A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options

District energy systems, in which renewable energy sources may be utilized, are centralized systems to provide energy to residential and commercial buildings. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and rank energy sources available for a case of district heating system in Vancouver, Canada, based on m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied energy 2010-04, Vol.87 (4), p.1134-1140
Hauptverfasser: Ghafghazi, S., Sowlati, T., Sokhansanj, S., Melin, S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1140
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1134
container_title Applied energy
container_volume 87
creator Ghafghazi, S.
Sowlati, T.
Sokhansanj, S.
Melin, S.
description District energy systems, in which renewable energy sources may be utilized, are centralized systems to provide energy to residential and commercial buildings. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and rank energy sources available for a case of district heating system in Vancouver, Canada, based on multiple criteria and the view points of different stakeholders, and to show how communication would affect the ranking of alternatives. The available energy sources are natural gas, biomass (wood pellets), sewer heat, and geothermal heat. The evaluation criteria include GHG emissions, particulate matter emissions, maturity of technology, traffic load, and local source. In order to rank the energy options the PROMETHEE method is used. In this paper, two different scenarios were developed to indicate how the communication between the stakeholders would affect their preferences about criteria weights and would change the ranking of alternatives. The result of this study shows that without communication the best energy source for the considered district energy system is different for different stakeholders. While, addressing concerns through efficient communication would result in a general consensus. In this case, wood pellet is the best energy alternative for all the stakeholders.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.06.021
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743289590</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0306261909002633</els_id><sourcerecordid>743289590</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-d6c75c275f0fefdd625db4a420b38f52868c1a7117724134334d45e79ff766b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtv2zAQhIkiBeo8_kKgU3uSsnyIlG4J0kcCGMglPRM0tYpp6FWSNuB_nw3c5tgchrzMDGY_xq45VBy4vtlVbsEJ48uxEgBtBboCwT-xFW-MKFvOmzO2Agm6FJq3X9h5SjsAsghYse93xbgfcvAxZIzBFW5Z4uz8tshzgQc37F3Gogspx-BzsUWXw_RSpGPKOBbzksM8pUv2uXdDwqu__wX7_fPH8_1DuX769Xh_ty69UiqXnfam9sLUPfTYd50WdbdRTgnYyKavRaMbz53h3BihuFRSqk7VaNq-N1pvWnnBvp16aeKfPaZsx5A8DoObcN4na5QUTVu3QM6v_3UKToua2pBRn4w-zilF7O0Sw-ji0XKwb3jtzv7Da9_wWtCW2FFwfQpGXNC_pxCRCJLfHqx0jaHnSBJAddIFkiItJE4XWs4V2G0eqe72VIfE7xAw2uQDTh67ENFn283ho0WvsUygfw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>21444857</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options</title><source>RePEc</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ghafghazi, S. ; Sowlati, T. ; Sokhansanj, S. ; Melin, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ghafghazi, S. ; Sowlati, T. ; Sokhansanj, S. ; Melin, S.</creatorcontrib><description>District energy systems, in which renewable energy sources may be utilized, are centralized systems to provide energy to residential and commercial buildings. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and rank energy sources available for a case of district heating system in Vancouver, Canada, based on multiple criteria and the view points of different stakeholders, and to show how communication would affect the ranking of alternatives. The available energy sources are natural gas, biomass (wood pellets), sewer heat, and geothermal heat. The evaluation criteria include GHG emissions, particulate matter emissions, maturity of technology, traffic load, and local source. In order to rank the energy options the PROMETHEE method is used. In this paper, two different scenarios were developed to indicate how the communication between the stakeholders would affect their preferences about criteria weights and would change the ranking of alternatives. The result of this study shows that without communication the best energy source for the considered district energy system is different for different stakeholders. While, addressing concerns through efficient communication would result in a general consensus. In this case, wood pellet is the best energy alternative for all the stakeholders.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0306-2619</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-9118</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.06.021</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Biomass ; District heating systems ; District heating systems Multicriteria decision making PROMETHEE Group decision making Renewable energy Biomass ; Group decision making ; Multicriteria decision making ; PROMETHEE ; Renewable energy</subject><ispartof>Applied energy, 2010-04, Vol.87 (4), p.1134-1140</ispartof><rights>2009 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-d6c75c275f0fefdd625db4a420b38f52868c1a7117724134334d45e79ff766b93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-d6c75c275f0fefdd625db4a420b38f52868c1a7117724134334d45e79ff766b93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.06.021$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,3994,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeappene/v_3a87_3ay_3a2010_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a1134-1140.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ghafghazi, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sowlati, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sokhansanj, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melin, S.</creatorcontrib><title>A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options</title><title>Applied energy</title><description>District energy systems, in which renewable energy sources may be utilized, are centralized systems to provide energy to residential and commercial buildings. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and rank energy sources available for a case of district heating system in Vancouver, Canada, based on multiple criteria and the view points of different stakeholders, and to show how communication would affect the ranking of alternatives. The available energy sources are natural gas, biomass (wood pellets), sewer heat, and geothermal heat. The evaluation criteria include GHG emissions, particulate matter emissions, maturity of technology, traffic load, and local source. In order to rank the energy options the PROMETHEE method is used. In this paper, two different scenarios were developed to indicate how the communication between the stakeholders would affect their preferences about criteria weights and would change the ranking of alternatives. The result of this study shows that without communication the best energy source for the considered district energy system is different for different stakeholders. While, addressing concerns through efficient communication would result in a general consensus. In this case, wood pellet is the best energy alternative for all the stakeholders.</description><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>District heating systems</subject><subject>District heating systems Multicriteria decision making PROMETHEE Group decision making Renewable energy Biomass</subject><subject>Group decision making</subject><subject>Multicriteria decision making</subject><subject>PROMETHEE</subject><subject>Renewable energy</subject><issn>0306-2619</issn><issn>1872-9118</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtv2zAQhIkiBeo8_kKgU3uSsnyIlG4J0kcCGMglPRM0tYpp6FWSNuB_nw3c5tgchrzMDGY_xq45VBy4vtlVbsEJ48uxEgBtBboCwT-xFW-MKFvOmzO2Agm6FJq3X9h5SjsAsghYse93xbgfcvAxZIzBFW5Z4uz8tshzgQc37F3Gogspx-BzsUWXw_RSpGPKOBbzksM8pUv2uXdDwqu__wX7_fPH8_1DuX769Xh_ty69UiqXnfam9sLUPfTYd50WdbdRTgnYyKavRaMbz53h3BihuFRSqk7VaNq-N1pvWnnBvp16aeKfPaZsx5A8DoObcN4na5QUTVu3QM6v_3UKToua2pBRn4w-zilF7O0Sw-ji0XKwb3jtzv7Da9_wWtCW2FFwfQpGXNC_pxCRCJLfHqx0jaHnSBJAddIFkiItJE4XWs4V2G0eqe72VIfE7xAw2uQDTh67ENFn283ho0WvsUygfw</recordid><startdate>20100401</startdate><enddate>20100401</enddate><creator>Ghafghazi, S.</creator><creator>Sowlati, T.</creator><creator>Sokhansanj, S.</creator><creator>Melin, S.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100401</creationdate><title>A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options</title><author>Ghafghazi, S. ; Sowlati, T. ; Sokhansanj, S. ; Melin, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-d6c75c275f0fefdd625db4a420b38f52868c1a7117724134334d45e79ff766b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>District heating systems</topic><topic>District heating systems Multicriteria decision making PROMETHEE Group decision making Renewable energy Biomass</topic><topic>Group decision making</topic><topic>Multicriteria decision making</topic><topic>PROMETHEE</topic><topic>Renewable energy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ghafghazi, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sowlati, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sokhansanj, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melin, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Applied energy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ghafghazi, S.</au><au>Sowlati, T.</au><au>Sokhansanj, S.</au><au>Melin, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options</atitle><jtitle>Applied energy</jtitle><date>2010-04-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1134</spage><epage>1140</epage><pages>1134-1140</pages><issn>0306-2619</issn><eissn>1872-9118</eissn><abstract>District energy systems, in which renewable energy sources may be utilized, are centralized systems to provide energy to residential and commercial buildings. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and rank energy sources available for a case of district heating system in Vancouver, Canada, based on multiple criteria and the view points of different stakeholders, and to show how communication would affect the ranking of alternatives. The available energy sources are natural gas, biomass (wood pellets), sewer heat, and geothermal heat. The evaluation criteria include GHG emissions, particulate matter emissions, maturity of technology, traffic load, and local source. In order to rank the energy options the PROMETHEE method is used. In this paper, two different scenarios were developed to indicate how the communication between the stakeholders would affect their preferences about criteria weights and would change the ranking of alternatives. The result of this study shows that without communication the best energy source for the considered district energy system is different for different stakeholders. While, addressing concerns through efficient communication would result in a general consensus. In this case, wood pellet is the best energy alternative for all the stakeholders.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.06.021</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0306-2619
ispartof Applied energy, 2010-04, Vol.87 (4), p.1134-1140
issn 0306-2619
1872-9118
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743289590
source RePEc; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Biomass
District heating systems
District heating systems Multicriteria decision making PROMETHEE Group decision making Renewable energy Biomass
Group decision making
Multicriteria decision making
PROMETHEE
Renewable energy
title A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T19%3A59%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20multicriteria%20approach%20to%20evaluate%20district%20heating%20system%20options&rft.jtitle=Applied%20energy&rft.au=Ghafghazi,%20S.&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1134&rft.epage=1140&rft.pages=1134-1140&rft.issn=0306-2619&rft.eissn=1872-9118&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.06.021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E743289590%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=21444857&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0306261909002633&rfr_iscdi=true