TY - JOUR
T1 - Multi-criteria decision-based hybrid energy selection system using CRITIC weighted CODAS approach
AU - Amusan, Olumuyiwa Taiwo
AU - Nwulu, Nnamdi Ikechi
AU - Gbadamosi, Saheed Lekan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s)
PY - 2024/12
Y1 - 2024/12
N2 - A complex and multicriteria decision making (MCDM) problem arises in a bid to select the most appropriate hybrid energy system among several combinations in distributed electricity generation as it involves conflicting criteria that must be simultaneously considered. In this work, Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) along with Combinative Distance-Based Assessment (CODAS) was employed to select a suitable hybrid energy system combination for water pumping from four conflicting alternatives of Biomass-Battery (S1), PV-Battery (S2), PV-Biomass (S3), and PV-Biomass-Battery (S4) by objective weight estimation. This was followed by a confirmation by the Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method for the solution. The results presented show that CRITIC method reveals 0.275, 0.224, 0.248, and 0.252 as different weights of the four alternatives of S1, S2, S3, and S4, respectively. The ranking results reveal S4 as the best alternative based on an assessment score of 0.4693. The same hybrid system was confirmed by ARAS based on overall performance and degree of utility of 0.287697 and 0.823716, respectively.
AB - A complex and multicriteria decision making (MCDM) problem arises in a bid to select the most appropriate hybrid energy system among several combinations in distributed electricity generation as it involves conflicting criteria that must be simultaneously considered. In this work, Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) along with Combinative Distance-Based Assessment (CODAS) was employed to select a suitable hybrid energy system combination for water pumping from four conflicting alternatives of Biomass-Battery (S1), PV-Battery (S2), PV-Biomass (S3), and PV-Biomass-Battery (S4) by objective weight estimation. This was followed by a confirmation by the Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method for the solution. The results presented show that CRITIC method reveals 0.275, 0.224, 0.248, and 0.252 as different weights of the four alternatives of S1, S2, S3, and S4, respectively. The ranking results reveal S4 as the best alternative based on an assessment score of 0.4693. The same hybrid system was confirmed by ARAS based on overall performance and degree of utility of 0.287697 and 0.823716, respectively.
KW - Additive ratio assessment
KW - Criteria importance through intercriteria correlation
KW - Hybrid renewable energy
KW - Multi-criteria decision making
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85204684256&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02372
DO - 10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02372
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85204684256
SN - 2468-2276
VL - 26
JO - Scientific African
JF - Scientific African
M1 - e02372
ER -