Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

A multicriteria decision making approach for evaluating renewable

power generation sources in Saudi Arabia
Hassan Al Garni a,⇑, Abdulrahman Kassem a, Anjali Awasthi a, Dragan Komljenovic b,c, Kamal Al-Haddad b
a
Concordia University, CIISE, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal H3G 1M8, Canada
b
École de Technologie Tupérieure (ETS), 1100 Notre-Dame St. W., Montréal H3C 1K3, Canada
c
Research Institute of Hydro-Québec (IREQ), 1800 Boulevard Lionel-Boulet, Varennes, QC J3X 1S1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Renewable energy sources are seen as potential alternatives for future energy generation and fossil fuel
Received 17 November 2015 consumption. In this paper, we propose a multicriteria decision making approach based on analytical
Revised 13 May 2016 hierarchy process for evaluating five renewable power generation sources namely: solar photovoltaic,
Accepted 16 May 2016
concentrated solar power, wind energy, biomass, and geothermal. The criteria used can be categorized
as technical, socio-political, economic, and environmental criteria. A case study for Saudi Arabia is pro-
vided as a major oil producer and global supplier. The results of our study show that solar photovoltaic
Keywords:
followed by concentrated solar power are the most favorable technologies followed by wind energy. The
Renewable energy
Multicriteria decision making
performance of each renewable energy resource per end-node criteria is presented and sensitivity anal-
Analytical hierarchy process ysis is conducted to observe how the overall rankings of alternatives change with respect to the priority
Saudi Arabia weights of each criteria. By implementing energy mix policy, Saudi Arabia can preserve its finite energy
resources for the future to back its strong economic and industrial growth. The findings of this research
will help the prioritization of RE sources portfolio towards enhanced sustainability and development.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Energy is an essential factor for societal development and pros-
perity nowadays. The diversification of energy sources is vital, par-
ticularly for oil-dependent and developing countries, in order to
achieve more secure supply options, create more jobs, and con-
tribute to sustainable energy and development. The Gulf Coopera-
tion Council (GCC) consists of six member states: Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman. In
recent decades, these countries received significant economic
growth due to the wealth generated from plentiful hydrocarbon
reserves. This development has been combined with unparalleled
growth in urbanization, infrastructure and industrial expansions.
Since 1970, the region’s population has grown by sixfold including
migrant workers from Asia and other countries [1]. Nowadays, sev-
eral GCC economies are ranked among the highest electricity con-
sumption per capita countries globally (see Fig. 1) [2].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 581 0019.
E-mail addresses: h_algarn@encs.concordia.ca, garnihz@gmail.com (H. Al Garni),
ab_kasse@encs.concordia.ca (A. Kassem), awasthi@ciise.concordia.ca (A. Awasthi),
Komljenovic.Dragan@ireq.ca (D. Komljenovic), kamal.al-haddad@etsmtl.ca
(K. Al-Haddad).
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil producer
and exporter, producing an estimated average of more than 11 mil-
lion barrels per day (bbl/d) and exporting an estimated 8.6 million
bbl/d in 2012 [3]. Although it is the global leader in oil production
and exports, Saudi Arabia is also the largest oil-consuming country
in the Middle East; in 2012, it consumed more than 3 million bbl/d
of oil, essentially for electricity generation, water desalination, and
transportation [3]. According to the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), petroleum exports accounted for 90%
of total Saudi export revenues in 2011 [4]. At the same time, Saudi
Arabia is ranked second in the world in terms of subsidy levels for
domestic energy prices [5].
Due to a rapidly growing population and economic develop-
ment along with subsidized prices of gas, water, and electricity
in the Kingdom, the overall demand for energy used in power,
transportation, and desalination is estimated to increase dramati-
cally from 3.4 million bbl/d in 2012 to 8.3 million bbl/d of oil
equivalent in 2028, unless alternative energy initiatives are
deployed and energy efficiency is improved [6]. Such progressively
high-energy consumption led to establish Saudi Energy Efficiency
Centre in 2010 to publicize rationalization awareness and enhance
energy consumption efficiency which will support and preserve
the national wealth of energy resources [7].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2016.05.006
2213-1388/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
138 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150
20
18
16
(MWh/capita)
14
12
10
8 availability. Solar radiation in the Kingdom is considered to have
6
4
2 irradiance (GHI) of 2 MWh/m2/year, which is higher than the aver-
0 age global solar radiation in one of the leading countries in solar
Fig. 1. Electricity consumption per capita in selected countries [2].
Furthermore, the Kingdom’s leaders are well aware of the fact
that heavy dependence on oil is not a good strategic decision;
therefore, the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy
(K.A.CARE) was established to introduce sustainable development
and make remarkable diversifications in terms of energy resources.
Saudi Arabia has pushed back its long-term renewable energy (RE)
plans to 2040 instead of 2032 due to the need for more time to
decide which domestic RE sources to use for the portfolio based
on Bloomberg report [8].
In this paper, we present a multicriteria decision making
(MCDM) approach for prioritizing and ranking RE technologies in
the electricity production sector of a developing country in order
to facilitate proper planning for sustainable development. To the
best of our knowledge this is the first work prioritizing RE
resources from different aspects including economic, technical,
socio-political and environmental criteria in the context of Saudi
Arabia. Moreover, this research identifies to what extent each
alternative energy technology contributes to the sustainable
energy mix profile. Different resources were used to define the cri-
teria in the model, including a literature review, stakeholders’
inputs, and the Saudi vision for the energy diversification
announced by K.A.CARE.
Renewable energy potential and opportunities
The total available power generation capacity in the Kingdom
reached 69,761 MW in 2013 [9]. The power generated is based
100% on fossil fuels (oil and gas). The number of customers
increased from 4.5 million in 2004 to 7 million in 2013 for Saudi
Electricity Company (SEC) which is the major electricity supplier
(74%) in the country [9]. SEC spends more than 40 billion riyals
on energy projects annually [10]. Owing to the population increase,
strong economic and industrial growth, and high levels of price
subsidization, the electricity demand is projected to grow signifi-
cantly. According to government estimates, the anticipated elec-
tricity demand in the Kingdom is expected to increase from
80 GW by 2020 to more than 120 GW by 2030 [7]. K.A.CARE has
recommended the utilization of renewable and atomic energy pro-
gressively to meet the expected demand, such that half of all elec-
tricity production would come from non-fossil fuels in 2032 [11].
Saudi Arabia is one of the most enriched countries with natural
resources and has the potential to take advantage of abundant RE
resources to meet a significant share of the Kingdom’s energy
needs and provide an efficient energy future [13]. In addition, har-
nessing RE to supply electricity to consumers in Saudi Arabia will
have significant environmental benefits. The following sub-
sections provide details of potential RE resources, including solar
energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, and biomass energy, with
their potential for electricity generation in Saudi Arabia.
Solar energy
The Kingdom has significant potential to exploit solar energy
owing to its location, large unused area, and daily solar radiation
one of the highest rates globally with an average global horizontal
energy, Spain (1.6 MWh/m2/year) [14,15].
Rahman et al. [16] studied long-term mean values of sunshine
duration and global solar radiation on horizontal surfaces over 41
cities in the kingdom. The results show that the overall mean of
yearly sunshine duration in the kingdom is 3248 h and the GHI
varies between a minimum of 1.63 MWh/m2/year at Tabuk in the
northwest of the kingdom and a maximum of 2.56 MWh/m2/year
at Bisha in the southwest. However, the minimum solar radiation
is higher than the average GHI in Germany and many other Euro-
pean countries. Furthermore, the pattern of global solar radiation
intensity and sunshine duration follows the electricity demand
pattern, which could be the most favorable RE generation option
to meet demand, especially during the summer season when the
demand peak is highest due to significant rises in domestic
demand for air conditioning [15]. Since 1960, significant experi-
ence has been gained and lessons learnt in the area of solar energy
from different studies and research programs conducted in the
kingdom [15,17]. Fig. 2 depicts the long-term annual average glo-
bal horizontal irradiance (GHI) and direct normal irradiance
(DNI) obtained from the SolarGIS database [18].
Two solar energy technologies are considered in this study,
including solar photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power
(CSP) which is also known as concentrated solar thermal. CSP
technology deploys reflectors or mirrors in order to concentrate
solar radiation to heat transfer fluid that is used to generate elec-
tricity. On the other hand, solar PV technology utilizes a PV-effect
phenomenon existing in semiconductor material in order to con-
vert solar energy directly into electricity. Unlike CSP, PV technol-
ogy works in the presence of both direct and diffuse solar
irradiation. Solar PV is commercially more mature technology
than CSP with total installed capacity of 175 GW compared to
4 GW for CSP worldwide [19]. Due to massive scale production
and technology advancement, the upfront cost of PV system has
significantly decreased in the past few years while the upfront
costs of CSP are considerably high. Since the end of 2010, the elec-
tricity cost generated from PV has halved while PV module costs
have decreased by 75% [20]. In addition, the maintenance costs
associated with PV power plants are minimal compared to other
power utility systems as a result of the absence of mechanical
parts. It is essential to note that for aired environments, the
impact of dust on PV modules efficiencies should be considered.
Al-Jawah [21] assessed the cleaning systems for PV power plants
in Saudi Arabia to improve selection among cleaning alternatives.
PV is suitable to cover peak demand during sun hours. However,
storing energy through batteries is expensive for large scale utili-
ties. CSP on the other hand is anticipated to witness increase
levels of installation in the following decades. The International
Energy Agency (IEA) anticipates that the installed capacities of
PV will keep increasing to cover peak demands before the signif-
icance of cheap thermal storage associated with CSP systems play
its role to facilitate CSP covering 11% of total global installed
capacities of all generation sources in 2050 [22]. In addition, CSP
technology is suitable for hybridization in which CSP could be
combined with steam generation sectors of existing or new con-
ventional power plants. This also serves the ability of these sys-
tems to take advantage of backup fossil fuels to cover base
loads and reduce fluctuation [23].
 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150
Fig. 2. Average daily global horizontal irradiance (left) and direct normal irradiance (right) for Saudi Arabia [14].
Wind energy
In February 2015, the total installed capacity of wind energy
reached 370 GW globally. China accounted for almost 115 GW
followed by Germany and the US [24]. Many researchers have
proposed wind energy as a potential source of energy in Saudi
Arabia as in many locations, the annual mean wind speed
exceeds 4 m/s at a height of 20 m [25]. Site selection of wind
farms can play a major role in output power. The research out-
comes of an economic feasibility study by Shaahid et al. [26]
indicates that the western region has a relatively better wind
speed, with monthly average speeds ranging from 3.1 to 4.8 m/s
at a height of 10 m. The kingdom has very long coastal areas in
the west and east with large desert areas in the center. Hence,
there is potential to develop wind power in the western coastal
region, including at Al-Wajh, Jeddah, Yanbu, and Jizan. Yanbu
has shown relatively better potential for wind power deployment
compared to other locations [26]. Eltamaly et al. [25] studied five
locations in Saudi Arabia and found that the best place to install
wind turbines is Dhahran at a cost of 5.85 US cents/kWh. The
estimated wind energy potential in Saudi Arabia is around
20 TWh/year [23].
Geothermal energy
The total installed capacity of geothermal energy reached
12.8 GW in January 2015 in 24 countries worldwide [29]. The out-
come of research indicates that the kingdom has sufficient
geothermal energy to contribute to many direct applications. Sed-
imentary aquifers, hot springs, and rock geothermal systems are
the main geothermal resources in the kingdom. In the eastern pro-
vince, there are deep-seated aquifers that are confined and could
be reached only by oil wells. The hot springs and volcanic areas
along the western and southwestern coastal parts of the Red Sea
have been considered in many studies to hold potential for
geothermal energy in the kingdom [25]. Currently, existing
geothermal resources remain untapped for electricity generation,
heating, or other purposes. Further research is needed and explo-
ration projects are required to bring this technology into the king-
dom’s energy mix plan.
139
Biomass energy
The exploitation of biomass energy in Saudi Arabia remains idle
despite estimated potential of 3 Mtoe/year. The kingdom had a
waste-to-energy potential estimated to be 1.75 kg per capita per
day in 2012 owing to high municipal solid waste (MSW). More-
over, a huge amount of organic waste is being produced by such
businesses as dairy producers, bakeries, and olive oil plants, which
could use anaerobic digestion treatment. In addition, there is a lim-
ited agricultural residue from crops and animal waste that could
offer potential for biomass energy [34]. The significant growing
population and urban development will increase the biomass
availability, in particular, MSW. A huge amount of biomass could
be transformed into usable energy for more sustainable electricity
generation.
Methodology
RE planning is a field that involves multiple aspects. Energy
planning problems have evolved to include multiple quantitative
and qualitative attributes which cannot be always adequately cov-
ered by single phase evaluation indicators such as cost to benefit
analysis (CBA). Cavallaro [35] and Shattan [36] discussed the defi-
ciency of considering mere financial indicators such as CBA and net
present value (NPV) for such complex problems. It is indicated that
in CBA everything has a value which can be determined to perform
the analysis. However, in energy planning problems there are
several criteria that cannot be measured as monitory values such
as social acceptance and effect on human health. As a result, MCDM
techniques have gained high popularity in recent years to tackle
problems involving long-term energy source ranking as opposed
to the classic single-dimensional index. Many actors are involved
in the process of planning for sustainable development, including
consumers, investors, policymakers, academics, and environmental
and public interest groups. Those stakeholders share diverse view-
points and interests with regard to RE projects. Indeed, the process
of selecting RE sources for sustainable development encompasses
multiple contradictory objectives from different stakeholders. This
leads to the need for a framework that is capable of combining
tradeoffs from the differences and that compromises the results
140 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150

since no one resource satisfies all criteria simultaneously [37].
MCDM is used to evaluate the overall system mix for power suppli-
ers to establish the best proposed alternatives for sustainable devel-
opment [38]. The proposed model takes into account technical,
financial, environmental, political, and social considerations. This
study adopts RE technologies announced by K.A.CARE as potential
alternatives for the RE portfolio plan of Saudi Arabia.
The main steps of any MCDM are as follows: defining the
problem, setting goals for solving the problem, selecting the
appropriate method, generating alternatives, establishing criteria,
assigning criteria weights, construction of an evaluation matrix,
and ranking of the alternatives [37]. Fig. 3 illustrates the proposed
approach of evaluating RE resources for Saudi Arabia. The various
steps are described in details as follows:
Defining the problem and generating alternatives
This study proposes a model for defining the prioritization of an
RE portfolio and alternatives for Saudi Arabia. The country has the
potential to invest hugely in the alternative energy sector for elec-
tricity generation and water desalination. Thus, a roadmap based
on extensive and comprehensive research has to be considered to
evaluate and justify the extent to which each alternative energy
technology could contribute to the mix of energy sources.
The K.A.CARE evaluation of RE resources concludes with the
proposal to use nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal in
the energy mix in 2032 although fossil fuel will remain a key ele-
ment. The considered alternatives in this study are solar thermal,
Goal
Renewable energy technologies evaluation
for sustainable development in Saudi Arabia
Define the alternative K.A.CARE and
renewable energy Saudi Arabia
resources energy policy
Evaluation matrix as
Experts pairwise Criteria and sub-
analytical hierarchy
comparisons criteria selection
process
Yes
Inconsistency
Check
CR >0.1
NO
Score the alternatives
against each criteria Quantitative data
and the criteria
(IAEA, EIA, etc…)
weight
solar PV, wind, waste-to-energy, and geothermal as they are
endorsed by K.A.CARE [11].
Selecting the appropriate method
Several MCDM approaches have been reported in literature. The
common ones are Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise
Solution (VIKOR), the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), the tech-
nique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOP-
SIS), Elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE), and
Preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation
(PROMETHEE). Kaya & Kahraman applied VIKOR with AHP for
renewable energy planning in Turkey. Amer & Daim [39] and
Ahmed & Tahar [40] adopted AHP for ranking renewable energy
sources in Pakistan and Malaysia. Streimikiene et al. [41] employed
TOPSIS for prioritizing sustainable electricity production technolo-
gies. Georgopoulou et al. [42] adapted ELECTRE for energy planning
problem. Beccali et al. [43] used it for renewable energy diffusion
technologies at regional scale. Diakoulaki & Karangelis [44] utilized
PROMETHEE to examine electricity development scenarios in
Greece. Goletsis et al. [45] propose a hybrid approach based on
PROMETHEE and ELECTRE for ranking energy sector projects in
Armenia. Good literature review on application of MCDM
approaches in the renewable energy field can be found in Pohekar
and Ramachandran [46], Mateo [37], and Wang et al. [47].
AHP method developed by Saaty [48] facilitates the ranking of
alternatives by introducing a framework that is capable of dealing
with multiple objectives and provides the best compromise solu-
tion when objectives are contradictory. The top level of the hierar-
chy comprises the main goal to be achieved, whereas the bottom
level represents the alternatives, and the intermediate levels are
the criteria and sub-criteria. This framework supports the assess-
ment process in which stakeholders are requested to appraise each
level parameter in a pairwise comparison with respect to their par-
ent node.
The utilization of AHP analysis for the decision-making process
has been carried out using the following key steps. First, the deci-
sion problem is structured into a hierarchal model. In the case of
our study, our problem as defined in Section Renewable energy
potential and opportunities involves defining the RE portfolio and
evaluation of alternatives for sustainable development in the con-
text of Saudi Arabia. This goal represents the top level of the hier-
archy, while the alternatives, defined in Section Renewable energy
potential and opportunities, represent the bottom level. The deci-
sion criteria and sub-criteria are represented in the second and
third levels of the model, respectively, and are defined in Sub-
section Establishing criteria and sub-criteria.
The second key step is to obtain the weights of each level of the
hierarchy with respect to its immediate upper level. Pairwise com-
parison between each two parameters is undertaken utilizing the
nine-integer value scale suggested by Saaty [48] to compare
parameters (A) and (B) with respect to their parent node, as shown
in Table 1. There are different families of comparison methods as
well as scales, each one of them has advantages and disadvantages,

Table 1
Synthetic model Integer values interpretation [48].
rank the
Intensity of importance Definition
renewable energy
(value of A–B)
resources
1 Objectives A and B are of equal importance
3 Objective A is slightly more important than B
Exploration of results 5 Objective A is moderately more important than B
and recommendations 7 Objective A is strongly more important than B
9 Objective A is extremely more important than B
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values to compromise between
Fig. 3. Proposed approach to evaluate renewable energy resources for Saudi Arabia judgment values
using analytical hierarchy process.
 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150 141

and their selection depends on decision makers’ rationality. Elliott disposal). Second, utilize sub-criteria that are considered by at
[7] reviewed several scales to examine the accuracy of converting least 20% of the reviewed studies. Applying these steps, we
subjective expressions into numerical values. He concluded that no obtained 14 sub-criteria categorized under four main decision cri-
single scaling approach is suitable for capturing the preferences of teria. The resulting AHP model is illustrated in Fig. 4. Metrics for
all individuals and it is dependent on individual rationality. In this
research, the scaling method is adapted in order to encourage
Table 3
invited stakeholders to participate in the questionnaire through
Technical criteria.
asking them fewer questions.
The third key step in carrying out AHP is to calculate eigenvec- D.C No. Sub-criteria References
tors to obtain priority weights and to check for inconsistency. The Technical 1 Technology maturity [37,39,43,47,49,50,55,57,60]
consistency control is a point of strength for AHP since pairwise 2 Efficiency [37,39,40,47,50,53–55,56,62–66]
3 Reliability [67–69]
comparison could be subjective. A consistency ratio (CR) is given
4 Deployment time [39,40,45,49]
by CI/RI, in which RI is the random consistency index that varies 5 Expert human resource [39,55]
according to the number of elements in a comparison (n). CI is 6 Resource reserves [39,40,42,53,54,57,63]
the consistency index, which equals (kmax
n)/(n
1). Here, kmax 7 Safety of energy system [37,41,47,49,51,53,55]
are the maximum eigenvalues of the comparison matrix. The 8 Electricity supply [41,44,62,64]
availability
fourth key step to apply AHP is to calculate the scores of each cri-
9 Ease of decentralization OWN
terion, sub-criterion, and finally, each alternative. This process is 10 Safety in covering peak [38,41,42]
explained in Section Application of analytical hierarchy process demand
model after the criteria are obtained and the model is formulated. 11 Network stability [42,59]

Establishing criteria and sub-criteria

Table 4
Exploitation of RE options is an interdisciplinary field that Economic criteria.
single-criteria decision-making methods are incapable of handling. D.C No. Sub-criteria References
Instead of the traditional focus on the cost versus efficiency of
Economic 1 R&D cost [39]
projects, many parameters are to be considered from technical, 2 Capital cost [37–40–42,44,45,47,49,50,52–
economic, environmental, social, and political viewpoints. Techni- 55,58,62,63,65,66]
cal and economic aspects have been, are, and will continue to be of 3 Operations and [37–39,41,42,47,52,53,55,62,63]
importance for decision making in strategic energy planning. Envi- maintenance (O&M) cost
5 Energy cost [37–39,47,55,58,59,65,66]
ronmental aspects have gained strong interest in recent years for
6 Operational life [37,40,41,47,55]
sustainable development. Finally, social and political attitudes 7 Cost of grid connection [41]
towards RE are related and influential in the decision-making 8 Fuel cost [38,41,47,52,55,62,63]
process. 9 Market maturity [43,49,57]
In order to define the decision criteria, a comprehensive assess- (commercial
competitiveness)
ment of the literature is conducted to collect the most utilized 10 Site advantage [54,64]
attributes in developing sustainable energy planning. Hence, the 11 Availability of funds [45,49]
most common criteria are selected to form the second and third 12 National economic [38,39,52,54,59,60,63]
levels of the model. Thereafter, this list of criteria and sub- development
criteria is modified when needed to suit the characteristics of a
developing country that is a world leader in the energy supply sec-
tor. In addition, it is considered that the scope of the study is its
evaluation of declared alternative RE sources, in which reviewed Table 5
studies include comparisons among renewable, conventional, and Environmental criteria.
nuclear energy sources. Tables 2–5 present the four main direc- D.C. No. Sub-criteria References
tions used to develop the main criteria: technical, socio-political, Environmental 1 Land requirement [37,39,40–
economic, and environmental. The sub-criteria are obtained for 42,47,49,51,52,54,55,60,66]
these four main criteria. It is important to note that these four 2 Emission reduction [37–41,44,49,50,52–
tables represent the most common sub-criteria considered in the 55,58,59,61,63,65,66]
3 Impact on environment [40,44,45,56,60]
reviewed literature for evaluating energy sources (renewable and
5 Need for waste disposal [41,49,58]
conventional). 6 Disturbance of [41,42,53,54,61]
Thereafter, to construct the AHP model, two steps are carried ecological balance
out. First, omitting sub-criteria that are non-influential when com-
paring renewable energy sources (e.g. fuel cost and need of waste

Table 2
Socio-political criterion.

D.C No. Sub-criteria References

Socio-political 1 Employment creation [37–43,47,49–51,52–55]
2 Social and political acceptance [37–40,45,47,49–51,55,56–60]
3 Impact on human health [41,52,53,59,61]
4 Feasibility [43,49,54,45]
5 Compatibility with the national energy policy [42,49,50,45]
6 National energy security/energy independency [38,39,41,44,50,52,53,59,61]
7 Maintain leading position as energy supplier OWN
142 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150

Fig. 4. Analytical hierarchy process diagram.

the 14 sub-criteria and the alternatives values are presented in Afterwards, the geometric mean is calculated for each evalua-
Subsections Technical (Tech.), Socio-political (Soc-pol.), Economic tion received from experts. Accordingly, the rank number of alter-
(Eco.), Environmental (Env.). native (RNA), which is a scale method based on the geometric
The strength of AHP comes from the ability to include quantita- mean, is conducted following Eq. (2). Thereafter, the pairwise com-
tive and qualitative data in one model. The priority is to use quan- parison is carried out according to Eq. (3) following AHP approach,
titative data whenever possible for alternatives evaluation. which will be elaborated in Section Application of analytical
However, unmeasurable data such as social acceptance is obtained hierarchy process model. The Expert Choice software is utilized
from experts qualitatively. Stakeholder’ evaluation was fully con- for generating local weights, global weights, and alternatives
sidered in two steps while in the third step a combination of prioritization.
experts’ evaluation and quantitative data was used as follows: The following subsections present detailed definitions, metrics,
First, the assessment of the four main decision criteria was done and the acquired data for each sub-criterion used in the model.
with respect to goal; and then the assessment of sub-criteria with
respect to their parent criteria based on experts’ evaluation; third, Technical (Tech.)
the assessment of alternatives with respect to each sub-criterion Resource availability (SC11). Resource availability reflects the
was derived quantitatively whenever possible or qualitatively weight for each RE technology. Several studies have discussed
otherwise through survey instrument. Table 6 presents the the availability of sun irradiation and wind for electricity genera-
selected sub-criteria with their data references. tion in Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, there is a lack of studies
In this study, the survey instrument is answered by 20 experts considering geothermal and biomass estimation for electricity gen-
in the energy sector. Participants’ panel consists of energy sector eration, as stated by the K.A.CARE and International Renewable
stakeholders from academic, research, government, and industrial Energy Agency (IRENA) databases. Consequently, this study carried
sectors. Participants received a questionnaire containing a sum- out qualitative estimations through eliciting responses from
mary of the study goal and methodology at the beginning. They experts to obtain their knowledge about the availability of RE
were subsequently requested to review the list of evaluation sources in Saudi Arabia. Subjective comparisons, the K.A.CARE
parameters. Then, participants evaluated criteria and sub-criteria vision, and studies about hot spring availability in Saudi Arabia
in a hierarchical manner, while they evaluated alternatives with and available waste-for-energy conversion were reviewed to
respect to sub-criteria if and only if there is no data available. obtain assumptions for geothermal and biomass estimation for
electricity generation. All the aforementioned sources have led us
to believe that geothermal followed by biomass represent the low-
Table 6 est level of resources, far behind even wind, for massive production
The selected decision sub-criteria with their data references. (equal to or more than 1 GW). Biomass and geothermal electric
Sub-criteria References generation were estimated as 200 kWh/m2/year and 100 kWh/
m2/year, respectively. Table 7 compares resource availability
Efficiency U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA) and Literature among the considered alternatives [17,27,75].
Capital cost U.S. Energy Information Administration
O&M cost (EIA) Ease of decentralization (SC12). An important advantage of some RE
Job creation Literature
sources is that they support decentralized distribution of energy
Land requirement
Safety supplies. Distributed energy resources are built closer to con-
Energy cost IRENA Data and Statistics sumers, which helps to reduce transmission and distribution bot-
Resource availability tlenecks and losses, improves voltage profiles, and delays the
Maturity International Energy Agency (IEA) and need for huge investment of large-scale generation systems
United Nations Environment Program
Impact on emission International Energy Agency (IEA)
[78,79]. Decentralization supports the electrification of rural areas
Decentralization Experts inputs that are not connected to the grid. The above mentioned benefits of
Leading position decentralizing RE power plants make this a parameter of impor-
National economic development tance by means of measuring which RE technology acquires higher
Social & political acceptance
weight. Further details about decentralization are discussed [80–
82]. Decentralization is considered as a qualitative parameter that
 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150 143

Table 7 Socio-political (Soc-pol.)

Maturity [70–72], efficiency [73,74], mortality [76,77], and resource availability Employment creation (SC21). Employment creation demonstrates
[17,27,75].
the potential for jobs to be created in association with energy sup-
Alternative Maturity Efficiency Mortality Resource ply system creation, from construction to decommissioning,
(%) availability including operations and maintenance (O&M). The employment
(kwh/m2/year)
creation data of the RE alternatives are presented by Wei et al.
Solar PV Moderate 12 Lowest 2130 [83]. The index of the parameter is measured in jobs-years per
maturity mortality
Solar thermal Least mature 21 Low mortality 2200
GW hour, where a job-year is equivalent to full-time employment
Wind High maturity 35 Moderate 570 for one person in 1 year as shown in Table 8.
mortality
Geothermal Very high 16 Moderate 100
Maintain leading position as energy supplier (SC22). This is a qualita-
maturity mortality
Biomass Most mature 25 Highest 200 tive sub-criterion that reflects the utilization of RE sources to facil-
mortality itate a nation’s independence through supporting greater national
energy security and reducing the need to import energy from for-
eign countries. Energy dependency to support national energy
security is an important attribute in considering alternative energy
reflects the ability to build more distributed plants closer to users sources [38,50,41,52,53,61]. However, as a world leader in energy
supporting the long-term adaptation of smarter grids with lower supply and with the largest oil reserves, Saudi Arabia is more inter-
energy losses. ested in maintaining its leading position as an energy supplier. The
country is entirely dependent on its own oil for electricity genera-
Efficiency (SC13). This criterion depicts how efficient a RE technol- tion. Hence, Saudi Arabia could benefit from the surplus oil that
ogy is in converting its primary energy source into electricity. would be reserved through generating electricity from alternative
The ideal efficiency is 100%, yet in practice, it is always less owing resources by selling it to foreign countries. Furthermore, with the
to losses. Efficiency reflects the percentage of output to input abundance of RE sources, like solar radiation and heat, Saudi Arabia
energy to show the usefulness with which a certain RE technology could sell excess electricity generated from RE sources.
can acquire electricity from an energy source. The efficiency index
uses quantitative data of different RE technologies obtained from Social and political acceptance (SC23). This parameter qualitatively
the annual energy report of the US Energy Information Administra- indicates the anticipated level of satisfaction of the public and
tion (EIA) [73] while the efficiency of biomass is obtained through politicians and their opinions toward each RE technology. The
[74]. A comparison of the efficiency of the alternatives is intro- parameter has a possible impact on the duration of commissioning
duced in Table 7. The efficiencies shown in this table are notional a power plant and the logistic support that different RE projects
efficiencies, which each technology might achieve under normal may receive.
operation range and may vary based on site-specific technology
and environmental factors. Economic (Eco.)
Capital cost (SC31). Capital cost significantly influences the eco-
Technology maturity (SC14). The technical maturity parameter nomic viability of the energy supply project and electricity. It com-
reflects the level of a given technology being widespread locally prises expenditure to establish a power plant, including the costs
and internationally and being available commercially. A technol- of land, equipment, wages, installation, and infrastructure. A com-
ogy is regarded as mature if it is tested and used for a long enough parison of the capital cost for the RE alternatives is conducted
period in real world applications for it to overcome its preliminary through an EIA report on both capital and O&M costs [84]. Conse-
faults and inherent difficulties through enhancement. The compar- quently, pairwise comparisons are obtained and the data are
ison of RE technologies from a maturity point of view is discussed depicted in Table 8.
in [70–72] and presented in Table 7.
National economic development (SC32). National economic develop-
Energy system safety (SC15). Energy system safety is a critical ment is considered a qualitative parameter that reflects the extent
parameter that exposes the degree to which a certain RE technol- to which the national economy benefits from each technology con-
ogy results in loss of human lives. It is measured quantitatively sidering local manufacturing share and job localization [38]. In
indicating the normalized number of fatal accidents at power addition, in the case of Saudi Arabia, it includes the additional
plants, whether in the establishment phase or during operations, national income from selling oil for local electricity production.
over specific time periods. Burgherr et al. [76,77] present a broad
comparison of energy technologies considering accident and fatal- Operations and maintenance cost (SC33). O&M costs comprise, on
ity risks by GW year based on the Energy-Related Severe Accident the one hand, operation costs, including salaries additional to the
Database as well as contributions of available data, modeling, and expenditure on energy production and services. On the other hand,
expert judgments. Table 7 presents a comparison of mortality for it also consists of maintenance costs, which are the funds spent to
the RE alternatives. ensure reliable plant operations and to avoid failure and damage.

Table 8
Capital costs [84], operations and maintenance costs [84], energy cost [19] and employment creation [83].

Alternative Capital cost (USD/MW) Operations and maintenance cost (USD/KW-year) Energy cost (USD/kWh) Total job-year/GWh
Solar PV 3873 39.55 0.270 0.87
Solar thermal 5067 67.26 0.230 0.23
Wind 2213 24.69 0.08 0.17
Geothermal 6243 132 0.07 0.25
Biomass 8312 460.47 0.05 0.21
144 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150

This index is measured in dollars per kWh and the data are shown Owing to uncertainty and lack of data associated with new
in Table 8. technology planning in some developing countries, data collected
from stakeholders are considered in order to prioritize the decision
Energy cost (SC34). This parameter evaluates the expected cost of criteria and sub-criteria. Participants were asked only to evaluate
electricity produced by a power plant over its lifetime. A lower criteria against each other with respect to the goal, as well as the
generation price of an RE technology is reflected in a higher weight. sub-criteria of each criterion against each other with respect to
Energy cost is a quantitative index. The energy cost data of each their parent criterion. This gives the weight of each sub-criteria
technology is obtained from the IRENA database, which is collected locally (i.e., with respect to the parent criterion) and globally (i.e.,
from different sources as depicted in Table 8 [19]. with respect to the goal). For quantitative parameters and sub-
criteria where the alternative with minimum values is preferred
such as the capital cost of each alternative, the transformation into
Environmental (Env.)
RNA is presented in Table 10.
Land requirement (SC41). Land use reflects the required occupation
Authors mapped these values into the AHP scale using the fol-
of land for plant installation, which differs according to the RE
lowing steps [86]:
technology for a given installed capacity. The land requirements
for plants of each RE technology depend on the intensity of
1. Find the step value (h):
resource availability and efficiency. A comparison of the land
requirement of the RE alternatives is shown in Table 9 [60]. Omax
Omin
h¼ ð1Þ
9
Impact on emissions level (SC42). This parameter concerns the
where Omax and Omin are the maximum and minimum values,
impact of a power plant on the environment and society in terms
respectively, among all investigated alternatives.
of emission reduction and ecological system disturbance owing
2. According to the AHP numerical scale in Table 1, the rank num-
to air emissions. It depends mainly on CO2 reduction and further
ber of alternative (RNA (i)) is calculated and attained for the
reflects the impact on the ozone layer and global warming. The
integer8value. The RNA of alternative i is presented as follows:
impact on emission level is a quantitative parameter. Data are

>
< int 9
Oi
Oh min ; if Omin is the best
acquired from an IEA report of policy considerations for deploying
RE in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development RNAðiÞ ¼
 ð2Þ
>
: int Oi
Oh min ; if Omax is the best
countries [85]. A comparison of alternatives in terms of impact
on emission level is shown in Table 9.
The maximum capital cost Omax achieves the minimum allow-
able score ðRNAðiÞ ¼ 1Þ whereas Omin provides the maximum
Application of analytical hierarchy process model RNAðiÞ = 9. For instance, wind energy has the minimum capital cost,
which leads to the highest RNAðiÞ , while biomass has the maximum
The data on preliminary criteria and sub-criteria was specified energy cost among the analyzed alternatives and obtains the min-
and collected from 20 stakeholders. The responses are represented imum score ðRNAðiÞ ¼ 1Þ according to Eq. (2).
by giving weights to criteria and sub-criteria, as well as by carrying
out weighting for alternatives against sub-criteria that are not 3. To adapt the rank numbers of alternatives into the AHP scale, a
measurable or that lack data. In addition, participants are asked pairwise comparison between two alternatives (A and B) is
to add any parameters they believe are important and to remove obtained using scoring value (SV) in Eq. (3) below. Table 11
criteria that they believe must not be considered. These modifica- shows the pairwise comparison of alternatives obtained for
tions to the criteria are considered in the sensitivity analysis. the capital cost.
Sub-criteria are categorized as qualitative and quantitative

parameters. Quantitative data are defined as data obtained objec- ð1=ðRNAðBÞ
RNAðAÞ þ 1Þ; RNAðAÞ
RNAðBÞ < 0
tively through international databases (e.g., the IEA), the literature, SVA!B ¼ ð3Þ
ðRNAðAÞ
RNAðBÞ þ 1Þ; RNAðAÞ
RNAðBÞ P 0
or from the data of developed countries where similar projects
have been implemented. On the other hand, qualitative data are As a qualitative input, each alternative is evaluated under each
obtained subjectively by means of expert weighting. Subjective sub-criterion. For example, the social acceptance indicator that
judgment is needed in the case of non-measurable parameters varies from one society to another is considered. Then, the geomet-
(e.g., social acceptance). ric mean is calculated from stakeholders’ evaluations to form the
Classical AHP pairwise comparison is replaced by evaluation on RNAðiÞ . Accordingly, the pairwise comparison can be obtained using
a nine-level scale owing to the abundance of considered parame- the scoring value Eq. (3).
ters. Using rank number of alternative (RNA) scale method (Eq.
(2)), the nine-level scale evaluations are converted into pairwise Results and discussion
comparisons. This replacement of classic direct pairwise compar-
ison between each of the two parameters has reduced the number The results in Table 12 show the 14 sub-criteria categorized into
of questions for participants. four main criteria for evaluating five RE alternatives for electricity
generation. After acquiring data from different resources (i.e.,
international databases, literature, and stakeholders), the evalua-
Table 9
Land requirement [60] and emission level [85]. Table 10
Rank numbers of alternatives for capital cost.
Alternative Land use average Emissions
(m2/GWh) (tCO2 equivalent/MWh) Alternative Capital cost ($/MW) RNA (i)
Solar PV 150 0.07 Solar PV 3873 6
Solar thermal 40 0.02 Solar thermal 5067 4
Wind 200 0.04 Wind 2213 (Omin) 9
Geothermal 100 0.04 Geothermal 6243 3
Biomass 25 0.1 Biomass 8312 (Omax) 1
 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150 145

Table 11 Due to the vast unused land in the kingdom, the land requirement
Pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to capital cost sub-criteria. turns out to be the least important sub-criteria in evaluating any
Solar PV Solar thermal Wind Geothermal Biomass RE alternative, with a weight of only 3.7%.
Solar PV 1 3 1/4 4 6 Fourth, the pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to
Solar thermal 1/3 1 1/6 2 4 each sub-criterion is conducted through data for quantitative
Wind 4 6 1 7 9 indexes, and through stakeholders’ inputs for qualitative data.
Geothermal 1/4 1/2 1/7 1 3 The priority weights obtained from this step formulate a matrix,
Biomass 1/6 1/4 1/9 1/3 1
which is multiplied by the priority weights of sub-criteria with
respect to each criterion, resulting in priority weights of alterna-
tives with respect to each criterion. These weights represent the
Table 12
Priority weights of sub-criteria with respect to parent decision criteria (local weight). local weights of alternatives under each decision criterion. As illus-
trated in Fig. 6, the analysis of RE alternatives by end-node criteria
Technical Socio-political Economic Environmental
presents the performance of each alternative in each criterion that
(0.351) (0.189) (0.351) (0.11)
2 3 2 3 2 3   has influenced the score of the RE alternatives toward the goal.
SC 11 ¼ 0:333 SC21 ¼ 0:333 SC31 ¼ 0:227 SC41 ¼ 0:333
6 SC 12 ¼ 0:167 7 4 SC22 ¼ 0:333 5 6 SC32 ¼ 0:227 7 SC42 ¼ 0:667
From an economic aspect, wind energy ranked top owing to its
6 7 6 7
6 SC 13 ¼ 0:167 7 SC23 ¼ 0:333 4 SC33 ¼ 0:122 5 lower capital cost, average energy cost, and potential major contri-
6 7
4 SC 14 ¼ 0:167 5 SC34 ¼ 0:424 bution to national economic development.
SC 15 ¼ 0:167
Compared to other alternatives, solar PV performed best in
technical aspects because of the high resource availability of solar
tion matrix of AHP is formulated according to the following steps. energy in Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, it obtained the lowest
First, the AHP pairwise comparison of the four main decision crite- score under the environmental criterion owing to the high life-
ria is conducted with respect to the main goal of the study. cycle CO2 emissions involved in the production phase of PV
Second, the AHP technique discussed in Section Methodology is technology.
used to prioritize weights of decision criteria with respect to the Finally, the results from the previous phase formulate a matrix
goal. The assessment model indicates that the economic and tech- that is multiplied by the priority weights of the decision criteria
nical criteria are the most important with respect to the goal; their with respect to the goal in order to obtain the final ranking of RE
relative priority weights are each 35.1%. The socio-political aspect alternatives with respect to the goal, as shown in Eq. (4) below.
is the third most important criteria with a score of 19% whereas the
environment is the least important with a weight of 11%.
Third, a pairwise comparison is conducted of each list of sub-
criteria with respect to their parent node (i.e., decision criterion)
and local priority weights are obtained for each sub-criterion with
respect to its parent criterion, as depicted in Table 12.
The global priority weights of sub-criteria with respect to the
ð4Þ
overall goal of the decision framework are depicted in Fig. 5. The
results show that the energy cost sub-criterion under the economic The results show that solar PV is the most promising RE technology,
criterion has by far the highest importance with a global weight of followed by solar thermal, wind, biomass, and geothermal, as pre-
14.9% whereas the resource availability sub-criterion under the sented in – Fig. 7. Based on the priority weights of PV technology
technical criterion has the second highest global weight of 11.7% in resource availability, contribution to economic development,
with respect to the overall goal. higher employment opportunity, strong social acceptance, and ease
Capital cost and national economic development are the third of decentralization, the PV alternative has the highest weight of
most important sub-criteria, each with a weight of almost 8%. 25.6%. PV technology offers higher decentralized electricity produc-

Economic Environmental Socio-polical Technical

0.16 14.9%

0.14

11.7%
0.12

0.1
8.1% 7.9%
0.08 7.2%
6.4% 6.3% 6.3%
5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8%
0.06
4.2%
3.7%
0.04

0.02

Fig. 5. Global priority weights of sub-criteria with respect to goal.

146 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150

Technical (L: .351) Socio-polical (L: .189) Environmental (L: .109) Economic (L: .351)

6.9%
Wind 2.3%
1.4%
11.3%

9.1%
Solar thermal 5.2%
5.1%
4.4%

10.5%
Solar PV 8.2%
0.7%
6.4%

3.6%
Geothermal 1.8%
1.8%
6.0%

5.0%
Biomass 1.5%
1.9%
7.0%

Fig. 6. Local weights of alternatives under each decision criterion.

the proposed model the inconsistency ratio did not exceed 0.05
for any of the conducted pairwise comparison. This value is within
the accepted range proposed by the AHP consistency which has a
maximum of 0.1.

Sensitivity analysis

Since there is subjective evaluation in this study, sensitivity

Fig. 7. Priority weight of renewable energy alternatives.
tion, which contributes to reduced losses in transmission lines and
serves rural areas in a large desert country such as Saudi Arabia (the
second largest by land area in the Arab world).
Solar thermal has the second highest priority weight of 23.5% as
it has the highest resource availability, lowest carbon emissions,
and higher social acceptance; it has a major potential contribution
to make to the kingdom maintaining its leading global energy posi-
tion. Wind energy performed significantly in economic and techni-
cal aspects. It obtained the third highest priority weight of 22%. Its
moderate performance with regard to resource availability com-
pared to solar energy (PV and thermal) and ease of decentralization
reduces the overall relative weight of wind energy. Biomass and
geothermal have modest weights for resource availability, lower
maturity, and higher energy cost compared to the other alterna-
tives. Their overall scores are 15.6% and 13.3%, respectively. In
analysis is essential to observe how the overall rankings of RE
alternatives change with respect to changes in the priority weights
of the criteria or sub-criteria. Expert Choice software is used to
obtain the results and perform a sensitivity analysis under differ-
ent scenarios. Fig. 8 presents the default results for the proposed
model.
Considering equal weights scenario (25% for each criterion),
results show that solar thermal has the highest score (28%) among
other alternatives. The solar PV has the second highest score
(24.2%) while the other alternatives ranking remains in the same
order compared to the default scenario. This is mainly due to the
exceptional performance of solar thermal in all decision criteria.
The equal weight scenario’s output is shown in Fig. 9.
Since the kingdom is heavily dependent on fossil fuel for elec-
tricity generation, switching to RE should enable it to continue
maintaining national economic development and strong economic
and industrial growth. Increasing the economic criterion weight to
40% and maintaining equal weight (20%) for the other criteria gives
the same priorities as the scenario of equal weight criteria as
depicted in Fig. 10.
The results obtained from this scenario are in line with the ini-
tial energy mix plan for RE generation in Saudi Arabia proposed by

Fig. 8. Criteria weights and alternatives ratings considering the proposed approach.
 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150 147

Fig. 9. Equal criteria weights scenario and alternatives ratings.

Fig. 10. Performance sensitivity of alternatives with higher economic criteria (40%).

Resource
availability Research
9
Emissions Energy safety Industry
8
7 Technology Academic
Land requirement 6 maturity Government
5
4
Energy cost 3 Efficiency
2
1
Operaons and Ease of
maintenance cost decentralizaon

Capital cost Job creaon

Naonal Economic Socio-polical

development acceptance
Leading posion

Fig. 11. Evaluation of each sub-criterion by experts’ categories.

K.A.CARE (i.e., 25 GW of solar thermal, 16 GW of solar PV, 9 GW of
wind, 3 GW of waste-to-energy, and 1 GW of geothermal).
Heterogeneity is essential in the decision-making process to
ensure different opinions are involved and various perspectives
are considered. The expert panel for the AHP model is composed
of participants from different sectors involved in energy planning
and road mapping for the country. Participants can be categorized
in the academic, industrial, energy research, and decision-making
sectors.
In this section, we highlight the variation of weights given to
the main decision criteria considering the category orientation.
This helps to understand the impact of bias derived from partici-
pants’ backgrounds, and highlights the importance of heterogene-
ity in obtaining balanced outputs. Participants from the research
and government sectors weighted the economic criterion as the
highest, followed by the technical criterion. On the other hand,
the academic sector participants weighted the socio-political crite-
rion the highest, while the economic and technical criteria were
rated equally. The academic, government, and research sector par-
ticipants weighted the environmental criterion the lowest. Mean-
while, the industrial sector participants presented a different
distribution in which technical, economic, and environmental
148 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150
criteria scored similar weights, while the socio-political criterion
achieved the lowest score.
Fig. 11 shows the analysis of sub-criteria local weights per dif-
ferent categories of the stakeholders. Research, government, and
academic experts considered energy cost and resource availability
as the highest priority weights. This points to the fact that RE alter-
natives with high potential for resource availability and low energy
cost are preferred for sustainable power generation projects. Fur-
thermore, participants from the research, government, and aca-
demic sectors considered land requirements as a lower weighted
sub-criterion. Technology maturity, efficiency, and national eco-
nomic development were considered to be of high importance by
experts from industries.
As a result of the high unemployment rate in Saudi Arabia
(11.7%) [87], government experts took into account the number
of employment opportunities generated from RE alternative pro-
jects by giving job creation the highest priority weight over the
other categories. Looking into the prioritization based on partici-
pants’ categories, one realizes those governmental sector partici-
pants rating resulted in higher preference for PV compared to
other alternatives. This preference reflects the low concerns they
showed with regard to safety and O&M cost parameters (as illus-
trated in Fig. 11) since these are insignificant for PV systems.
Conclusion and policy implications
Summary and conclusions
In energy mix planning, tackling the dilemma of which source
to prioritize from one perspective only presents a major inade-
quacy owing to the complexity and multidimensional aspects of
energy. Therefore, this study carried out prioritization and assess-
ment of five RE resources by developing an AHP decision model for
power-generation purposes in an oil-based and developing coun-
try. It presented a case study set in Saudi Arabia to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the proposed model. An evaluation of solar
PV, solar thermal, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy resources
was determined with respect to technical, economic, socio-
political, and environmental criteria. These criteria were sub-
divided further into clusters of 14 sub-criteria for which each
alternative was evaluated. The criteria and sub-criteria were
elicited from experts, the literature, and the country’s energy
policy. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated for the
overall synthesis. The MCDA prioritization model shows PV tech-
nology to be the most promising RE followed by solar thermal. This
was mainly owing to their high performance in most of the criteria.
Moreover, the results ranked wind energy third in the RE technolo-
gies on the strength of its performance in economic and technical
aspects. Compared to other RE sources, biomass and geothermal
had modest weights for energy cost, technology maturity, and
resource availability causing these two technologies to be ranked
the lowest. The proposed model shows that energy cost and
resource availability are the most important sub-criteria in the
economic and technical criteria, respectively.
The major advantages of RE deployment in Saudi Arabia are sus-
tainable power generation, lower fossil fuel consumption, and
maintaining the kingdom’s leading global position in the energy
sector. It is recommended that the country invests more in solar
energy technologies (PV and thermal), which would significantly
promote the sustainable development of Saudi Arabia. One caveat
is that, owing to the country’s vast deserted area, there is a high
chance of dusty weather, which may limit the performance of solar
PV panels. The study limitations are associated with the number of
participants, which could be elaborated by considering higher
number of experts and the limited local data for the alternatives
comparisons with respect to sub-criteria.
Policy implications and future work
The findings of this study have several policy implications
including:
 The energy policy road mapping process involves several critical
factors which interplay and contribute substantially to the
shaping of sustainable energy sector. Instead of cost benefit
analysis, developing a MCDM framework would facilitate inclu-
sion of social, political, and environmental criteria in the deci-
sion making process towards promoting the use of renewable
energy resources.
 The proposed methodology supports the involvement of differ-
ent stakeholders standpoints in the decision making process
thereby has increased consensus, acceptability, fair share of
responsibility and results credibility.
 By implementing energy mix policy, Saudi Arabia can preserve
its finite energy resources for the future, or export the surplus
to back its strong economic and industrial growth, which also
leaves more energy available for other developing countries.
In our future research, further technical and economic sub-
criteria could be considered to enrich the model. The accuracy of
the model results can be enhanced by using more local data where
an undergoing research and data collection is being conducted by
K.A.CARE.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank respondents for their participa-
tion in the data collection and acknowledge their valuable com-
ments and suggestions in this research work. Financial support
from the Royal Commission of Jubail and Yanbu and the Islamic
University of Madinah in Saudi Arabia under scholarship programs,
is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] World development indicators by world data bank 2016, <http://databank.
worldbank.org/data/home.aspx>; 2016 [accessed 01.01.16].
[2] Statistics and energy indicator by international energy agency 2016,
<http://www.iea.org/statistics/>; 2016 [accessed 01.01.16].
[3] Saudi Arabia was world’s largest petroleum producer and net exporter 2012,
<https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10231>; 2012 [accessed
29.03.16].
[4] Annual statistical bulletin report. Organization of the petroleum exporting
countries OPEC; 2012.
[5] World Energy Outlook. World energy outlook, international energy agency
(IEA); 2010. p. 578–9.
[6] Independent statistics and analysis – Saudi Arabia 2014, <http://www.
eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=SA#note>; 2014 [accessed 13.11.14].
[7] Saudi energy efficiency center 2015, <http://www.seec.gov.sa/?lang=en>;
2015 [accessed 3.11.15].
[8] DiPaola A. Saudi Arabia delays $109 billion solar plant by 8 years – Bloomberg
business 2015, <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-20/saudi-
arabia-delays-109-billion-solar-plant-by-8-years> [accessed 9.11.15].
[9] Activities and achievements of the authority. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: electricity
and cogeneration regulatory authority; 2013.
[10] Meleeh MA. SEC spends nearly SAR 40-60bn annually on projects 2015,
<http://english.mubasher.info/news/2747289/SEC-spends-nearly-SAR-40-
60bn-annually-on-projects-Al-Shiha#.VUujSflVhHx>; 2015 [accessed 9.06.15].
[11] Sustainability for future generations – the vision of King Abdullah City for
atomic and renewable energy 2013, <http://www.kacare.gov.sa/en/?page_id=
84>; 2013 [accessed 13.11.14].
[13] Alnatheer O. The potential contribution of renewable energy to electricity
supply in Saudi Arabia. Energy Policy 2005;33:2298–312. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.013.
[14] Montoya FG, Aguilera MJ, Manzano-Agugliaro F. Renewable energy production
in Spain: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;33:509–31. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.091.
 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150
[15] Hepbasli A, Alsuhaibani Z. A key review on present status and future directions
of solar energy studies and applications in Saudi Arabia. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev 2011;15:5021–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2011.07.052.
[16] Rehman S, Bader MA, Al-Moallem SA. Cost of solar energy generated using PV
panels. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2007;11:1843–57. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.03.005.
[17] Alawaji SH. Evaluation of solar energy research and its applications in Saudi
Arabia — 20 years of experience. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2001;5:59–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(00)00006-X.
[18] Validation of SolarGIS GHI and DNI data for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
technical note. GeoModel Solar; 2013.
[19] IRENA data and statistics 2015, <http://resourceirena.irena.org/gateway/
dashboard/index.html>; 2015 [accessed 10.06.15].
[20] Hurst T. Renewable power costs plummet 2015, <http://www.irena.org/News/
Description.aspx?NType=A&mnu=cat&PriMenuID=16&CatID=84&News_ID=
386>; 2015 [accessed 09.06.15].
[21] Al-Jawah MJ. A decision aiding framework for investing in cleaning systems for
solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants in arid regions. George Washington
University; 2014.
[22] Technology roadmap: Solar thermal electricity. International energy agency
(IEA); 2014.
[23] Concentrating solar power: Technology brief. International renewable energy
agency (IRENA); 2013.
[24] New record in worldwide wind installations 2015, <http://www.wwindea.org/
new-record-in-worldwide-wind-installations/> [accessed 9.06.15].
[25] Eltamaly AM. Design and implementation of wind energy system in Saudi
Arabia. Renewable Energy 2013;60:42–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2013.04.006.
[26] Shaahid SM, Al-Hadhrami LM, Rahman MK. Potential of establishment of wind
farms in western province of Saudi Arabia. Energy Procedia 2014;52:497–505.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.103.
[27] Alnaser WE, Alnaser NW. The status of renewable energy in the GCC countries.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2011;15:3074–98. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2011.03.021.
[29] Annual U.S. and global geothermal power production report. Geothermal
energy association; 2015.
[34] Khan MSM, Kaneesamkandi Z. Biodegradable waste to biogas: renewable
energy option for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int J Innov Appl Stud
2013;4:101–13.
[35] Cavallaro F. Multi-criteria decision aid to assess concentrated solar thermal
technologies. Renewable Energy 2009;34:1678–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2008.12.034.
[36] Shattan MB. An analytic-deliberative process for the selection and deployment
of radiation detection systems for shipping ports and border
crossings. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2008.
[37] Mateo JRSC. Multi-criteria analysis in the renewable energy
industry. Santander: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2174/97816080528511060101.
[38] Brand B, Missaoui R. Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation mix
scenarios in Tunisia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;39:251–61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.069.
[39] Amer M, Daim TU. Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing
county: a case of Pakistan. Energy Sustainable Dev 2011;15:420–35. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.09.001.
[40] Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable
development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process:
a case of Malaysia. Renewable Energy 2014;63:458–66. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.001.
[41] Streimikiene D, Balezentis T, Krisciukaitienė I, Balezentis A. Prioritizing
sustainable electricity production technologies: MCDM approach. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev 2012;16:3302–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.02.067.
[42] Georgopoulou E, Lalas D, Papagiannakis L. A multicriteria decision aid
approach for energy planning problems: the case of renewable energy
option. Eur J Oper Res 1997;103:38–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-
2217(96)00263-9.
[43] Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M. Decision-making in energy planning.
Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of
renewable energy technology. Renewable Energy 2003;28:2063–87. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00102-2.
[44] Diakoulaki D, Karangelis F. Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost–benefit
analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2007;11:716–27. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2005.06.007.
[45] Goletsis Y, Psarras J, Samouilidis J-E. Project ranking in the Armenian energy
sector using a multicriteria method for groups. Ann Oper Res
2003;120:135–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023330530111.
[46] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to
sustainable energy planning—a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2004;8:365–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2003.12.007.
[47] Wang J-J, Jing Y-Y, Zhang C-F, Zhao J-H. Review on multi-criteria decision
analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2009;13:2263–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021.
[48] Saaty TL, Vargas LG. Models, methods, concepts and apps of the analytic
hierarchy process. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2012.
149
[49] Kahraman C, Kaya I, _ Cebi S. A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection
among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process. Energy 2009;34:1603–16. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.008.
[50] Theodorou S, Florides G, Tassou S. The use of multiple criteria decision making
methodologies for the promotion of RES through funding schemes in Cyprus, a
review. Energy Policy 2010;38:7783–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2010.08.038.
[51] Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Multicriteria evaluation of power plants
impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy
Policy 2008;36:1074–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.028.
[52] Fernando Ribeiro, Ferreira P, Araújo M. Impact chains and a multi-criteria
decision tool to support electricity power planning. Sustainable Erlrctricity
Power Planning 2012.
[53] Stein EW. A comprehensive multi-criteria model to rank electric energy
production technologies. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2013;22:640–54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.001.
[54] Nigim K, Munier N, Green J. Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in
prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources. Renewable Energy
2004;29:1775–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.02.012.
[55] Kaya T, Kahraman C. Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an
integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy
2010;35:2517–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.051.
[56] Daniel J, Vishal NVR, Albert B, Selvarsan I. Evaluation of the significant
renewable energy resources in India using analytical hierarchy process. In:
Ehrgott M, Naujoks B, Stewart TJ, Wallenius J, editors. Proc. 19th int. conf.
mult. criteria decis. mak., vol. 634. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p.
13–26. 10.1007/978-3-642-04045-0.
[57] Elkarmi F, Mustafa I. Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies
(SET) in Jordan. Energy Policy 1993;21:978–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0301-4215(93)90186-J.
[58] Pappas C, Karakosta C, Marinakis V, Psarras J. A comparison of electricity
production technologies in terms of sustainable development. Energy Convers
Manage 2012;64:626–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.06.006.
[59] Gök E. Renewable energy planning in Turkey. Middle East Technical
University; 2013.
[60] Troldborg M, Heslop S, Hough RL. Assessing the sustainability of renewable
energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: suitability of approach for
national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev 2014;39:1173–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.07.160.
[61] Phdungsilp A, Wuttipornpun T. Decision support for the selection of electric
power plants generated from renewable sources. World Acad Sci Eng Technol
2011;5:131–6.
[62] Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Technological, economic and sustainability
evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy
2009;37:778–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.10.009.
[63] Akash BA, Mamlook R, Mohsen MS. Multi-criteria selection of electric power
plants using analytical hierarchy process. Electr Power Syst Res
1999;52:29–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7796(99)00004-8.
[64] Lee AHI, Chen HH, Kang H-Y. Multi-criteria decision making on strategic
selection of wind farms. Renewable Energy 2009;34:120–6. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.013.
[65] Boran FE, Dizdar E, Toktas I, Boran K, Eldem C, Asal Ö. A multidimensional
analysis of electricity generation options with different scenarios in Turkey.
Energy Sources Part B Econ Plann Policy 2013;8:44–55. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15567240903117591.
[66] Afgan NH, Carvalho MG. Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable
energy power plants. Energy 2002;27:739–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0360-5442(02)00019-1.
[67] Sadeghi A, Larimian T, Molabashi A. Evaluation of renewable energy sources
for generating electricity in province of Yazd: A fuzzy Mcdm approach.
Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2012;62:1095–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2012.09.187.
[68] Mamlook R, Akash BA, Mohsen MS. A neuro-fuzzy program approach for
evaluating electric power generation systems. Energy 2001;26:619–32. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00015-9.
[69] Craig KR, Bain RL, Overend RP. Biomass power systems—where are we, where
are we going, and how do we get there? the role of gasification. In: EPRI conf.
new power gener. technol., San Francisco, CA. p. 19.
[70] Brown A, Müller S. Deploying renewables: best and future policy
practice. International Energy Agency (IEA); 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264124912-en.
[71] Renewable energy – RD&D priorities insights from IEA technology
programmes. International energy agency (IEA); 2006.
[72] Renewable energy investing in energy and resource efficiency. United Nations
environment programme; 2011.
[73] Annual energy review. U.S. energy information administration (EIA); 2011.
[74] Mondal AH. Implications of renewable energy technologies in the
Bangladesh power sector: long-term planning strategies. University of Bonn;
2010.
[75] Said SAM, El-Amin IM, Al-Shehri AM. Renewable energy potentials in Saudi
Arabia. In: Beirut reg. collab. work. energy effic. renew. energy
technol.. American University of Beirut; 2004. p. 76–82.
[76] Burgherr P, Hirschberg S, Spada M. Comparative assessment of accident risks
in the energy sector. In: Kovacevic RM, Pflug GC, Vespucci MT, editors.
150 H. Al Garni et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 137–150
Handb. risk manag. energy prod. trading, vol. 199. Boston, MA: Springer.
[77] Burgherr P, Hirschberg S. Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in
the energy sector. Energy Policy 2014;74:S45–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2014.01.035.
[78] Lasseter RH. Smart distribution: coupled microgrids. Proc IEEE
2011;99:1074–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2011.2114630.
[79] Ipakchi A, Albuyeh F. Grid of the future. IEEE Power Energy Mag 2009;7:52–62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MPE.2008.931384.
[80] Palma-Behnke R, Reyes L, Jimenez-Estevez G. Smart grid solutions for rural
areas. In: 2012 IEEE power energy soc. gen. meet. IEEE; 2012. p. 1–6. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345389.
[81] Abd Malek N, Hasini H, Rahman AA, Jaafar MN. An improved solar PV system
for Malaysian rural electrification part I: design and testing of solar PV with
tracker and reflectors. In: 2010 IEEE student conf. res. dev. IEEE; 2010. p.
452–7. 10.1109/SCORED.2010.5704052.
[82] Pazheri FR, Malik NH, Al-Arainy AA, Al-Ammar EA, Imthias A, Ssfoora OK.
Smart grid can make Saudi Arabia megawatt exporter. In: Asia-Pacific power
energy eng conf 2011. p. 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
APPEEC.2011.5748905.
[83] Wei M, Patadia S, Kammen DM. Putting renewables and energy efficiency to
work: how many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?
Energy Policy 2010;38:919–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044.
[84] Capital cost estimates for utility scale electricity generating plants. U.S. Energy
information administration (EIA); 2013.
[85] Müller S, Brown A, Ölz S. Policy considerations for deploying
renewables. International Energy Agency (IEA); 2011.
[86] Komljenovic D, Kecojevic V. Multi-attribute selection method for materials
handling equipment. Int J Ind Syst Eng 2008;4:151–73.
[87] Central department of statistics & information 2014, <http://www.cdsi.gov.sa/
english/> [accessed 10.06.15].