SITE SELECTION for

WIND-SOLAR HYBRID POWER PLANT

in TURKEY

Ahmet Köksal ÇALIŞKANMurat ÖZCAN

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. İsmail Serdar BAKAL

Middle East Technical UniversityIndustrial Engineering DepartmentEngineering Management Program

OUTLINE

1. Introduction2. Literature Survey3. AHP with BOCR and Case Study4. Ideal Matter Element and Case Study5. Conclusion & Future Works

Problem DefinitionTotal Wind Energy Capacity– World vs. Turkey

Problem DefinitonTotal Wind Energy Production– World vs. Turkey

Problem DefinitonTotal Solar Energy Capacity– World vs. Turkey

Problem DefinitonTotal Solar Energy Production– World vs. Turkey

Problem DefinitonTurkey’s Strategic Plan (Ministry of Energy National Resources)

Problem Definiton

Wind Power+ Larger power output at nighttime- Lower power output at daytime

Solar Power- Lower or no power output at nighttime+ Larger power output at daytime

Mutually Complementary

Hybrid Renewable Energy System

Literature SurveyMulti Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods Used in Site Selection

• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) – Prof.Dr Thomas L. Saaty (1980)– Hierachical (Goal, Criteria, Alternatives)– Pairwise Comparison– Consistency Check

• Analytic Network Process (ANP) – Prof.Dr Thomas L. Saaty (1980)– General Form of AHP (uses Pairwise Comparison)– Network Structure (Feedback)– Special Software Requirement (Super Decisions, ANP Solver)

• Elimination et Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) – Bernard Roy (1960)– Order Relation (Outranking) Based on Thresholds and Weights– No Hierarchical Structure– Needs More Computational Effort

Literature SurveyMulti Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods Used in Site Selection

• Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) –Hwang and Yoon (1981)

– Euclidian Distances to Positive Ideal Solution & Negative Ideal Solution– Ranking is Based on Closeness Values

• PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations) – Brans, Mareschal and Vincke (1982)

– Decision Process is based on Pairwise Comparison – Comparison is made according to Predefined Preference Functions (Gaussian,

V-Shape, Linear, U-Shape etc.) for each Criterion

• Matter Element Method (ME) – Wen (1994)– Will be discussed in detail

Comparison of MCDM MethodsMethod Comments

AHPPro’s

① The consistency of the evaluation procedure can be measured;② it is applicable for quantitative and qualitative criteria;③ it can handle the complex decision problem in practice and theory;④ it is easy to be calculated for most managers

Con’s① Consistency is difficult to achieve when the criteria and alternativesare too many

TOPSISPro’s

① It can measure the distance of the alternatives form the idealsolution;② it can obtain the result which is closest to the ideal solution;③ it is easy to use and understandable

Con’s① Normalization is required to solve multi-dimensional problem;② it cannot check the consistency

Comparison of MCDM MethodsMethod Comments

ANPPro’s

① It can be capable of handling feedbacks and interdependencies; ② it depicts the dependence and influences of the factors involved to the goal or higher-level performance objective

Con’s① Specific software is required to solve it

ELECTRE

Pro’s

① It use thresholds of indifference and preference, and outrankingmethod to make decision; ② it is applicable for quantitative and qualitative criteria; ③ it is applicable even when there are incomparable alternatives

Con’s

① It is difficult to conceptualize the problem in absence of hierarchical structure; ② it is comparatively difficult to solve than AHP due to complex computational procedure

Why AHP with BOCR? Why Ideal Matter Element?

• Analytic Hierarchy Process with Benefit, Opportunity, Cost & Risk(AHP with BOCR)– Less Workload– Popularity– Consistency Check– Further evaluation steps that provide merits of positive criteria of Benefit and

Opportunity and negative criteria of Cost and Risk• Ideal Matter Element Method (IME)

– relies on the grey areas in the real world instead of strict black and white areas– guarantee the information integrity with establishing correlation degree– Ideal Matter Element method defines further evaluation steps that provides more

detailed analyses (Closeness Degrees).

AHP with BOCR-Flow ChartProblem Definiton

Criteria Definition Alternative Selection

Pairwise Comparison of Criteria

Data Collection

Pairwise Comparison of Merits (B, O, C, R)

Weight Determination

Perfomance of Alternative wrt

Criteria

Ranking of Alternatives

Alternative Selection

Alternative Selection(District in City)

Criteria Selection Type and Merits

Selected Criteria Type of CriteriaWind Speed QuantitativeWind Capacity Factor QuantitativeGross Solar Radiation QuantitativeSunshine Hours QuantitativeProbability of Winning a Bid QualitativeElectricity Consumption QuantitativeConstruction Cost QualitativeOperation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost QualitativeTraffic Convenience Degree QualitativePollution and Natural Concerns QualitativeLocal Residents Attitude QualitativeInterest Conflict QualitativeGeological/topographic condition QualitativeLand Usage Condition Qualitative

MeritBenefitBenefitBenefitBenefit

OpportunityBenefitCostCostCostCostRiskRiskCostRisk

Data CollectionCriteria Criteria Quantification

Probability of Winning a Bid 1 – Very low; 2 – low; 3 – normal; 4 – high; 5 – very high

Construction Cost 1 – Very low; 2 – low; 3 – normal; 4 – high; 5 – very high

Operation and Maintenance Cost 1 – Very low; 2 – low; 3 – normal; 4 – high; 5 – very high

Traffic Convenience Degree 5 – Not convenient; 4 – less convenient; 3 – convenient; 2 – more convenient; 1 – very convenient

Pollution and Natural Concerns 5 – Very serious; 4 – serious; 3 – normal; 2 – not serious; 1 – no pollution

Local Residents Attitude 5 – Very negative; 4 – negative; 3 – neutral; 2 – positive; 1 – very positive

Interest Conflict 5 – Very negative; 4 – negative; 3 – neutral; 2 – positive; 1 – very positive

Geological/topographic condition 5 – Very tough; 4 – tough; 3 – normal; 2 – suitable; 1 – very suitable

Land Usage Condition 5 – Very difficult; 4 – difficult; 3 – normal; 2 – easy; 1 – very easy

AHP with BOCR-Flow ChartProblem Definiton

Criteria Definition Alternative Selection

Pairwise Comparison of Criteria

Data Collection

Pairwise Comparison of Merits (B, O, C, R)

Weight Determination

Perfomance of Alternative wrt

Criteria

Ranking of Alternatives

AHP with BOCRPairwise Comparison

Pairwise Comparison

of MeritsBenefit Opportunity Cost Risk

Benefit 1

Opportunity 1

Cost 1

Risk 1

Satty’s Nine-Point Scale

Pairwise Comparison of Criteria Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 ... ... ... Criterion n

Criterion 1 1Criterion 2 1Criterion 3 1

. .

. .

. .Criterion n 1

Intensity of Relative Importance with Fuzzy Number Definition

1 equally important3 moderately important5 important7 very important9 extremely important

2,4,6,8 intermediate values between the two neighboring scales

Reciprocals If activity i has one of the abovenumbers assigned to it when

compared with activity j, then j has the reciprocal value when

compared with i

AHP with BOCRConsistency Check

Consistency Index (CI):

1max

n

nCI n=number of criteria and

= maximum eigenvalue

Consistency Ratio (CR) CR=CI/RI

max

Random Index (RI):# of Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

CR <0.1 ConsistentCR >0.1 Not Consistent

AHP with BOCRCase - Consistency Check

Consistency Ratios for Comparison of Criteria Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4

Evaluation 1 0.07704 0.06716 0.17125 0.20018Evaluation 2 N/A N/A 0.02664 0.02401

Consistency Ration for Comparison of B,O,C,R Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4

Evaluation 1 0.07371 0.09204 0.01611 0.10678Evaluation 2 N/A N/A N/A 0.00293

AHP with BOCRWeights of Criteria and Merits

Pairwise Comparison

of MeritsBenefit Opportunity Cost Risk

Benefit 1

Opportunity 1

Cost 1

Risk 1

Pairwise Comparison

of CriteriaCri. 1 Cri.2 Cri. 3 .. .. .. Cri. n

Criterion 1 1

Criterion 2 1

Criterion 3 1

. .

. .

. .

Criterion n 1

Merits Weights

Benefit b

Opportunity o

Cost c

Risk r

Criteria Weights

Criterion 1 w1

Criterion 2 w2

Criterion 3 w3

. .

. .

. .

Criterion n wn

AHP with BOCRCase - Weights of Criteria

Criteria Weights RankWind Capacity Factor 0.1973 1Wind Speed 0.1032 2Gross Solar Radiation 0.0984 3Construction Cost 0.0876 4Sunshine Hours 0.0815 5Probability of Winning a Bid 0.0775 6Land Usage Condition 0.0715 7Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.0567 8Geological/topographic condition 0.0540 9Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.0504 10Traffic Convenience Degree 0.0481 11Electricty Consumption 0.0315 12Interest Conflict 0.0247 13Local Residents Attitude 0.0174 14

AHP with BOCRCase - Weights of Merits

Merit Abbreviation of WeightBenefit b

Opportunity oCost cRisk r

Weights0.420.110.310.17

Criteria Weights Merit Local Weights(Weights Based on Merits)

Wind Speed 0.104 Benefit 0.201 Wind Capacity Factor 0.199 Benefit 0.387 Gross Solar Radiation 0.099 Benefit 0.192 Sunshine Hours 0.082 Benefit 0.159 Probability of Winning a Bid 0.077 Opportunities 1.000 Electricty Consumption 0.031 Benefit 0.061 Construction Cost 0.087 Cost 0.296 Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.056 Cost 0.191 Traffic Convenience Degree 0.048 Cost 0.162 Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.050 Cost 0.170 Local Residents Attitude 0.017 Risk 0.153 Interest Conflict 0.024 Risk 0.216 Geological/topographic condition 0.054 Cost 0.182 Land Usage Condition 0.071 Risk 0.630

AHP with BOCRCase - Local Weights of Criteria

AHP with BOCR - CaseNormalized Performance Values of Alternatives

CriteriaAlternative 1

İzmirKaraburun

Alternative 2MuğlaMerkez

Alternative 3AntalyaAkseki

Alternative 4KonyaMerkez

Alternative 5KaramanMerkez

Alternative 6MersinGülnar

Wind Speed (m/s) 0.75 0.57 0.75 0.57 0.75 0.64Wind Capacity Factor (%) 0.71 0.54 0.58 0.54 0.67 0.58Gross Solar Radiation (KWh/m^2-year) 0.38 0.54 0.63 0.46 0.54 0.54Sunshine Hours (hours) 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.64Probability of Winning a Bid 0.42 0.58 0.73 0.53 0.49 0.48Electricity Consumption (MWh) 0.51 0.07 0.19 0.16 0.02 0.11Construction Cost 0.52 0.49 0.66 0.34 0.36 0.54Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.35 0.49 0.83 0.63 0.71 0.69Traffic Convenience Degree 0.31 0.49 0.71 0.44 0.53 0.44Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.85 0.74 0.79 0.44 0.44 0.64Local Residents Attitude 0.85 0.69 0.77 0.31 0.26 0.44Interest Conflict 0.89 0.64 0.66 0.24 0.24 0.40Geological/topographic condition 0.37 0.53 0.77 0.44 0.53 0.40Land Usage Condition 0.73 0.62 0.89 0.31 0.31 0.60

Case Study Evaluation- CaseAHP with BOCR

Merit Performance Score Type

İzmirKaraburun

MuğlaMerkez

AntalyaAkseki

KonyaMerkez

KaramanMerkez

MersinGülnar

BenefitsRelative 0.63016 0.53375 0.60771 0.51968 0.61468 0.56809Normalized 0.18139 0.15364 0.17493 0.14959 0.17694 0.16352

OpportunitiesRelative 0.42295 0.58259 0.73257 0.52643 0.48990 0.47568Normalized 0.13094 0.18036 0.22679 0.16298 0.15167 0.14726

Costs

Relative 0.48113 0.53972 0.74424 0.44627 0.49707 0.54635Normalized 0.14782 0.16582 0.22866 0.13711 0.15272 0.16786Reciprocal 6.76491 6.03047 4.37331 7.29322 6.54795 5.95732Reciprocal Normalized

0.18300 0.16313 0.11830 0.19729 0.17713 0.16115

Risks

Relative 0.78497 0.63400 0.82575 0.29675 0.28911 0.53260Normalized 0.23340 0.18851 0.24553 0.08823 0.08596 0.15836Reciprocal 4.28448 5.30468 4.07289 11.33354 11.63270 6.31461Reciprocal Normalized

0.09977 0.12353 0.09484 0.26392 0.27089 0.14705

AHP with BOCRSyntesis of B, O, C, R

a. AdditivePi = bBi + oOi + c(1/Ci)Normalized + r(1/Ri)Normalized

b. Probabilistic AdditivePi = bBi + oOi + c(1−Ci) + r(1−Ri)

c. SubtractivePi=bBi+oOi−cCi−rRi

d. MultiplicativePi= (Bi Oi ) / (Ci Ri)

e. Multiplicative Priority PowersPi=Bi

b Oio [(1/Ci) Normalized]c [(1/Ri) Normalized]r

Case Study Evaluation-AHP with BOCR

Final Priorities and Ranks

Additive Probabilistic Additive Subtractive Multiplicative

Priority Powers Multiplicative Final Decision

Alternatives Priority(P)

Rank(R) P R P R P R P R Final Rank

İzmirKaraburun

0.162 3 0.479 4 0.005 4 0.158 3 0.688 6 4

MuğlaMerkez

0.154 5 0.475 5 0.001 5 0.150 5 0.886 4 5

AntalyaAkseki

0.149 6 0.460 6 -0.013 6 0.144 6 0.706 5 6

KonyaMerkez

0.184 2 0.497 2 0.023 2 0.180 2 2.015 2 2

KaramanMerkez

0.189 1 0.503 1 0.029 1 0.186 1 2.044 1 1

MersinGülnar

0.158 4 0.480 3 0.006 3 0.158 4 0.905 3 3

Ideal Matter Element MethodFlow Chart

Problem Definiton

Criteria DefinitionAlternative Selection

Construction of Matter Elements Questionnaire For Experts

Evaluation of Alternatives with Correlation and Closeness Degrees

Data Collection Expert Formation

Construction of Classical Matter Elements

Criteria Weighting

Ideal Matter Element MethodMatter Element Structure

• Matter Element Structure

nn

m

v

vv

c

cc

R..

.

.2

1

2

1

Values of the Criterion

The Criterion

«Matter Element» of the alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Criterion 1 8 5.5 6

Criterion 2 4000 7200 6400

Criterion 3 4 3 4

Ideal Matter Element MethodMatter Element Structure

• Normalization of Matter Elements

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Criterion 1 0.45 0.23 0.27

Criterion 2 0.17 0.70 0.57

Criterion 3 0.80 0.60 0.80

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Min. value ofthe criteria

Max. value of the criteria

Criterion 1 8 5.5 6 3 14

Criterion 2 4000 7200 6400 3000 9000

Criterion 3 4 3 4 0 5

Ideal Matter Element Method Case- Matter Elements

Criteria İzmirKaraburun

MuğlaMerkez

AntalyaAkseki

KonyaMerkez

KaramanMerkez

MersinGülnar

Wind Speed 0.75 0.57 0.75 0.57 0.75 0.64Wind Capacity Factor 0.71 0.54 0.58 0.54 0.67 0.58Gross Solar Radiation 0.38 0.54 0.63 0.46 0.54 0.54Sunshine Hours 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.64

Probability of Winning a Bid 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.60 0.50 0.55

Electricity Consumption 0.51 0.07 0.19 0.16 0.02 0.11

Construction Cost 0.48 0.56 0.40 0.64 0.60 0.52Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.64 0.56 0.28 0.44 0.36 0.40Traffic Convenience Degree 0.68 0.56 0.36 0.56 0.48 0.56Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.28 0.36 0.32 0.60 0.60 0.44Local Residents Attitude 0.28 0.40 0.32 0.68 0.72 0.60Interest Conflict 0.24 0.44 0.40 0.76 0.76 0.64

Geological/topographic condition 0.60 0.52 0.32 0.56 0.52 0.60

Land Usage Condition 0.36 0.44 0.24 0.68 0.68 0.48

Ideal Matter Element Method Weighting

• Sort the criterion bottom to up

• Rank the criterion

• Weight the criterion

Grade Explanation1 same importance as below1.2 a little more important than below1.4 obviously more important than below1.6 more strongly important than below1.8 very much important than below}

1

2 21

n

k

k

iii rw Importance Ranking Ranks Weights

Criterion 1 0.44Criterion 2 1 0.44Criterion 3 1.6 0.28

Ideal Matter Element Method Case-Weights

Criteria Weights Rank

Wind Capacity Factor 0.25 1Wind Speed 0.19 2Gross Solar Radiation 0.17 3Sunshine Hours 0.17 4Land Usage Condition 0.12 5Construction Cost 0.10 6Probability of Winning a Bid 0.10 7Operation and Maintenance Cost 0.09 8Geological/topographic condition 0.09 9Pollution and Natural Concerns 0.07 10Electricity Consumption 0.06 11Traffic Convenience Degree 0.05 12Interest Conflict 0.03 13Local Residents Attitude 0.02 14

Ideal Matter Element MethodClassical Matter Element Structure

• Classical Matter Element Structure

Value Ranges of the Criterion

«Classical Matter Element» of Level j

jn

j

j

n

j

X

X

X

c

c

c

R..

.

.2

1

2

1

Great min (a) max (b)

Criterion 1 0.6 1

Criterion 2 0.6 1

Criterion 3 0.5 1

Bad min (a) max (b)

Criterion 1 0 0.3

Criterion 2 0 0.4

Criterion 3 0 0.2

Ideal Matter Method Case- Classical Matter Elements

Criteria Great Max

Great Min

Good Max

Good Min

Normal Max

NormalMin

Poor Max

Poor Min

Bad Max

Bad Min

Wind Speed 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.54 0.54 0.41 0.41 0.23 0.23 0.00Wind Capacity Factor 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.63 0.63 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.00Gross Solar Radiation 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.65 0.65 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.17 0.00Sunshine Hours 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.64 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.00Probability of Winning a Bid 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.63 0.63 0.45 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.00Electricity Consumption 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.61 0.61 0.41 0.41 0.14 0.14 0.00Construction Cost 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.74 0.74 0.58 0.58 0.45 0.45 0.00Operation and Maintenance Cost 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.75 0.62 0.62 0.49 0.49 0.00

Traffic Convenience Degree 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.65 0.65 0.48 0.48 0.25 0.25 0.00Pollution and Natural Concerns 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.65 0.45 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.00

Local Residents Attitude 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.63 0.63 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.18 0.00Interest Conflict 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.65 0.45 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.00Geological/topographic condition 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.70 0.70 0.53 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.00

Land Usage Condition 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.72 0.72 0.55 0.55 0.23 0.23 0.00

Ideal Matter Element MethodEvaluation

• Correlation between each alternative and each level is calculated

jijijijiimimj abbavvD 5.05.0

n

iimjij vDwmK

11

nn

m

v

vv

c

cc

R..

.

.2

1

2

1

jn

j

j

n

j

X

X

X

c

c

c

R..

.

.2

1

2

1 jiji ba ,

The range of each criterion

Ideal Matter Element Method Case-ME Evaluation

İzmirKaraburun

MuğlaMerkez

AntalyaAkseki

KonyaMerkez

KaramanMerkez

MersinGülnar

Great 0.59 0.54 0.52 0.59 0.63 0.57

Good 0.82 0.81 0.75 0.86 0.86 0.84

Normal 0.90 0.99 0.83 1.01 0.93 0.98

Poor 0.85 0.91 0.82 0.86 0.78 0.86

Bad 0.57 0.63 0.65 0.58 0.53 0.60Matter Element Evaluation

Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal

Ideal Matter Element Method Evaluation

• Ideal Matter Element approach states Positive Closeness and Negative Closeness Degrees in order to discriminate these alternatives.

Pn

V

V

P

Vc

c

c

RP

P

n

.

...

2

1

2

1

Nn

V

V

N

Vc

c

c

RN

N

n

.

...

2

1

2

1

n

iPiiij VvwH

11

Niiij VvwH 1

HHH

Hjj

jj

Ideal Matter Element Method Case-IME Evaluation

İzmirKaraburun

MuğlaMerkez

AntalyaAkseki

KonyaMerkez

KaramanMerkez

MersinGülnar

Positive Closeness Degree 0.833 0.779 0.760 0.825 0.872 0.809

Negative Closeness Degree 0.793 0.848 0.866 0.801 0.754 0.817

Comprehensive Closeness Degree 0.512 0.479 0.467 0.507 0.536 0.498Ranks Based on Ideal Matter Element Evaluation 2 5 6 3 1 4

Conclusion• Site Selection for Wind-Solar Hybrid Power Plants based on two different

MCDM methods (AHP with BOCR and IME).

• As far as we have studied, there is no study that discussed the same problem based on two different MCDM methods together.

• AHP with BOCR method apply a preprocess called as consistency check.

• Weighting: AHP with BOCR / eigenvector – IME / Experts’ Ranking

• Evaluation: AHP with BOCR / synthesizing methods – IME / Correlation and Closeness Degrees

Future Works• Interviews with the experts • The steps for the solution of a real life problem:

– The experts eliminate the alternatives based on closeness to the mines, transportation and their experiences

– The experts made some general evaluations over a general region with the help of some specific programs

– If the experts found the region suitable for investment, they analyze the region in detail which means pointwise analysis (time consuming and expensive).

– After all the evaluations are made, if the alternative is found to be suitable, investor decides to construct the plant or not.

• From this point of view, this study constitutes a good starting point for the investors. On the other hand, this study can be enhanced by pointwise analyses which require more professional touch, detailed data and considerable much more time.

Thank youAny Questions?