small gas turbines

85

85

85

16

6

4

 Diesel Sapugaskanda

72

72

72

459

431

456

 Diesel ext. Sapugaskanda

72

72

72

491

485

487

 Gas turbine no 7

115

115

115

290

250

286

 Lakdhanavi

0

0

0

0

0

0

 Asia power

49

49

49

334

309

332

 KPS combined cycle

165

165

165

550

454

549

 AES combined cycle

163

163

163

491

362

474

 Colombo power

60

60

0

419

417

0

 ACE power Horona

0

0

0

0

0

0

 Ace power Matara

0

0

0

0

0

0

 Heladhanavi

100

100

0

696

696

0

 ACE power Embilipitiya

100

100

0

692

672

0

 Biomass (Dendro)

10

10

10

94

94

94

 Kerawalapitiya

270

270

270

1325

935

1138

 Puttalam coal

275

550

825

1665

3241

4996

 Northern power

0

20

20

0

131

137

 Chunnakkam power extension

0

24

24

0

183

183

 Sub total

1535

1854

1870

7523

8668

9135

New thermal plants

 Coal

0

0

0

0

0

0

 Gas turbine 75 MW

0

0

225

0

0

477

 Gas turbine 105 MW

0

0

0

0

0

0

 Coal trinco

0

0

0

0

0

0

 Biomass (Dendro)

4

8

12

27

54

82

 Sub total

4

8

237

27

54

559

 Total installed capacity

3184

3540

3807

–

–

–

 Installed capacity without NCREa

2874

3197

3442

–

–

–

 Peak demand

2451

2692

2894

–

–

–

 Difference without NCREa

423

505

548

–

–

–

 Difference (%)

17.3

18.8

18.9

–

–

–

 Total generation

–

–

–

12,275

13,493

14,499

 System demand

–

–

–

12,296

13,508

14,513

 Unserved energy

21

15

14

a This installed capacity does not include the non-dispatchable NCRE, i.e., mini-hydro, wind and solar

You can find below Table  11 , which includes a summary of the life cycle emissions corresponding to the different types of renewable energy, based on the below mentioned references.

Table 11

RE life cycle CO 2 emissions; tCO 2 /toe, tNO x /toe, tSO 2 /toe [ 109 , 112 – 121 ]

Life cycle emission

SH

WPP

PV

BT

MSW

BEG

CO2

0.12

0.12

0.46

0.63

1

0.52

NOX

0.00006

0.0004

0.0017

0.0083

0.00009

0.0083

SO2

0.00003

0.0005

0.003

0.00042

0.000015

0.00042

In terms of LBF, 90 % of the CO 2 emissions are considered to be potentially avoided [ 122 – 124 ] that is, approximately 2.7 tCO 2 /toe. When biofuel replaces gasoline and diesel in the transport sector, SO 2 emissions are reduced, but changes in NOx emissions depend on the substitution pattern and technology. The effects of replacing gasoline with ethanol and biodiesel also depend on engine features. Biodiesel can have higher NOx emissions than petroleum diesel in traditional direct-injected diesel engines that are not equipped with NOx control catalysts [ 125 ]. This is why no NOx avoided emissions have been taken into account. A 50 % average SO 2 emissions reduction is however considered, as the avoided emissions will depend very much on the blend.

Please find below de corresponding functions:

F 2  = 9.78 SH + 9.78 WPP + 9.44 PV + 9.27 BT I  + 9.27 BT H  + 9.27 BT HE  + 9.27 BT C  + 8.9 MSW + 9.38 BEG + 2.7 LBF A  + 2.7 LBF T

F 3  = 0.028 SH + 0.028 WPP + 0.026 PV + 0.02 BT I  + 0.02 BT H  + 0.02 BT HE  + 0.02 BT C  + 0.028 MSW + 0.02 BEG

F 4  = 0.04126 SH + 0.0407 WPP + 0.038 PV + 0.041 BT I  + 0.041 BT H  + 0.041 BT HE  + 0.041 BT C  + 0.04128 MSW + 0.041 BEG + 0.0058 LBF A  + 0.0058 LBF T

F5: Cost minimization of substitution of RE for existing conventional energy

Based on the typical capital cost ranges for RE power generation technologies, USD/kW [ 49 , 137 – 139 ], the overnight capital cost is calculated (USD/toe) so that the appropriate coefficients can be applied:

F 5  = 0.08 SH + 0.32 WPP + 0.3 PV + 0.18 BT I  + 0.14 BT H  + 0.18 BT HE  + 0.14 BT C  + 0.48 MSW + 0.55 BEG + 0.94 LBF A  + 0.94 LBF T

It must be noted that a CHP use has been assumed for MSW biogas plants and LBF production.

F6: Maximization of the most rural development friendly types of RE, aiming to improve health and education

See below Table  12 , where the precedence constraints have been evaluated by the authors as per the below mentioned subjects, based on the indicated references.

Table 12

Precedence constraints [ 126 – 136 ]

P and SH

SW

B

PV

LBF

MSW

Identified ad hoc applications

5

4

5

5

5

1

Low overnight capital cost/unnecessary donor support

2

3

5

1

1

1

Low maintenance cost

4

5

4

5

1

1

Unnecessary maintenance contract

4

1

5

4

1

1

Long lasting systems

5

4

4

4

4

5

Short distance from energy source

4

5

5

5

2

1

Safe from being stolen in rural environment

4

4

3

1

5

5

Low rural environmental impact

3

5

2

5

2

2

Predictability

4

2

4

2

4

5

Batteries not required

2.5

1

2.5

1

2.5

2.5

AC

2.5

2.5

2.5

1

2.5

2.5

Possible rural modularity

1

2.5

1

2.5

1

1

Added benefits for rural development

1

1

1

1

1

2.5

In-country development

5

3

3

1

5

5

Low LEC

4

4

3

1

1

1

Space efficiency for rural Environment

1

4

1

3

1

1

Low waste generation

2.5 s

2.5

1

2.5

2.5

1

M and N are then calculated as per Eqs. ( 23 ) and ( 24 ) (see Table  13 below):

Table 13

Calculation of N and M factors

Alternative

M

N

Coefficient

P and SH

4.1 × 106

4.8 × 107

2.5

SW

6.2 × 106

3.6 × 107

2.5

B

6.6 × 106

1.35 × 107

2

PV

4.6 × 107

4 × 105

2

LBF

2 × 108

105

1.5

MSW

3.3 × 108

19,531

1

Own construction

Once the coefficients are applied, this is the final equation for F 6 :

F 6  = 2.5 SH + 2.5 WPP + 2 PV + 2 BT I  + 2 BT H  + 2 BT HE  + 2 BT C  + MSW + 2 BEG + 1.5 LBF A  + 1.5 LBF T

Results and discussion

Please find below Table  14 and Figs.  6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 and 11 , which include the results obtained (in ktoe), using the Chebyshev distance, L∞, following the Anti-Ideal Compromise Programming as previously defined in chapter 2.3; taking into account the below mentioned weights.

Table 14

Optimization results using Matlab ® programming tools

Weights

SH

WP

PV

BTI

BTH

BTHE

BTC

MSW

BEG

LBFA

LBFT

1,1,1,1,1,1a

86.7

43.2

3.6

2146.4

1.1

0.4

431.8

62.3

15.1

1

180.1

1,0,0,0,0,0

125.9

75.2

3.6

2148.9

1.2

0.4

432.1

0

15.1

1.8

436.3

5,1,1,1,1,1

109.1

61.7

3.6

2148.9

1.2

0.4

432.1

30.2

15.1

1.5

325.1

0,1,0,0,0,0

125.2

75.9

3.6

2148.9

1.2

0.4

432.1

0

15.1

1.8

436.3

1,5,1,1,1,1

104.4

58.1

3.6

2148.7

1.2

0.4

432.1

37.8

15.1

1.4

300.8

0,0,1,0,0,0

78.3

36.3

3.6

2148.9

1.2

0.4

432.1

86.5

15.1

0.9

114.7

1,1,5,1,1,1

86.7

43.5

3.6

2148.8

1.2

0.4

432.1

70.7

15.1

1.1

173.7

0,0,0,1,0,0

47.3

86

3.6

2148.9

1.2

0.4

432.1

14.5

15.1

1.8

436.3

1,1,1,5,1,1

95.5

50.7

3.6

2148.8

1.2

0.4

432.1

54.4

15.1

1.3

247.1

0,0,0,0,1,0

47.3

8.6

3.6

2109

0

0

427.8

0

15.1

0

0

1,1,1,1,5,1

61.2

20.8

3.6

2121.1

0.4

0.1

429.1

18

15.1

0.4

66.7

0,0,0,0,0,1

125

76.1

3.6

2148.9

1.2

0.4

432.1

0

15.1

1.8

436.3

1,1,1,1,1,5

112.6

64.6

3.6

2148.8

1.2

0.4

432.1

23.5

15.1

1.6

348.3

1,5,5,5,1,1

104.3

58.2

3.6

2148.9

1.2

0.4

432.1

38.4

15.1

1.4

299.1

5,1,1,1,1,5

112.6

64.4

3.6

2148.8

1.2

0.4

432.1

23.6

15.1

1.6

349.7

Own construction

a  Weights have been indicated as per functions vector ( F 1 , F 2 , F 3 , F 4 , F 5 , F 6 )

Fig. 6

SH, WP, MSW and LBF T variation as per the weights assigned to function 1. Source: own construction

Fig. 7

SH, WP, MSW and LBF T variation as per the weights assigned to function 2. Source: own construction

Fig. 8

SH, WP, MSW and LBF T variation as per the weights assigned to function 3. Source: own construction

Fig. 9

SH, WP, MSW and LBF T variation as per the weights assigned to function 4. Source: own construction

Fig. 10

SH, WP, MSW and LBF T variation as per the weights assigned to function 5. Source: own construction

Fig. 11

SH, WP, MSW and LBF T Variation as per the weights assigned to function 6. Source: own construction

The authors have aimed to compare the solution obtained given no special weight to any of the functions: (1,1,1,1,1,1); with the obtained values when only one of the functions is taken into account: for example (1,0,0,0,0,0); and finally with the outcome solution when a special weight has been given to a particular function: for example (5,1,1,1,1,1). This way, the different solutions will clearly show the tendency the variables follow, when a particular function is given more importance than the others. The authors have added two more cases to this list, one giving special importance to the three emissions functions ( F 2 , F 3 , F 4 ), and another one targeting the maximum renewable energy substitution and rural health and education development ( F 1 and F 6 ).

The nominal weights (1,1,1,1,1,1) are considered as the baseline. Once this baseline is obtained, then the other cases will be taken into account to give some special relative importance to any of the six functions or even to address some different weights to be applied if necessary [ 15 , 16 , 23 , 24 ]. The results show that PV and BEG stay at their minimum potential value independently of the chosen weights, while the four biomass variables (BT I , BT H , BT HE and BT C ) reach approximately their maximum potential value, except for the two cases where the economic factor is given a certain weight versus the other functions. This exception is totally expected, as function F 5 will always look for the cheapest solution, i.e., the one implementing less renewable energy substitution. The rest of the variables, SH, WP, MSW LBF A and LBFT do vary, depending on the chosen weights. The first three variables are linked together as per Eq. ( 22 ). This means that any variation in one of them, will therefore affect the other. As can be seen in Figs.  6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 and 11 above, when only one function is optimized, a maximum polarized value is obtained for the different variables. Once all six functions are taking into account, even if a weight 5 is applied to a particular one, the difference from the nominal results [the ones obtained as per (1,1,1,1,1,1)] is less acute, flattening this way the value given to the different variables.

If the individual optimizations [for example: (1,0,0,0,0,0)] are not considered, and the last two cases or also not taken into account, the maximization of the above mentioned variables may be summarized as per Table  15 below.

Table 15

Maximization of SH, WP, MSW, LBF A and LBF T

Renewable energy

Reaches maximum value when prioritizing

SH

F6 (max rural development) > F1 > F2 > F4 > F3 > F5

WP

F6 (max rural development) > F1 > F2 > F4 > F3 > F5

MSW

F3 (max NOx avoided emissions) > F4 > F2 > F1 > F6 > F5

LBFA

F6 (max rural development) > F1 > F2 > F4 > F3 > F5

LBFT

F6 (max rural development) > F1 > F2 > F4 > F3 > F5

Own construction

The authors have summarized below in Table  16 the advantages of applying this energy planning model to Sri Lanka, and also the potential improvements in Table  17 .

Table 16

Advantages of SRIME application in Sri Lanka

SRIME singularity

Advantage for Sri Lanka

Multi-objective (6 equations)

Avoiding this way, single-objective financial perspective, which gradually would make SL poorer and more dependent on oil import

Takes into account CO2 and also NOx and SO2

Automobiles are very contaminant in SL, NOx is therefore of great importance

Maximizing RE

SL has proofed to be a fast RE growing country, improving industry in general

Health and Education equation

Very innovative precedence constraints application, aiming to set a sustainable growth through energy universal access

Possibility of applying weights

This way planners may choose which either if all objectives may have the same weight or there is a particular equation that must be given a certain priority

Pareto optimal solution

Assuring the chosen solution is not ‘dominated’ by any of the equations

Own construction

Table 17

Potential Improvements for SRIME application in Sri Lanka

Potential Improvement

Advantage

Introduction of hybrid systems

Very efficient for remote rural materially underdeveloped areas, with highly flexible configurations, and currently undergoing a high level of implementation

Equations weights to be decided by an international team of specialists (energy planners, maintenance specialists, policy makers and politicians) including, of course, people from Sri Lanka

One of the most important processes of the SRIME is the weights assignation. Although these groups may have different points of view, and sometimes even opposite objectives: consensus is a must

Own construction

Conclusions

This paper shows the possibility of using MCDM methods, focusing on a sustainable and renewable energy approach. The resulting energy models give a great level of importance to the human environmental development factors, avoiding, therefore, the purely economic reasoning. These type of models are becoming a common way of choosing global energy plans [ 139 ] or some independent power plants, such as wind farms [ 140 ]. This work has aimed at establishing a potential energy model implementation methodology that may be applicable for developing countries. The Case Study shows that if SRIME was implemented in Sri Lanka, SH, WP, MSW and LBF T would be specially benefited from the Pareto optimization, while PV and BEG would stay at their official future expected value [ 20 ], having no growth at all. The SRIME model could be relatively easily interpolated to other Asian tropical countries, due to the similar circumstances in terms of health an education low overall parameters, high biomass consumption, monsoon special weather characteristics, low GDP and extremely high petroleum imports dependency.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the support received from Carlos Molina-Dafauce. The authors would also like to thank professors Carlos Romero, Pedro Linares, Cristina Pascual, José L. Hernanz, Inés Izquierdo, and investigator Eder Falcón.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest

References

  1. Marcos (1985) (pp. 97-104) Julio Agosto
  2. Unknown ()
  3. Unknown ()
  4. Williamsona et al. (2014) Low head pico hydro turbine selection using a multi-criteria analysis (pp. 43-50) 10.1016/j.renene.2012.06.020
  5. Gong et al. (2011) Multiple objective compromised method for power management in virtual power plants 4(4) (pp. 700-716) 10.3390/en4040700
  6. Maheri (2014) Multi-objective design optimisation of standalone hybrid wind-PV-diesel systems under uncertainties (pp. 650-661) 10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.009
  7. Tomoiaga et al. (2013) Pareto optimal reconfiguration of power distribution systems using a genetic algorithm based on NSGA-II 6(3) (pp. 1439-1455) 10.3390/en6031439
  8. Unknown ()
  9. Unknown ()
  10. Unknown ()
  11. Unknown ()
  12. Unknown ()
  13. Unknown ()
  14. Unknown ()
  15. Wijayatunga et al. (2003) Greenhouse gas emission mitigation in the Sri Lanka power sector supply side and demand side options (pp. 3247-3265) 10.1016/S0196-8904(03)00100-6
  16. Wijayatunga and Prasad (2009) Clean energy technology and regulatory interventions for Greenhouse Gas emission mitigation: Sri Lankan power sector (pp. 1595-1603) 10.1016/j.enconman.2009.02.005
  17. Lee and Chang (2007) Energy consumption and GDP revisited: a panel analysis of developed and developing countries (pp. 1206-1223) 10.1016/j.eneco.2007.01.001
  18. Unknown ()
  19. Unknown ()
  20. Unknown ()
  21. Unknown ()
  22. Unknown ()
  23. Mumtaz et al. (2014) Modeling the causal relationship between energy and growth factors: journey towards sustainable development 63(2014) (pp. 353-365) 10.1016/j.renene.2013.09.033
  24. Unknown ()
  25. Unknown ()
  26. Unknown ()
  27. Unknown ()
  28. Romero (1993) Alianza Universidad Textos
  29. Unknown ()
  30. Unknown ()
  31. Unknown ()
  32. Unknown ()
  33. Unknown ()
  34. Unknown ()
  35. Unknown ()
  36. Unknown ()
  37. Unknown ()
  38. Unknown ()
  39. Unknown ()
  40. Unknown ()
  41. Unknown ()
  42. Unknown ()
  43. Unknown ()
  44. Unknown ()
  45. Unknown ()
  46. Lee and Chang (2007) Energy consumption and GDP revisited: a panel analysis of developed and developing countries (pp. 1206-1223) 10.1016/j.eneco.2007.01.001
  47. Unknown ()
  48. Unknown ()
  49. Unknown ()
  50. Apergis and Payne (2012) Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption-growth nexus: evidence from a panel error correction model (pp. 733-738) 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.04.007
  51. Unknown ()
  52. Unknown ()
  53. Unknown ()
  54. Unknown ()
  55. Unknown ()
  56. Unknown ()
  57. Unknown ()
  58. Unknown ()
  59. Unknown ()
  60. Perera et al. (2003) Sustainable biomass production for energy in Sri Lanka (pp. 541-556) 10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00090-4
  61. Unknown ()
  62. Unknown ()
  63. Unknown ()
  64. Bhattacharyya (2012) Energy access programmes and sustainable development: a critical review and analysis (pp. 260-271) 10.1016/j.esd.2012.05.002
  65. Unknown ()
  66. Unknown ()
  67. McEachern and Hanson (2008) Socio-geographic perception in the diffusion of innovation: solar energy technology in Sri Lanka (pp. 2578-2590) 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.020
  68. Unknown ()
  69. Unknown ()
  70. Unknown ()
  71. Miller and Hope (2006) Learning to lend for off-grid solar power: policy lessons from World Bank loans to India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka (pp. 1179-1191) 10.1016/j.enconman.2005.07.003
  72. Palit and Chaurey (2011) Off-grid rural electrification experiences from South Asia: Status and best practices (pp. 266-276) 10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.004
  73. Subhes and Bhattacharyya (2013) Financing energy access and off-grid electrification: A review of status, options and challenges (pp. 462-472) 10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.008
  74. Unknown ()
  75. Unknown ()
  76. Unknown ()
  77. Morimoto and Hope (2004) The impact of electricity supply on economic growth in Sri Lanka (pp. 77-85) 10.1016/S0140-9883(03)00034-3
  78. Priyantha (2004) Wijayatunga, Jayalath MS. Assessment of economic impact of electricity supply interruptions in the Sri Lanka industrial sector (pp. 235-247) 10.1016/S0196-8904(03)00132-8
  79. Unknown ()
  80. Unknown ()
  81. Moretti et al. (2013) Development of innovative heating and cooling systems using renewable energy sources for non-residential buildings 6(10) (pp. 5114-5129) 10.3390/en6105114
  82. Gallo et al. (2013) Optimization of experimental model parameter identification for energy storage systems 6(9) (pp. 4572-4590) 10.3390/en6094572
  83. Gómez-Gil et al. (2012) Analysis and prediction of energy production in concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) installations 5(3) (pp. 770-789) 10.3390/en5030770
  84. Wu et al. (2014) Energy and exergy analysis of high temperature agent gasification of biomass 7(4) (pp. 2107-2122) 10.3390/en7042107
  85. Unknown ()
  86. Unknown ()
  87. Unknown ()
  88. Unknown ()
  89. Unknown ()
  90. Unknown ()
  91. Unknown ()
  92. Unknown ()
  93. Unknown ()
  94. Unknown ()
  95. Unknown ()
  96. Unknown ()
  97. Unknown ()
  98. Unknown ()
  99. Unknown ()
  100. Unknown ()
  101. Unknown ()
  102. Unknown ()
  103. Unknown ()
  104. Unknown ()
  105. Unknown ()
  106. Unknown ()
  107. Millo et al. (2014) Real world operation of a complex plug-in hybrid electric vehicle: analysis of its CO2 emissions and operating costs 7(7) (pp. 4554-4570) 10.3390/en7074554
  108. Nuesch et al. (2014) Equivalent consumption minimization strategy for the control of real driving NOx emissions of a diesel hybrid electric vehicle 7(5) (pp. 3148-3178) 10.3390/en7053148
  109. Priyantha et al. (2007) Economy wide emission impacts of carbon and energy tax in electricity supply industry: a case study on Sri Lanka (pp. 1975-1982) 10.1016/j.enconman.2007.01.030
  110. Priyantha et al. (2006) Strategies to overcome barriers for cleaner generation technologies in small developing power systems: Sri Lanka case study (pp. 1179-1191) 10.1016/j.enconman.2005.07.003
  111. Priyantha et al. (2004) Impact of distributed and independent power generation on greenhouse gas emissions: Sri Lanka (pp. 3193-3206) 10.1016/j.enconman.2004.01.009
  112. Unknown ()
  113. Unknown ()
  114. Unknown ()
  115. Unknown ()
  116. Unknown ()
  117. Unknown ()
  118. Unknown ()
  119. Houshfar et al. (2012) Experimental investigation on NOx reduction by primary measures in biomass combustion: straw, peat, sewage sludge. Forest residues wood pellets (pp. 270-290) 10.3390/en5020270
  120. Moradian et al. (2013) Co-combustion of animal waste in a commercial waste-to-energy BFB boiler (pp. 6170-6187) 10.3390/en6126170
  121. Tchapda and Pisupati (2014) A review of thermal co-conversion of coal and biomass/waste (pp. 1098-1148) 10.3390/en7031098
  122. Unknown ()
  123. Unknown ()
  124. Unknown ()
  125. Unknown ()
  126. Unknown ()
  127. Unknown ()
  128. Unknown ()
  129. Unknown ()
  130. Unknown ()
  131. Unknown ()
  132. Bhattacharyya (2012) Energy access programmes and sustainable development: A critical review and analysis (pp. 260-271) 10.1016/j.esd.2012.05.002
  133. Unknown ()
  134. Unknown ()
  135. Subhes and Bhattacharyya (2013) Financing energy access and off-grid electrification: a review of status, options and challenges (pp. 462-472) 10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.008
  136. Unknown ()
  137. Unknown ()
  138. Unknown ()
  139. Unknown ()
  140. Kang et al. (2011) An integrated multi-criteria decision making model for evaluating wind farm performance 4(11) (pp. 2002-2026) 10.3390/en4112002