Sustainable electricity generation fuel mix analysis using an integration of multicriteria decision-making and system dynamic approach
Corresponding Author
Mabvuto Mwanza
School of Engineering, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia
Correspondence
Mabvuto Mwanza, School of Engineering, University of Zambia, Lusaka 10101, Zambia.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorKoray Ulgen
Ege University, Solar Energy Institute, Bornova/Izmir, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mabvuto Mwanza
School of Engineering, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia
Correspondence
Mabvuto Mwanza, School of Engineering, University of Zambia, Lusaka 10101, Zambia.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorKoray Ulgen
Ege University, Solar Energy Institute, Bornova/Izmir, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorFunding information: Ege Üniversitesi; Ege University
Summary
To achieve a national energy access target of 90% urban and 51% rural by 2035, combat climate change, and diversify the energy sector in the country, the Zambian government is planning to integrate other renewable energy resources (RESs) such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal into the existing hydro generation–based power system. However, to achieve such targets, it is essential for the government to identify suitable combination of the RESs (electricity generation fuel mix) that can provide the greatest sustainability benefit to the country. In this paper, a multicriteria decision-making framework based on analytic hierarchy process and system dynamics techniques is proposed to evaluate and identify the best electricity generation fuel mix for Zambia. The renewable energy generation technologies considered include wind, solar photovoltaic, biomass, and hydropower. The criteria used are categorized as technical, economic, environmental, social, and political. The proposed approach was applied to rank the electricity generation fuel mix based on nine sustainability aspects: land use, CO2 emissions, job creation, policy promotion affordability, subsidy cost, air pollution reduction, RES electricity production, RES cumulative capacity, and RES initial capital cost. The results indicate that based on availability of RESs and sustainability aspects, in overall, the best future electricity generation mix option for Zambia is scenario with higher hydropower (40%) penetration, wind (30%), solar (20%), and lower biomass (10%) penetration in the overall electricity generation fuel mix, which is mainly due to environmental issues and availability of primary energy resources. The results further indicate that solar ranks first in most of the scenarios even after the penetration weights of RES are adjusted in the sensitivity analysis. The wind was ranked second in most of the scenarios followed by hydropower and last was biomass. These developed electricity generation fuel mix pathways would enable the country meeting the future electricity generation needs target at minimized environmental and social impacts by 2035. Therefore, this study is essential to assist in policy and decision making including planning at strategic level for sustainable energy diversification.
REFERENCES
- 1 IRENA, (2015), Africa 2030: Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Future Report, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi, Available at: www.irena.org/publications
- 2 The World Bank, (2017a), International development association appraisal document on a proposed credit to the Republic of Zambia for an Electricity Service Access Project, Report No.PAD2303, June 6, 2017.
- 3 SACREEE. SADC Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Status Report. SADC Centre for Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency (SACREEE); Windhoek, Namibia, 2018.
- 4Ren J, Dong L. Evaluation of electricity supply sustainability and security using multi-criteria decision analysis approach. J Clean Prod. 2018; 172(2018): 438-453.
- 5Brizmohun R, Ramjeawon T, Azapagic A. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mauritius. J Clean Prod. 2015, 2015; 105: 565-575.
- 6Gracceva F, Zeniewski P. A systemic approach to assessing energy security in a low-carbon EU energy system. Appl Energy. 2014; 123(2014): 335-348.
- 7Finenko A, Cheah L. Temporal CO2 emission associated with electricity generation: case study of Singapore. Energy Policy. 2016; 93(2016): 70-79.
- 8Santoyo-Castelazo E, Azapagic A. Sustainable assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. J Clean Prod. 2014; 80(2014): 119-138.
- 9Bhowmik C. Optimal green energy planning for sustainable development: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review. 2017; 71(2017): 796-813.
- 10 PMRC. The state of energy sector in Zambia, implications for industrial development, jobs and poverty reduction, Policy Monitoring and Research Centre (PMRC), Energy Series, Lusaka, Zambia. (2013); 1: 1-24.
- 11 IRENA, (2018), Renewable Capacity Statistics 2018, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi. Available at: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Mar/IRENA_RE_Capacity_Statistics_2018.pdf, (Accessed, 04/03/2019)
- 12Demirtas O. Evaluating the best renewable energy technolgoy for sustainable energy planning. Int J Energy Econ Policy. 2013; 3(2013): 23-33.
- 13Atilgan B, Azapagic A. An integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Turkey. Energy Policy. 2016; 93(2016): 168-186.
- 14Akber MZ, Thaheem MJ, Arshad H. Life cycle sustainable assessment of electricity generation in Pakistan: policy regime for a sustainable energy mix. Energy Policy. 2017; 111(2017): 111-126.
- 15Vithayasrichareon P, (2012), Portfolio-Based Decision-Support Tool for Generation Investment and Planning in Uncertain and Low-Carbon Future Electricity ındustries, PhD Thesis, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, June 2012
- 16Khan I. Power generation expansion plan and sustainability in a developing country; a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Clean Prod. 2019; 220(2019): 707-720.
- 17Bengt J. Security aspects of future renewable energy systems—a short overview. Energy. 2013; 61(2013): 598-605.
- 18 REN21, (2018), Renewable 2018 Global Status Report, Investment Inflows, Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21), Available http://www.ren21.net/gsr-2018/chapters/chapter_05/chapter_05/ (Accessed 26/ 02/2019)
- 19 Zambia Information and Communication Technology Authority (ZICTA). ICT Survey Report-Households and Individuals: Survey on Access and Usage of Information and Communication Technology by Households and Individuals in Zambia. Lusaka; 2015.
- 20 The World Bank, (2017b), Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed IDA Guarantee to The Republic of Zambia and Proposed IFC Financing to Bangweulu Power Company Limited for the West Lunga Scaling Solar Energy Project, Report No.110675-ZM, January 25, 2017.
- 21 Energy Regulation Board (ERB), (2017). Energy Sector Report 2016. Lusaka: Zambia). Available at: www.erb.org.zm/downloads/esr2016.pdf (Accessed in October 2017)
- 22 Government of Republic of Zambia (GRZ). A Prosperous Middle-Income Nation by 2030. Lusaka, Zambia; Vision 2030; 2006.
- 23 USTDA,(2018), USTDA Support Wind Energy Development in Zambia Creating Opportunities for U.S.Industry, U.S.Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) Available https://ustda.gov/news/press-releases/2018/ustda-supports-wind-energy-development-zambia-creating-opportunities-us (Accessed February 26, 2019)
- 24GIZ, (2016), Power Crisis and consequences for solar energy in the Zambia mining sector, GIZ/ German Energy Solutions Initiatives and THEnergy, Available at: https://www.esiafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016June_GIZ-THEnergy_Zambia.pdf (Accessed 04/03/2019)
- 25Batidzirai B, Moyo A, Kapembwa M. Willingness to Pay for Improved Electricity Supply Reliability in Zambia—A Survey of Urban Enterprises in Lusaka and Kitwe. Cape Town: University of Cape Town; 2017.
- 26 Ministry of Mines, Energy and Water Developmen of Zambia (MEWD), (2010), The Study for Power System Development Master Plan in Zambia Final Report, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) & Ministry of Mines, Energy and Water Development (MEWD), February 2010.
- 27Haanyika CM. Rural electrification in Zambia: a policy and institutional analysis. Energy Policy. 2008; 36(2008): 1044-1058.
- 28 CEEEZ,( 2013), Technology Needs Assessment and Technology Action Plans for Climate Change Mitigation, Part IV:Project Ideas, Centre for Energy, Environment and Engineering Zambia Limited (CEEEZ), March, 2013.
- 29 Ministry of Mines, Energy and Water Developmen of Zambia (MEWD). National Energy Policy. Zambia, Lusaka; 2008.
- 30Walimwipi HS. Investment Incentives for Renewable Energy in Southern Africa: Case Study of Zambia. Lusaka: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD); 2012.
- 31Kasanga CH. Feasibility Study of Domestic Biogas Programme in Zambia. Lusaka: SNV and Hivos Private Dutch Development Angencies; 2012.
- 32Gauri S, (2013), Zambia Renewables Readiness Assessment 2013 report, IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Available at: www.irena.org/rra, (Accessed January, 2014)
- 33Bowa, C.K., Mwanza M, et al, (2017). Solar Photovoltaic Energy Progress in Zambia: A Review. SAUPEC 2017, 25th Southern African Universities Power Engineering Conference, 30 January-01 February, 2017. Stellenbosch, South Africa: SAUPEC 2017.
- 34 Ministry of Mines. Energy and Water Developmen of Zambia (MEWD). Vol 2016. Lusaka: National Energy Report; 2016.
- 35Ahmad S, Razman BMT. Using system dynamics to evaluate renewable electricity development in Malaysia. Kybernetes. 2014; 43(2014): 24-39.
- 36Al-Sarihi A, Contestabile M, and Cherni J.A, (2015), Renewable Energy Policy Evaluation Using A System Dynamic Approach: The Case of Oman, Conference Proceeding of The 33rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, July 2015.
- 37Bastan M, and Shakouri H.G, (2018), A system dynamic model for policy evaluation of energy dependency, Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Paris, France, July 26–27, 2018.
- 38Chanchawee R, Usapein P. Ranking of renewable energy for the national electricity plan in Thailand using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of Renewable Energy Research. 2018; 8(2018): 3.
- 39Baysal ME, Çetin NC. Priority ranking for energy resources in Turkey and Investment planning for renewable energy resources. Complex and Intelligent Systems. 2018; 4(2018): 261-269.
- 40Garni Al H. A multicriteria decision making approach for evaluating renewable power generation sources in Saudi Arabia. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2016; 16(2016): 137-150.
- 41Ahmed AM et al. Large scale PV sites selection by combining GIS and analytical hierarchy process: case study: Eastern Morocco. Renew Energy. 2018; 119(2018): 853-873.
- 42Geovanna V, Gabriel G, Javier MG, Diego JJ. Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: the case of continental Ecudor. Renew Energy. 2017;2017, 109: 275-286.
- 43Negar A, Chandra AI, Dylan FJ, David M. A multi-criteria port suitability assessment for developments in the offshore wind industry. Renew Energy. 2017; 102(2017): 118-133.
- 44San Cristobal JK. Multi-criteria decision making in the selection of a renewable energy project in Spain: The ViKor method. Renew Energy. 2011; 36(2011): 498-502.
- 45Mehmett K, Metin D. Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energ Conver Manage. 2014; 79(2014): 25-33.
- 46Sonal S, Vijay N, Sunil L. Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: case study of India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017; 73: 496-511.
- 47Konstantinos I. A spatial decision support system framework for evaluation of biomass energy production locations: case study in the regional unit of Drama, Greece. Journal of Sustainability. 2018; 10(2018): 531-554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020531.
- 48Beyzanur CE. An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS based SWOT analysis for Turkey's energy planning. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018; 82(2013): 1538-1550.
- 49Aldona KW, Andrzej W. the application of the SWOT and AHP methods for the assessment of the region's strategic position in the aspect of wind energy. Agri Eng. 2015; 4(156): 129-138.
- 50Arezoo A, Seyed HM, Shahram A. Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran's steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resources Policy. 2018; 57(C): 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpo1.2018.01.002.
- 51Fadim Y, Baycan T. Use of SWOT and analytical hierarchy process integration as a participatory decision making tool in watershed management. Procedia Technology. 2013; 8(2013): 134-143.
- 52Elanur A et al. Comparsion of methods for sustainable energy management with sewage sludge in Turkey based on SWOT-FAHP analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016; 62(2016: 429-440.
- 53Gorener A, Toker K, Korkmaz U. Application of combined SWOT and AHP: a case study for a manufacturing firm. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science. 2012, 2012; 58: 1525-1534.
10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1139 Google Scholar
- 54Fahad M, Mohammad H, Tahir A. Analytival investigation of mobile NFC adaption with SWOT-AHP approach: a case of Italian Telecom. Procedia Technology. 2014, 2014; 12: 535-541.
10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.526 Google Scholar
- 55Bojan S, Djordje N, Valentina V, Dejan B. Application of integrated strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and analytic hierarchy process methodology to renewable energy project selection in Serbia. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2016, 2016; 8: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4950950.
- 56Haddad B, Liazid A, Ferreira P. A multi-criteria approach to rank renewable for the Algerian electricity system. Renew Energy. 2017, 2017; 107: 452-472.
- 57Çolak M, Kaya I. Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: a real case application for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review. 2017; 80(2017): 840-853.
- 58Çelikbilek Y, Tuysuz F. An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources. Energy. 2016; 115(2016): 1246-1258.
- 59Sengul U. Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply system in Turkey. Renew Energy. 2015; 75(2015): 617-625.
- 60Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytical hierarchy process: a case of Malaysia. Renew Energy. 2014; 63(2014): 458-455.
- 61Tasri A, Susilawati A. Selection among renewable energy alternatives based on a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process in Indonesia. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2014; 7(2014): 34-44.
10.1016/j.seta.2014.02.008 Google Scholar
- 62Sliogeriene J, Turskis Z, Streimikiene D. Analysis and choice of energy generation technologies: the multiple criteria assessment on the case study of Lithuania. Energy Proceedia. 2013, 2013; 32: 11-20.
- 63Stein EW. A comprehensive mult-criteria model to rank electricity production technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review. 2013; 22(2013: 640-654.
- 64Mourmouries JC, Potolias C. A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at as regiona level: a case study Thassos, Greece. Energy Policy. 2013; 52(2013): 522-530.
- 65Kabayo J, Marques P, Garcia R, Freire F. Life-cycle sustainability assessment of key electricity generation systems in Portugal. Energy. 2019, 2019; 175: 131-142.
- 66Stehly T, Heimiller D, and Scott G, (2017), 2016 Cost of Wind Energy Review Technical Report, NREL/P-6A20-70363, USA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
10.2172/1415731 Google Scholar
- 67Sonal S, Vijay N, Sunil L. Solar energy deployment for sustainable future of India: hybrid SWOC-AHP analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017; 72: 1138-1151.
- 68Jingyi Z, Xianfeng G, Yelin D, et al. Comparison of life cycle environmental impacts of different perovskite solar cell systems. Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells. 2017, 2017; 166: 9-17.
- 69Raghava K. Review of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from different photovoltaic and concentrating solar power electricity generation systems. Energies. 2017; 10: 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10030350.
- 70 Union of Concerned Scientists. (2015), Environmental impacts of renewable energy technologies, Science for a healthy planet and safer world, Available at: www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts#bf-toc-0
- 71Shifeng Wang SW. Impact of wind energy on environment; a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015; 49(2015): 437-443.
- 72Kaoshan D, Bergot A, Liang C, et al. Environmental issues associated with wind energy—a review. Renew Energy. 2015; 75(2015: 911-921.
- 73Anup S, (2015, February 02), Environmental Issues. Global Issues; Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues that Affect Us All: Available at; www.globalissues.org/issue/168/environmental-issues (Accessed, Novermber 2017)
- 74Andrea L. Residents’ attitudes to proposed wind farms in the West Coast region of South Africa: a social perspective from the South. Energy Policy. 2014; 66: 390-399.
- 75Diego I, Mario MG, Javier D. Environmental benchmarking of wind farms according to their operational performance. Energy. 2013; 51(2013: 589-597.
- 76Turlough G. A case study identifying and mitigating the nevironmental and community impacts from construction of a utility-scale solar photovoltaic power plant in eastern Australia. Solar Energy. 2017; 146(2017): 94-104.
- 77Amer M, Daim TU. Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing country: a case of Pakistan. Energy Sustain Dev. 2011; 15(2011): 420-435.
- 78Osamah S, Ibrahim D. Comparative assessment of the environmental impacts of nuclear, wind and hydro-electric power plants in Ontario: a life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 164: 848-860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.237.
- 79 Knoema. (2015). World Data Atlas: Area-Forest Areas. Available at: https//knoema.com/atlas/topics/Land-Use
- 80 The Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ). (1994), Chapter 204 of the Laws of Zambia,The Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act. Lusaka: Ministry of Legal Affairs, Government of the Republic of Zambia.
- 81 USA Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) The World FactBook. (2017). The World FactBook-Africa, Zambia. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/za.html
- 82 Zambia Central Statistical Office (CSO), (2007), Environment statistics in Zambia: energy statistics, Republic of Zambia Central Statistical Office report, March 27, 2007; 1: 1-199. www.zamstats.gov.zmZambia
- 83Saaty T.L, (2008), Relative Measurement and Its Generalization in Decision Making Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. RACSAM, 102(2), 251–318. Accessed in August 2017
- 84Saaty RW. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathl Modelling. 1987; 9: 161-176.
- 85Andre M, Bengit J, Lars JN. Assessing energy security: an overview of commonly used methodologies. Energy. 2014; 73(2014): 1-14.
- 86Bhattacharyya SC. Fossil fuel dependence and vulnerability of electricity generation: case of selected European countries. Energy Policy. 2009; 37(6): 2411-2420.
- 87Mozumder P, Marathe A. Causality relationship between electricity consumption and GDP in Bangladesh. Energy Policy. 2007; 35(1): 395-402.
- 88 Zambia Central Statistical Office (CSO), (2013), 2010 Census of Population and Housing: Population and Demographic Projections 2011–2035. Report, Lusaka, Central Statistical Office, July 2013.
- 89Mukund RP. Wind and Solar Power Systems; Design. Analysis, and Operation: Taylor & Francis Group CRC Press LLC; 1999, 1999: 283-313.
- 90 NREL, (2019) Energy Analysis; Utility-Scale Energy Technology Capacit Factor, Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-cap-factor.html (Accessed on March 12, 2019)