Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022) 104083

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene

Applying analytic hierarchy process to industrial process design in a Nuclear

Renewable Hybrid Energy System
Emma K. Redfoot, Kelley M. Verner, R.A. Borrelli ∗
University of Idaho, Idaho Falls Center for Higher Education Department of Nuclear Engineering and Industrial Management, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Nuclear Renewable Hybrid Energy Systems (NRHESs) co-locate a nuclear power plant with a renewable
Analytic hierarchy process
power generation source, such as solar or wind, with an industrial process(es), and can include a battery for
Nuclear renewable hybrid energy system
energy storage and a fossil fuel power plant. By co-locating these various components, the nuclear-generated
Risk
power can be directed to the industrial process when demand is low or renewable generation is high, as well
as toward meeting grid demand when needed. This paper will apply the risk assessment and management
technique of the fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to an NRHES. The goal is to develop a method of
evaluating industrial components in preliminary NRHES design. Criteria selected in this study within which
each process is assessed are profitability, flexible operation, and safety. Based on this, the fuzzy AHP
approach determined desalination to be the strongest candidate based on system definition and related
assumptions. Additional studies can be undertaken using this approach for more in depth analysis of NRHES
design. With no NRHESs currently deployed, fuzzy AHP can offer a useful decision-making tool.

1. Introduction
1.1. Enhancing the marketability of nuclear energy
As variable energy sources increasingly penetrate the United States
energy market, the economics of nuclear energy has weakened in
relation to other electric generation sources; e.g., natural gas. This has
led to many planned Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) closures, including
Palisades in southwestern Michigan (Balaskovitz, 2017) and Indian
Point in New York (Nani, 2017). Five have been retired in the last five
years, producing an aggregate 38 TWh, and another 90 TWh aggregate
from nine plants could be retired in the next decade, comprising about
15% of low-carbon electricity (Hausfather, 2018). Nuclear Renewable
Hybrid Energy Systems (NRHESs) have been proposed as a means to
extend the lifetime and use of the current, domestic NPP fleet, as
well as for new uses for advanced nuclear concepts; e.g., a Small
Modular Reactor (SMR). Nuclear Renewable Hybrid Energy Systems are
proposed interconnected industrial ecosystems that co-locate a nuclear
power plant with a renewable power generation source, such as solar
or wind, an industrial process(es) and, possibly, a battery for storage
and a fossil fuel source. There are a lot of unknowns regarding day-to-
day operations of these systems since none have yet been built.
1.1.1. Nuclear energy for flexible operations
Renewables are an increasingly attractive energy option in terms of
sustainability, carbon emissions reductions, and energy independence.
As a result, management of the grid and new economics of scale pose
new energy challenges in terms of reliability. Solar energy input on a
clear day is predictable but varying cloud cover degrades that energy
input. Wind energy is even more variable, depending on barometric
pressure and the location of highs and lows in the atmosphere. Vari-
ability also depends upon local topography; the mouth of a mountain
canyon provides extra morning and evening variability. If the electrical
load within a jurisdiction does not coincide with the electrical output
of either source, load matching or other forms of load leveling are
necessary in order to make both wind and solar farms viable. Load
matching is equally important for energy security within a jurisdiction.
It is important and relevant to find an energy source that can load
follow in conjunction with these renewable resources. Nuclear energy
can provide this flexible operation.
1.1.2. Nuclear energy for industrial applications
Thermal energy demands in industrial, commercial, residential, and
transportation sectors are projected to increase dramatically (McMillan
et al., 2016; Bragg-Sitton and Boardman, 2014a; Ingersoll et al., 2014).
Fossil fuels provide over 90% of the energy used in the industrial

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rborrelli@uidaho.edu (R.A. Borrelli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.104083
Received 29 April 2021; Received in revised form 22 October 2021; Accepted 28 November 2021
Available online 1 January 2022
0149-1970/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
and
Acronyms
AHP CI CR EPRI HTSE INL LWR NPP NRC
Analytical Hierarchy Process Consistency Index Consistency Ratio
Electric Power Research Institute High Temperature Steam Electrolysis Idaho National Laboratory
NRHES Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plant
NuScale SMR UAMPSUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion
Nuclear Renewable Hybrid Energy System NuScale Power, LLC
Small Modular Reactor
Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems

sector (Bragg-Sitton et al., 2015). Applying NPPs at any scale as part

of an NRHES to the industrial sector can reduce carbon emissions
while enhancing the value of nuclear energy significantly. A nuclear
reactor in the NRHES will use excess energy from the power sector at
times of low net demand produce other storable products (Forsberg
and Aumeier, 2014). An industrial process serves as a load sink for
excess thermal energy or electricity. These systems must be designed
to distribute energy dynamically by supplying electricity to the grid
while using either thermal or electrical energy for industrial
applications.

1.2. Motivation

Nuclear Renewable Hybrid Energy Systems are designed to

transfer heat or electricity from the nuclear power plant to the
industrial process as well as the electrical grid depending on the price
of electricity, optimizing for lowest cost or highest profit (Epiney et
al., 2017). Thermally coupling refers to the use of heat directly from
the nuclear power plant to the industrial process. Electrical coupling
refers to the generation sources producing electricity which is then
allocated to the industrial process. The non-steady state of heat or
electricity allocation results in difficult-to-predict economic impacts
for both the price of the electricity as well as the quantity of the second
product produced by the industrial process. Certain industrial
processes, such as desalination plants, can fluctuate in the amount of
product they output and thus the energy they require, but others require
a steadier supply of energy (Kim et al., 2016). Natural gas plants are
the default load following tools that flexibly operate to match
renewable production. Optimally, the NRHES would not need a load
following gas plant and would be coupled with an industrial end user
with the ability to operate flexibly. Currently, there is no clear way to
compare various industrial processes that might be included in an
NRHES nor a straightforward means by which to make preliminary
decisions as to NRHES component design.

1.3. Goals

To this end, this paper will establish a formalized methodology

that can be readily applied to compare industrial processes under
consideration for NRHES component design. The methodology will be
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1987, 1980), with
fuzzy logic principles applied. AHP is a widely accepted decision
analysis tool used in the risk assessment and management fields in
which detailed technical information is lacking. AHP then relies on the
judgement of experts. AHP is detailed extensively in Section 3.
There are two main goals in this paper - (i) Demonstrate the usage
of fuzzy AHP as a methodology for nuclear energy systems design,
2
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
(ii) Establish the applicability of the methodology for
decisionmaking in an NRHES.
This research develops a fuzzy AHP analysis approach to
compare NRHESs that include thermal coupling to three types of
industrial processes -
1. Desalination,
2. Hydrogen production, and
3. Synthetic fuels production.
The paper will evaluate the profitability, flexibility, and safety char-
acteristics in thermally coupling a nuclear power plant to each of the
given industrial processes in an NRHES. While AHP has been
applied to energy systems in the literature, the application to an
NRHES in this way is novel. Use of AHP provides important
information into design considerations with a formalized
methodology. AHP is used to determine which alternative is likely to
be strongest given the criteria chosen. As NRHESs are currently in
the research and development stage, the intent is to develop a readily
applicable analysis and judge- ment tool based on an established risk
assessment approach to a novel application for these emerging
energy systems.

2. Background

2.1. Definition of risk

Establishing the formalized definition of risk is important for

placing this study in the appropriate context. Risk is formally defined
as the product of the frequency by the consequence of a hazard. A
hazard is an event that could lead to a loss or harm. Risk
assessment is a means of analyzing complex systems for hazards but
necessarily adapts as new technological systems emerge, such as an
NRHES. Risk assessments evaluate hazards and ensuing, potential
risk by addressing the following three questions (Kaplan and Garrick,
1981) -
1. What can go wrong?
2. How likely will it happen?
3. What are the consequences?
Risk assessment tools often model multi-variate systems in an
effort to characterize risk to a singular parameter or value that will
facil- itate comparisons. Often, risk assessment must assess
characteristics which need to be considered simultaneously.
Examples of some risk assessment approaches include -
• preliminary hazards analysis,
• fault tree analysis,
• event tree analysis, and
• failure modes and effects analysis.
These techniques offer valuable insight into system risk. When
used early in system lifecycle, design changes can be made to
reduce risk or eliminate hazards altogether. However, these
techniques are only applicable after some level of system design has
been established, even if largely conceptual; e.g., a preliminary
hazards analysis may offer meaning insight into making early design
changes, if only ‘on paper’, but does well to avoid major risks when
increasingly sophisticated system design is formalized. In this paper,
use of AHP is established to provide guidance for that conceptual
design, so that these techniques then can be applied.
Additionally, these techniques are incorporated into Level 1, 2,
and 3 probabilistic risk assessments, employed by NPP utilities to
determine potential radiological releases and subsequent radiation
exposures. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) requires these in order to obtain a license to operate each
NPP under 10CFR50 regulations.

3
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

2.2. Relevant NRHES studies construction will be both physically safe and economically viable.

In Section 2.2, some commonly known studies of NRHESs are

discussed in order to underscore the motivation for the current study.
The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) collective
and NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale) collaborated to study how an
SMR can provide load following capabilities with a renewable
resource (In- gersoll et al., 2015). The renewable resource used in this
study was the Horse Butte Wind Farm, located approximately twenty
miles southwest of Idaho Falls, Idaho. Data was obtained for wind
generation in a single day in November 2014. Simulations
demonstrated how a NuScale module could operate in a load following
mode to balance load. This is an important result because energy
dispatch will be a defining factor in an NRHES, and the nuclear
energy system will have to load follow
the renewable resource.
Other relevant work includes a study to investigate load following
of an SMR with two co-generation facilities — an algae-biofuel and a
desalination plant (Locatelli et al., 2015). This study found that the
algae-biofuel plant required too much power to justify a load following
approach. However, several desalination projects have been shown to
be feasible. Shropshire (2011) investigated a virtual wind farm using
North Sea wind data and a virtual SMR. They found that the combi-
nation resulted in an 80% reduction in wind power variation. Ruth
et al. (2014) investigated NRHESs which contained nuclear reactors,
renewable energy generation, and industrial process that require en-
ergy input. They identified six aspects where interconnections between
these systems are important - 1. thermal, 2. electrical, 3. chemical, 4.
hydrogen, 5. mechanical, and 6. information.
Another study by Karakosta et al. (2013) analyzed European Pres-
surized Reactors, European Fast Reactors, and Renewable Energy
Sources, finding that both systems would effectively limit climate
change emissions.
These studies are important because different NRHES components
were considered. However, actual design of the NRHES was not a
primary concern; e.g., Locatelli et al. (2015) studied an algae-biofuel
and desalination plant but the power requirements were too high. If
there were first some study to design requirements, a different
approach might have been taken. The papers cited here already had an
NRHES defined. This may not be the optimal approach for assessing
NRHES performance. Furthermore, design criteria; e.g., profitability,
flexibility, and safety, were not included. Overall performance of an
NRHES will be different based on the goals of the operator. Clearly,
profit is a motivator, but there could be more weight to industrial
production over electricity generation, etc. In this way, these studies
are important, but still high level. With growing interest in deploying
NRHESs practicably, establishing a design methodology is warranted.
This paper will then show that use of AHP to aid in decisionmaking
prior to the intensive modeling and simulation needed to assess
NRHES performance.

2.3. NRHES in an industrial ecosystem

The definition of industrial park comes from the field of industrial

ecosystems. In ‘Industrial Parks as Ecosystems’, Côté and Hall (1995)
describe industrial parks as ‘a diverse assembly of businesses, with
built-in resilience. The design of the park would encourage mutualistic
and commensalistic relationships in order to make maximum use of
inputs, products and waste materials.’
In the case of an NRHES, reactor heat generation, the land, includ-
ing the land which simultaneously houses the renewables as well as the
evacuation zone around the nuclear plant, and the electricity generated
are all meant to work symbiotically to maximize profit. Assessment of
system risks early in the design phase minimizes the costs and hazards
associated with the system lifecycle. The earlier risk can be assessed in
the system lifecycle as part of informing design, the more likely final

4
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
When determining an appropriate electricity generation source for safety, security, sustainability, economics, and proliferation (Bilbao y
a given region, it is important to incorporate criteria to judge the Leon, 2018).
various options on such as economic viability, emissions, flexibility,
and reliability. Economic viability describes the profitability of the
system, or potential to be profitable, overall. Emissions characterizes
both release of materials which can directly effect human health as
well as greenhouse gases which impact climate change. Power
system flexi- bility, as defined by the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), is ‘the ability to adapt to dynamic and changing
conditions’ (Electric Power Research Institute, 2016). Reliability
generally focuses on the ability of a power source to operate in
normal and abnormal conditions (North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, 2018). Quantifying all of these criteria is
especially difficult for a given NRHES, because it supplies both
electricity to the grid as well as energy for a secondary industrial
product. Generally, the characteristics valued in a NRHES are a more
economically robust system that emits less and is reliable and
flexible. However, a decisionmaking approach to select design
options that will maximize performance in this way is currently
lacking.
Prior studies of NRHES noted in Section 2.2 focused on overall
performance of specific systems and did not include considerations
regarding system design first. A viable industrial ecosystem then ne-
cessitates early decisionmaking into design preferences and wider
goals for the system itself.

3. Analytic hierarchy process

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multiattribute deci-

sion analysis risk assessment tool that is used for evaluating complex
decisions. For many systems analysis problems, qualitative analysis
is required early in the conceptualization phase, and subjective judge-
ments are applied. Implementation of AHP at this phase of the
analysis provides a sensible approach by which decisions can be
logically struc- tured and analyzed. This approach is well suited to
preliminary NRHES design, as no systems have been deployed or
operated. AHP was originally developed in the 1970s by Thomas L.
Saaty while at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
(Saaty, 1987).

3.1. Relevant applications of AHP

AHP has been applied to everything from determining the appro-

priate bridge construction strategy (Pan, 2008), to determining the
appropriate energy make-up of Turkey (Kahraman and Kaya, 2010).
There is a wealth of research applying multicriteria decision-making
tools to energy planning as well. Pohekar and Ramachandran (2004)
reviewed more than 90 peer-reviewed, published papers on multi-
criteria decision making and energy planning, finding AHP to be the
most popular multicriteria decision-making technique used in energy
planning. The reasons for the prevalence of AHP in energy planning,
as suggested by Pohekar and Ramachandran (2004), is due to its
ability to -

. . . convert a complex problem into a simple hierarchy, flexibility, intu-

itive appeal, its ability to mix qualitative as well as quantitative
criteria in the same decision framework and use of computational
aids leading to successful decisions in many domains.

Additional applications of AHP to energy systems noted by Pohekar

and Ramachandran (2004) include Akash et al. (1999) and
Ramanathan and Ganesh (1995). The former applied AHP to analyze
the selection of power plants in Jordan. The latter for energy in
households in India. The goal of the AHP study was to determine
which energy resources work best for various tasks in the home, such
as heating, water pump- ing, lighting, and household appliances
(Ramanathan and Ganesh, 1995). On a subject closer to the topic
here, an esteemed colleague used AHP to suggest strategies for long
term management of used nuclear fuel including attributes such as

5
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

/ig. 1. The overall hierarchy of the industrial processes under evaluation for inclusion in the NRHES. The alternative products are desalination, hydrogen production, and synthetic
fuels production. These are judged under the criteria of flexible operation, safety, and profitability.

3.2. Mechanism Table 1

The AHP scale ranges from 1 to 9 for pairwise comparisons. Explanation is typically
3.2.1. Hierarchy provided to experts to maintain consistency in judgements.
Crisp Explanation Linguistic variable
The general process for applying AHP involves identifying a goal,
number
determining a set of alternatives, and establishing a set of criteria on
1 They are equally important or Equally important
which to compare the alternatives. These then are constructed into a
equally meet the criterion
hierarchy that will divide the large system of these parameters into a
2 Experience and judgement favor
more ordered structure so that the decision maker can fully understand
one alternative over the other by
the problem. There is no limit to the levels in the hierarchy, but a small margin
that the top level defines the goal, and the bottom level contains the
3 Experience and judgement Weakly more
alternatives. For example, in a typical three level hierarchy used in this moderately favor one alternative important
problem, it can be assembled as - over the other
• Level I - Identification of the goal 4 Experience and judgement clearly
• Level II - Criteria affecting the goal/alternatives favor one alternative over the
other
• Level III - Alternatives
5 Experience and judgement Strongly more
Similarly, addition of another level into the hierarchy would frame
strongly favor one alternative important
the problem as - over the other
• Level I - Identification of the goal
6 Practice suggests moderate
• Level II - Criteria affecting the goal preference for one alternative
• Level III - Factors affecting the criteria over the other

• Level IV - Alternatives 7 One alternative is favored very Very strongly more

strongly over the other and has important
However, increasing the hierarchy also affects consistency in
been shown in practice
judge- ments. Therefore, construction of the hierarchy must be
8 It is fairly clear that, in practice
carefully con- sidered in order to derive meaningful conclusions from
one alternative is better than the
the AHP pro- cess. The hierarchy should contain sufficient levels in other
order to de- scribe the problem adequately, while maintaining 9 The evidence favoring one Absolutely more
flexibility to re- spond to judgements of alternatives (Saaty, 1987). alternative over the other is of important
Alternatives are repeated within each of the criteria; i.e., the same the highest possible affirmation
choices are compared independently to the criteria.
Fig. 1 shows the AHP hierarchy developed for this study. The goal
Table 2
is to determine the optimal NRHES design. Criteria defining this goal Fuzzy logic pairwise comparison mapping. Crisp values are mapped to the fuzzy values
are safety, ability to fluctuate (flexibility), and profitability. Within based on Zheng et al. (2012).
these, we consider desalination, hydrogen production, and synthetic Linguistic variable Crisp number Fuzzy number
fuels production. Equal importance 1 (1, 1, 1, 1)
2 (1, 3 , 5 , 3)
2 2
3.2.2. Pairwise comparison Weak importance 3 (2, 5 , 7 , 4)
2 2
The AHP process uses pairwise comparisons with a ratio scale. 4 (3, 27 , 92 , 5)
Experts judge each alternative to one another within each criterion.
Strong importance 5 (4, 29 , 11
, 6)
For example, in Fig. 1, desalination will be compared to hydrogen 11
2
13
6 (5, , , 7)
production within the context of safety only, etc. Generally, AHP is 2 2
Very strong importance 7 (6, 13 , 15
, 8)
performed on a scale of one to nine, shown in Table 1, where 1 ≡ 2 2
alternatives are equally important and 9 ≡ one alternative is absolutely 8 (7, 15
, 17
, 9)
2 2
more important than the other (Zheng et al., 2012; Saaty, 1980). The Absolutely strong importance 9 (8, 17
2
, 9, 9)
same pairwise comparisons are performed for the criteria.

3.2.3. Ranking
Assignation of these pairwise comparisons is somewhat qualitative
and inherently contains subjectivity (Accorsi et al., 1999). In order to
derive rankings based on the pairwise comparisons, the eigenvalues
for each set of comparisons of alternatives within each criterion are
computed. The eigenvector of the maximum real eigenvalue is then
computed for each comparison matrix. These are then normalized to
establish a priority vector for the alternatives within each criterion.
The criteria are ranked in the same manner. A weighted priority vector
is then computed by multiplying the normalized criteria value to each
normalized alternative ranked value. The weighted priority vectors can
then simply be added because they are pure numbers, with the final
result being a normalized vector that ranks each alternative across

6
 E.K. Redfoot et
criteria. Although the process seems fairly complicated, use of
scientific computing packages; e.g., NumPy, Matlab, Mathmatica, etc.,
all offer tools that reduce the calculation complexity. 1 The overall
process is described in detail in Saaty (1980). The AHP provides not
only insight into which is the best overall choice given the inputs and
weights, but also which is the strongest candidate for each of the
criterion.
3.2.4. Consistency in judgements
During the AHP process, the priority vector within each criterion
can be tested for consistency in judgement. While expert judgement
is particularly important to the AHP process, the subjective nature
thereof necessitates understanding that there can be uncertainty. The
eigenvalue again can be applied as follows -
𝜆𝑚 − 𝑛
𝐶𝐼 = (1)
𝑛−1
where the Consistency Index (CI) is defined as the deviation of the
largest eigenvalue (𝜆𝑚) from the degree of a matrix 𝑛. The CI is then
divided by a value representative of an equal 𝑛 × 𝑛 matrix derived from
randomness (Saaty, 1980). The resulting quotient is defined as the Con-
sistency Ratio (CR). The Consistency Ratio compares the randomness of
the expert judgements to the Random Consistency Index (Saaty, 1987).
With 𝐶𝑅 ≤ 0.100, judgements can be concluded to be consistent.
4. Methodology
4.1. Fuzzy logic
4.1.1. Capturing the truth in ‘usually’
Boolean logic states that a concept is either true or false; i.e., 1 ≡
𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒, 0 ≡ 𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒. Boolean logic uses the operators 𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑜𝑟, and 𝑛𝑜𝑡 with each
assessing a condition and returning 1 or 0. However, fuzzy logic
posits that a concept possesses a degree of truth varying between 0 and
1 (Scientific American, 1999). Fuzzy logic would be most applicable
to vague, or subjectively judged, concepts. For example, a freshly
brewed cup of coffee can be judged as ‘hot’, evidenced by the
emerging steam. However, one may judge the coffee to be very hot,
while another may judge it to be mildly hot. The state of ‘hot’ can be
concluded to be likely, but with a degree of truth (Zadeh, 1988).
Several individuals could estimate this degree of truth to be 0.65,
0.75, 0.80; i.e., it is likely the coffee is hot, but different people have
varying judgements on how hot the coffee is.
Fuzzy logic represents uncertain information and then focuses on
formal principles of approximate reasoning or imprecise modes of
reasoning (Zadeh, 1988). Fuzzy logic assesses truths on a scale of what
is ‘usually’ or ‘likely’ true, or what is ‘not quite true’, based on
common sense knowledge (Zadeh, 1988). It should be clear that any of
these qualifiers inherently reflects some uncertainty.
4.1.2. Brief overview of fuzzy logic applications
Use and applications of fuzzy logic are vast and widespread, which
in and of itself is a degree of truth that is likely. This includes much
research developed within the risk assessment discipline. A
comprehen- sive review of all the research using fuzzy logic within the
context of risk assessment is beyond the scope of this paper. However,
some recent developments are included to illustrate the frequent use of
fuzzy logic for a wide variety of problems.
Fuzzy logic was used for an additive manufacturing R&D project
management in order to assess risk of scheduling and cost using a
survey (Moreno-Cabezali and Santos, 2020). The study scored survey
results in terms of the relevance of previously identified risks. Fuzzy
logic was also used to develop a forest fire risk map in combination
with the analytical network process (Gheshlaghi et al., 2020). Here,
1
https://github.com/TheDoctorRAB/education/blob/master/src/ahp_
eigenvector.py.
7
Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
the analytical network process (Saaty, 1996) was used to rank factors
using pairwise comparisons that contribute to fire risk in order to
address interdependencies, and fuzzy logic determined the weights of
subcriteria of each factor.
Robotics have been used increasingly in the medical field for re-
habilitation. Fuzzy logic was used to determine the degree of safety
for a robotic system used for rehabilitation of the elbow and wrist for
stroke victims (Tucan et al., 2020). Fuzzy logic was applied to assess
the functionality of the robotic device and to determine the risk level
of defined hazards.
In again turning to the environment, a hierarchical risk assessment
was developed using fuzzy logic and game theory for small scale
drinking water safety in remote areas (Lui et al., 2020). AHP was also
applied in conjunction with game theory to assess the optimal water
collection system. A final study to underscore in this field focused on
maritime transportation safety of cargo liquefaction using the bow-tie
method (Akyuz et al., 2020). Fuzzy logic was employed to address
uncertainties in expert judgements.
4.2. Fuzzy AHP
Fuzzy logic applied to AHP takes into consideration the uncertainty
inherent in a small number of expert opinions. Since Saaty’s original
development of AHP, multiple means of fuzzy AHP have emerged.
Not surprisingly, fuzzy AHP also is used for widespread problems.
Reig- Mullor et al. (2020) complies about forty publications of the use
of this technique, covering problems in process engineering, software
development, construction, and healthcare.
Relevant to this study, notable fuzzy AHP approaches include -
• The approach by van Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983) to use trian-
gular membership functions.
A membership function essentially defines the ‘space of truth’ or
‘fuzziness’ for a fuzzy set. This is defined in van Laarhoven and
Pedrycz (1983) with a triangular space with lower and upper
bounds 𝑙 and 𝑢, respectively, and a modal value, 𝑚 where the func-
tion contains (𝑙, 0), (𝑚, 1), and (𝑢, 0) and 𝑙 ≤ 𝑚 ≤ 𝑢. Membership
functions are linear and used within the context of the pairwise
comparison process. An example is provided using the approach
to determine the optimal candidate for a faculty position (van
Laarhoven and Pedrycz, 1983). The process of determining the
priority vectors are the same, but each alternative contains three
points that are graphed, rather than a single number. Here, then,
the preferred alternative is rightmost on a plot of the membership
functions of all alternatives.
• Buckley (1985) instead used trapezoidal membership functions,
although still linear.
Four values are selected for comparison - 𝑎 ≤ 𝑏 ≤ 𝑐 ≤ 𝑑.
Instead of the space defined by the triangle, it is defined as
(𝑎, 0), (𝑏, 1), (𝑐, 1), (𝑑, 0). Selection of the values still falls within the
nine point scale as contained in Table 1. Buckley (1985) criticizes
the use of triangular fuzzy numbers employed in van Laarhoven
and Pedrycz (1983) because in some instances, unique solutions
are not produced. Use of the standard eigenvalue method does not
extend well to fuzzy matrices, and the geometric mean is used
instead. Examples are provided that rank hazardous chemicals
and energy sources.
• Chang (1996) introduced use of an extent analysis method and
focused on the grade value of the membership function.
Triangular fuzzy numbers are again used for the pairwise
compar- isons. Rather than use of the geometric mean employed
by Buck-
ley (1985), extent analysis is applied to derive the weights to
construct the priority vectors. This is essentially involves com-
puting a weighted sum of the pairwise comparisons. The example
from van Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983) is again analyzed with
E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
this new approach. With the same raw pairwise comparison
data,

8
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

both approaches yield similar results. Extent analysis takes one

step further in systematically computing the ordinate of the in-
tersection of overlapping membership functions, thereby
negating the need to graph them, with the higher number the
more prefer- able decision or choice. Chang (1996) makes the
argument that the extent analysis method is less complex than
use of geometric means for computation of weights for the same
𝑛 × 𝑛 fuzzy comparisons due to the lesser number of
multiplications. While correct that there are less
multiplications, it is not clear that this is demonstrably so.
For example, with 𝑛 = 4, the savings in operations is 64,
computed based on the difference in the number of
multiplications of each method. Given the current state of
computational resources, the strength of this argument has
considerably diminished since its publication.
• Wang et al. (2008) later somewhat refutes the use of extent anal-
ysis to show that its use to obtain the priority vector derived from
the fuzzy triangular pairwise comparison matrix is not
necessarily an accurate representation of the true weights.
‘The weights determined by the extent analysis method do not /ig. 2. The nominal fuzzy number for a trapezoidal membership function 𝜇(𝜒 ) for
represent the relative importance of decision criteria or alterna- 𝜒̃ = (𝑙, 𝑚, 𝑛, 𝑠) gives 0 to the left of 𝑙, straight line from (𝑙, 0) − (𝑚, 1), horizontal line
tives at all’ (Wang et al., 2008). A compilation of about fifteen segment from (𝑚, 1) − (𝑛, 1), straight line from (𝑛, 1) − (𝑠, 0), and 0 to the right of 𝑠. This
studies are provided in Wang et al. (2008) to illustrate the fairly is defined algebraically in Eq. (3). The 𝑦-axis always ranges from 0 to 1. The 𝑥-axis
is dependent on the definition of pairwise comparisons and resulting calculations. The
frequent application of extent analysis and underscore the im- membership function is not necessarily symmetrical.
portance that it had previously been misapplied. The error was
shown to be in the initial normalization of the rows in the
pairwise matrix; i.e., what was referred to as the ‘weighted sum’
where the membership function is therefore defined as -
above. This is corrected in Wang et al. (2008). Several examples
are provided to show that alternatives may be erroneously dis- ⎧ 0 𝜒<𝑙
carded under this analysis, priorities misrepresented, or the final ⎪
decision may not be optimal under the fundamental concept of ⎪ 𝜒 −𝑙 𝑙≤𝜒≤𝑚
the AHP. ⎪
𝑚−
𝜇(𝜒 ) = ⎨1 𝑚≤ 𝜒 ≤𝑛 (3)
• Kahraman and Kaya (2010) developed a study to formulate en- 𝑠−𝜒
ergy policy options based on energy sources due to the increase ⎪ 𝑛≤𝜒 ≤𝑠
𝑠−𝑛

in energy consumption in Turkey. ⎪ 0 𝜒>𝑠

⎩
Alternatives were (Kahraman and Kaya, 2010) -
– Nuclear,
Considering the comparison of 𝑛 alternatives within the context of
– Biomass,
– Hardcoal, a defined criterion, then, the pairwise matrix would be constructed as
– Oil, -
– Hydropower, ⎡𝜒̃11 𝜒̃12 ⋯ 𝜒̃1𝑛⎤
– Geothermal,
𝑋̃ = ⎢𝜒̃21 𝜒̃22 ⋯ 𝜒̃2𝑛⎥ (4)
– Natural gas, ⎢⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮⎥
– Wind, and ⎣𝜒̃𝑛1 𝜒̃𝑛2 ⋯ 𝜒̃𝑛𝑛⎦
– Solar
The main criteria were technological, environmental, socio- where -
political, and economic. Each had a number of subcriteria; e.g.,
𝜒̃ 𝑖 𝑗 = (𝑙𝑖𝑗 , 𝑚𝑖𝑗 , 𝑛𝑖𝑗 , 𝑠𝑖𝑗 ) (5)
risk, pollution, social acceptance, funds, etc., for a total of seven- 𝜒̃−1 = (𝑠−1 , 𝑛−1, 𝑚−1, 𝑙−1)
teen. Trapezoidal membership functions were used. Four experts 𝑗𝑖 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗

were consulted. Results showed that wind was the most

preferred,
followed by solar and biomass, with nuclear and oil in the Fuzzy weights are then computed by taking the geometric mean for
least preferred positions. A consistency index for the pairwise
each row in 𝑋̃ as (Zheng et al., 2012) -
comparisons was not computed.
𝑛
∏ 1

4.3. Fuzzy AHP approach applied to this NRHES study 𝛼𝑖 = [ 𝑙𝑖𝑗 ] 𝑛

𝑗=1
𝑛
∏ 1
The study presented in this paper will apply the approach by Buck- 𝛽𝑖 = [ 𝑚𝑖𝑗 ] 𝑛
ley (1985), largely due to its widespread use and straightforward 𝑗=1
𝑛 (6)
calculational methodology. ∏ 1
𝛾𝑖 = [ 𝑛𝑖𝑗 ] 𝑛
Fig. 2 depicts a notional representation of a trapezoidal membership 𝑗=1
function for an arbitrary fuzzy number defined as - 𝑛

9
 E.K. Redfoot et ∏ Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
1
𝛿𝑖 = [ 𝑠 𝑖𝑗 ] 𝑛
𝜒̃ ≡ (𝑙, 𝑚, 𝑛, 𝑠) (2) 𝑗=1

1
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

/ig. 3. Fuzzy weights criteria. Safety is clearly preferred by the experts. Fuzzy weights were plotted based on results from Table 5.

and -
• Safety,
𝑛
∑
𝛼= • Flexibility, and
= 𝛼𝑖 • Profitability.
𝑖=1
𝑛 The AHP hierarchy is shown in Fig. 1.
∑
𝛽=
= 𝛽𝑖
𝑖=1
𝑛 (7) 5.1.1. Alternatives
∑
𝛾= These alternatives were selected because they are commonly found
= 𝛾𝑖
𝑖=1
𝑛 in research surrounding NRHESs (Bragg-Sitton and Boardman, 2014b;
Locatelli et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2016; Bragg-Sitton et al., 2015;
∑ Garcia et al., 2016; Shropshire, 2011; Ruth et al., 2014; Deason et al.,
𝛿= = 𝛿𝑖 2015). While there are several other industrial products that could be
𝑖=1
produced, these selected alternatives are sufficient for this preliminary
Making use of Eqs. (6) and (7), compute the performance scores
𝑟̃ = (𝑟̃1, 𝑟̃2, … , 𝑟̃𝑛)𝑇 , where 𝑟̃𝑖 = (𝑟1, 𝑟2, 𝑟3, 𝑟4) as - study of the use of fuzzy AHP to this end.
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
𝛼𝑖 𝛽𝑖 𝛾𝑖 𝛿𝑖
𝑟 = ( , , , ), 𝑘 = 1, 2, 3, 4
𝑘
(8) 5.1.2. Criteria
𝑖 𝛿 𝛾 𝛽 𝛼
Safety is included as a criterion due to the inherent need for safety,
If ‘fuzzy utility’ is defined as = (𝑢̃1, 𝑢̃2, … , 𝑢̃𝑛)𝑇 where 𝑢̃𝑖 = especially within the context of the nuclear safety culture. Safety
𝑈̃ underlies both the characteristic of flexibility and profitability. If the
(𝑢𝑖1, 𝑢𝑖 2, 𝑢𝑖 3, 𝑢4) then - industrial process is not safe, it will not run, and therefore the other
∑𝑚 𝑘 𝑘
𝑈𝑘= 𝑤 ⋅ 𝑟 , 𝑘 = 1, 2, 3, 4 (9)
𝑖 � 𝑖𝑗, The criterion of flexibility is included as one of the key benefits of
�
𝑗=1

where the weights two of characteristics

the criteria are 𝑊̃ = are
(𝑤̃ 1,effectively
𝑤̃ 2, … , 𝑤̃𝑚)𝑇 and 𝑤̃𝑖 = a NRHES. The industrial process in a NRHES will need to be operate
(𝑤𝑖1, 𝑤𝑖 2, 𝑤𝑖 3, 𝑤𝑖 4). 𝑊̃ is computed using this same approach. flexibly to adjust to change in demand as well as to providing thermal
Here, 𝑘 indicates the shape of the membership function; for trape- • Synthetic fuels production.
zoidal, 𝑘 = 1, 2, 3, 4; for triangular, 𝑘 = 1, 2, 3. Criteria upon which the alternatives are evaluated are -

5. Results

5.1. Objective

The objective is to determine the optimal industrial process to

include in an NRHES industrial park based on three criteria. The
alternative industrial processes are -
• Desalination,
• Hydrogen production, and

1
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
energy to the industrial process.
Profitability is included because the NRHES will need to be prof-
itable in order to continue operations. The industrial process
pro- vides a secondary source of income, and should increase the
overall profitability of the system as a whole.

5.2. Assumptions

The fuzzy AHP was performed assuming an NRHES with each of

the alternatives replaced with the other. The remaining components
of the NRHES remain constant.
Additional assumptions include -
• The process used for hydrogen production is High Temperature
Steam Electrolysis (HTSE).

1
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

• The process for desalination is thermal desalination through dis- Table 3

tillation directly using heat from the nuclear power plant. Criterion pairwise comparisons.
• The synthetic fuel process is a Fischer–Tropsch method using (a) Expert 1
coal as the hydrocarbon source. Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability
• Each of the processes consumes the same amount of heat from Safety 1 6 8
1 1
the nuclear power plant. Flexibility 6
1 8
1
Profitability 8 1
• All of the industrial processes are thermally coupled. 8

• Regional accessibility of feedstocks for each of the industrial (b) Expert 2

processes are the same. Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability

• The reactor is either generating electricity or producing the in- Safety 1

1
9 8
1
Flexibility 1
dustrial product. 9 7
1
Profitability 7 1
• Regional transportation costs are the same. 8

• Regulatory and taxation costs are the same. (c) Expert 3

• The NRHES is non-site specific. Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability

Finally, it is assumed that the nuclear reactor could be either an Safety 1 8 8

1
Flexibility 1 1
LWR, SMR, or microreactor, as all are considered candidates for the 8
1

nuclear energy source in an NRHES. There are technologies that can Profitability 1 1
8

boost the outlet temperature sufficiently for an LWR, and both SMRs (d) Expert 4
and microreactors offer high enough outlet temperatures. Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability
Safety 1 6 1
1 1
Flexibility 1
5.3. Experts 6 8
Profitability 1 8 1

(e) Expert 5
With the AHP hierarchy established, the next phase of the proce-
Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability
dure is to solicit a group of qualified experts to perform the pairwise
Safety 1 7 7
comparisons. There were five experts who completed the survey. Due 1 1
Flexibility 7
1 4
to their small number, the fuzzy systems approach was applied 1
Profitability 4 1
(Tsyganok et al., 2012). 7

While it is difficult to precisely quantify expertise (Tsyganok et al.,

2012), typically, with many AHP evaluations, an expert is defined as
someone who has published research; i.e., conference proceedings,
Table 4
peer reviewed journal publications, internally reviewed technical
Criterion fuzzy mapping for pairwise comparisons.
reports, etc., (Pan, 2008). This definition was applied. Taking
(a) Expert 1
advantage of the locality of Idaho Falls, there are several experts in the
Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability
field due to the presence of Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho State 15 17
Safety (1, 1, 1, 1) (5, 11
, 13
, 7) (7, , , 9)
University, and the University of Idaho. Experts were solicited to 2 2 2 2
Flexibility ( 71 , 13
2
, 2 1
, ) (1, 1, 1, 1) ( 91 , 172 , 152 , 71 )
whom the authors knew personally. The survey was emailed to each. 11 5
Profitability (1, 2
, 2
, 1) (7, 15
, 17
, 9) (1, 1, 1, 1)
9 17 15 7 2 2

5.4. Survey (b) Expert 2

Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability
As shown in Appendix, the solicited experts were requested to issue Safety (1, 1, 1, 1) (8, 17
, 9, 9) (7, 15
, 17
, 9)
2 2 2
‘crisp values’ as part of the pairwise comparison process. These are Flexibility (1, 1, 2
, 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 2
, 2
, 1)
defined in Table 1. Crisp values were then mapped to fuzzy values 9 9 17 8 8 15 13 6
Profitability (1, 2
, 2
, 1) (6, 13
, 15
, 8) (1, 1, 1, 1)
9 17 15 7 2 2
based on the approach used in Zheng et al. (2012). Table 2 contains
(c) Expert 3
this mapping. Results are presented here with implications thereof in
Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability
Section 6. 15 17 15 17
Safety (1, 1, 1, 1) (7, , , 9) (7, , , 9)
2 2 2 2

5.4.1. Criteria Flexibility ( 91 , 2

17 2
, 15 , 17 ) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1, 1)
Table 3 shows the results of the pairwise comparisons from the Profitability (1, 2
, 2
, 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1, 1)
9 17 15 7
experts for the criteria. Table 4 then shows the mapped fuzzy pairwise
(d) Expert 4
comparisons based on Table 3. The fuzzy AHP approach includes the Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability
uncertainty in the judgement, setting the elicited judgement to a larger Safety (1, 1, 1, 1) (5, 11
, 13
, 7) (1, 1, 1, 1)
2 2
range than strictly one crisp number. Using the procedure discussed Flexibility 1 2 2 1 (1, 1, 1, 1) 1 2
( 7, , , ) , , 2,1
in Section 4.3, the fuzzy weights (𝑊̃ ) for the criteria were computed. 13 11 5 9 17 15 7
15 17
Profitability (1, 1, 1, 1) (7, , , 9) (1, 1, 1, 1)
Results are shown in Table 5 and plotted in Fig. 3. Safety was 2 2

weighted the highest (see Tables 6–8). (e) Expert 5

Pairwise criterion Safety Flexibility Profitability
13 15
Safety (1, 1, 1, 1) (6, 13 , 15 , 8) (6, , , 8)
5.4.2. Alternatives 2 2
Flexibility 1
( , 2
, 2
, ) 1 (1, 1,
2 1,21) (1, 2, 2, 1)
Each expert then compared the alternatives within the context of
8 15 13 6 5 9 7 3
each criterion. Following Section 4.3 again, performance scores (𝑟̃) presented. 8 15 13 6 2
2
were then computed by first taking the crisp judgements and mapping
to fuzzy values based on Table 2. Due to the amount of data, here,
only the mapped fuzzy values and resulting performance scores are

1
 E.K. Redfoot et
Profitability (1, 2
, 2
, 1) (3, 7 , 9 , 5) (1, 1, 1, 1) Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

1
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

/ig. 4. Performance scores for alternatives under safety criterion. Desalination is clearly favored with significant overlap between hydrogen production and synthetic fuels production.

/ig. 5. Performance scores for alternatives under flexibility criterion. Desalination is again favored, but hydrogen production is weighted higher than synthetic fuels production.
This is likely due to the longer time needed for the latter process to produce the fuels.

Table 5
Fuzzy weights for the criteria were determined by mapping the crisp pairwise 5.4.2.1. Safety. Performance scores for the alternatives within the con-
judgements using Table 2 and the computation procedure in Section 4.3. text of safety are shown in Table 9a and plotted in Fig. 4. Under safety,
Criterion Fuzzy weights desalination is clearly favored.
Safety (0.6153, 0.6677, 0.7815, 0.8448)
Flexibility (0.0592, 0.0637, 0.0752, 0.0827)
5.4.2.2. Flexibility. Performance scores under flexibility are shown in
Profitability (0.1786, 0.1928, 0.2254, 0.2447)
Table 9b and plotted in Fig. 5. Desalination is again favored.

5.4.2.3. Profitability. Here, profitability refers to the value of the in-

dustrial product. Performance scores are shown in Table 9c and plotted

1
 E.K. Redfoot et
/ig. 6. Performance scores for alternatives under profitability criterion. Desalination is weighted lowest with synthetic fuels slightly favored over hydrogen production. This can
be due to the larger potential market for the fuels in transportation.
in Fig. 6. Desalination falls clearly last under this criterion in contrast
to the prior results.
5.4.3. Utility set
The final utility set (𝑈̃ ) for the favorability of the alternative con-
sidering the weighted criteria was computed and is shown in Table 10
and plotted in Fig. 7. Desalination is the favored alternative, but
there is considerable variability in whether hydrogen or synthetic fuels
production is preferred.
6. Discussion
6.1. Criteria
Based on Fig. 3, safety is clearly weighted as most important to
the experts. Flexible operation also was weighted last with profitability
weighted higher but still not as important as safety. The demonstrably
high safety weighting may be due to the predominant cohort of ex-
perts being engineers. Diversity of the experts is further addressed in
Section 7. Essentially, the goal of an NRHES is to enhance the value
of nuclear energy, which shows profitability ranked second.
6.2. Alternatives
6.2.1. Safety
Based on Fig. 4, under safety, the favorability of desalination in
comparison may be due to the assumption that thermal desalination
would be used. This is a well-known researched and relatively straight-
forward process where thermal heat from the reactor is applied
directly. This may account for a more favorable rating simply due to
more credible knowledge of process operations.
Additionally, hydrogen is a combustible product, which introduces
additional risk. There are also considerations for storage that would
be more complicated than storing desalinated water. Similarly, use of
coal for synthetic fuels production also leads to emissions not present
in desalination and would be considered more of an environmental
concern. It does not seem any clear preference in terms of safety for
either hydrogen or synthetic fuels production.
1
Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
6.2.2. Flexibility
Fig. 5 again shows desalination is favored under flexibility. This
is likely due to the process being well known and in practice. Addi-
tionally, desalination plants can fluctuate in the amount of product
output more readily than other processes. From an operations perspec-
tive, the heat at the outlet temperature of the reactor can be directly
used for desalination. For hydrogen production, higher temperatures
are required. A typical Light Water Reactor (LWR) would require
temperature boosting technologies. For synthetic fuels production, a
Fischer–Tropsch process also can use the reactor outlet temperature,
but catalysts are required. Iron is favored when coal is used for the
feedstock. For these catalyzation processes, the time needed to input
heat then could result in a longer overall time to produce either the
hydrogen or synthetic fuel.
When the NPP is using heat for industrial applications, it is not
generating electricity or load following the renewable source; i.e., mak-
ing money. While the optimization of the NRHES with the grid and
industrial production is beyond the scope of the current study, flexible
operation inherently concerns this issue. The reactor should be oper-
ating at times of high demand on the grid to generate electricity or
load follow as demand fluctuates. Switching from industrial production
to electrical generation is difficult for LWRs and not well-known yet
for SMRs. Judgements shown in Fig. 5 likely reflect that the relatively
simplicity of desalination lends better to flexible operation. Similarly,
hydrogen production may be favored over synthetic fuel production
due to the relatively higher complexity of the Fischer–Tropsch method;
e.g., need for a catalyst.
6.2.3. Profitability
Fig. 6 shows that desalination is not favored under profitability.
The market for clean water is just not particularly strong in
comparison, though this could change as ‘drought seasons’ last longer
and longer. Synthetic fuels production is very slightly favored over
hydrogen pro- duction. Use of fuel would likely have a higher
market demand due to the large domestic transportation sector.
However, hydrogen offers secondary value in that it can be used to
produce other industrial products; e.g., fertilizer, electronics, and fuel
itself. The secondary value may not have been considered by the
experts and was not indicated in the survey.
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

/ig. 7. Final utility set for the alternatives. Judgements and subsequent fuzzy AHP analysis shows desalination is favored overall. Variability in desalination utility set is due to
the very low profitability weight coupled with the high safety weight. High profitability of synthetic fuels likely contributed to its favorability subsequent to desalination, though
again, there is significant variability with hydrogen production due to the low weight of synthetic fuels in terms of flexibility.

6.3. Utility set

The final utility set shown in Fig. 7 underscore the validity of
applying the fuzzy AHP methodology to the problem of NRHES
design. Results for Fig. 7 show desalination is the favored alternative.
This is due to its clear preference within the context of safety and
flexibility, although flexibility itself was weighted lowest of the
criteria. The safety criterion was weighted demonstrably highest.
However, there is overlap in the range of desalination with the other
alternatives. Additionally, the range itself is the widest as well. This
is indicative of the value of fuzzy AHP to capture uncertainties in
judgement. For this study, desalination was judged to offer the
minimal profitability, and in combination with favorable flexibility and
safety, it is reflected in the wider range in Fig. 7.
Similarly, there is considerable uncertainty in the preference of
hydrogen and synthetic fuels production. Synthetic fuels production
would be preferred, but it is also showing a relatively wide uncer-
tainty. While slightly preferable under profitability, it is marginally
less preferred under flexibility and also slightly less favorable in
safety. However, the weight of flexibility is very strongly least
preferred giving the weight of profitability to synthetic fuels
production over hydrogen production overall.
Notably, there is significant overlap in preference for all of the
alternatives, though again, the strong preference for safety gives desali-
nation the highest ranking. It is also interesting to note that the length
of the (𝑚, 𝑛) segments for synthetic fuels production and desalination
are nearly equal. This would be indicative of the preference of safety
and flexibility in desalination contrasting to the strong preference in
profitability for synthetic fuels production. The combination of the
criteria thereof yields this range in preferences of the experts.
6.4. Significance of fuzzy AHP
The fuzzy numbers (𝑙, 𝑚, 𝑛, 𝑠) for the utility set were converted to
crisp numbers by use of Zheng et al. (2012) -
𝑙 + 2 𝑚 + 2𝑛 + 𝑠
𝑛=
6
Normalized weights for the alternatives were computed based on
Eq. (10) and shown in Table 11. Strict use of crisp numbers would
indicate that desalination is a clear preference with hydrogen produc-
tion actually second and synthetic fuels last, though close in weight.
While desalination is clearly favored shown in Fig. 7, the overlap of all
the alternatives shows the complexity in determining the comparisons
within each criterion that is not captured by a single crisp number.
Additionally, it cannot be concluded that synthetic fuels production
is least preferable as shown in Table 11. Judgements based on strict
crisp numbers for systems as complex as an NRHES fails to capture
the variability in the criteria judgements and pairwise comparisons of
the alternatives therein. This again underscores the validity of apply-
ing fuzzy logic to NRHES systems design. Judgements even amongst
technologies still carry considerable uncertainty that must be
rigorously characterized.
7. /uture work
Research undertaken in this study has produced a straightforward
approach to decisionmaking for NRHESs at the preliminary design
phase that offers numerous opportunities for future work.
7.1. System definition
The system under study here was non site specific, but the
industrial processes were fairly common in the literature that starting
with a more generic NRHES was justified. However, in actuality,
deployment of an NRHES will likely be regionally dependent. The
accessibility of raw resources and feedstock will likely play a
substantial role in determining the optimal industrial process. Several
options based on region; geographic and topology, electric grid,
climate, regulated or deregulated market, etc.
Additionally, there are other technical specifications that can be
stipulated. The nuclear reactor type was not for this study. Going
forward, LWRs, NuScale power modules, other SMRs, and microre-
(10) actors can be defined for each system. This may affect weighting of

1
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

Tabl Tabl
Fuzzy mapping for safety criterion. Fuzzy mapping for flexibility criterion.
(a) Expert 1 (a) Expert 1
Safety Desalination Hydrogen Synthetic fuels Flexibility Desalination Hydrogen Synthetic fuels
production production production production
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (2, 5 , 7 , 4) (4, 9 , 11
, 6) Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3) (6, 13
, 15
, 8)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hydrogen production (1, 2, 2, 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3) Hydrogen production ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (7, 15
, 17
, 9)
4 7 5 2 2 2 3 5 3 2 2
Synthetic fuels 1
( , 2 2
, , ) 1 1 2
( , , , 1) 2
(1, 1, 1, 1) Synthetic fuels 1
( , 2
, 2
, ) 1 1
( , 2
, 2 1
, ) (1, 1, 1, 1)
production 6 11 9 4 3 5 3 8 15 13 6 9 17 15 7
production
(b) Expert 2
(b) Expert 2
Safety Desalination Hydrogen
Synthetic fuels Flexibility Desalination Hydrogen Synthetic fuels
production
production production production
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (4, 9 , 11
, 6) (3, 7 , 9 , 5) Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3) (8, 17
, 9, 9)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 2 1 3 5 1 2 2 17
Hydrogen production ( , , , ) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, , , 3) Hydrogen production ( , , , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (8, , 9, 9)
6 11 9 4 2 2 3 5 3 2
Synthetic fuels (1, 2, 2, 1) ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) Synthetic fuels (1, 1, 2
, 1) (1, 1, 2
, 1) (1, 1, 1, 1)
production 5 9 7 3 3 5 3 9 9 17 8 9 9 17 8
production
(c) Expert 3
(c) Expert 3
Safety Desalination Hydrogen
Synthetic fuels Flexibility Desalination Hydrogen Synthetic fuels
production
production production production
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3) (1, 3 , 5 , 3) Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3) (1, 3 , 5 , 3)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 2 3 5 1 2 2
Hydrogen production ( , , , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, , , 3) Hydrogen production ( , , , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3)
3 5 3 2 2 3 5 3 2 2
Synthetic fuels ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) Synthetic fuels ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1)
production 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 3
production
(d) Expert 4
(d) Expert 4
Safety Desalination Hydrogen
Synthetic fuels Flexibility Desalination Hydrogen Synthetic fuels
production
production production production
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (4, 9 , 11
, 6) (3, 7 , 9 , 5) Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (8, 17
, 9, 9) (6, 13
, 15
, 8)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 2 1 3 5 1 1 2 1
Hydrogen production ( , , , ) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, , , 3) Hydrogen production ( , , , ) (1, 1, 1, 1) ( , , , 1)
1 2 2

2 2 9 9 17 8 4 7 5 2
6 11 9 4
Synthetic fuels 1 2 2 1
5, 9, 7, 3
( 31 , 52 , 32 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) Synthetic fuels ( 81 , 15
2
, 2 6
13 , 1) (2, 25 , 7 , 4) (1, 1, 1, 1)
2
production production
(e) Expert 5 (e) Expert 5
Safety Desalination Hydrogen Synthetic fuels Flexibility Desalination Hydrogen Synthetic fuels
production production production production
13 15
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (6, 13
, 15
, 8) (4, 9 , 11
, 6) Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (6, 13
, 15
, 8) (6, , , 8)
2 2
Hydrogen production 1 2 2 1 2 1,21)
(1, 1, ( 1 , 22 , 22 , 1 ) Hydrogen production 1 2 2 1 2 1,21)
(1, 1, (1, 3 , 5 , 3)
( , , , ) ( , , , )
8 15 13 8 15 13 6 2 2
4 7 5 2
6
Synthetic fuels (1, 2
, 2, 1) (2, 5 , 7 , 4) (1, 1, 1, 1) Synthetic fuels (1, 2
, 2
, 1) ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1)
production 6 11 9 4 2 2 8 15 13 6 3 5 3
production

defined as a subcriteria under safety, decomposing this criterion into

criteria such as safety, which is well known for an LWR but is still not regulatory compliance and occupational safety. Taxation could also be
as rigorously characterized for a microreactor. Selection of a nuclear included; e.g., property tax, revenue generated, etc. Waste generation
reactor can also be used to define the heat requirements. This could be should also be included as criterion in future study. A given process may
based just on the outlet temperature. A molten salt reactor is expected offer high
to have a significantly higher outlet temperature, and this may affect
flexibility in comparison to the lower temperature of an LWR. The
nuclear reactor could be defined first, or the system could be defined
in terms of the industrial process, and then the decision point would be
the optimal nuclear reactor for the process.

7.2. AHP hierarchy

7.2.1. Criteria
Criteria considered here were safety, flexibility, and profitability.
These likely would be apt considerations for further studies even based
on regional considerations. Additional criteria could include emissions,
which may affect judgement of synthetic fuels production, as well as
other industrial processes. Access to feedstock could be incorporated
as a criterion if different regional systems are to be designed.
Regulatory compliance, both federal and state could be added in order
to further decompose safety. Or, perhaps, regulatory compliance is
1
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

Tabl Tabl

profitability, but generate significant waste. The weighting of these

will be critical in the design of the NRHES. Within this, recycling
any of the waste streams could also be considered.
This study inherently assumed the NPP would load follow a re-
newable resource but largely focused on the flexible operation
of the reactor to produce heat optimally with generating
electricity to the grid. The actual renewable resource itself could be a
subcriteria under flexibility. This then would be regionally dependent
on system deployment. Another technical criterion would include
coupling of the reactor to the industrial process; e.g., thermal or
electrical. The means of coupling will affect flexibility and
profitability.
In addition to regulatory compliance, safety, instead of being a
relative point of comparison, maybe better treated as a set of
standards to be achieved, such as those presented in the ISO
standards for cogeneration (International Organization for
Standardization, 2017). While desalination is perceived to be a safer
industrial process based on the expert solicitation, that does not
mean that a synthetic fuel upgrading system or a high temperature
steam electrolysis plant is unsafe to couple to a nuclear power plant.

7.2.2. Alternatives
Desalination, hydrogen production, and synthetic fuels production
are commonly considered in most NRHES studies and should still be
included in future studies. Other industries may be considered based
on region as well. Other industries of interest include biofuels
production,

1
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

Table 8
Table 10
Fuzzy mapping for profitability criterion.
Utility set for the alternatives.
(a) Expert 1
Alternative Utility set
Profitability Desalination Hydrogen
Synthetic fuels Desalination (0.3112, 0.4239, 0.7332, 0.9703)
production
production Hydrogen production (0.1269, 0.1761, 0.3167, 0.4351)
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 2
, 2
, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3) Synthetic fuels production (0.1166, 0.1548, 0.2751, 0.3976)
8 15 13 6 2 2
13 15
Hydrogen production (6, , , 8) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3)
2 2 2 2
Synthetic fuels ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) Table 11
production Normalized crisp weights for the alternatives.
(b) Expert 2 3 5 3 3 5 3 Alternative Weight

Profitability Desalination Hydrogen Desalination 0.5517

Synthetic fuels
production Hydrogen production 0.2375
production
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3) (1, 2 , 2 , 1) Synthetic fuels production 0.2108
2 2 8 11 13 6
Hydrogen production ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 3 , 5 , 3)
3 5 3 2 2
Synthetic fuels (6, 11
, 13
, 8) ( 31 , 52 , 2 , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1)
2 2
production 3 including these in the alternatives may increase the judgement of the
(c) Expert 3 process under a profitability criterion.
Profitability Desalination Hydrogen
Synthetic fuels
production 7.3. Experts
production
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (5, 9 , 11
, 7) (1, 1, 2 , 1)
1 2 2 1 2 2 9 9 17 The experts were chosen by the authors based on previously es-
8
Hydrogen production ( , , , ) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 2
, 1)
7 11 9 5
9 9 17 8 tablished relationships, and their overall expertise is not questioned.
Synthetic fuels (8, 17
, 9, 9) (8, 17
, 9, 9) (1, 1, 1, 1)
2 2
production However, the overall group are largely academics and researchers in
(d) Expert 4
nuclear engineering though some did have experience in modeling and
simulation of the industrial processes as well. While an important
group
Profitability Desalination Hydrogen Synthetic fuels to include in a study such as this, it likely lead to the strong preference
production production
in safety. Additional diversity should be sought out in future expansion
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 2, 2, 1) (1, 2
, 2, 1) of this work. This still should include experts in nuclear reactors, de-
5 9 7 3 6 11 9 4
sign, and operations. However, more experts in the industrial processes
7 9
Hydrogen production (3, , , 5) (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, , 5 , 3)
3

2 2 2 2
Synthetic fuels (4, 92 , 11
( 31 , 52 , 2 , 1) under study should also be included. It is typically assumed that an
2, 6) (1, 1, 1, 1)
production 3
NRHES will be owned by a single entity. This may not be the case, as
(e) Expert 5 industrial operators may not want the process to be ‘behind the fence’
Profitability Desalination Hydrogen of the NPP and likely subject to additional regulations. Inclusion of
Synthetic fuels
production
production industrial experts might value profitability higher than in this current
Desalination (1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 2
, 2
, 1) (1, 2, 2, 1) work, which may ultimately downgrade desalination. In terms of safety,
8 15 13 regulators could also be included, not just from the NRC, but other
6
4 7 5
2
13 15
Hydrogen production (6, , , 8) (1, 1, 1, 1) (4, 9 , 11
, 6)
2 2 2 areas; e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, etc. Additionally, rep-
2
Synthetic fuels 2
5 72 6
1 11
2 29
(2, 4, , 4) ( , , , 1) (1, 1, 1, 1)
production resentatives from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should also be
included for expertise in the electric grid. This may alter the
Table 9
judgements for flexibility. There is also a wealth of expertise that
social scientists
Performance scores for each alternative under the criteria.
can offer in terms of energy policy, grid management, optimization,
(a) Safety
resource allocation, etc.
Alternative Performance score While a diverse cohort of experts may yield stronger results,
Desalination (0.4295, 0.5397, 0.8023, experts can also assist in the formulation of the AHP hierarchy,
0.9820)
selection of criteria, and even the assembly of the survey. Finally, it
Hydrogen production (0.1150, 0.1486, 0.2356,
0.3037) should be noted that there are not any NRHESs deployed in
Synthetic fuels production (0.1002, .01228, 0.1950, reality; expertise is inherently constrained. This is the justification for
0.2653)
continued use of fuzzy AHP. Nevertheless, the effort to widen the
(b) Flexibility cohort is worthwhile.
Alternative Performance score
Desalination (0.4448, 0.5570, 0.8070, 7.4. Accessibility
0.9761)
Hydrogen production (0.1505, 0.1837, 0.2760,
0.3572)
Synthetic fuels production (0.0747, 0.0873, 0.1248, 0.1592)
(c) Profitability Typically, after the initial experiment, authors of the AHP survey
Alternative Performance score should follow up to present results and solicit feedback from the
Desalination (0.1154, 0.1459, 0.2022, 0.2450) experts. This was not available for this study, and only a once through

1
 E.K. Redfoot
Hydrogen et
production (0.2644, 0.3381, 0.41960, 0.6088) analysis could be developed. Though,Progress in Nuclear Energy
conclusions derived145from
(2022)these
Synthetic fuels production (0.2830, 0.3489, 0.5025, 0.6551) results are reasonable and offer implications for more detailed work.

Even for a study with three criteria and three alternatives,

chemical manufacturing, minerals conversion, district heating, metal
refining, pyrolysis, etc.
Similarly, secondary products can be included as well. Hydrogen
can be used for widespread applications, such as oil and metals
refining or the production of ammonia for fertilizer manufacture.
Specifically
Appendix shows that 37 questions were required. This is a significant
demand on the experts’ time, which was freely donated and well
appreciated. Fur- thermore, personal experience revealed that such in-
person interaction yielded more careful consideration when making
pairwise comparisons and offered the opportunity for experts to
understand the questions better (Bilbao y Leon, 2018). In the post-
Covid era, where ‘Zoom’ has become a colloquialism on par with
‘Google’, accessibility of the experts should not be as much a hindrance.

1
 E.K. Redfoot et
7.5. Computational burden
The complexity of the computations for fuzzy AHP is not high; it
is arithmetic. However, calculations are tedious and room for error is
large. Optimization of the process is currently underway in the devel-
opment of an open source model in Python to both compute weights,
performance scores, utility sets, and plots. Eventually, object oriented
programming can be used to establish a graphical user interface, where
various system configurations and criteria can be defined, accessible
to experts to conduct the pairwise comparisons and computations are
automated to produce results and customized presentation thereof.
8. Summary remarks
The economics of nuclear energy in the United States faces chal-
lenges in relation to other electric generation sources. Nuclear re-
newable hybrid energy systems have been proposed as a means to
maximize the full value of nuclear energy. NRHESs combine a nuclear
reactor, renewable energy resource, and an industrial process. There
are significant unknowns regarding the day-to-day operation and
safety of such systems since none have yet been built. There has not
been any means to compare available industrial processes that might
be included in an NRHES as part of a preliminary design strategy.
To this end, a fuzzy AHP analysis was conducted to demonstrate
the use of this process for NRHES design and to investigate relative
importance of common industrial products that have been considered
as components in an NRHES. While AHP has been applied to energy
systems in the literature, the application to an NRHES is novel. These
included -
• Desalination,
• Synthetic fuel production, and
• Hydrogen production.
Criteria analyzed for this study were -
• Safety,
• Flexible operation, and
• Profitability.
An AHP approach provides important information into design con-
siderations and systematically approaches which alternative is likely to
be strongest given the criteria chosen. Use of fuzzy AHP is appropriate
as there is considerable uncertainty inherent in designing these systems
currently. The further intent is to develop a readily applicable analysis
and judgement tool based on an established risk assessment approach
to a novel application for these emerging energy systems.
Major results and implications include -
• Safety was weighted significantly higher than flexibility and
prof- itability.
• Desalination was preferred clearly within the context of safety
and flexibility. Familiarity with the process in terms of realistic
deployment at NPPs may have factored into its preference.
• However, desalination was clearly least preferred in terms of
profitability with synthetic fuels production slightly favored over
hydrogen production.
• Overall, desalination is the preferred industrial process, largely
due to the high weight of the safety criterion with synthetic fuels
next, and hydrogen production.
• Uncertainty in judging NRHESs was adequately captured
through use of fuzzy AHP, and the results establish the validity
of the methodology to provide NRHES design information to
decision- makers.
This work opens up considerable research pathways going forward.
Of key importance is expanding the diversity of the individuals sur-
veyed in terms of areas of expertise, as well as continual engagement
with the experts throughout the process. The AHP hierarchy can also
be considerably expanded in terms of regional dependence, additional
criteria, and expansion of industrial processes available. The
procedure,
1
Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
approach, and results presented in this study have provided a strong
framework for embarking on more sophisticated study of design
options for Nuclear Renewable Hybrid Energy Systems.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the participants in the expert AHP survey
for their feedback and time, as well as Dr. Aaron Epiney and Dr.
Scott Greenwood of Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory respectively.
We would also like to thank Dr. Steven E. Skutnik then professor
at The University of Tennessee-Knoxville Department of Nuclear
Engi- neering; currently, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for his
suggestion to apply fuzzy AHP to the expert AHP survey.
Appendix. AHP survey
Introduction
The following questionnaire will take 10 to 20 min to complete.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
The questionnaire below is one part of my research evaluating the
potential benefits of applying the risk assessment technique of
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to compare different industrial
processes that might be incorporated into a nuclear renewable hybrid
energy system. AHP requires a group of experts determining the
relative values as- sociated with each of the options being compared.
The questionnaire requests your expert opinion on determining the
values associated with thermally coupling a desalination plant, a
synthetic fuels plant, and a hydrogen production plant to a nuclear
power plant. The three indus- trial processes are compared based on
safety, flexibility, and economic value.
This survey assumes that the process used for hydrogen production
is high temperature steam electrolysis with thermal as well as electrical
coupling to the nuclear power plant. The assumed form of desalination
is thermal desalination through distillation directly using heat from the
nuclear power plant. The assumed synthetic fuel process is a Fischer–
Tropsch method using coal as the hydrocarbon source. Assume each
of the processes consumes the same amount of heat from the nuclear
power plant.
The questions below deal with the relative value of each of the
industrial processes based on each of the characteristics taken into
consideration in this study: safety, ability to fluctuate, and profitability.
Ability to fluctuate describes how difficult it is to start and stop the
industrial process, as well as the ability of the industrial process to
ramp to allow more or less heat to be allocated to electricity production
to match demand from the grid. For example, if the process can start
and stop, but the initial batch of product is of lower quality, that would
negatively affect the ‘‘ability to fluctuate’’ as compared to a process
that could start and stop with no impact on the initial batch of product
after restarting. An industrial process that could more or less
instantaneously reach full capacity steady state operation would rank
higher than an industrial process that would take a long time to reach
full capacity steady state operation.
For AHP, the range of the scale is from 1 to 9, with 1 representing
when the two options are thought of as equal for the given characteris-
tic. As can be seen below with the safety comparison of desalination
to hydrogen production, you will have three initial options. If you
choose that the desalination and hydrogen production are equally safe,
 E.K. Redfoot et
that will be recorded as a 1 in the AHP. If you choose, for example,
that hydrogen production is safer than desalination, then you will be
directed to a second question which determines your view of how
much safer hydrogen production is than desalination.
As AHP focuses on collecting expert opinions, you have been se-
lected because you have either published research or a report on nu-
clear renewable hybrid energy systems, cogeneration, or have worked
with a nuclear cogeneration system. I would appreciate it if I could
include your name as participating in the research, as can be seen in
the first question below. Your answers will not be shared, only that
you were part of the expert group taking this survey.
I recognize that characteristics such as regional accessibility of
feedstocks for each of the industrial processes will have a major
impact on which industrial process would be pursued in a nuclear
renewable hybrid energy system. For the purposes of this research,
please assume all regional characteristics are equal. The goal of this
research is to ascertain whether AHP can generally be applied to
determining the relative values of different potential industrial
processes for a nuclear renewable hybrid energy system.
Thank you for your time and willingness to participate in this
research.
Questions
1. Is it acceptable to include your name and the organization you
work for as part of the group of experts participating in this
survey? (If so, please enter your name and institution).
2. Do you think safety is more important than the ability of an
industrial process to fluctuate?
• Yes Skip to question 3
• No Skip to question 4
• They are of the same importance Skip to question 5
Safety more important then Ability to /luctuate
3. From 2 to 9, how would you compare the importance of safety
of an industrial process to the ability of the industrial process to
fluctuate?
• 2, experience and judgement favor safety over the ability to
fluctuate by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor safety over
the ability to fluctuate
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor safety over the
ability to fluctuate
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor safety over the
ability to fluctuate
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for safety over the
ability to fluctuate
• 7, safety is favored very strongly over the ability to fluctuate
and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, safety is more important
than the ability to fluctuate
• 9, the evidence favoring safety over the ability to fluctuate is
of the highest possible affirmation
Skip to question 5
Ability to /luctuate more important than Safety
4. From 2 to 9, how would you compare the importance of safety
of an industrial process to the ability of the industrial process to
fluctuate?
• 2, experience and judgement favor the ability to fluctuate
over safety by a small margin
1
Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor the ability to
fluctuate over safety
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor the ability to fluc-
tuate over safety
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor the ability to
fluctuate over safety
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for the ability to
fluctuate over safety
• 7, the ability to fluctuate is favored very strongly over safety
and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, the ability to fluctuate is
more important than safety
• 9, the evidence favoring the ability to fluctuate over safety is
of the highest possible affirmation
Importance: Ability to /luctuate vs. Profitability
5. Do you think that the ability to fluctuate is more important than
profitability of an industrial process?
• Yes Skip to question 6
• No Skip to question 7
• They are of the same importance Skip to question 8
Ability to /luctuate more important than Profitability
6. From 2 to 9, how would you compare the importance of safety
of an industrial process to the ability of the industrial process to
fluctuate?
• 2, experience and judgement favor the ability to fluctuate
over profitability by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor the ability to
fluctuate over profitability
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor the ability to fluc-
tuate over profitability
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor the ability to
fluctuate over profitability
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for the ability to
fluctuate over profitability
• 7, the ability to fluctuate is favored very strongly over prof-
itability and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, the ability to fluctuate is
more important than profitability
• 9, the evidence favoring the ability to fluctuate over prof-
itability is of the highest possible affirmation
Skip to question 8
Profitability more important than Ability to /luctuate
7. From 2 to 9, how would you compare the importance of safety
of an industrial process to the ability of the industrial process to
fluctuate?
• 2, experience and judgement favor profitability over the abil-
ity to fluctuate by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor profitability
over the ability to fluctuate
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor profitability over
the ability to fluctuate
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor profitability over
the ability to fluctuate
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for profitability
over the ability to fluctuate
• 7, profitability is favored very strongly over the ability to
fluctuate and has been shown in practice
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, profitability is more

• Hydrogen production is safer than desalination Skip
important than the ability to fluctuate
to question 13
• 9, the evidence favoring profitability over the ability to fluc-
• Desalination and hydrogen production are equally safe Skip
tuate is of the highest possible affirmation
to question 14
Importance: Safety vs. Profitability
Desalination safer than Hydrogen Production
8. Do you think safety is more important than the profitability of an
12. From 2 to 9, how would you say the safety of desalination
industrial process?
compares to hydrogen production?
• Yes Skip to question 9
• 2, experience and judgement favor desalination over hydro-
• No Skip to question 10
gen production by a small margin
• They are of the same importance Skip to question 11
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor desalination
Safety more important than Profitability over hydrogen production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor desalination over
9. From 2 to 9, how would you compare the importance of safety hydrogen production
of an industrial process to the ability of the industrial process to • 5, experience and judgement strongly favor desalination over
fluctuate? hydrogen production
• 2, experience and judgement favor safety over the profitabil- • 6, practice suggests moderate preference for desalination
ity by a small margin over hydrogen production
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor safety over • 7, desalination is favored very strongly over hydrogen pro-
profitability duction and has been shown in practice
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor safety over prof- • 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, desalination is safer than
itability hydrogen production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor safety over the • 9, the evidence favoring desalination over hydrogen produc-
profitability tion is of the highest possible affirmation
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for safety over
prof- itability Skip to question 14
• 7, safety is favored very strongly over profitability and has
been shown in practice Hydrogen Production safer than Desalination
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, safety is more important 13. From 2 to 9, how would you say the safety of desalination
than the profitability compares to hydrogen production?
• 9, the evidence favoring safety over profitability is of the
highest possible affirmation • 2, experience and judgement favor hydrogen production over
desalination by a small margin
Skip to question 11 • 3, experience and judgement moderately favor hydrogen pro-
duction over desalination
Profitability more important than Safety
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor hydrogen produc-
10. From 2 to 9, how would you compare the importance of safety tion over desalination
of an industrial process to the ability of the industrial process to • 5, experience and judgement strongly favor hydrogen
fluctuate? produc- tion over desalination
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for hydrogen pro-
• 2, experience and judgement favor profitability over safety
by a small margin duction over desalination
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor profitability • 7, hydrogen production is favored very strongly over desali-
over safety nation and has been shown in practice
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor profitability over • 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, hydrogen production is
safety safer than desalination
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor profitability over • 9, the evidence favoring hydrogen production as safer than
safety desalination is of the highest possible affirmation
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for profitability
Safety: Desalination vs. Synthetic /uels
over safety
• 7, profitability is favored very strongly over safety and has 14. How would you say the safety of desalination compares to
been shown in practice synthetic fuels production?
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, profitability is more
• Desalination is safer than synthetic fuels production Skip to
important than safety
question 15
• 9, the evidence favoring profitability over safety is of the
• Synthetic fuels production is safer than desalination Skip to
highest possible affirmation
question 16
Safety: Desalination vs. Hydrogen Production • Desalination and synthetic fuels production are equally safe
Skip to question 17
11. How would you say the safety of desalination compares to hydro-
gen production? Desalination safer than synthetic fuels production
• Desalination is safer than hydrogen production Skip 15. From 2 to 9, how would you say the safety of desalination
to question 12
compares to synthetic fuel production?

1
 E.K. Redfoot et
• 2, experience and judgement favor desalination over syn-
thetic fuels production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor desalination
over synthetic fuels production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor desalination over
synthetic fuels production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor desalination over
synthetic fuels production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for desalination
over synthetic fuels production
• 7, desalination is favored very strongly over synthetic fuels
production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear, that in practice desalination is safer than
synthetic fuels production
• 9, the evidence favoring desalination as safer than synthetic
fuels production is of the highest possible affirmation
Skip to question 17
Synthetic /uels Production safer than Desalination
16. From 2 to 9, how would you say the safety of desalination
compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor synthetic fuels production
over desalination by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor synthetic
fuels production over desalination
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor synthetic fuels
production over desalination
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor synthetic fuels
production over desalination
• 6, practice suggest moderate preference for synthetic fuels
production
• 7, synthetic fuels production is favored very strongly over
desalination and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear, that in practice synthetic fuels production
is safer than desalination
• 9, the evidence favoring synthetic fuels production as safer
than desalination is of the highest possible affirmation
Safety: Hydrogen Production vs. Synthetic /uels
17. How would you say the safety of hydrogen production compares
to synthetic fuels production?
• Hydrogen production is safer than synthetic fuels production
Skip to question 18
• Synthetic fuels production is safer than hydrogen production
Skip to question 19
• Hydrogen production and synthetic fuels production are
equally safe Skip to question
20
Hydrogen Production safer than Synthetic /uels Production
18. From 2 to 9, how would you say the safety of hydrogen production
compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor hydrogen production over
synthetic fuels by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor hydrogen pro-
duction over synthetic fuels production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor hydrogen produc-
tion over synthetic fuels production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor hydrogen
produc- tion over the synthetic fuels production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for hydrogen pro-
duction over synthetic fuels production
1
Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
• 7, hydrogen production is favored very strongly over syn-
thetic fuels production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear, that in practice hydrogen production is
safer than synthetic fuels production
• 9, the evidence favoring hydrogen production as safer than
synthetic fuels production is of the highest possible affirma-
tion
Skip to question 20
Synthetic /uels Production safer than Hydrogen Production
19. From 2 to 9, how would you say the safety of hydrogen production
compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor synthetic fuel production
over hydrogen production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor synthetic
fuels production over hydrogen production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor synthetic fuels
production over hydrogen production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor synthetic fuels
production over hydrogen production
• 6, practice suggest moderate preference for synthetic fuels
production over hydrogen production
• 7, synthetic fuels production is favored very strongly over
hydrogen production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that in practice synthetic fuels production
is safer than hydrogen production
• 9, the evidence favoring synthetic fuels production as safer
than hydrogen production is of the highest possible affirma-
tion
Ability to /luctuate: Desalination vs. Hydrogen Production
20. How would you say the ability to fluctuate of desalination com-
pares to hydrogen production?
• Desalination is more able to fluctuate than hydrogen produc-
tion Skip to question
21
• Hydrogen production is more able to fluctuate than desalina-
tion Skip to question
22
• Desalination and hydrogen production are equally able to
fluctuate Skip to question 23
Desalination more able to fluctuate than hydrogen production
21. From 2 to 9, how would you say the ability to fluctuate of desali-
nation compares to hydrogen production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor desalination over hydro-
gen production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor desalination
over hydrogen production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor desalination over
hydrogen production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor desalination over
hydrogen production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for desalination
over hydrogen production
• 7, desalination is favored very strongly over hydrogen pro-
duction and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear, that in practice desalination can fluctuate
better than hydrogen production
• 9, the evidence favoring desalination over hydrogen produc-
tion is of the highest possible affirmation
 E.K. Redfoot et
Skip to question 23
Hydrogen Production more able to fluctuate than Desalination
22. From 2 to 9, how would you say the ability to fluctuate of desali-
nation compares to hydrogen production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor hydrogen production over
desalination by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor hydrogen pro-
duction over desalination
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor hydrogen produc-
tion over desalination
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor hydrogen
produc- tion over desalination
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for hydrogen pro-
duction over desalination
• 7, hydrogen production is favored very strongly over desali-
nation and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that in practice hydrogen production can
fluctuate better than desalination
• 9, the evidence favoring hydrogen production as better able
to fluctuate than desalination is of the highest possible affir-
mation
Ability to /luctuate: Desalination vs. Synthetic /uels Produc-
tion
23. How would you say the ability to fluctuate of desalination com-
pares to synthetic fuels production?
• Desalination is more able to fluctuate than synthetic fuels
production Skip to question
24
• Synthetic fuels production is more able to fluctuate than
desalination Skip to question
25
• Desalination and synthetic fuels production are equally able
to fluctuate Skip to question 26
Desalination more able to fluctuate than Synthetic /uels Pro-
duction
24. From 2 to 9, how would you say the ability to fluctuate of desali-
nation compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor desalination over syn-
thetic fuels by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor desalination
over synthetic fuels production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor desalination over
synthetic fuels production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor desalination over
synthetic fuels production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for desalination
over synthetic fuels production
• 7, desalination is favored very strongly over synthetic fuel
production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, desalination is better able
to fluctuate than synthetic fuel production
• 9, the evidence favoring desalination as better able to fluctu-
ate than synthetic fuels production is of the highest possible
affirmation
Skip to question 26
Synthetic /uels Production more able to fluctuate than Desali-
nation
25. From 2 to 9, how would you say the ability to fluctuate of desali-
nation compares to synthetic fuels production?
1
Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
• 2, experience and judgement favor synthetic fuels production
over desalination by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor synthetic
fuels production over desalination
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor synthetic fuels
production over desalination
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor synthetic fuels
production over desalination
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for synthetic fuels
production over desalination
• 7, synthetic fuels production is favored very strongly over
desalination and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, synthetic fuels production
is better able to fluctuate than desalination
• 9, the evidence favoring synthetic fuels production as better
able to fluctuate than desalination is of the highest possible
affirmation
Ability to /luctuate: Hydrogen Production vs. Synthetic /uels
Production
26. How would you say the ability to fluctuate of hydrogen production
compares to synthetic fuels production?
• Hydrogen production is more able to fluctuate than synthetic
fuels production Skip to question
27
• Synthetic fuels production is more able to fluctuate than
hydrogen production Skip to question
28
• Hydrogen production and synthetic fuels production are
equally able to fluctuate Skip to question 29
Hydrogen Production more able to fluctuate than Synthetic
/uels Production
27. From 2 to 9, how would you say the ability to fluctuate of
hydrogen production compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor hydrogen production over
synthetic fuels production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor hydrogen pro-
duction over the synthetic fuels production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor hydrogen produc-
tion over synthetic fuels production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor the hydrogen
production over synthetic fuels production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for hydrogen pro-
duction over synthetic fuels production
• 7, hydrogen production is favored very strongly over syn-
thetic fuel production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, hydrogen production
fluctuates better than synthetic fuels production
• 9, the evidence favoring hydrogen production as better able
to fluctuate than synthetic fuels is of the highest possible
affirmation
Skip to question 29
Synthetic /uels Production more able to fluctuate than Hydro-
gen Production
28. From 2 to 9, how would you say the ability to fluctuate of
hydrogen production compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor synthetic fuels over hy-
drogen production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor synthetic
E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
fuels production over hydrogen production

1
 E.K. Redfoot et
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor synthetic fuels
production over hydrogen production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor synthetic fuels
production over hydrogen production
• 6, practice suggest moderate preference for synthetic fuels
production over hydrogen production
• 7, synthetic fuels production is favored very strongly over
hydrogen production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, synthetic fuels production
is better able to fluctuate than hydrogen production
• 9, the evidence favoring synthetic fuels production as better
able to fluctuate than hydrogen production is of the highest
possible affirmation
Profitability: Desalination vs. Hydrogen Production
29. How would you say the profitability of desalination compares to
hydrogen production?
• Desalination is more profitable than hydrogen production
Skip to question 30
• Hydrogen production is more profitable than desalination
Skip to question 31
• Desalination and hydrogen production are equally profitable
Skip to question 32
Desalination more profitable than Hydrogen Production
30. From 2 to 9, how would you say the profitability of desalination
compares to hydrogen production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor desalination over hydro-
gen production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor desalination
over hydrogen production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor desalination over
hydrogen production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor desalination over
hydrogen production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for desalination
over hydrogen production
• 7, desalination is favored very strongly over hydrogen pro-
duction and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear, that in practice desalination is more
profitable than hydrogen production
• 9, the evidence favoring desalination over hydrogen produc-
tion is of the highest possible affirmation
Skip to question 32
Hydrogen Production more profitable than Desalination
31. From 2 to 9, how would you say the profitability of desalination
compares to hydrogen production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor hydrogen production over
desalination by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor hydrogen pro-
duction over desalination
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor hydrogen produc-
tion over desalination
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor desalination over
hydrogen production
• 6, practice suggest moderate preference for hydrogen
produc- tion over desalination
• 7, hydrogen production is favored very strongly over desali-
nation and has been shown in practice
1
Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
• 8, it is fairly clear that in practice hydrogen production is
more profitable than desalination
• 9, the evidence favoring hydrogen production as more prof-
itable than desalination is of the highest possible affirmation
Profitability: Desalination vs. Synthetic /uels Production
32. How would you say the profitability of desalination compares to
synthetic fuels production?
• Desalination is more profitable than synthetic fuels produc-
tion Skip to question
33
• Synthetic fuels production is more profitable than desalina-
tion Skip to question
34
• Desalination and synthetic fuels production are equally prof-
itable Skip to question
35
Desalination more profitable than Synthetic /uels Production
33. From 2 to 9, how would you say the profitability of desalination
compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor desalination over syn-
thetic fuels production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor desalination
over synthetic fuels production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor desalination over
synthetic fuels production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor desalination over
synthetic fuels production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for desalination
over synthetic fuels production
• 7, desalination is favored very strongly over synthetic fuels
production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear, that in practice desalination is more
profitable than synthetic fuels production
• 9, the evidence favoring desalination as more profitable than
synthetic fuels production is of the highest possible affirma-
tion
Skip to question 35
Synthetic /uels Production more profitable than Desalination
34. From 2 to 9, how would you say the profitability of desalination
compares to synthetic fuels?
• 2, experience and judgement favor synthetic fuels production
over desalination by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor synthetic
fuels production over desalination
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor synthetic fuels
production over desalination
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor synthetic fuels
production over desalination
• 6, practice suggest moderate preference for synthetic fuels
production
• 7, synthetic fuels production is favored very strongly over
desalination and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear that, in practice, synthetic fuels production
is more profitable than desalination
• 9, the evidence favoring synthetic fuels production as safer
than desalination is of the highest possible affirmation
Profitability: Hydrogen Production vs. Synthetic /uels
 E.K. Redfoot et
35. How would you say the profitability of hydrogen production com-
pares to synthetic fuels production?
• Hydrogen production is more profitable than synthetic fuels
production Skip to question
36
• Synthetic fuels production is more profitable than hydrogen
production Skip to question 37
• Hydrogen production and synthetic fuels production are
equally profitable Survey complete
Hydrogen Production more profitable than Synthetic /uels
Production
36. From 2 to 9, how would you say the profitability of hydrogen
production compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor hydrogen production over
synthetic fuels production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor the hydrogen
production over the synthetic fuels production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor hydrogen produc-
tion over synthetic fuels production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor hydrogen
produc- tion over synthetic fuels production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for hydrogen pro-
duction over synthetic fuels production
• 7, hydrogen production is favored very strongly over syn-
thetic fuel production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear, that in practice hydrogen production is
more profitable than synthetic fuels production
• 9, the evidence favoring hydrogen production as more prof-
itable than synthetic fuels is of the highest possible affirma-
tion
Survey complete
Synthetic /uels Production more profitable than Hydrogen
Production
37. From 2 to 9, how would you say the profitability of hydrogen
production compares to synthetic fuels production?
• 2, experience and judgement favor hydrogen production over
synthetic fuels production by a small margin
• 3, experience and judgement moderately favor hydrogen pro-
duction over synthetic fuels production
• 4, experience and judgement clearly favor hydrogen produc-
tion over synthetic fuels production
• 5, experience and judgement strongly favor hydrogen
produc- tion over synthetic fuels production
• 6, practice suggests moderate preference for hydrogen pro-
duction over synthetic fuels production
• 7, hydrogen production is favored very strongly over syn-
thetic fuel production and has been shown in practice
• 8, it is fairly clear, that in practice hydrogen production is
more profitable than synthetic fuels production
• 9, the evidence favoring hydrogen production as more prof-
itable than synthetic fuels is of the highest possible affirma-
tion
Survey complete
References
Accorsi, Roberto, Apostolakis, George, Zio, Enrico, 1999. Prioritizing stakeholder
concerns in environmental risk management. J. Risk Res. 2, 18.
Akash, Bilal A., Mamlook, Rustom, Mohsen, Mousa S., 1999. Multi-criteria selection of
electric power plants using analytical hierarchy process. Electr. Power Syst. Res.
52, 29.
2
Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)
Akyuz, Emre, Arslan, Ozcan, Turan, Osman, 2020. Application of fuzzy logic to fault
tree and event tree analysis of the risk for cargo liquefaction on board ship. Appl.
Ocean Res. 101, 102238.
Balaskovitz, Andy, 2017. Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan to shut down in 2022.
Energy News Netw..
Bragg-Sitton, Shannon, Boardman, Richard, 2014a. Integrated nuclear-renewable energy
systems development. INL/MIS-14-32387.
Bragg-Sitton, Shannon, Boardman, Richard, 2014b. Rethinking the future grid: Inte-
grated nuclear renewable energy systems. In: Proc., 9th Nuclear Plants Current
Issues Symposium: Moving Forward.
Bragg-Sitton, Shannon M., Boardman, Richard, Rabiti, Cristian, Kim, Jong Suk, McKel-
lar, Michael, Sabharwall, Piyush, Chen, Jun, Cetiner, M. Sacit, Harrison, T. Jay,
Qualls, A. Lou, 2015. Nuclear-renewable hybrid energy systems: 2016 technology
development program plan. INL/EXT-16-38165.
Buckley, J.J., 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17, 233.
Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP.
European J. Oper. Res. 95, 649.
Côté, R., Hall, J., 1995. Industrial parks as ecosystems. J. Cleaner Prod. 3, 41.
Deason, Wesley R., Boardman, Richard D., Bragg-Sitton, Shannon M., 2015. Integrated
Nuclear-Renewable Hybrid Energy Systems: Current Energy Market Status Report.
INL/EXT-15-35446.
Electric Power Research Institute, 2016. Electric power system flexibility: Challenges
and opportunities. 3002007374.
Epiney, Aaron S., Alfonsi, Andrea, Rabiti, Cristian, Chen, Jun, 2017. Economic assess-
ment of nuclear hybrid energy systems: Optimization using RAVEN. ?In: Proc.,
American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting.
Forsberg, C., Aumeier, S., 2014. Nuclear-renewable hybrid system economic basis for
electricity, fuel, and hydrogen. In: Proc., International Congress on Advances in
Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP).
Garcia, Humberto E., Chen, Jun, Kim, Jong S., Vilim, Richard B., Binder, William R.,
Bragg-Sitton, Shannon M., Boardman, Richard D., McKellar, Michael G., Pare-
dis, Christiaan J.J., 2016. Dynamic performance analysis of two regional nuclear
hybrid energy systems. Energy 107, 234.
Gheshlaghi, Hassan Abedi, Feizizadeh, Bakhtiar, Blaschke, Thomas, 2020. GIS-Based
forest fire risk mapping using the analytical network process and fuzzy logic. J.
Environ. Plan. Manage. 63, 481.
Hausfather, Zeke, 2018. Mapped: The US nuclear plants ‘at risk’ of shutting down.
Carbon Brief.
Ingersoll, D. T., Colbert, C., Houghton, Z., Snuggerud, R., Gaston, J. W., Empey, M.,
2015. Can nuclear power and renewables be friends?. In: Proc., International
Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP ’15).
Ingersoll, D., Houghton, Z., Bromm, R., Desportes, C., McKellar, M., Boardman, R.,
2014. Extending nuclear energy to non-electrical applications. In: Proc., 19th Pacific
Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC 2014).
International Organization for Standardization, 2017. Cogeneration systems - technical
declarations for planning, evaluation and procurement. ISO 26382:2010.
Kahraman, Cengiz, Kaya, Ihsan, 2010. A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection
among energy alternatives. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 6270.
Kaplan, Stanley, Garrick, B. John, 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk
Anal. 1, 11.
Karakosta, Charikleia, Pappas, Charalampos, Marinakis, Vangelis, Psarras, John,
2013. Renewable energy and nuclear power towards sustainable development:
Characteristics and prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22, 187.
Kim, Jong Suk, McKellar, Michael, Bragg-Sitton, Shannon M., Boardman, Richard D.,
2016. Status on the Component Models Developed in the Modelica Frame-
work: High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis Plant & Gas Turbine Power Plant.
INL/EXT-16-40305.
van Laarhoven, P. J. M, Pedrycz, W., 1983. A fuzzy extension of saaty’s priority theory.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11, 229.
Bilbao y Leon, Sama, 2018. Re-branding the nuclear fuel cycle. NEUP 12-3391.
Locatelli, Giorgio, Boarin, Sara, Pellegrino, Francesco, Ricotti, Marco E., 2015. Load
following with small modular reactors (SMR): A real options analysis. Energy 80,
41.
Lui, Bo, Huang, Jinhui Jeanne, Edward, McBean, Li, Yu, 2020. Risk assessment of
hybrid rain harvesting system and other small drinking water supply systems by
game theory and fuzzy logic modeling. Sci. Total Environ. 708, 134436.
McMillan, Colin, Ruth, Mark, Boardman, Richard, Sabharwall, Piyush, McKel-
lar, Michael, Bragg-Sitton, Shannon, 2016. Generation and Use of Thermal Energy
in the U. S. Industrial Sector and Opportunities to Reduce its Carbon Emissions.
NREL/TP-6A50-66743. INL/EXT-16-39680.
Moreno-Cabezali, Belen Maria, Santos, Jose Maria Fernandez-Crehuet, 2020. Applica-
tion of a fuzzy-logic based model for risk assessment in additive manufacturing
R&D projects. Comput. Ind. Eng. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106529.
Nani, James, 2017. IndiaN point nuclear plant to close by 2021. Times-Herald Rec..
North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2018. Reliability and market interface
principles.
Pan, Nang-Fei, 2008. Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction
method. Autom. Constr. 17, 958.
Pohekar, S.D., Ramachandran, M., 2004. Application of multi-criteria decision making
to sustainable energy planning - A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 8, 365.
 E.K. Redfoot et Progress in Nuclear Energy 145 (2022)

Ramanathan, R., Ganesh, L.S., 1995. Energy resource allocation incorporating qualita-
Scientific American, 1999. What is ’fuzzy logic’? Are there computers that are inherently
tive and quantitative criteria: An integrated model using goal programming and
fuzzy and do not apply the usual binary logic?.
AHP. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 29, 197.
Shropshire, David, 2011. Economic viability of small to medium-sized reactors deployed
Reig-Mullor, Javier, Pla-Santamaria, David, Garcia-Bernabeu, Ana, 2020. Extended
in future European energy markets. Prog. Nucl. Energy 53, 299.
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (e-FAHP): A general approach. Mathematics 8,
Tsyganok, V.V., Kadenko, S.V., Andriichuk, O.V., 2012. Significance of expert compe-
2014.
tence consideration in group decision making using AHP. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50,
Ruth, Mark F., Zinaman, Owen R., Antkowiak, Mark, Boardman, Richard D.,
4785.
Cherry, Robert S., Bazilian, Morgan D., 2014. Nuclear-renewable hybrid energy
Tucan, Paul, Gherman, Bogdan, Major, Kinga, Vaida, Calin, Major, Zoltan, Plitea, Nico-
systems: Opportunities, interconnections, and needs. Energy Convers. Manage. 78,
lae, Carbone, Giuseppe, Pisla, Doina, 2020. Fuzzy logic-based risk assessment of a
684.
parallel robot for elbow and wrist rehabilitation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
Saaty, Thomas L., 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
17, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020654.
York.
Wang, Ying-Ming, Luo, Ying, Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. On the extent analysis method
Saaty, R.W., 1987. The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Mat/D
for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European J. Oper. Res. 186, 735.
Model. 9, 3.
Zadeh, Lotfi A., 1988. Fuzzy logic. Computer 21, 83.
Saaty, Thomas L., 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: the Analytic
Zheng, Guozhong, Zhu, Neng, Tian, Zhe, Chen, Ying, Sun, Binhui, 2012. Application
Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
of a trapezoidal fuzzy AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning
rating of hot and humid environments. Saf. Sci. 50, 228.