4.7 Article

Multi-criteria comprehensive energy efficiency assessment based on fuzzy-AHP method: A case study of post-treatment technologies for coal-fired units

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 200, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117533

Keywords

Energy efficiency; Comprehensive evaluation; Ultra-low emission; High-temperature precipitator; Analytic hierarchy process

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFB0600701]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51976059]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Given the positive effects of high-temperature precipitator on downstream equipment in steel industry and power plant, a new control route using high-temperature precipitator was proposed for meeting ultra-low limits now issued in China, where the precipitator is installed before the SCR reactor to reduce the negative effects on the catalyst of high concentration fly ash. The energy efficiency plays a key role in the system evaluation, and the competition between alternatives can be evaluated by some kinds of energy efficiency indicators on a macro-level especially for high energy-consuming industries. However, the current assessment system usually was limited in ability to the single indicator such as environment and economy. Motived by this purpose, this study applies a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to construct a multi-criteria comprehensive energy efficiency assessment system including techniques, environmental protection, economy and social benefits. The most important asset is that it developed and implemented an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine weights of indicators that gives an extra strength and credibility to the results. A case study involving this new route and two existing routes can be proven useful to the engineers and practitioners working on the decision-making processes of advanced post-treatment technologies for coal-fired units. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available