Logo PTI Logo FedCSIS

Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 35

Selection of floating photovoltaic system considering strong sustainability paradigm using SSP-COPRAS method

,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2023F492

Citation: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki, D. Ślęzak (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 35, pages 901–905 ()

Full text

Abstract. This paper presents research involving the selection of floating photovoltaics (FPV) system constructions under Polish conditions using a multi-criteria method incorporating criteria compensation reduction following the strong sustainability paradigm. The applied method is called SSP-COPRAS (Strong Sustainability based Complex Proportional Assessment). The selection was carried out among four FPV designs and one reference conventional ground-mounted PV (GMPV) system. Data were obtained from the reference research paper. The results proved that the FPV system has a noticeable potential for making it competitive with GMPV, especially when technical criteria and criteria compensation reduction play an important role. However, GMPV's higher ratings, especially in terms of economics, show that FPV would have to reach a higher product maturity to become realistically competitive.

References

  1. M. Tutak and J. Brodny, “Renewable energy consumption in economic sectors in the EU-27. The impact on economics, environment and conventional energy sources. A 20-year perspective,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 345, p. 131076, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131076
  2. A. Wyrwa, W. Suwała, M. Pluta, M. Raczyński, J. Zyśk, and S. Tokarski, “A new approach for coupling the short-and long-term planning models to design a pathway to carbon neutrality in a coal-based power system,” Energy, vol. 239, p. 122438, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122438
  3. M. Amin, H. H. Shah, A. G. Fareed, W. U. Khan, E. Chung, A. Zia, Z. U. R. Farooqi, and C. Lee, “Hydrogen production through renewable and non-renewable energy processes and their impact on climate change,” International journal of hydrogen energy, vol. 47, no. 77, pp. 33 112–33 134, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.07.172
  4. H. Kryszk, K. Kurowska, R. Marks-Bielska, S. Bielski, and B. Eźlakowski, “Barriers and Prospects for the Development of Renewable Energy Sources in Poland during the Energy Crisis,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 1724, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041724
  5. M. Deveci, D. Pamucar, and E. Oguz, “Floating photovoltaic site selection using fuzzy rough numbers based LAAW and RAFSI model,” Applied Energy, vol. 324, p. 119597, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119597
  6. R. Cazzaniga and M. Rosa-Clot, “The booming of floating PV,” Solar Energy, vol. 219, pp. 3–10, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.09.057
  7. M. Kumar, H. M. Niyaz, and R. Gupta, “Challenges and opportunities towards the development of floating photovoltaic systems,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, vol. 233, p. 111408, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2021.111408
  8. T. T. E. Vo, H. Ko, J. Huh, and N. Park, “Overview of possibilities of solar floating photovoltaic systems in the offshore industry,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 6988, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/en14216988
  9. S. R. K. Soltani, A. Mostafaeipour, K. Almutairi, S. J. H. Dehshiri, S. S. H. Dehshiri, and K. Techato, “Predicting effect of floating photovoltaic power plant on water loss through surface evaporation for wastewater pond using artificial intelligence: A case study,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol. 50, p. 101849, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101849
  10. A. Boduch, K. Mik, R. Castro, and P. Zawadzki, “Technical and economic assessment of a 1 mwp floating photovoltaic system in Polish conditions,” Renewable Energy, vol. 196, pp. 983–994, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.07.032
  11. Q. Cao, M. O. Esangbedo, S. Bai, and C. O. Esangbedo, “Grey SWARA-FUCOM weighting method for contractor selection MCDM problem: A case study of floating solar panel energy system installation,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 13, p. 2481, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/en12132481
  12. J. Wątróbski, A. Bączkiewicz, and I. Rudawska, “SSP COPRAS Based Approach Towards Sustainability Assessment in Healthcare,” in AMCIS 2022 Proceedings. AMCIS 2022, 2022, pp. 1–10.
  13. I. M. Hezam, A. R. Mishra, P. Rani, A. Saha, F. Smarandache, and D. Pamucar, “An integrated decision support framework using single-valued neutrosophic-MASWIP-COPRAS for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 211, p. 118674, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118674
  14. I. M. Hezam, A. R. Mishra, R. Krishankumar, K. Ravichandran, S. Kar, and D. S. Pamucar, “A single-valued neutrosophic decision framework for the assessment of sustainable transport investment projects based on discrimination measure,” Management Decision, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 443–471, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2021-1520
  15. F. Guo, J. Gao, H. Liu, and P. He, “Locations appraisal framework for floating photovoltaic power plants based on relative-entropy measure and improved hesitant fuzzy linguistic DEMATEL-PROMETHEE method,” Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 215, p. 105948, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105948
  16. S. Di Grazia and G. M. Tina, “Optimal site selection for floating photovoltaic systems based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): a case study,” International Journal of Sustainable Energy, pp. 1–23, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2023.2167999
  17. J. L. Schaefer, J. C. M. Siluk, and P. S. de Carvalho, “An MCDM-based approach to evaluate the performance objectives for strategic management and development of Energy Cloud,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 320, p. 128853, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128853
  18. A. Bączkiewicz, J. Wątróbski, B. Kizielewicz, and W. Sałabun, “Towards objectification of multi-criteria assessments: a comparative study on MCDA methods,” in 2021 16th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS). IEEE, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.15439/2021F61 pp. 417–425.
  19. J. Wątróbski and A. Bączkiewicz, “Towards Sustainable Transport Assessment Considering Alternative Fuels Based on MCDA Methods,” in 2022 17th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS). IEEE, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15439/2022F144 pp. 799–808.
  20. J. Wątróbski, A. Bączkiewicz, and I. Rudawska, “A Strong Sustainability Paradigm based Analytical Hierarchy Process (SSP-AHP) method to evaluate sustainable healthcare systems,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 154, p. 110493, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110493
  21. J. Wątróbski, A. Karczmarczyk, and A. Bączkiewicz, “Using the TOSS method in semi-autonomous passenger car selection,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol. 58, p. 103367, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103367