Accepted Manuscript

Prospects of Renewable Energy Sources in India: Prioritization of Alternative

Sources in Terms of Energy Index

Shibani K. Jha, Harish Puppala

PII: S0360-5442(17)30493-0

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.110

Reference: EGY 10577

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 20 October 2016

Revised Date: 12 February 2017

Accepted Date: 23 March 2017

Please cite this article as: Shibani K. Jha, Harish Puppala, Prospects of Renewable Energy
Sources in India: Prioritization of Alternative Sources in Terms of Energy Index, Energy (2017), doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.110

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Prospects of Renewable Energy Sources in India: Prioritization of Alternative

2 Sources in Terms of Energy Index
3 Shibani K Jha1 and Harish Puppala2
4
5 1,2Department of Civil Engineering
6 1,2Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani 333 031, India
7 1Assistant Professor (corresponding author); e-mail: shibani@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in

8 2 Research Scholar; e-mail: harishpuppala.ce@gmail.com

10 Abstract

11 The growing energy demand in progressing civilization governs the exploitation of various
12 renewable sources over the conventional sources. Wind, Solar, Hydro, Biomass, and waste &
13 Bagasse are the various available renewable sources in India. A reliable nonconventional
14 geothermal source is also available in India but it is restricted to direct heat applications. This
15 study archives the status of renewable alternatives in India. The techno economic factors and
16 environmental aspects associated with each of these alternatives are discussed. This study
17 focusses on prioritizing the renewable sources based on a parameter introduced as Energy Index.
18 This index is evaluated using cumulative scores obtained for each of the alternatives. The
19 cumulative score is obtained by evaluating each alternative over a range of eleven environmental
20 and techno economic criteria following Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. The eleven
21 criteria’s considered in the study are Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), Sulphur dioxide emissions
22 (SO2), Nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx), Land requirement, Current energy cost, Potential future
23 energy cost, Turnkey investment, Capacity factor, Energy efficiency, Design period and Water
24 consumption. It is concluded from the study that the geothermal source is the most preferable
25 alternative with highest Energy Index. Hydro, Wind, Biomass and Solar sources are
26 subsequently preferred alternatives.

27 Keywords: Renewable energy alternatives, Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy (FAH) process, Energy
28 Index

29 Highlights:

30  FAH process is used to obtain cumulative score for each renewable alternative.
31  Cumulative score is normalized by highest score of ideal source.
32  Energy Index shows how best a renewable alternative is.
33  Priority order is obtained for alternatives based on Energy Index.
34  Geothermal is most preferable source followed by Hydro, Wind, Biomass and Solar.

35

36 Nomenclature:
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 C1 : CO2 equivalent

2 C2 : NOx emissions

3 C3 : SO2 emissions

4 C4 : Land requirement for the installation of plant

5 C5 : Current energy cost

6 C6 : Potential future energy cost

7 C7 : Turnkey investment

8 C8 : Capacity factor

9 C9 : Energy input output ratio

10 C10 : Design life time

11 C11 : Water consumption

12 A1 : Hydro Energy source

13 A2 : Biomass Energy source

14 A3 : Geothermal Energy source

15 A4 : Wind Energy source

16 A5 : Solar Energy source

17 A6 : Ideal source

18 Ei : Energy index of an alternative i (i = 1 to 6)

19

20 1. Introduction

21 Energy is considered as an inevitable commodity, responsible for the empowerment of any

22 economy. Uncertainty in its supply can debilitate the flow of economy, especially in the
23 developing nations [1]. India being the second most populous country with 18% of world’s
24 population, is utilizing 6% of the world’s primary energy [2]. The energy consumption of the
25 country rose from 15146 Peta Joules during the year 2005-2006 to 20471 Peta Joules during the
26 year 2013-2014. This accounts to a significant annual growth rate of 7.36 % [3].
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Coal, lignite, natural gas, petroleum and renewable sources are the different alternatives
2 available for the generation of electricity in India. Most of the energy demand at commercial
3 scale is met by the ignition of fossil fuels which are usually imported. The huge import of crude
4 and petroleum products has made India, the fourth largest importer and consumer among the
5 world nations [4]. Among the fossil fuels, coal contributes to 69.5% of power generation in India
6 [3].

7 In the financial year 2001-2002, the peak deficit was 9252 MW approximately [3]. To
8 meet the deficit, measures have been taken by the Indian government which includes upscaling
9 of existing renewable sources and increasing the imports of fossil fuels. Even after this endeavor
10 by the ministry, a deficit of 6103 MW was experienced during the financial year 2014-2015 [3].
11 By considering the growth in the energy consumption as shown in the Table 1, it is anticipated
12 that the energy consumption would reach 29151 Peta Joules by 2030, provided the growth rate
13 follows logistic distribution.

14 Table 1: Energy consumption (in Peta Joules) in India [3].

15 The present breakup of primary commercial energy resources as shown in the Fig. 1 is
16 certainly undesirable. The reason is that India is primarily dependent on the imports of fossil
17 fuel. Furthermore, unprecedented geopolitical issues can create the scarcity in the availability of
18 resources. These issues may have a significant impact on the economic development and the
19 industrial growth of the country. Considering the anticipated demand, dependency of the country
20 on fuel imports, environmental impact and the energy insecurity into account, there is an urgent
21 need to study the prospects of the existing alternative sources and to emphasize the development
22 of the available sources that can meet the projected energy demand with minimum negative
23 impact on environment. Thus, the only feasible option is to reduce the ignition of the fossil fuels
24 by developing and promoting the generation of electricity using available renewable sources.
25 Since there are different renewable alternatives available, there is a sincere need to find a
26 parameter that addresses how best each of the existing alternatives is when compared to an ideal
27 source. Thus, this parameter which can reasonably address the abovementioned fact is introduced
28 as Energy Index. The underlying assumptions for defining ideal source is given in section 3.1.

29
30 To achieve the main focus, the study has considered the fact that the alternatives have
31 negative impact on environment and various techno-economic aspects. Thus, each alternative is
32 evaluated over 11 criteria namely, Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), Sulphur oxide emissions
33 (SO2), Nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx), Land requirement, Current energy cost, Potential future
34 energy cost, Turnkey investment, Capacity factor, Energy input output ratio, Design period and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Water consumption. The physical significance associated with each of the criteria’s is given in
2 section 3.1, briefly. First the cumulative score for each alternative is obtained. This is further
3 used in computing Energy Index as given in section 4.

5 Fig. 1: Breakup of primary commercial energy resources in India [3].

6 2. Potential of renewable energy in India

7 With a vision of developing and promoting the renewable energy sources, Indian government has
8 taken several initiatives to strengthen the renewable energy sector in India. Over the decades it
9 has achieved remarkable milestones as shown in the Fig. 2. From the statistics it is evident that
10 an annual growth rate of 22 % was attained during the last decade [1]. The prospects of each
11 renewable source are discussed in the subsequent sections.
12
13 Fig. 2: Growth of Renewable energy over the decades [3].
14
15 2.1. Status of Wind Energy Source

16 The movement of wind is a complex mechanism which involves the interaction of sun and earth.
17 It is considered to be the most widely distributed source with worldwide potential of 432883
18 MW [5]. The total share of India in terms of installed capacity is 5.82 %, approximately [5].

19 The magnitude and direction of wind varies spatially. Thus, scientific wind mapping is
20 done extensively in India for its effective utilization [1]. The areas with least wind power density
21 of 400 W/m2 at 30 m of height are identified and considered as optimal locations for the
22 exploitation of wind energy [6]. Harnessing wind energy to generate electricity involves points
23 of interest and problems as well. The environmental & techno-economic aspects of wind energy
24 along with other renewable sources are presented quantitatively in Table 2. Attributes of
25 environmental aspects are adopted from Emission Inventory Guidebook [33]. These attributes
26 are reported by considering the emissions which depends on the technology behind the
27 machinery and the fuel used. From the statistics, it is evident that CO2 emissions involved in the
28 generation of electricity using wind energy is lower unlike other renewable sources. From the
29 attributes mentioned, it is also observed that water required in generating electricity using this
30 source is negligible compared to geothermal source. Moreover, turnkey investment and capacity
31 factor associated with wind energy is least among all the alternatives. Fig. 3 shows the potential
32 growth in energy development using wind, hydro and solar as sources. Generation of electricity
33 through wind energy is considered as a promising source as it depends on the motion of wind
34 causing the movement of turbine blades. The source is assumed to be available throughout the
35 year, with some fluctuations. However, noise from the gearbox and the generator are considered
36 as major environmental impacts. It is expected that noise with an intensity of 50-60 dB is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 experienced within a buffer distance of 40 m [7]. The state wise distribution of wind energy
2 potential in India is presented in Fig. 4.
3
4 Table 2: Environmental & techno-economic aspects of renewable sources studies [27], [28],
5 [29], [30], [31], [32] [33].
6
7 Fig. 3: Year wise growth of wind, hydro and solar energy [3].
8
9 Fig. 4: Energy Potential of Wind source across the country.
10
11 2.2. Status of Solar Energy Source
12 Solar energy source is one of the most abundant sources with wide applications such as rural
13 electrification, street lightening, power grid stabilization and agricultural applications. Effective
14 utilization of solar radiation reaching earth in a year would generate 10000 times the world
15 energy requirement in a year [8]. Since India is located geographically between tropic of cancer
16 and Equator, it has an average annual temperature ranging between 25 oC - 27.5 oC. With this
17 advantageous geographical location, India receives a global solar radiation over a range of 1200
18 kWh/m2/year to 2300 kWh/m2/year [9]. The south east coast of India is considered to be sunniest
19 parts in the country. To harness solar energy under this geographical advantage, Ministry of New
20 and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has targeted to install plants for the generation of 20 GW of
21 power by 2022. In addition to this, paramount importance has been given to solar power by
22 initiating National Solar Mission [6].
23
24 In the year 2010, Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission was initiated by Indian
25 government, with an objective of achieving 20,000 MW of grid solar power and 2000 MW of off
26 grid solar power [10]. The energy generation using solar modules is not emissions free. The
27 environmental and techno-economic aspects are provided in Table 2. Few components of solar
28 modules may also emit mercury and cadmium [7]. From the attributes shown in Table 2, it is
29 noticed that SO2 emissions and turnkey investment corresponding to solar source is relatively
30 high with respect to other renewable sources. However, the energy input-output ratio is better
31 than wind. Even though easier installation is the advantage associated with solar panels, the
32 current energy cost for the generation of 1 kWh of electricity is far ahead compared to hydro as
33 well as relatively higher compared to other renewable sources as shown in Table 2. The yearly
34 growth in the installation of solar energy and the potential distribution among the Indian states
35 are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5, respectively. From Fig. 5, it can be noticed that, unlike wind
36 energy, solar energy is well harnessed in all the states of India.
37
38 Fig. 5: Energy Potential of Solar source across the country.
39
40 2.3. Status of Small Hydro Power Source
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1
2 Hydro power plants of capacity smaller than 25 MW are considered as small hydro power plants.
3 To supply electricity especially in the hilly terrain, where the provision of electricity through the
4 extension of grids becomes uneconomical, small hydro projects are preferred to meet the
5 demand. The first small hydro project was commissioned in India during the year of 1897 with a
6 capacity of 130 kW project at Darjeeling [11]. From the attributes of environmental and techno-
7 economic aspects listed in Table 2, it can be noticed that NOx emission is less from hydro
8 sources compared to rest of the alternatives. Furthermore the current energy cost for the
9 generation of per kWh of electricity is least compared to other renewable sources. However, the
10 water consumption is higher than wind, solar and biomass. The yearly growth in energy
11 production through small hydro projects and the current status in different states of India are
12 shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 6 respectively.
13
14 Fig. 6: Energy Potential (MW) of small hydro source across the country.

15 2.4. Status of Biomass Power Source

16 Biomass gasification in India was initiated in the year 1980 [12]. Later, during the year 1987, a
17 National programme on gasification technology was initiated by the Indian government with an
18 objective of using small wood gasifiers coupled with diesel engines. These coupled engines had
19 been used for pumping water and for the generation of electricity at domestic scale. Paramount
20 importance on the power generation was given in the second phase of the mission. It is projected
21 that 15-50 % of total energy demand may be fulfilled solely from biomass plants by 2050 [6].

22 Fire wood and natural wood are widely used as raw materials for the generation of
23 electricity. Energy generation from agro-residues, plantations, bagasse cogeneration &waste are
24 the different techniques in the generation of electricity using biomass. India is extremely rich in
25 generating power using biomass with a potential of 17538 MW from agro-residues, 5000 MW
26 from bagasse cogeneration and 2556 MW from waste. From the environmental & techno-
27 economic aspects as presented in Table 2, it can be noticed that it has few negative impact on
28 environment as well. Harnessing biomass for the generation of electricity involves huge NOx
29 emissions which is relatively closer to solar but far ahead to hydro, wind and geothermal sources.
30 Moreover, the land required for the biomass plant installation is also relatively high compared to
31 rest of the alternatives. The current state wise potential from biomass is shown in Fig. 7 which
32 shows that it is harnessed in majority of the states.
33
34 Fig. 7: Energy Potential (MW) from Biomass source across the country.
35
36 2.5. Geothermal Energy status

37 The energy extracted from earth’s heat is known as geothermal energy. Deep extraction bore
38 wells are drilled to a depth of 3 Km or more to extract the entrapped heat in earth’s strata, by
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 using water under pressure as a medium to transport heat. USA, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico,
2 Italy and Iceland are the leading nations in utilizing their geothermal resource. The studies on
3 geothermal energy in India were initiated in the year 1862. Geological Survey of India has
4 explored 340 hot springs and few potential geothermal provinces with a predicted potential of
5 10,600 MW [13]. However, in practice it is still remained untapped. Among the identified
6 geothermal provinces in India, Puga Valley located in Ladakh district is identified as most
7 potential geothermal province [13].

8 For the effective use of geothermal energy, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has
9 been initiating various measures over the past 25 years [14]. As a result of geo-investigations,
10 few geothermal provinces have been identified as shown in Fig. 8. Even after few successful
11 investigations, there is no operational plant for the generation of electricity at industrial scale due
12 to techno economic reasons [14]. From the attributes as listed in Table 2, it is evident that the
13 capacity factor for geothermal energy is higher than hydro, wind, solar and biomass whereas it is
14 also observed that the energy input-output ratio and the land required for the installation of plant
15 is less compared to other alternatives.

16 Fig. 8: Geothermal provinces across the country.

17
18 From the data presented in Table 2, it is evident that each of these alternatives has
19 positive and negative impacts in terms of techno economic and environmental aspects. Therefore
20 after considering the present status, it is necessary to evaluate all the available alternatives over
21 the wide range of criteria’s to outrank the best alternative to meet the demand with least negative
22 impact. In addition to this, to evaluate how best the outranked alternative is when compared to an
23 ideal source, a parameter termed as Energy Index is introduced in this study. This quantifies the
24 dominance and performance of each source with respect to a benchmark ideal source. The
25 assumptions in the establishment of benchmark are elaborated in the subsequent sections.
26
27 3. Evaluation of Alternatives using Multi-criterion approach

28 Using renewable energy for the generation of electricity is a promising option when the
29 environmental issues are concerned. There are several available renewable alternatives for the
30 generation of electricity. Each of these alternatives has some benefits as well as few drawbacks.
31 Therefore, the cumulative score for each of the alternatives is evaluated by considering both the
32 benefits and drawbacks, using multi-criterion approach. Benefits, such as small foot print area
33 for the installation of plant, low current energy cost, low potential future energy cost, least
34 turnkey investment, high capacity factor, low input-output ratio, high design life of the plant, and
35 low water consumption during the operation are considered in this study. Additionally, the
36 drawbacks of the alternatives such as CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions which have a negative
37 environmental impact in a local and regional scale are considered.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Several studies have been carried out on the evaluation of power plants driven by
2 renewable energy. Electree-III has been used for the energy planning problem in Greece by
3 considering economic and technical aspects [15]. The same outranking method was adopted for
4 the evaluation of alternatives by considering technical, economic and environmental criteria’s
5 [16]. Later in the year 1998, a tool for Electree-III with Microsoft excel as interface is created
6 and it is used for the ranking of projects for an electricity utility in New Zealand [17]. Also few
7 studies have been conducted to outrank the available alternatives of power generation by
8 considering the environmental, economic and technical factors [18] [19] [20]. Similar problems
9 have been addressed by using Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP) in few of the studies [21],
10 [22], [23], [24], [25].

11 From the published literature, it is identified that none of the studies addresses the
12 evaluation of existing alternative renewable sources over the wide range of techno-economic and
13 environmental factors. In outranking methods and AHP, the crisp values corresponding to the
14 alternatives are used in the evaluation. Consideration of crisp value for a real life problem in
15 evaluating the dominance of one alternative over other is not an appropriate approach. Therefore,
16 keeping the above facts into account and considering the probability of deviation of crisp values,
17 Fuzzy values are considered in this study. Since, the study emphasizes to develop Energy Index
18 which describes how best an alternative is; while comparing the existing alternative with an ideal
19 alternative; there is a need to assume an ideal source (hypothetical) which dominates all others
20 alternatives in all the aspects. Since it is not reasonable to consider one of the available
21 alternatives as an ideal source, a hypothetical source is considered as an ideal alternative in this
22 study. This ideal alternative is assumed to be the one that dominates all the existing alternatives
23 over all the similar criteria’s under consideration. To analyze these alternatives using Electree
24 and Prometee, requires attribute values for this hypothetical source. On the other hand Analytical
25 Hierarchy Process, in which the domination is evaluated over a scale of (1-9), is preferred to
26 adopt to evaluate the existing renewable alternatives in India, which is further discussed in detail
27 in the subsequent sections. .

28 3.1 Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP)

29 The Fuzzy AHP technique is an advanced analytical technique streamed from the conventional
30 methodology of Analytical Hierarchy Process. Electree and AHP techniques deal with the crisp
31 value of the attributes. In AHP technique, the pair wise comparison of alternatives is done using
32 the Saaty scale which is crisp [26]. The data corresponding to the real world problems as a crisp
33 value leads to inadmissible conclusions. Therefore, Fuzzy AHP which converts the Saaty’s crisp
34 scale into fuzzy scale using a triangular membership function is used for the evaluation of the
35 alternatives in this study. The dominance of one alternative over the other for each of the
36 criteria’s is measured on a fuzzy Saaty scale. The schematic representation of the present study is
37 shown in Fig. 9 which represents the number of alternatives evaluated over eleven criteria.

38 Fig. 9: Schematic representation of the problem.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1
2 To evaluate Energy Index, a hypothetical ideal alternative A6 is proposed and is used for the
3 analysis where finally the cumulative score of each alternative (A1 to A5) are normalized with
4 respect to cumulative score of Ideal source A6. The criteria considered for the evaluation of
5 renewable alternatives and its physical significance is discussed in Table 3. Furthermore the
6 dominance of alternatives with respect to each of the criteria’s is presented based on the
7 attributes of Table 2.

8 Table 3: Description of criteria’s and its significance towards evaluation of alternatives.

9
10 Most of the attributes as listed in Table 2, are crisp which cannot represent the real life problems
11 as mentioned earlier. Moreover, selecting the best source to meet the demand with the least
12 negative impact cannot be judged merely by considering the dominance with respect to only one
13 of the criteria’s. Therefore, the cumulative score of each alternative is computed by using Fuzzy
14 AHP in this study. Unlike determining the priority order based on simply the cumulative scores
15 of alternatives evaluated over a wide range of criteria’s, Energy Index have been introduced to
16 identify the best alternative source among the existing sources compared with the ideal source.
17 This helps not only to draw the priority order but also to understand the deviation with the ideal
18 source quantitatively. The evaluation of Energy Index is discussed in the next section.

19 4. Energy Index

20 Energy index is the ratio of cumulative score of alternative evaluated over different set of
21 criteria’s under consideration to the cumulative score of ideal alternative. Mathematically the
22 Energy index is given by Eq. 1.

23 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = [𝑆𝑎/𝑆𝑖] (1)

24 Sa= Cumulative score of an existing alternative evaluated over the considered wide range of
25 criteria’s.

26 Si=Cumulative score of the ideal alternative evaluated over the considered wide range of criteria.

27 The set of steps involved in identifying the best alternative among the existing ones have been
28 discussed in the following section.

29 5. Analysis and Discussions

30 The overall defuzzified score of alternatives is evaluated over the range of eleven criteria’s using
31 Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy process. Finally Energy Index is computed for each alternatives. The
32 complete analysis and computation of Energy Index involves the following six steps.
33
34 1. Fuzzifying the Saaty judgment scale
35 2. Evaluation of each criterion over rest of the criteria.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 3. Evaluation of each alternative over each of the criteria.

2 4. Development of performance matrix and estimation of fuzzified score
3 5. Defuzzification and computation of cumulative score for each alternative.
4 6. Evaluation of Energy index.

5 5.1 Fuzzifying the Saaty judgment scale

6 In the fuzzification of Saaty scale ranging 1 to 9, triangular equivalents with an offset varying
7 from 0.5 to 2 is adopted generally [34]. Triangular membership function is considered to fuzzify
8 the crisp ratings. The generalized fuzzy scale for a crisp Saaty rating is shown in Table 4. Based
9 on the data in Table 2, crisp ratings are collected from different decision makers. From the crisp
10 ratings not much deviation is observed. Keeping this in view, an offset distance of 1 is
11 considered in this study for the fuzzification of crisp ratings using Table 4. The fuzzified Saaty
12 values corresponding to the border values i.e. 1 and 9 are (1, 1, 2) and (8, 9, 9) respectively. The
13 fuzzified Saaty scale corresponding to remaining crisp values can be obtained by substituting the
14 value of δ as 1 given in Table 4. The parameter δ is called as offset distance with 0.5<δ<2.

15 Table 4: Crisp and Fuzzified Saaty’s scale.

16 5.2 Evaluation of each criteria over rest of the criteria’s:

17 The prioritization procedure begins with the determination of the significance of each criterion
18 over the other criteria’s as shown in Table 5. Based on the final goal, the dominance of each
19 criterion over the other is determined by the decision maker. To determine the dominance, Saaty
20 crisp scale is used (i.e. weights ranging 1 to 9) [34]. Later the assigned crisp ratings as shown in
21 the Table 5 are fuzzified by using triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN).

22 The generalized matrix corresponding to the criteria evaluation can be mathematically

23 represented as shown in the Eq. 2.
 C11 .. C1N 
24

C=   C22   (2)
CN 1 .. CNN 
25

26 Where, Cij=1  i = j; (i = j= 1, 2, 3………, N) which are the diagonal members of the matrix and
27 Cij = 1/ Cji, which is also physically understood in terms of significance of one criteria over other.

28 By the application of fuzzy synthetic approach, the equivalent weight of the criteria can be
29 determined using the relation as expressed by Eq. 3.
1
N
N N 
30 wi   cij    cij  , i  1,.........N (3)
j 1  k 1 l 1 
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Where, wi is a normalized fuzzy number with medium values as unity and i =1…N (number of
2 criteria’s). It should be noted that fuzzy extent could be defined as a result of fuzzy arithmetic, or
3 by using the extension principle. The extension principle is slightly more difficult compared to
4 fuzzy arithmetic but that may help in reducing uncertainty. The fuzzy weights corresponding to
5 each of the considered criteria’s is calculated using Eq. 3 and is shown in the Table 6.
6
7 Table 5: Crisp rating of Criteria evaluation.

8 Table 6: Fuzzified weights of criteria’s.

9

10 5.3 Evaluation of each alternative over each of the criteria

11 The renewable alternatives namely hydro, wind, biomass, solar, geothermal and ideal source are
12 evaluated over each of the eleven criteria. This evaluation can be mathematically represented by
13 Eq. 4.

 a11 ... a1 A 

14 Wk   . a22 .  , A  1, 2,3.........., A; N  1, 2,3......N (4)
 a A1 ... a AA 

15 Where, N = Number of criteria’s considered; A= Number of alternatives evaluated

16 Considering the data listed in Table 2, initially the values corresponding to all the alternatives
17 against each of criteria are normalized by using the maximum alternative value. Using
18 normalized data of the alternatives, a pair wise comparison matrix (as a Saaty crisp rating) of
19 alternatives, evaluated over all the criteria is prepared. In this study, all the six alternatives are
20 evaluated over the 11 criteria’s namely, Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), Sulphur dioxide
21 emissions (SO2), Nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx), Land requirement, Current energy cost,
22 Potential future energy cost, Turnkey investment, Capacity factor, Energy efficiency, Design
23 period and Water consumption. This results in 11 pair wise comparison matrices. The pair wise
24 comparison matrices of all the alternatives with respect to criteria 1 is shown in Table 7.

25 Table 7: Evaluation of alternatives over the Criteria 1.

26 It is assumed that the benchmark source, A6, being ideal source dominates all the existing
27 alternative sources under the considered set of criteria with a highest score of 9. Once the pair
28 wise comparison matrix of alternatives over the set of criteria is obtained, the tabulated crisp
29 ratings are converted into triangular fuzzy number (TFN) using the scale as mentioned in Table
30 4. The alternatives against each of the 11 criteria are evaluated using the fuzzy division
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 operation. The evaluated weights of the alternatives over the criterion 1 (C1) are shown in the
2 Table 8. Similarly, the weights of the alternatives against rest of the criteria (C2 to C11) are
3 evaluated.
4 Table 8: Alternative weights against Criteria 1.
5

6 5.4 Development of performance matrix and estimation of fuzzified score

7 The overall performance of each of the source (Ai’s) evaluated over all the 11 criteria’s (Ci’s) is
8 represented as the performance matrix [34] by applying fuzzy interval arithmetic. The
9 performance matrix (z) is mathematically expressed by matrix shown in Eq. 5.

 x11  w1 ... x1k  wk 

10 z   . . . 
 (5)
 xN 1  w1 ... xNK  wk 

11 Where {x11…xNK} and (w1, w2...w12) are priority vectors and criteria weights, respectively. The
12 performance matrix (z) for each of the alternatives is evaluated over 11 criteria. The performance
13 matrix (z) of alternative 1 (A1) over the criteria is shown in Table 9. Similarly, performance
14 matrix for rest of the alternatives (Ai’s) are evaluated.
15
16 Table 9: Performance matrix (z) of alternative A1 (Hydro).
17
18 To aggregate the overall assessment of decision makers, mean, median, max, min and mixed
19 operators are used. In this study, additive synthesis is adopted to evaluate the performance of
20 each alternatives with respect to goal; i.e. to minimize the negative environmental impact and to
21 maximize the energy generation. The overall performance of each alternatives can be
22 mathematically represented by Eq. 6.
𝐶
23 𝑆𝑖 = ∑𝑗 = 1𝑥𝑖𝑗 ⊗ 𝑤𝑗 (6)

24 Where, Si is fuzzy score for each of the alternatives, xij is the priority vectors and wj is the fuzzy
25 weight of the criteria. The overall fuzzy weight of each of the alternatives is computed and is
26 shown in Table 10.

27 Table 10: Overall performance of each alternative, evaluated over 11 criteria’s.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2 5.5 Defuzzification and computation of cumulative score for each alternative

3 For the prioritization of alternatives, aggregated score corresponding to each of the alternatives is
4 required. Since the score computed in last step as discussed in section 5.4 for each of the
5 alternatives is triangular fuzzy number, the defuzzification of the score is needed to get a crisp
6 value for each of the alternatives. The total integral value method, which determines the
7 defuzzified score with level of optimism is considered as an efficient method for the
8 defuzzification [35]. So the total integral value method is adopted in this study for the
9 defuzzification of triangular weights.

10 The total integral value (I) corresponding to a fuzzy number (a1, a2, a3) evaluated in the section
11 5.4, with a level of optimism λ is estimated by Eq. 7.

12 𝐼𝑇𝜆(A) = (1/2) [λa3 + a2 + (1-λ) a1], λ ∈ [0, 1] (7)

13 Where, λ represents an optimism index, which expresses the decision maker’s attitude towards
14 the risk. The larger value of λ indicates higher degree of optimism. In practical applications,
15 values 0, 0.5 and 1 are generally used to represent the pessimistic, moderate and optimistic views
16 of the decision maker, respectively. The total integral values corresponding to each of the
17 alternatives is computed using Eq. 7 to obtain the defuzzified score with respect to the discrete
18 values of λ at 0, 0.5 and 1 respectively which are tabulated in the Table 11.

19 Table 11: Defuzzified score of all the alternatives corresponding to specified λ.

20 5.6 Evaluation of energy index (Eλ)

21 The priority order obtained after evaluating the defuzzified score helps to understand the
22 significance of each of the renewable alternative. The Defuzzified score of A6 (Ideal renewable
23 source) as shown in Table 11 is used for the normalization. The priority order computed using
24 Energy Index remains unaltered as shown by defuzzified score as well; but the computation of
25 Energy Index helps to address how best an alternative is compared to Ideal source or in other
26 words with respect to some benchmark source. This also helps to identify the crucial parameters
27 that contribute to drift an alternative into an ideal alternative. The Energy Index (Eλ) computed
28 for hydro, biomass, geothermal, wind and solar and is listed in Table 12. Since the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 defuzzification was performed with respect to three different perspective levels (namely
2 Pessimistic, Moderate and Optimistic), Energy index (Eλ) is also computed at these levels of
3 perception.

4 Table 12: Energy index (Eλ) of the renewable alternatives.

5 From the values of Eλ, it is evident that A3, which is Geothermal source, is dominating all others
6 alternatives with a highest Energy Index value of 0.415. The priority order among the five
7 alternatives of this study with optimism index of 0.5 is concluded as follows

8 Geothermal (A3) > Hydro (A1)> Wind (A4)> Biomass (A2) > Solar (A5)

9 Also it can be observed that the priority order remains same even in the rest three perceptions
10 such as pessimist, moderate and optimist. The outcome of this study is needed in understanding
11 the environmental and techno-economic aspects associated with each of the renewable
12 alternatives.

13 6. Conclusions

14 The energy consumption in India is growing rapidly and is expected to follow the similar trend in
15 the future. Meeting the demand with the present available pattern of energy sources with coal as
16 the major contributor may not be possible in future. So, there is a great need to accelerate the
17 development of new and renewable energy sector in India. From the priority order concluded in
18 this study in terms of Energy Index, it is observed that geothermal source (A3) has the highest
19 Energy Index of 0.415 among the five renewable sources. The highest priority secured by highest
20 Energy Index refers to the least negative impact on environment in terms of emissions compared
21 to other alternatives. Also this study shows that Hydro (A1), Wind (A4), Biomass (A2) and Solar
22 (A5) sources follows the successive positions in priority list with relatively lower Energy Indices.
23 The methodology adopted in this study can be used to evaluate the renewable alternatives by
24 considering social impacts as well. Since the parameters associated with social impacts vary
25 regionally and globally, a very careful inspection of variation is required in choosing the fuzzy
26 membership function. The results of this study may also help in identifying the crucial
27 parameters that contributes for being closer to an ideal source. This helps in taking necessary
28 steps in improvement provided if the parameter can be controlled by the advent of technology.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 The existing status of energy sources shows that the development and promotion of geothermal
2 energy in India is almost negligible at industrial scale. Therefore, it is inevitable that the
3 geothermal energy source, which has highest Energy Index, needs to be developed and promoted
4 at all scales for the generation of clean, sustainable and reliable energy.

5 7. References:

6 [1] Sen Souvik, Sourav Ganguly, Ayanangshu Das, Joyjeet Sen, and Sourav Dey. "Renewable
7 energy scenario in India: Opportunities and challenges." Journal of African Earth Sciences
8 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2015.06.002
9 [2] Birol, Fatih. "World energy outlook 2010." International Energy Agency (2015).
10 [3] Energy Statistics. "Government of India. Ministry of Statistics and Programme
11 Implementation. Central Statistics Office New Delhi, 2015." (2015)
12 [4] Barpatragohain, J., 2015. Alternate Energy: Strategy to address energy security in emerging
13 India. In: Proceedings 3rd South Asian Geosciences Conference & Exhibition, New Delhi,
14 11-14 January 2015
15 [5] Global World Energy Council (GWEC), Global wind energy report- Annual Market Update,
16 2016.
17 [6] Kumar Ashwani, Kapil Kumar, Naresh Kaushik, Satyawati Sharma, and Saroj Mishra.
18 "Renewable energy in India: current status and future potentials." Renewable and Sustainable
19 Energy Reviews 14, no. 8 (2010): 2434-2442. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.04.003
20 [7] Tripathi Lata, A. K. Mishra, Anil Kumar Dubey, C. B. Tripathi, and Prashant Baredar.
21 "Renewable energy: An overview on its contribution in current energy scenario of India."
22 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016): 226-233.
23 doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.047
24 [8] Mckinsey, Environmental and Energy Sustainability: An approach for India. McKinsey and
25 Company, 2008.
26 [9] Pillai Indu R, and Rangan Banerjee. "Renewable energy in India: Status and potential."
27 Energy 34, no. 8 (2009): 970-980. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2008.10.016
28 [10] Sahoo Sarat Kumar. "Renewable and sustainable energy reviews solar photovoltaic
29 energy progress in India: A review." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016):
30 927-939. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.049
31 [11] Bhattacharya, S. C., and Chinmoy Jana. "Renewable energy in India: historical
32 developments and prospects." Energy 34, no. 8 (2009): 981-991.
33 doi:10.1016/j.energy.2008.10.017
34 [12] Jain, B. C. "Facilitating wise bio resource development and use–the role of commercial
35 enterprises." Energy for Sustainable Development 1, no. 5 (1995): 35-44.doi:10.1016/S0973-
36 0826(08)60084-8
37 [13] Geological Survey of India, and Ravi Shanker. Geothermal atlas of India. Geological
38 Survey of India, 1991
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 [14] Chandrasekharam, Varun Chandrasekhar “Geothermal Energy Resources, India: Country

2 Update”, Proceeding of world geothermal congress 2015, Melbourne, Australia 2015
3 [15] Georgopoulou, E., D. Lalas, and L. Papagiannakis. "A multicriteria decision aid approach
4 for energy planning problems: the case of renewable energy option." European Journal of
5 Operational Research 103, no. 1 (1997): 38-54. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00263-9
6 [16] Beccali, Marco, Maurizio Cellura, and Marina Mistretta. "Decision-making in energy
7 planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable
8 energy technology." Renewable Energy 28, no. 13 (2003): 2063-2087. doi:10.1016/S0960-
9 1481(03)00102-2
10 [17] Buchanan, John, and Daniel Vanderpooten. "Ranking projects for an electricity utility
11 using ELECTRE III." International Transactions in Operational Research 14, no. 4 (2007):
12 309-323. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3995.2007.00589.x
13 [18] Diakoulaki, Danae, and F. Karangelis. "Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost–benefit
14 analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece." Renewable and
15 Sustainable Energy Reviews 11, no. 4 (2007): 716-727. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2005.06.007
16 [19] Zhang, Chengfeng, Qiang Yao, and Junming Sun. "Characteristics of particulate matter
17 from emissions of four typical coal-fired power plants in China." Fuel Processing
18 Technology 86, no. 7 (2005): 757-768. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2004.08.006
19 [20] Cook, Wade D., and Rodney H. Green. "Evaluating power plant efficiency: a hierarchical
20 model." Computers & Operations Research 32, no. 4 (2005): 813-823.
21 doi:10.1016/j.cor.2003.08.019
22 [21] Kablan, M. M. "Decision support for energy conservation promotion:: an analytic
23 hierarchy process approach." Energy policy 32, no. 10 (2004): 1151-1158. doi:10.1016/S0301-
24 4215(03)00078-8
25 [22] Zhu, Xuan, and Allan P. Dale. "JavaAHP: a web-based decision analysis tool for natural
26 resource and environmental management." Environmental Modelling & Software 16, no. 3
27 (2001): 251-262. doi:10.1016/S1364-8152(00)00082-7
28 [23] Ramanathan, R., and L. S. Ganesh. "Energy resource allocation incorporating qualitative and
29 quantitative criteria: an integrated model using goal programming and AHP." Socio-
30 Economic Planning Sciences 29, no. 3 (1995): 197-218. doi:10.1016/0038-0121(95)00013-C
31 [24] Kim, Poong Oh, Kun Jai Lee, and ByongWhi Lee. "Selection of an optimal nuclear fuel
32 cycle scenario by goal programming and the analytic hierarchy process." Annals of Nuclear
33 Energy 26, no. 5 (1999): 449-460. doi:10.1016/S0306-4549(98)00081-4
34 [25] Vaidya, Omkarprasad S., and Sushil Kumar. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of
35 applications." European Journal of operational research 169, no. 1 (2006): 1-
36 29.doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
37 [26] Thomas, Saaty. "The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource
38 allocation." Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh (1980).
39 [27] Chatzimouratidis, Athanasios I., and Petros A. Pilavachi. "Multicriteria evaluation of
40 power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process." Energy
41 Policy 36, no. 3 (2008): 1074-1089.doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.028
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 [28] Fridleifsson, Ingvar B. "Geothermal energy for the benefit of the people." Renewable and
2 sustainable energy reviews 5, no. 3 (2001): 299-312. doi:10.1016/S1364-0321(01)00002-8
3 [29] Pimentel, David, Megan Herz, Michele Glickstein, Mathew Zimmerman, Richard Allen,
4 Katrina Becker, Jeff Evans et al. "Renewable Energy: Current and Potential Issues
5 Renewable energy technologies could, if developed and implemented, provide nearly 50% of
6 US energy needs; this would require about 17% of US land resources." Bioscience 52, no. 12
7 (2002): 1111-1120.
8 [30] Evans, Annette, Vladimir Strezov, and Tim J. Evans. "Assessment of sustainability
9 indicators for renewable energy technologies." Renewable and sustainable energy reviews
10 13, no. 5 (2009): 1082-1088. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.03.008
11 [31] Barbier, Enrico. "Geothermal energy technology and current status: an overview."
12 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 6, no. 1 (2002): 3-65. doi:10.1016/S1364-
13 0321(02)00002-3
14 [32] Inhaber, Herbert. "Water use in renewable and conventional electricity production."
15 Energy Sources 26, no. 3 (2004): 309-322. doi:10.1080/00908310490266698
16 [33] European Environment Agency (EEA), (2006). EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric
17 Emission Inventory Guidebook
18 [34] Srdjevic, Bojan, and YvonildeDantas Pinto Medeiros. "Fuzzy AHP assessment of water
19 management plans." Water Resources Management 22, no. 7 (2008): 877-894.
20 [35] Liou, T.S., and Wang, M.J., (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value, Fuzzy
21 Sets and Systems 50: 247-255
22
23 8. Acknowledgements:

24 The authors acknowledge the host institute, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, for
25 supporting the present work under Doctoral Research Scheme.
26
27 9. Funding:

28 This work is supported by Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani as doctoral research.

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 1

15.0%

Category
Coal
13.2%
Gas
Diesel
Nuclear
2.0% Renewable
0.3% 60.9%
Hydro

8.6%

3
4
5 Fig. 1: Breakup of primary commercial energy resources in India [3].

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 2.

35000

30000
Renewable Energy in MW

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01
9- 2 0-2 1- 2 2-2 3- 2 4-2 5- 2 6-2 7- 2 8-2 9- 2 0-2 1- 2 2-2 3- 2 4-2
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

3 Year

4 Fig. 2: Growth of Renewable energy over the decades [3].

5
6
7
8
9

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
03 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 01 01 01 01 01
2 0 3-2 4-2 5-2 6-2 7-2 8-2 9-2 0 -2 1 -2 2 -2 3-2 4-2 5-2
to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
up 20 20 20 20 20 2 0 2 0 20 20 20 20 20 20
Wind Hydo
4800

3600

2400
Energy in MW

1200

0
Solar
4800

3600
2400

1200

0
03 04 05 06 07 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16
20 -2 0 -2 0 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -2 0 -2 0 -20 -20
t 03 04 0 5 0 6 0 7 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 1 5
o
up 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2 0 2 0 20 20 20 20
Year
3

4 Fig. 3: Year wise growth of wind, hydro and solar energy [3].
5
6
7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 4
2
3
4

5
6

7 Fig. 4: Energy Potential of Wind source across the country.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 5
2
3
4

5
6 Fig. 5: Energy Potential of Solar source across the country.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 6

2
3
4

5
6

7 Fig. 6: Energy Potential (MW) of small hydro source across the country.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 7

2
3

4
5

6 Fig. 7: Energy Potential (MW) from Biomass source across the country.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 8
2
3
4

5
6 Fig. 8: Geothermal provinces across the country.
7
8

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure 9

4
5

6 Fig. 9: Schematic representation of the problem.

7
8

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 1
2
3 Table 1: Energy consumption (in Peta Joules) in India [3].

Year Energy consumption (Peta Joules) Population (million)

2005-2006 15146 1106
2006-2007 16421 1122
2007-2008 17514 1138
2008-2009 18457 1154
2009-2010 21233 1170
2010-2011 21892 1186
2011-2012 22383 1202
2012-2013 23903 1217
2013-2014 24071 1233
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 2
2
3 Table 2: Environmental & techno-economic aspects of renewable sources studies [27], [28],
4 [29], [30], [31], [32] [33].
5 *considerably negligible; + contributes; - does not contribute

Attributes/
Wind Solar Hydro Biomass Geothermal
criteria
Air pollution * * * * *
Water pollution - - * * *
Sound pollution + * * - +
CO2 emissions
Environmental 17652 49174 22696 58000 18913
[mg/Kwh]
impacts
SO2 emissions
54 257 33 76 280
[mg/Kwh]
NOx emissions
32 178 23 1325 280
[mg/Kwh]
Land
requirement
100 35 750 5000 18
[Km2/1000
MW]
Current energy
cost 9.00 15 6 10 6
[US cents/kWh]
Future potential
energy cost 6.50 7 5 7 4.5
[Us¢/kWh]
Techno- Turnkey
economic investment
1400 7500 2500 1950 1900
impacts [US
dollars/KW]
Water
requirement 1 10 36 1.25 156
[kg/kWh]
Capacity factor 25.00 27.5 45 52.5 67.5
Energy input-
0.20 0.14 0.04 0.14 0.02
output ratio
Design period
30 30 30 30 20
[years]
6 Note: In case of attributes with a range, the average value is considered for the analysis.
7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 3
2
3 Table 3: Description of criteria’s and its significance towards evaluation of alternatives.

Criteria (Ci) Description Comments Priority

CO2 is the significant component

responsible for the greenhouse  Wind
Alternative
CO2 emissions effect. Enormous amount of it is  Geothermal
with least CO2
(C1) emitted into atmosphere through  Hydro
emissions is
[mg/Kwh] the combustion of fossil fuels  Solar
preferred
during the generation of  Biomass
electricity.
It is one of the harmful gases that
 Geothermal
is emitted into the atmosphere Alternative
SO2 emissions  Hydro
during the generation of with least SO2
(C2)  Wind
electricity. This will have more emissions is
[mg/Kwh]  Biomass
impact on the employees in the preferred
 Solar
power plant.
 Hydro
Similar to SO2 emissions, it is Alternative  Wind
NOx emissions also a harmful gas emitted during with least NOx  Solar
(C3) the power generation and has a emissions is  Geothermal
[mg/Kwh]
negative impact on environment. preferred  Biomass

Alternative  Geothermal
As most of the power plants are
with small  Solar
Land requirement located in and around
footprint for  Wind
(C4) metropolitan cities, where land
installation of  Hydro
[Km2/1000 MW] availability for the installation
plant is  Biomass
would be a major problem.
preferred
Alternative
 Hydro
Current energy cost The expenditure incurred in US¢ with least
 Geothermal
(C5) for the production of 1 Kilowatt- current energy
 Wind
[US cents/kWh] hour of electricity is considered. cost is
 Biomass
preferred.
 Solar
In this future, with the
advancement of technology, the  Geothermal
Alternative
Future potential future energy cost changes. To  Hydro
with least
energy cost take this into consideration, the  Wind
future potential
(C6) expenditure in US ¢ incurred for  Biomass
cost is
[US ¢/kWh] the production of 1 Kilowatt hour  Solar
preferred.
of energy is considered as one of
the influencing criteria
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Alternative  Wind
Turnkey investment It is the total expenditure with least  Geothermal
(C7) involved during the installation turnkey  Biomass
[US dollars/KW] of the plant. investment is  Hydro
preferred.  Solar

 Wind
Alternative
Water requirement The amount of water consumed  Biomass
with low water
(C8) for the generation of 1 kilowatt-  Solar
consumption is
[kg/kWh] hour of energy is considered.  Hydro
preferred.
 Geothermal

It is the ratio of actual energy  Geothermal

Alternative
output from a power plant to its  Biomass
Capacity factor with high
potential output which would  Hydro
(C9) capacity factor
have come by utilizing it to the  Solar
is preferred
full capacity.  Wind

 Geothermal
Alternative  Hydro
Energy input-
It is the ratio between the inputs with least input  Biomass
output ratio
to useful energy outputs. to output ratio  Solar
(C10)
is preferred  Wind

 Hydro;
Design period Plant with high Biomass
Design life of the plant is
(C11) design life is Solar
considered
[years] preferred Wind
 Geothermal
1
2
3
4
5

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 4

2 Table 4: Crisp and Fuzzified Saaty’s scale.

Saaty’s crisp values (x) Judgment definition Fuzzified Saaty’s value

1 Equal importance (1, 1, 1+ δ)
3 Week dominance (3- δ, 3, 3+ δ)
5 Strong dominance (5- δ, 5, 5+ δ)
7 Demonstrated dominance (7- δ, 7, 7+ δ)
9 Absolute dominance (9- δ, 9, 9)
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values (x-1, x, x+1), x=2, 4, 6, 8
3 Where δ is called as offset distance; (0.5<δ<2)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 5

2 Table 5: Crisp rating of Criteria evaluation.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11
C1 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 0.2 0.25 0.33 0.33
C2 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.5 0.33
C3 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.33 0.5 2.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.5
C4 0.33 0.33 0.25 1.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 0.25 0.2 0.25 1.00
C5 0.25 0.50 3.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.25 2.00 0.33
C6 0.20 0.50 2.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.12 1.00 0.25
C7 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.12 1.00 0.33
C8 5.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
C9 4.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00
C10 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.5 1.00 1.00 0.5 0.2 1.00 1.00
C11 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 0.5 1.00 1.00 1.00
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 6
2 Table 6: Fuzzified weights of criteria’s.
Criteria Fuzzy weights (a, b, c)
C1 (0.05166, 0.095902, 0.171701)
C2 (0.037644, 0.076086, 0.155015)
C3 (0.032721, 0.0602, 0.12595)
C4 (0.032201, 0.063293, 0.117876)
C5 (0.026003, 0.050167, 0.10442)
C6 (0.021323, 0.037464, 0.085431)
C7 (0.019642, 0.031444, 0.07628)
C8 (0.093819, 0.170566, 0.290654)
C9 (0.121618, 0.215716, 0.348785)
C10 (0.044594, 0.086286, 0.169548)
C11 (0.056755, 0.112875, 0.213146)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 7

2 Table 7: Evaluation of alternatives over the Criteria 1.

C1 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
A1 1.00 8.00 1.00 0.50 6.00 0.11
A2 0.13 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11
A3 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 0.11
A4 2.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 0.11
A5 0.17 2.00 0.14 0.13 1.00 0.11
A6 9 9 9 9 9 1.00
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 8

3 Table 8: Alternative weights against Criteria 1.

C1 a b c
A1 0.115069 0.153327 0.222524
A2 0.014159 0.018073 0.037057
A3 0.136312 0.176403 0.243591
A4 0.144279 0.194864 0.264658
A5 0.019836 0.032731 0.059357
A6 0.32662 0.424601 0.495083
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 9

2 Table 9: Performance matrix (z) of alternative A1 (Hydro).

A1 a b c
C1 0.038208 0.014704 0.005944
C2 0.03434 0.011494 0.003858
C3 0.025995 0.008472 0.003315
C4 0.018921 0.006682 0.002483
C5 0.026559 0.009058 0.003359
C6 0.022654 0.006726 0.002635
C7 0.011145 0.003163 0.001475
C8 0.045848 0.017477 0.006653
C9 0.097185 0.042496 0.017291
C10 0.031907 0.011313 0.004572
C11 0.029088 0.010348 0.003816
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 10
2

3 Table 10: Overall performance of each alternative, evaluated over 11 criteria’s.

Alternatives Over all fuzzy weight of alternatives

A1 0.381851, 0.141933, 0.055400

A2 0.241737, 0.083645, 0.032854
A3 0.423497, 0.167325, 0.067189
A4 0.271972, 0.093416, 0.036432
A5 0.200425, 0.066450, 0.025721
A6 0.976244, 0.447230, 0.183166
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 11

2 Table 11: Defuzzified score of all the alternatives corresponding to specified λ.

λ=0 (Pessimist) λ=0.5 (Moderate) λ=1 (Optimist)

A1 0.261892 0.18027926 0.523784

A2 0.162691 0.11047041 0.325382
A3 0.295411 0.20633407 0.590822
A4 0.182694 0.12380906 0.365388
A5 0.133437 0.08976149 0.266875
A6 0.711737 0.51346757 1.423474
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 12

2 Table 12: Energy index (Eλ) of the renewable alternatives.

Alternatives Eλ=0 Eλ=0.5 Eλ=1

A1 0.367 0.351 0.367
A2 0.228 0.215 0.228
A3 0.415 0.401 0.415
A4 0.256 0.241 0.256
A5 0.187 0.174 0.187
3
4
5
6