TY - JOUR
T1 - Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities
AU - McKenna, R.
AU - Bertsch, V.
AU - Mainzer, K.
AU - Fichtner, W.
N1 - The authors would like to thank the community of Ebhausen, in particular Daniela Schweikardt and Volker Schuler, for their willingness to undertake this study. The authors also thank two anonymous reviewers, who both provided valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Asresh Guttikonda from MIT supported the development of the building-level tools employed in the project in the context of an internship. Jann Weinand, a colleague of the authors at KIT, also further developed these tools in the later phases of the project. Russell McKenna would like to thank colleagues at the UCL Energy Institute, London, and the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford, for fruitful discussions in the context of two seminars whilst preparing this work, as well as funding from INTERREG for the Upper Rhine Cluster for Sustainability Research. Valentin Bertsch acknowledges funding from the Energy Policy Research Centre (EPRC) in the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). The usual disclaimer applies.
PY - 2018/8/1
Y1 - 2018/8/1
N2 - Decentralised community energy resources are often abundant in smaller, more rural communities. Such communities often lack the capacity to develop extensive energy concepts and thus to exploit these resources in a consistent way. This paper presents an integrated participatory approach to developing feasible energy concepts for small communities. The novelty lies in the combination of methods, the consideration of uncertainties, and the application to an exemplary municipality in Germany. Stakeholder workshops are combined with energy modelling and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and a high transferability is ensured with mainly public data. The workshop discussion revealed three values: economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, and local energy autonomy. A total of eight alternatives for the 2030 energy system are identified to achieve these values. We find that an alternative that seeks only maximization of economic sustainability should be rejected based on elicited preferences. Instead, several alternatives seeking a maximization of environmental sustainability with constraints on economic sustainability (i.e. total cost) and local energy autonomy consistently achieve the highest overall performance scores. A maximization of economic sustainability or local energy autonomy alone results in the lowest overall performance scores and should therefore not be pursued by the community. The intermediate alternatives demonstrate that an equivalent performance gain with respect to autonomy comes at higher costs than the same gain with respect to environmental sustainability. Similarities between the best performing alternatives in terms of technologies that can be installed by 2030 show that our methodology can generate concrete and robust recommendations on building-level measures for energy system design.
AB - Decentralised community energy resources are often abundant in smaller, more rural communities. Such communities often lack the capacity to develop extensive energy concepts and thus to exploit these resources in a consistent way. This paper presents an integrated participatory approach to developing feasible energy concepts for small communities. The novelty lies in the combination of methods, the consideration of uncertainties, and the application to an exemplary municipality in Germany. Stakeholder workshops are combined with energy modelling and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and a high transferability is ensured with mainly public data. The workshop discussion revealed three values: economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, and local energy autonomy. A total of eight alternatives for the 2030 energy system are identified to achieve these values. We find that an alternative that seeks only maximization of economic sustainability should be rejected based on elicited preferences. Instead, several alternatives seeking a maximization of environmental sustainability with constraints on economic sustainability (i.e. total cost) and local energy autonomy consistently achieve the highest overall performance scores. A maximization of economic sustainability or local energy autonomy alone results in the lowest overall performance scores and should therefore not be pursued by the community. The intermediate alternatives demonstrate that an equivalent performance gain with respect to autonomy comes at higher costs than the same gain with respect to environmental sustainability. Similarities between the best performing alternatives in terms of technologies that can be installed by 2030 show that our methodology can generate concrete and robust recommendations on building-level measures for energy system design.
KW - Community operational research
KW - MCDA
KW - MILP
KW - Sustainable energy
KW - Uncertainties
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044505311&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.01.036
DO - 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.01.036
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85044505311
VL - 268
SP - 1092
EP - 1110
JO - European Journal of Operational Research
JF - European Journal of Operational Research
SN - 0377-2217
IS - 3
ER -