Fuel 106 (2013) 212218

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Strategic planning in the electricity generation sector through the development

of an integrated Delphi-based multi-criteria evaluation model
John K. Kaldellis a,, Alexandros Anestis a, Irene Koronaki b
a
Lab of Soft Energy Applications & Environmental Protection, TEI of Piraeus, Greece
b
School of Mechanical Engineers, National Technical University of Athens, PO Box 41046, Athens 12201, Greece

h i g h l i g h t s

" Decision making in the electricity generation sector comprises a complex process.
" Evaluation of technologies to support power generation is based on several criteria.
" Delphi method is used to determine importance of criteria based on experts opinion.
" A multi-criteria analysis is then developed to provide ranking of technologies.
" Developed methodology is then applied using as a case study the island of Crete.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Decision making process in selecting the most suitable technological solutions for electricity power gen-
Received 6 November 2011 eration in terms of strategic planning comprises a rather complex procedure with several contradicting
Received in revised form 25 November 2012 factors involved. In this context, development of an appropriate evaluation methodology that will provide
Accepted 26 November 2012
decision makers with a useful tool is the aim of the specic study. To achieve this, the Delphi method is
Available online 19 December 2012
used in order to compare a number of alternative technologies with respect to several characteristics, e.g.
cost, environmental impacts, social impacts and technological status. According to this method, a prop-
Keywords:
erly formed questionnaire is sent to a number of experts, currently related to the power generation sec-
Electricity generation technologies
Decision making
tor. After the evaluation of results, weight factors are determined, so that the different technologies can
Weight factors be ranked according to both their scoring in each criterion category and their global scoring, indepen-
Crete dently of categories, on the basis of a multi-criteria analysis. Emphasis is currently given on the electricity
generation sector of Greece, with application of the developed methodology carried out for Crete, i.e. the
biggest Greek island.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
National gross electricity consumption of Greece may be deter-
mined by a long-term annual increase rate in the order of 3.3%
since the early 90s (see also Fig. 1), although according to the latest
ofcial data [1] a small decrease has been recently noted (2008
2009), mainly owed to the impacts of economic recession. At the
same time, reliance of the Greek electricity generation sector
mainly on the local lignite deposits [2] as well as on imported fossil
fuels (i.e. oil and natural gas (NG)), implies electrical energy depen-
dence at the levels of 3540% [3] along with considerable produc-
tion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [4]. Electricity demand
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 5381237; fax: +30 210 5381467.
E-mail address: jkald@teipir.gr (J.K. Kaldellis).
URL: http://www.sealab.gr (J.K. Kaldellis).
throughout this long period of study has been satised mainly on
the basis of thermal power plants (Fig. 2), while contribution of
large hydropower units should also be taken into account [5] (serv-
ing however as peak power plants). In the meantime, contribution
of the rest of renewable energy sources (RESs) is relatively re-
stricted [6,7] (given that the RES potential of the entire Greek re-
gion is of mediumhigh quality), with the wind and PV power
shares only recently exceeding the capacity of 1.7 GW [8] and
1.0 GW respectively [7].
By acknowledging issues such as excess GHG emissions (consid-
ering Greeces commitment to decrease the corresponding emis-
sions in 2020 by 4% in comparison to the 2005 levels [9]), high
levels of energy dependence (a long-term, primary energy depen-
dence of around 70% must be considered), gradual retirement of al-
ready existing power stations and nally urgency of meeting RES
targets adopted at the country level (e.g. 20% and 40% of RES con-
tribution to the national gross energy and electricity consumption

0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.11.073
 J.K. Kaldellis et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 212218 213

20-Year Time Evolution of Total Gross Electricity 2. Proposed solution

Consumption in Greece (1990-2009)
65.000
Decision making problems are often related to optimization and
Gross Consumption (GWh)

60.000 are therefore based on the maximization or minimization of an

55.000 objective function, i.e. the so called optimization criterion. During
50.000
this process, a set of constraints expressing the bounds of the prob-
lem variables and the relationships/laws governing the problem are
45.000
all considered. On the other hand, what should be underlined is that
40.000 in many cases, one single optimization criterion cannot express or
35.000 completely reect the underlying objectives of a problem. For
30.000 example, in energy planning, the decision making problem of
selecting the optimum mix of energy supply sources cannot be
90
91

2
3
94
95
96
97

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
98
99

08
09
9
9
19
19

19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19

20
20
based on a nancial objective alone, such as minimum costs or
Year
maximum prots, since additional factors like environmental per-
Fig. 1. Time evolution of gross electricity consumption in Greece. formance of each technology and accruing energy dependence
levels also need to be taken into account. As already implied, one
efcient way to deal with such problems, determined by various
possibly conicting objectives, is to dene multiple alternative
Time Evolution of Installed Power Capacity in Greece decision criteria under the umbrella of a multi-criteria analysis.
16.000
Pumped Hydro & PVs More specically, multi-criteria analysis is a term used to de-
14.000 Wind scribe techniques that use more than one criterion to evaluate
Power Capacity (MW)

Hydro
12.000 and judge performance [18]. Multi-criteria decision support tech-
Fossil Fuels
10.000 niques typically involve weighing of the criteria to reect the rela-
8.000 tive importance attributed to each of them, with examples of such
6.000 techniques ranging from simplistic rate and weight to rigorous
4.000
multi-objective optimization. Overall, the scope of such analyses
is to assign each alternative solution with a rate against each of
2.000
the criteria (within a predetermined range of values), after assign-
0
ing a weight factor to each of the criteria, adding up to 100%. In fact,
03
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02

04
05
06
07
08
09

it is these weight factors that congure the nal output of such an

19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

Year evaluation process and thus determination of the former requires

Fig. 2. Time evolution of electrical power capacity mix in Greece.
respectively by 2020) [10], a strategic plan concerning operation of
new power stations needs to be congured.
At the same time, decision making concerning conguration of
the optimum electrical power mix at the national level is a compli-
cated process, depending on numerous and in most cases con-
tradicting factors. For example, persisting in the operation of new
thermal power plants using lignite may seem attractive for Greece
on the basis of exploiting indigenous energy resources, avoiding at
the same time costly energy imports. On the other hand, combus-
tion of lignite leads to higher CO2 emissions in comparison to other
fuels on top of pollutants emission (e.g. NOx, SO3, TSP) which
could alter the status quo [11] in the future and encourage the gov-
ernment to purchase emission allowances from other participants
in the EU emission trading scheme [12] instead of auctioning.
Similarly, investment in wind power may be effective up to a cer-
tain point [13,14], where large scale penetration starts jeopardiz-
ing demand satisfaction and thus requires additional backup
power or energy storage. Furthermore, investment in NG plants,
although ensuring less GHG emissions in comparison to e.g. lignite,
increases energy dependence on a price-volatile fuel [15].
Considering the above, strong contradictions arising become
apparent. For this reason, the use of a multi-criteria decision
tool, taking into consideration the consequences that implemen-
tation of each different technology may induce on many differ-
ent levels, is thought to be a useful tool that may enhance
strategic planning in the eld of electricity generation as well
[16,17]. In this context, special emphasis is given in the current
study in order to determine criteria involved in such an evalua-
tion process and most importantly in assigning to each of them
an appropriate weight factor that will adequately reect their
importance.
profound investigation on the basis of established methodologies.
In this context, after the selection of criteria to be involved in the
analysis, the Delphi method [19] can be used so as to estimate the
respective weight factors in a more objective way. Delphi comprises
a qualitative evaluating approach that is able to achieve a structured
anonymous interaction between carefully selected experts. More
precisely, what Delphi does is that it uses the opinion of experts
on the basis of collecting primary data through questionnaires that
are properly formed and managed through controlled feedback.
Acknowledging this, an effort is currently undertaken so as to adapt
the Delphi methodology in the problem of evaluating different tech-
nologies for the support of the electricity generation sector.
3. Developed evaluation methodology
Considering the above, development of a multi-criteria analysis
for the support of decision making concerning strategic planning
in the Greek electricity power sector is currently based on the fol-
lowing steps:
(1) Selection of evaluation criteria to be involved in the analysis.
(2) Estimation of weight factors showing the importance of each
criterion, as given by the experts (Delphi method).
(3) Determination of numerical values expressing the compliance
of each electricity generation technology to each criterion.
(4) Calculation of the overall score/rate for each technology.
Furthermore, a bundle of criteria currently selected (see also Ta-
ble 1) may be categorized in the following four thematic areas/cate-
gories, i.e.:
(1) Environmental impacts (air pollution, solid waste, etc.).
(2) Social impacts (potential health problems, employment rates,
etc.).
214 J.K. Kaldellis et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 212218

Table 1
Results of the Delphi method application.

Criteria Round 3
Median value 1st Quartile 3rd Quartile Weight factor
Environment
High gaseous and particulate (atmospheric) emissions 10 9 10 0.0926
Hot waste water disposal 7 6 8 0.0648
Solid waste generation/disposal 7 5 9 0.0648
Land resource use/exploitation/rehabilitation 7 5 8 0.0648
Ozone layer depletion 8 7 9 0.0741
Eutrophication (sea, lakes, etc.) 7 6 8 0.0648
Water and land contamination 8 8 9 0.0741
Smog generation 8 7 9 0.0741
Disruption to local ecosystems 8 7 8 0.0741
Geological disruption 6 4 8 0.0556
Ecotoxicity 7 7 9 0.0648
Microclimate change 7 6 8 0.0648
Positive impacts (emissions reduction) 10 9 10 0.0926
Solid and liquid waste management (secondary usage) 8 8 9 0.0741

Society
Severe health hazards 10 10 10 0.1351
Possible people relocation 8 6 9 0.1081
Accidents 7 6 8 0.1081
Noise 7 6 7 0.0946
Visual impacts 7 6 8 0.0946
Changes in cultural/ecological behavior 9 8 10 0.1216
High rate of employment in local societies 8 7.5 9 0.1081
Security of supply 9 9 10 0.1216
Regional development 9 8.75 9 0.1216

Finance
High paid cost/tn of CO2 10 9 10 0.0877
Fuel cost dependency (price uctuations) 10 9 10 0.0877
High construction cost/long payback period 8 8 9 0.0702
Material degradation due to pollution (buildings, etc.) 8 7 8 0.0702
High dismantling/transporting/storage cost 6 5 8 0.0526
Money savings (less usage of imported fuels) 9 8 10 0079
Low external costs 8 8 9 0.0702
Collateral nancial benets (nancial exploitation of by-products) 7 6 8 0.0614
No fuel cost 8 7 9 0.0702
Low labor cost 6 5 7 0.0526
Cheap electricity price for the consumers 8 7 9 0.0702
Electricity price stability 9 8 9 0079
Economic growth (for the country or a region) 9 7 9 0079
Low life cycle cost/attractive return on investment 8 8 9 0.0702

Technology
System efciency 10 8 10 0.2941
Capacity factor 8 8 9 0.2353
Fuel availability 9 9 9 0.2647
Existing experience 7 7 8 0.2059

(3) Financial impacts (initial investment cost, operational cost,
etc.).
(4) Technological status (efciency, capacity factor, etc.).
Accordingly (see also Fig. 3), for each of the criteria involved
in each category, a weight factor is estimated with the applica-
tion of the Delphi method [1921] (see also Appendix A), with
the help of experts (total number of 30 experts) currently coming
from the academic eld, the Greek Public Power Corporation
(PPC) and nally from certain national energy research centres
(Fig. 4). At this point, it must be noted that Delphi comprises a
exible enough method that allows engagement of experts,
allowing at the same time consensus-building that eliminates
any bias-driven answers, potentially deriving from the experts
level of commitment to their expertise. During this process, the
experts are asked to use a 110 scale when providing their an-
swers to the questionnaire, with 1 corresponding to the lowest
importance and 10 to the highest (see also Appendix A and
Table 1).
Considering the above, estimation of weight factors rst at the
level of category and then at the level of criteria involved (as these
resulted from the application of the Delphi method, see also Ta-
ble 1) is given in Figs. 59, while accordingly, for the ranking of
technologies, a 04 scale is adopted (0: when a technology is not
related to a criterion at all, or presents a poor performance on it;
4: when a technology has an absolute relation to a criterion, or pre-
sents an excellent performance on it).
Synopsizing, inputs of the developed evaluation model include
the following:
 Weight factors for the importance of the criteria categories
(environmental, social, nancial and technological), we, ws,
wf and wt respectively.
 Weight factors for the importance of each criterion i within
each category (environmental, social, nancial and technologi-
cal), wei, wsi, w and wti respectively.
 Values vij representing performance of each technology j
concerning each criterion i.
 J.K. Kaldellis et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 212218 215

Fig. 3. Steps of the developed evaluation methodology.

Estimation of Environmental Criteria Weight Factors

10%
17% 9%
8%
Weight Factor

7%
13% 6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
70% 1%
PPC 0%
Ozone layer depletion

Solid and liquid waste

Academic

(emissions reduction)
Geological disruption
generation / disposal

Microclimate change
Land resource use

Disruption to local
High atmospheric

Smog generation
Hot waste water

Water and land

Eutrophication

contamination

Ecotoxicity

Energy Research Centres Positive impacts

ecosystems

management
emissions

Solid waste
disposal

Fig. 4. Distribution of experts used in Delphi.

Fig. 6. Weight factors assigned to environmental criteria.

Estimation of Weight Factors for the Four Different Estimation of Social Criteria Weight Factors
15%
Thematic Areas of Evaluation
30%
12%
25%
Weight Factor

9%
Weight Factor

20%
6%
15%

10% 3%

5% 0%
Noise

impacts

Security of
employment
Accidents

development
relocation
Severe health

Changes in

High rate of
Possible

Visual

behavior
people

Regional
supply
hazards

0%
nvironmental Social impacts Financial impacts Technology issues
impacts

Fig. 5. Weight factors assigned to each category. Fig. 7. Weight factors assigned to social criteria.
216 J.K. Kaldellis et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 212218

Estimation of Financial Criteria Weight Factors Distribution of Crete's Installed Power Capacity (2008-MW)
10%
9% 165 161
8%
Weight Factor

7%
6%
151
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0% 479 Steam Generators

Low life - cycle cost /

High dismantling cost
High construction

Economic growth
Material degradation

Cheap electricity
Low external costs
High paid cost / tn of

Collateral financial
dependency

Money savings

Low labour cost

Electricity price
No fuel cost
Fuel cost -

Diesel Units

attractive ROI
stability
Gas Turbines
benefits

price
cost
CO2

Wind Turbines

Fig. 10. Contribution of different power sources in the current electrical power mix
of Crete.
Fig. 8. Weight factors assigned to nancial criteria.

Peak Demand Time Evolution for the Island of Crete

Estimation of Technological Criteria Weight Factors 1000
Real Data Forecast
30% 900 Expon. (Real Data)
800

Peak Demand (MW)

25%
700
Weight Factor

20% 600

15% 500
400
10% 300

5% 200
100
0% 0
experience
availability
efficiency

Capacity

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

System

Existing
factor

Fuel

Year

Fig. 11. Time evolution and forecast of annual peak load demand in Crete.
Fig. 9. Weight factors assigned to technological criteria.

noted that Crete is determined by a remarkable solar potential

While on the other hand, the outputs of the model include: across the entire region, while in many areas of the island the local
wind potential is also appreciable. Furthermore, there have also
 The environmental performance rej of each technology j. been plans for the development of a liqueed NG (LNG) terminal
 The social performance rsj of each technology j. in the north side of the island (area of Korakia) that will take
 The nancial performance rfj of each technology j. advantage of the already existing route from Algeria to the Revi-
 The technological performance rtj of each technology j. thoussa LNG terminal (west of Athens), thus making introduction
 The overall score Roj of each technology j considering all of of NG in the energy mix of Crete a realistic scenario which should
the above estimated on the basis of the following equations: be considered among others.
X Meanwhile, Crete has a total installed capacity of thermal power
r ej wei v ij 1 plants equal to approximately 800 MW (Fig. 10), with the respec-
i tive wind power capacity reaching almost 165 MW, while at the
X same time the peak load demand approaches 700 MW [22]. On
r sj wsi v ij 2 the other hand however, constant increase of annual peak
i demand almost exponentially (Fig. 11) requires installation of
X new power generators that will add extra capacity to the system,
r fj wfi v ij 3 ideally on the basis of a profound strategic planning which although
i currently restricted to the island level provides as already
implied an adequate test eld for the developed methodology.
X
r tj wti v ij 4 In this context, by evaluating both the characteristics of the
i island and the current state of its power generation system, the
following ve different technologies are examined in order to
Roj we  rej ws  r sj wf  r fj wt  r tj 5 enhance power generation from existing power plants, under
application of the methodology developed.

4. Case study characteristics 4.1. Solar thermal power systems

The developed methodology is accordingly applied using as a Concerning solar thermal power systems [23,24], energy is col-
case study the island of Crete, so as to investigate different techno- lected by concentrating collectors and is used to operate a heat en-
logical solutions for solving the future power generation problem. gine. The main problem of these systems is that the efciency of
Crete is the fourth largest island in Mediterranean and the biggest the collector decreases as its operating temperature increases,
island of Greece, providing an excellent case study in terms of both while the performance of the heat engine increases as its operating
scale and diverse electricity fuel mix. At this point, it should also be temperature increases. The most promising conguration
 J.K. Kaldellis et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 212218
combines energy generation by parabolic trough technology with a
combined-cycle gas turbine plant [25]. Such a system can meet
utility needs for continuous operation and peaking power with
minimal environmental damage, although on the other hand, in-
creased costs and land requirement for the entire installation are
its main decits.
4.2. Photovoltaic (PV) systems
PV systems have the advantage of not producing any GHG emis-
sions and not causing severe environmental impacts during opera-
tion. On the other hand, even though the cost of PV panels
gradually decreases, the high amount of embedded energy they
require for the manufacturing stage [26,27], along with their low
efciency and the fact that they need considerable land for their
installation, are drawbacks which cannot be ignored.
4.3. Wind power
Wind power comprises a RES-based solution, with minimum
GHG emissions on a life-cycle basis [28]. On top of that, the wind
turbine technology is quite mature, while at the same time installed
capacity of wind power in Greece reects the local experience in the
eld. On the other hand, since there are already 165 MW of wind
parks installed on the island of Crete, further expansion would re-
quire dealing with the existing operation problems, such as wind
energy curtailments [29] due to the network characteristics and
the technical minima of the conventional power units [30].
4.4. Utilization of cryogenic NG
The use of cryogenic NG, given the current electricity generation
technologies, results to life-cycle GHG emissions which are gener-
ally lower than those of other fossil fuels [31]. The reason for that is
that higher hydrocarbons, along with other impurities, like mois-
ture, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and other trace elements are
removed prior to liquefaction. Thus, the combustion of LNG favors
production of less CO2 emissions.
4.5. Upgrading of existing diesel generators
The solution of upgrading the existing diesel generators could
also be considered. As an investment, it will certainly cost less
compared to the installation of brand new units. Furthermore,
the total operation and maintenance cost would be less than the
corresponding one of steam generators, combined cycle units and
gas turbines. On the other hand, externalities of oil-red units
are considerable [32], e.g. air pollution, human health issues, etc.,
and should not be neglected.
Final Results of the Multi-Criteria Analysis for Crete
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
Final Score
0,5
0,0
-0,5
Environmental Performance
-1,0 Social Performance
Financial Performance
-1,5 Technological Performance
Overall Score
-2,0
Solar Thermal Power Cryogenic NG Wind Power PV Systems
Fig. 12. Final score (per category and overall) for the ve technologies examined.
217
5. Application results
By applying the developed methodology through the adoption
of category weight factors (we, ws, wf and wt) previously
designated on the basis of the Delhi method (see also Fig. 5), results
obtained concerning all ve technologies are given in Fig. 12,
through the introduction of the appropriate numerical values in
Eq. (5), i.e.
Roj 0:2655  r ej 0:2354  r sj 0:2645  r fj 0:2346  r tj 6
after taking also into account a set of marking values vij (the user
may select his own marks) and criteria weight factors (wei, wsi,
w and wti) (see also Table 1) assigned to each of the technolo-
gies and criteria respectively. At this point, it must be noted that
negative values noted in Fig. 12 imply a negative impact of the
technology each time examined, e.g. all technologies seem to induce
different levels of negative environmental impacts.
Focusing on the environmental performance (see also Fig. 6),
diesel generators are as expected presenting the worst score, since
three out of ve technologies are RES-based. Furthermore, com-
pared to the utilization of the cryogenic NG, diesel units present
poorer performance, mainly owed to gaseous emissions. The high-
est score in this eld is achieved by wind power and PV stations,
closely followed by solar thermal power units.
When social performance is examined (see also Fig. 7), solar
thermal power units exhibit the best ranking, mainly due to the
fact that this technology can be used to satisfy both peak load de-
mand and base load (thus increasing security of supply), and also
because new work positions should be expected in Crete, since cur-
rently there is no other similar unit. Moreover, PV stations achieve
better score compared to wind power, mainly due to the fact that
the former present better performance concerning noise and visual
impacts, i.e. criteria which were both assigned with high impor-
tance factors by the experts. Finally, diesel generators presented
better social performance compared to wind power, because of
their score in security of supply, a criterion which according to
the experts is of great importance. On the other hand, the use
of cryogenic NG gets higher score compared to diesel generators,
mainly due to the potential of providing higher rate of employment
for the local societies, because of the infrastructure required for the
transportation of LNG.
As far as nancial performance is concerned (see also Fig. 8), PV
systems obtain the highest score followed by wind power, while
solar thermal units rank in the third place, mainly owed to the fact
that they are partly dependent on fossil fuels, opposite to NG and
diesel-based units, where total dependence should be considered.
Regarding technological performance (see also Fig. 9), NG and die-
sel units obtain the highest scores, owed to the higher efciency
and capacity factors determining these technologies. On the other
hand, among RES technologies, wind parks exhibit a better perfor-
mance due to their higher efciency, while solar thermal technol-
ogies have the disadvantage of requiring fossil fuel availability.
Besides, major disadvantage of PV systems, i.e. their low efciency,
is clearly reected in the results obtained.
Finally, by examining the overall score of each technology, uti-
lization of cryogenic NG demonstrates the highest score, followed
by the three RES technologies. On the other hand, diesel generators
present the lowest rate, clearly owed to their poor performance in
the category of environment, which was also assigned with the
highest importance by the experts.
6. Conclusions
Diesel Power
Synopsizing, an effort was currently undertaken in order to de-
velop an integrated methodology for the support of decision
218 J.K. Kaldellis et al. / Fuel 106 (2013) 212218
making in the eld of new electricity generation plants. More pre-
cisely, based on the adoption of multiple criteria for the selection of
the most appropriate power plants called to satisfy future electri-
cation needs, a multi-criteria model has been developed. Prior
to that, evaluation criteria were assigned with weight factors
decided by the application of the Delphi method. For this purpose,
a number of eld experts were used in order to assess these weight
factors, which were accordingly applied on the basis of the multi-
criteria analysis to ve different power generation technologies,
being candidate for satisfying part of the Cretes island future elec-
tricity needs. Results obtained demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed methodology, which may however be further elaborated
so as to include a greater number of both evaluation criteria and
experts involved, expanding at the same time to also capture the
entire electricity power generation system of Greece.
Appendix A
Delphi is a consensus method. This normally means that at least
three rounds of answers to the questionnaire should be expected,
although additional rounds may be needed sometimes. During the
rst round, the questionnaire is circulated to the panel of experts.
When answers are collected, the median value and the inter-quar-
tile range are calculated for each answer. Then, results of the rst
round (median and inter-quartile range) are circulated again to
those experts, whose answers during the rst round fell outside
the inter-quartile range. This time they are asked to give reasons
for their answers and to revise their former given values in case that
they wish to do so. After receiving the second round forms, the med-
ian value and the inter-quartile range are recalculated, while a list is
also formed with the reasons that the experts gave, explaining their
answers. All this data is again circulated to the experts for round
three, asking them to proceed with their nal evaluation.
Taking into account the above, in Table 1, the round three med-
ian value and inter-quartile range for each criterion evaluated are
presented, considering that it is the specic round during which
consensus was achieved by the experts. The next step corresponds
to the estimation of weight factors through the normalization of
the median values of the last round. More precisely, by using the
symbols me, ms, mf and mt for the median values of the [19] Okoli Ch, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example,
environmental, social, nancial and technology categories respec-
tively, the corresponding weight factors may be estimated by:
me
we A:1
me ms mf mt
ms
ws A:2
me ms mf mt
mf
wf A:3
me ms mf mt
mt
wt A:4
me ms mf mt
Similarly, the weight factor for each criterion i within each
criterion category can be estimated by the following expression:
jmi j
wi  P A:5
i jmi j
where mi is the median value of each criterion and + is used for
positive and  for negative contribution of each criterion in the
evaluation of the solution under investigation. Note that this
assumption is used instead of using negative marks in order to facil-
itate the entire calculation.
In this context, resulting weight factors are given in Table 1,
with negative impacts reected by setting a minus sign (i.e. a
negative impact should count in an algebraically negative way in
the calculations).
References
[1] Eurostat. Energy statistics-supply, transformation, consumption; 2011.
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/>.
[2] Kaldellis JK, Zarakis D, Kondili E. Contribution of lignite in the Greek
electricity generation: review and future prospects. Fuel 2009;88:47589.
[3] Chalvatzis KJ, Hooper E. Energy security vs. climate change: theoretical
framework development and experience in selected EU electricity markets.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2009;13:27039.
[4] Tsoutsos Th, Papadopoulou E, Katsiri A, Papadopoulos AM. Supporting schemes
for renewable energy sources and their impact on reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases in Greece. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2008;12:176788.
[5] Kaldellis JK. Critical evaluation of the hydropower applications in Greece.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2008;12:21834.
[6] Kaldellis JK. Investigation of Greek wind energy market time-evolution. Energ
Policy 2004;7:86579.
[7] Hellenic Association of Photovoltaic Companies. The Greek PV Market. Greek
PV market statistics: H1-2012; 2012. <http://www.helapco.gr/>.
[8] Hellenic Wind Energy Association. Installations-Wind Power Installations in
Greece-2012; 2012. <http://www.eletaen.gr/>.
[9] European Parliament and Council. Decision No. 406/2009/EC on the effort of
Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the
Communitys greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020;
2009. <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/>.
[10] Kalampalikas NG, Pilavachi PA. A model for the development of a power
production system in Greece, Part II: Where RES meet EU targets. Energ Policy
2010;38:651428.
[11] Point Carbon. European Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) News; 2012.
<http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2059305>.
[12] Kaldellis JK, Mantelis N, Zarakis D. Evaluating the ability of Greek power
stations to comply with the obligations posed by the second National
Allocation Plan concerning carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel 2011;90:288495.
[13] Kaldellis JK. Maximum wind energy contribution in autonomous electrical
grids based on thermal power stations. Appl Therm Eng 2007;27:156573.
[14] Lund H. Large-scale integration of wind power into different energy systems.
Energ 2005;30:240212.
[15] Geman H, Ohana St. Forward curves scarcity and price volatility in oil and
natural gas markets. Energ Econ 2009;31:57685.
[16] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to
sustainable energy planning a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2004;8:36581.
[17] Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF, Zhao JH. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis
aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2009;13:226378.
[18] Zopounidis C, Pardalos PM. Handbook of multicriteria analysis series: applied
optimization. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2010.
design considerations and applications. Inform Manage 2004;42:1529.
[20] Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol
Forecast Soc 2006;73:46782.
[21] Rowe G, Wright G. The Delphi technique: past, present, and future prospects-
introduction to the special issue. Technol Forecast Soc 2011;78:148790.
[22] Greek Public Power Corporation. Annual Report on the Electricity Generation
System of Crete; 2008.
[23] Chien JCL, Lior N. Concentrating solar thermal power as a viable alternative in
Chinas electricity supply. Energ Policy 2011;39:762236.
[24] Ummadisingu A, Soni MS. Concentrating solar power-technology, potential
and policy in India. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2011;15:516975.
[25] Montes MJ, Rovira A, Muoz M, Martnez-Val JM. Performance analysis of an
integrated solar combined cycle using direct Steam Generation in parabolic
trough collectors. Appl Energ 2011;88:322838.
[26] Kaldellis JK, Zarakis D, Kondili E. Energy pay-back period analysis of stand-
alone photovoltaic systems. Renew Energ 2010;35:144454.
[27] Kaldellis JK, Zarakis D, Kondili E. Optimum autonomous stand-alone
photovoltaic system design on the basis of energy pay-back analysis. Energy
2009;34:118798.
[28] Weisser D. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric
supply technologies. Energy 2007;32:154359.
[29] Kaldellis JK, Kavadias KA, Filios AE, Garofallakis S. Income loss due to wind
energy rejected by the Crete island electrical network-the present situation.
Appl Energy 2004;79:12744.
[30] Kaldellis JK. Maximum wind potential exploitation in autonomous electrical
networks on the basis of stochastic analysis. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod
2008;96:141224.
[31] Kumar S, Kwon HT, Choi KH, Lim W, Cho JH, Tak K, et al. LNG: an eco-friendly
cryogenic fuel for sustainable development. Appl Energy 2011;88:426473.
[32] Georgakellos DA. Impact of a possible environmental externalities
internalisation on energy prices: the case of the greenhouse gases from the
Greek electricity sector. Energy Econ 2010;32:2029.