NH, Raghunandan BN. Decentralized renewable energy: scope, relevance and applications in the Indian context. Energy Sustainable Dev 2008. 13:4.
165. Reddy AKN, Krishnaswamy KN. Innovation chain under the impact of technology imports. Lecture 3(a), R&D Management Course of Department of Management Studies. Bangalore: Indian Institute of Science; 1988.
166. Chanakya HN, Reddy BVV, Modak J. Biomethanation of herbaceous biomass residues using 3-zone plug flow like digesters—a case study from India. Renewable Energy 2009. 34; 416–20.
167. Konstantinos Vatopoulos, et al. JRC scientific and policy report. Eur Union 2012.
168. MNRE annual report 2012–13 . New Delhi: Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; 2012-13.
169. Energy statistics report, Govt. of India; March, 2014.
170. Appel HR, Fu YC, Friedman S, Yavorsky PM, Wender I. Converting organic wastes to oil. US Bureau of Mines report of investigation no. 7560; 1971.
171. Mohan D, Pittman Jr CU, Steele PH. Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a critical review. Energy Fuels 2006. 20; 848-89.
172. Demirbas A. Producing bio-oil from olive cake by fast pyrolysis. Energy Sources Part A 2008. 30; 38-44.
173. Grover PD. Biomass: thermochemical characterization for gasification. IIT Delhi; 1989.
174. Katyal S. Effect of carbonization temperature on combustion reactivity of bagasse char. Energy Sources Part A 2007. 29;1477-85.
175. Sharma A, Unni BG, Singh HD. A novel fed batch system for bio methanation of plant biomasses. J Biosci Bioeng 1999. 87(5); 678-82.
176. Ganesh A, Banerjee R. Biomass pyrolysis for power generation—a potential technology. Renewable Energy 2001. 22; 9-14.
177. Mohan D, Pittman Jr CU, Steele PH. Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a critical review. Energy Fuels 2006. 20; 848-89.
178. Das CR, Ghatnekar P. Replacement of cowdung by fermentation of aquatic and terrestrial plants for use as fuel, fertilizer and biogas plant feed. In: TERI technical report. TERI; December, 1979.
179. McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (Part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 2002. 83(1); 37 46.
180. Souza, Samuel Nelson M, Werncke Ivan, Marques Cleber Aimoni, Bariccatti Reinaldo A, Santos Reginaldo F, et al. Electric energy micro-production in a rural property using biogas as primary source. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2013. 28; 385-91.
181. McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (Part 2): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 2001. 83 2002(1); 47 54.
182. Ravindranath NH, Balachandra. R. Sustainable bioenergy for India: technical, economic and policy analysis. Energy 2009.34 (8); 1003–13.
183. Bhat PR, Chanakya HN, Ravindranath NH. Biogas plant dissemination: success story of Sirsi, India. Energy Sustainable Dev 2001. 39-41 (March (1).
184. MNRE. Biomass power and cogeneration programme of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Government of India 2013.
185. Global status report REN 21, (http://www.cenrec.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/GSR2013_lowres.pdf).
186. Sudha P. Plantation forestry; land availability and bio-mass production potential in Asia. Report submitted to ARPEEC, Sida, Energy Program, AIT, Bangkok; 1996.
187. Annual report of Pabiomass energy association; January, 2013.
188. Annual Energy Outlook 2014. Published December 16, 2013 with the final release of the full AEO 2014 presently slated for April 30, 2014, (http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/sundayforecast414.pdf); 2014.
189. Annual Akshay Urja report MNRE, (http://mnre.gov.in/mission-and-vision-2/publications/akshay-urja/)
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
2
Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies Based on Sustainability Indicators for Indian Scenario
Anuja Shaktawat1* and Shelly Vadhera2
1SREE, NIT Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
2Department of Electrical Engineering, NIT Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
Abstract
Renewable energy (RE) technologies in India, i.e., large hydropower, small hydropower, onshore wind power, solar photovoltaic (PV), and bioenergy are assessed and ranked based on selected sustainability indicators. Sustainability assessment of RE technologies at a national scale involves a range of conflicting indicators. Multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are the best tool that can address these conflicts. However, the present assessment used a qualitative scale for some indicators. These qualitative data are associated with uncertainties and a fuzzy MCDM approach is the best tool to address these associated uncertainties in data. Thus, the study ranks the RE technologies in context to India under associated uncertainties using fuzzy-TOPSIS, a well-known MCDM method. Further, it has been reviewed that indicator values vary widely for each RE technology. Accounting for these uncertainties in input data the TOPSIS is run using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) to obtain probabilistic ranking. To understand the impact of these uncertainties both the fuzzy-TOPSIS and probabilistic ranking are compared with that obtained from the TOPSIS method and are found to be uncertain. Thus, the study concludes that for better decision-making and energy planning at the national level the uncertainties in input data must be addressed while assessing the sustainability.
Keywords: Renewable energy, risks, sustainability assessment, sustainability indicators, uncertainties
Nomenclature
| AHP | Analytic hierarchy process |
| CEA | Central electricity authority |
| CFA | Central financial assistance |
| CSP | Concentrated solar power |
| ELECTRE | Elimination and choice translating reality |
| GHG | Greenhouse gas |
| GW | Gigawatt |
| HPO | Hydropower purchase obligation |
|
|
