Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Wind Turbines using Entropy-based-TOPSIS and CoCoSo Methods: Insights from a Turkish Case Study

Melisa Şahin; Derya Deliktaş

doi:10.31181/sor31202650

Authors

Melisa Şahin K¨utahya Dumlupınar Universiy, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering, K¨utahya, T¨urkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5124-9939
Derya Deliktaş K¨utahya Dumlupınar Universiy, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering, K¨utahya, T¨urkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2676-1628

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202650

Keywords:

CoCoSo, TOPSIS, Multi-criteria decision making, Wind turbines, Renewable energy

Abstract

This study evaluated different alternatives using entropy-based TOPSIS and CoCoSo techniques, which are multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, to optimise the decision-making process in wind turbine selection. The study considered six criteria: price, rated power, rotor diameter, turbine size, noise emission value, and annual energy production. As a result of the analyses, Wind turbine-3 and Wind turbine-4 were the most suitable options. The findings revealed that criteria such as energy efficiency, sizeable nominal power, and minimisation of sound emission play a critical role in wind turbine selection. The findings of this study provide a more objective and analytical approach for decision-makers in wind energy projects. The Entropy-based TOPSIS and CoCoSo methodologies used in this study provide consistent and reliable results in evaluating alternatives. In particular, the fact that the CoCoSo method obtains similar rankings with TOPSIS shows that the methods can complement each other in multi-criteria decision-making problems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Supciller, A. A., & Toprak, F. (2020). Selection of wind turbines with multi-criteria decision making techniques involving neutrosophic numbers: A case from Turkey. Energy, 207, 118237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118237

Budak, G., Chen, X., Celik, S., & Ozturk, B. (2019). A systematic approach for assessment of renewable energy using analytic hierarchy process. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0219-y

Özdamar, A. (2001). Farklı anma güçlü rüzgar türbinlerinin çeşitli kriterlere göre karşılaştırılması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 17–27.

Çolak, M., & Kaya, İ. (2017). Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 840–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.194

Taraf, F., & Yazgan, H. R. (2018). Jeotermal ve rüzgar enerjisi santrallerinde yer seçimi probleminin analitik ağ süreci ile çözülmesi. *Anka E-Dergi, 3*(2), 42–55.

Büyükikiz, Ş. (2019). Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının AHP ve bulanık TOPSIS yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi [Doctoral dissertation, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Endüstri…].

Derse, O., & Yontar, E. (2020). SWARA-TOPSIS yöntemi ile en uygun yenilenebilir enerji kaynağının belirlenmesi. Endüstri Mühendisliği, 31(3), 389–419.

Karaaslan, A., & Aydın, S. (2020). Yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 34(4), 1351–1375.

Urfalı, T., & Eymen, A. (2021). CBS ve AHP yöntemi yardımıyla Kayseri ili örneğinde rüzgar enerji santrallerinin yer seçimi. Geomatik, 6(3), 227–237.

Yiğit, M. E., & Akpınar, M. E. (2021). Rüzgar türbin kulesi alternatiflerinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 23, 386–393.

Bilgiç, S., Torğul, B., & Paksoy, T. (2021). Sürdürülebilir enerji yönetimi için BWM yöntemi ile yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının değerlendirilmesi. Verimlilik Dergisi, 2, 95–110.

Aslay, F. (2021). TOPSIS çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi ile güneş enerjisi sistemlerinde panel seçimi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 28, 548–551.

Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A. R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., & Bansal, R. C. (2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191

Lak Kamari, M., Isvand, H., & Alhuyi Nazari, M. (2020). Applications of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods in renewable energy development: A review. Renewable Energy Research and Applications, 1(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.22044/rera.2020.8541.1006

Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I., Zavadskas, E. K., & Streimikiene, D. (2020). Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) for the assessment of renewable energy technologies in a household: A review. Energies, 13(5), 1164. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051164

Pang, N., Nan, M., Meng, Q., & Zhao, S. (2021). Selection of wind turbine based on fuzzy analytic network process: A case study in China. Sustainability, 13(4), 1792.

Raju, S. K., Natesan, S., Alharbi, A. H., Kannan, S., Khafaga, D. S., Periyasamy, M., Eid, M. M., & El-Kenawy, E.-S. M. (2024). AHP VIKOR framework for selecting wind turbine materials with a focus on corrosion and efficiency. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 24071.

Yörükoğlu, M., & Aydın, S. (2021). Wind turbine selection by using MULTIMOORA method. Energy Systems, 12, 863–876.

Ziemba, P. (2021). Multi-criteria fuzzy evaluation of the planned offshore wind farm investments in Poland. Energies, 14(4), 978.

Demir, A., Dinçer, A. E., Çiftçi, C., Gülçimen, S., Uzal, N., & Yılmaz, K. (2024). Wind farm site selection using GIS-based multicriteria analysis with Life cycle assessment integration. Earth Science Informatics, 17(2), 1591–1608.

Manwell, J. F., McGowan, J. G., & Rogers, A. L. (2010). Wind energy explained: Theory, design and application. John Wiley & Sons.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.

Abidin, M. Z., Rusli, R., & Shariff, A. M. (2016). Technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)-entropy methodology for inherent safety design decision making tool. Procedia Engineering, 148, 1043–1050.

Li, H., Wang, W., Fan, L., Li, Q., & Chen, X. (2020). A novel hybrid MCDM model for machine tool selection using fuzzy DEMATEL, entropy weighting and later defuzzification VIKOR. Applied Soft Computing, 91, 106207.

Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey (pp. 58–191). Springer.

Kumar, R. R., Mishra, S., & Kumar, C. (2018). A novel framework for cloud service evaluation and selection using hybrid MCDM methods. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43, 7015–7030.

Rehman, S., Khan, S. A., & Alhems, L. M. (2020). Application of TOPSIS approach to multi-criteria selection of wind turbines for on-shore sites. Applied Sciences, 10(21), 7595.

Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501–2519.

Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection: A novel integrated fuzzy best worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo'B) multi-criteria model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121981.

Global Wind Energy Council. (2022). Global Wind Report 2022.

Güney Marmara Kalkınma Ajansı. (2023). TR22 Güney Marmara Bölgesi: Yenilenebilir Enerji Araştırması Sonuç Raporu.

IRENA. (2024). Renewable energy capacity statistics 2024.