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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Applied energy 2010-04, Vol.87 (4), p.1134-1140 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 |