Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing county: A case

of Pakistan
Muhammad Amer, Tugrul U. Daim
Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 April 2010
Revised 5 September 2011
Accepted 5 September 2011
Available online 18 October 2011
Keywords:
Decision making
Analytic hierarchy process
Renewable energy
Electricity
Pakistan

a b s t r a c t
In this paper some renewable energy options for electricity generation for Pakistan are explored from multiple perspectives comprising technical, economical, social, environmental and political aspects. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been used for the rst time for the energy sector of Pakistan. An AHP model has been
presented for the selection and prioritization of various renewable energy technologies for electricity generation. After accessing potential of the country for generating electricity from renewable resources, reviewing
relevant scholarly literature and discussion with experts, an appropriate decision model has been formulated
consisting of goal, criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives. Wind energy, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal and
biomass energy options are used as the alternatives in the decision model. Besides ranking and prioritizing
of these technologies, results of the proposed decision model can also be used for the development of
long-term renewable energy policy and energy roadmap for the country. The ndings of this research
might also be highly relevant to other developing countries.
2011 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction
In this modern era, energy is a key element required for sustainable development and prosperity of a society. The total primary energy supply (TPES) of Pakistan was 62.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent
(MTOE) during nancial year 200809 (PEYB, 2009). Energy resources like natural gas, oil, hydro and nuclear, coal and liqueed petroleum gas (LPG) contribute to 48.3%, 32.1%, 11.3%, 7.6% and 0.6% of
primary energy supplies respectively (PEYB, 2009). Share of primary
energy supplies by various sources in MTOE is shown in Fig. 1.
Pakistan is an energy decient country facing problems due to
shortage of energy, especially electricity which is adversely affecting
the economy. Electricity decit of the country was over 4000 MW in
2008 and it is estimated to reach over 8000 MW by the end 2010
(Asif, 2009). This problem will further aggravate in future because national energy demand is also increasing at an average annual rate of
5.67% (EIA, 2009). Due to shortage of electricity in Pakistan, the industrial sector has been badly affected and overall exports of the country
have been reduced. Due to signicant increase in cost of fossil fuel,
the primary energy supplies witnessed a decrease by 0.6% in 2009
from 2008 (PEYB, 2009). Import of fossil fuel especially oil has put a
lot of burden on the national economy. Government of Pakistan is

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tugrul@etm.pdx.edu (T.U. Daim).

trying to increase indigenous energy supplies and renewable energy

sector has been identied as an important target area. Therefore, it is
crucial for the country to formulate a diverse energy strategy and increase the share of sustainable and indigenous energy resources. Renewable resources also provide numerous environmental benets
besides providing electricity. In this paper some emerging renewable
energy options (wind energy, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal and biomass) are evaluated and assessed as alternatives for electricity generation using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and multi perspective
approach.
Renewable energy (RE) sources are the fastest growing energy
source in the world and various projections indicate that these resources
will have huge contribution in the future (EIA, 2009; Jefferson, 2006).
Pakistan mainly depends upon the conventional energy resources and
there is not much effort for the utilization of RE resources for electricity
generation. Due to over dependence on fossil fuel, presently more than
60% of the foreign exchange is spent for the import of energy (Sheikh,
2010).
RE resources are also suitable for electrication of remote off-grid locations. The economic survey by Government of Pakistan (GoP) indicates
that more than forty thousand villages in the country do not have access
to electricity (GoP, 2007). RE resources like wind, solar and biomass can
be utilized to provide electricity especially to the population living in
the far-ung and off-grid villages in order to raise their standard of living.
So deployment of renewable energy resources can improve living standards of communities in remote areas as well as contribute to economic
growth of the country (Mirza et al., 2009).

0973-0826/$ see front matter 2011 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.esd.2011.09.001

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

4.8

0.4

462MW

421

40 MW

7.1
Natural Gas
Oil

Thermal (fossil-fuels)

6,480 MW
Large Hydro Power Dams

Hydro & Nuclear

Nuclear

Coal
LPG

20.1

RETs (Wind, Solar etc.)

30.2
12,478 MW

Fig. 1. Primary energy supplies by various sources in MTOE during nancial year 2008
2009 (PEYB, 2009).

In order to provide effective institutional support for the development and deployment of projects utilizing the renewable energy
technologies (RET), government of Pakistan has established two
main departments i.e. Alternate Energy Development Board (AEDB)
and Pakistan Council of Renewable Energy Technologies (PCRET).
AEDB provides institutional support, develops RE policies and facilitates deployment of RE projects in the country whereas PCRET conducts the R&D activities, develops pilot projects for demonstration
purposes and train human resource so that they can operate and
maintain RE based projects. The responsibilities of these two departments are mentioned below.
AEDB was established in 2003 to act as the central national body
on the renewable energy sector and its responsibility is to implement
various policies, programs and projects in the eld of renewable energy technologies (AEDB, 2010). AEDB is responsible for developing national RE policy and establishing short, medium and long-term policy
goals for renewable energy technologies in the country. In the RE policy a target has been established to ensure generation of 10% electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2015 (AEDB, 2010).
AEDB also act as a one-window facility for processing RE power generation projects in order to ensure smooth execution and implementation of RE projects by private sector and foreign investors. In order
to facilitate RE projects AEDB has drafted standard power purchase
agreement and other project implementation agreements.
PCRET was established in 2001 and it has been assigned to conduct research and development activities in the eld of renewable
technologies in order to promote these technologies in the country
(PCRET, 2010). PCRET also coordinates the overall R&D activities in
this eld in the country. PCRET has initiated some pilot projects and
deployed wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, solar water heaters,
solar cookers, solar dryers, solar desalination systems and biomass
plants on a small scale to demonstrate their performance in the
local environment (Sheikh, 2010). PCRET also provides training for
operations and maintenance of these technologies.

Availability of renewable energy resources in Pakistan

Pakistan has abundance of RE resources but these resources have
not been utilized yet. The country's rst RE policy announced in
2006 established mid-term and long-term targets including generation of 9700 MW of electricity from renewable energy resources by
the year 2030, and electrication of 7874 remote and off-grid villages
(AEDB, 2010; GoP, 2006). However despite these ambitious targets,
there is not much progress made for the utilization emerging RETs
in the country. It is shown in Fig. 2 that share of electricity generated

Fig. 2. Electricity generation capacity in MW from different sources in 2008 (AEDB, 2010).

from emerging RETs (excluding large hydro) is around 0.2% with

installed capacity of only 40 MW by 2008 (AEDB, 2010).
Presently, large hydro power dams are the only major renewable
energy sources in Pakistan for electricity generation. In some cases
construction of large hydro dams results in major relocation of people
and changes in land use for the areas in which the dams are built.
These projects have become controversial in Pakistan in recent
years due to signicant impact on rivers, ecosystems, and surrounding communities. Large dams were developed in 1970s and pace of
new hydropower generation facilities has signicantly slowed down
over the last two decades due to above mentioned reasons (Asif,
2009). In this study focus is on the wind, solar and biomass energy resources that are not used in Pakistan despite their potential and can
be utilized for electricity generation.
An overview of resource potential of wind energy, solar energy and
biomass energy options for Pakistan is presented in the following sections. These are mature technologies having tremendous potential for
the country. Moreover, government of Pakistan has also initiated some
pilot projects using these technologies which showed very promising
results. However, these technologies have not been deployed on large
scale to provide a signicant share of electricity in the country.

Wind energy
Wind power has been used from ancient times for grinding grains,
sailing ships and pumping water for irrigation purposes. Wind power
technology is the fastest growing renewable energy source having global installed capacity (both onshore and offshore) of 121 GW (Chandler
et al., 2009). During the last decade there has been an average annual
growth rate of 30% for the installed wind energy capacity and in 2008
more than 27 GW capacity of wind energy was installed in more than
50 countries (Chandler et al., 2009). Several European countries are
obtaining 10% or more electricity from wind energy (Chandler et al.,
2009; IEA, 2009). It indicates that wind energy is a rapidly growing, mature and proven renewable energy technology.
We have witnessed increase in capacity and height of wind turbines with time (Chandler et al., 2009). Generally wind speed is
higher and more stable at height. Increased height of the wind turbine allows increasing length of the blades so turbine can capture
more power due to larger area through which the turbine can extract
energy (known as swept area of the rotor). Moreover, the rotor can be
installed higher to take advantage of higher wind speed.
Various studies indicate that there is good potential for generating electricity from wind energy along the coastline and many
other regions of Pakistan (Chaudhry et al., 2009; Mirza et al., 2007;
Mirza et al., 2009; Mirza et al., 2010; Sheikh, 2009, 2010). Pakistan

422

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

Fig. 3. Wind map of Pakistan developed by NREL and USAID (NREL, 2010c).

Metrological Department (PMD) has installed many wind data collection centers along the costal line and in the northern areas of
the country. The collected wind data indicates that wind speed
from 5 m/s to 7 m/s persists in coastal regions of the country and
many valleys in the North West region of the country at a height of
50 m (PMD, 2007). In an effort of accessing worldwide potential of
wind resources, US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
developed 50 m wind map of Pakistan shown in Fig. 3. This highresolution wind map also indicates that many regions of the country
have good potential for generating wind energy (NREL, 2010c).
Sheikh mentioned that many potential sites for wind energy generation in Pakistan have capacity factor of more than 25% which is internationally considered suitable for the installation of economically
viable commercial wind farms (Sheikh, 2009). Multiple studies indicate that there is very promising wind energy potential of more than
50,000 MW with an average wind speed of more than 7 m/s at 80 m
height in most of the coastal areas of the country (Ghayur, 2006;
Mirza et al., 2010). Therefore, coastal areas of Pakistan especially
the wind corridor around Gharo region is ideal for generating electricity from wind energy.
In the renewable energy policy announced by the government of
Pakistan in 2006, surety has been given for purchase of electric
power from wind farms. Moreover, a unique concept of wind risk
has also been incorporated in order to immune investors and project
developers from the risk of variability of wind resource i.e. wind
speed. This concept has been incorporated to overcome fear related
to the reliability and accuracy of available wind data and insulate
the investor from resource variability risk. This risk is absorbed by

the government i.e. power purchaser. Wind risk concept will ensure
that government will make monthly payments for the purchase of
power in accordance with the benchmark wind speed table (GoP,
2006). Benchmark wind speed is based on mean availability of wind
ow for every month, which has been determined for each project
site on the basis of independently monitored wind data. Subsequently
electricity generation levels corresponding to the benchmark wind
speed are calculated. So even if less power is generated in a particular
month due to wind speed lower than benchmark wind speed, government will make monthly payments to wind forms according to
the benchmark wind speed data. The principle behind wind risk concept is to make the wind farm developers and investors immune to
factors which are beyond their control (i.e. variability of wind
speeds). However, project developer will be fully responsible for factors within their control (i.e. the availability of the plant etc.) (GoP,
2006). Renewable energy policy also offers other attractive benets
including exemption from payment of income tax and exemption
from import duties and taxes for the power generation equipment.
Solar energy
Solar energy obtained from solar radiation is converted into other
forms of energy usually heat or electricity. For electricity generation
from solar energy, solar photovoltaic and solar thermal conversion
processes are commonly used. Photovoltaic cells directly convert sunlight into electricity. Solar thermal technologies use solar thermal collectors to heat liquid uid, convert it into steam and generate
electricity from steam in much the same way electricity is produced

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

423

Fig. 4. Solar map of Pakistan developed by NREL and USAID (NREL, 2010b).

from steam turbine power plants. Solar energy technologies experienced the second highest annual growth rate of 28% among RETs
after wind energy during last decade (IEA, 2007). According to the
European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA), solar photovoltaic
power increased by 16 GW in 2010 around the world, approximately
doubled the increase seen in 2009 (EPIA, 2010). Also there is a growing interest for electricity generation from solar thermal energy and
in 2008 over 6 GW of solar thermal based projects has been announced by various countries (MMA, 2008).
Pakistan is situated in a very favorable location as far as solar radiation is concerned with long sunshine hours and high insolation
levels. In many parts of the country the sun shines for 7 to 8 h daily
and solar energy is available for approximately 23002700 h per
annum (Chaudhry et al., 2009; Sheikh, 2009) and there is sunshine
for more than 300 days in a year (Asif, 2009). US National Renewable
Energy Laboratory developed solar maps of Pakistan which indicates
that many regions of the country are blessed with higher solar insolation levels averaging from 5 kW h/m 2/day to 7 kW h/m 2/day (NREL,
2010b), shown in Fig. 4. Solar PV technology has good potential in
the country but due to high cost of electricity generation from solar
energy, it is difcult to widely deploy this technology on large scale.
Solar thermal electric power plants are the other option considered in this paper for electricity generation from solar energy. In
solar thermal plants, usually solar radiation is concentrated by mirrors or lenses to obtain higher temperatures for electricity production
commonly known as concentrating solar power (CSP) systems. In
contrast with the solar PV, the CSP plant rst generates heat, so it

can store the heat before conversion to electricity. With current technology, storage of heat is much cheaper and more efcient than storage of electricity. Therefore, the CSP plant can produce electricity day
and night and it is very suitable for a country like Pakistan having
abundance of solar energy resources.
Biomass energy
Biomass energy is renewable energy derived from any organic
material. US National Renewable Energy Laboratory dened biomass energy as the energy obtained from plants and plantderived materials. Major sources of biomass energy include
wood, food crops, grassy and woody plants, residues from agriculture or forestry, animal waste, organic component of municipal and industrial wastes and fumes from landlls (NREL,
2010a). Biomass combustion for heat and power is a mature
technology offering both economic fuel and disposal of waste.
Traditional biomass currently accounts for 7% of energy demand
of the world (IEA, 2007). However, this industry has remained
relatively stagnant over the last decade with 488 TW h of energy
obtained from biomass in 2004 (IEA, 2007).
Biomass is an important energy resource in Pakistan due to its agriculture based economy. Agricultural and livestock sector produces
biomass in the form of crop residues and animal waste, mainly consisting of rice husk, sugarcane bagasse and animal dung (Chaudhry
et al., 2009; GoP, 2006). There are approximately 57 million animals
in the country (Sheikh, 2009), so animal waste is an important

424

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

source for biomass energy. However most of waste from the livestock and the agriculture sectors is currently collected and utilized
in villages as unprocessed fuel for cooking and household heating.
Moreover, municipal solid waste produced by a large urban population is also presently not utilized, which can also be incinerated to
produce electricity (GoP, 2006). There are plans for generation of
500 MW electric power from municipal/agriculture solid waste and
pilot projects for generating electricity from biomass are also initiated in the country.
Large sugar industry in Pakistan also generates electricity from
biomass energy for utilization in sugar mills. In the present electricity crisis recently government allowed sugar mills to supply their
surplus power up to a limit of 700 MW to the national grid (GoP,
2006). It is estimated that sugarcane bagasse can potentially be
used to generate 2000 MW of electric power (Mirza et al., 2008).
However presently it is difcult to obtain more electricity from
sugar mills due to grid limitations because most of the sugar mills
are located in remote rural areas which are not even connected to
the national grid. Integration of electricity generated from biomass
energy to the national grid can ease the electricity shortage in the
country.
After briey reviewing the potential of wind, solar PV, solar thermal and biomass energy for electricity generation, these alternatives
are assessed from multi perspectives using AHP based model. It is
pertinent to mention that besides electricity generation, solar thermal
and biomass energy can also be used for many other purposes including heating, cooking, distillation, transportation etc. However, in this
paper these RE resources are only reviewed for the purpose of electricity generation.
Need of multi-perspective analysis
Long term decisions regarding the selection of sustainable energy
alternatives are very complex and crucial for a country. Due to
multiple-facets nature of these decision problems, it will be very useful and appropriate to use multi-perspective analysis approach for
making technology assessment, acquisition and deployment decisions of various available renewable energy options for a country. It

is proposed to analyze this energy decision problem from technical,

economical, environmental, social and political aspects.
Literature review revealed that most of the assessment studies in
renewable energy sector use traditional evaluation methods, such as
costbenet analysis or techno-economic assessment. To the best
of the author's knowledge based on literature review, no research
study has evaluated renewable energy technologies from multiple
perspectives comprising technical, economical, social, environmental
and political aspects. Table 1 highlights a summary of some selected
literature on assessment, evaluation and prioritization of sustainable
energy technologies from multi-criteria approach. It indicates that
in most of the cases, assessment has been performed using two or
three aspects.
Methodology
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods are considered
appropriate for multi-perspective analysis of complex decision problems. MCDA is also suitable for conicting evaluations consisting of
multiple aspects and helps decision makers to nd way to make rational compromises. MCDA methodology requires identication of
criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives related to a goal, followed by
assigning numerical measures to evaluate importance of criteria
and alternatives and nally the alternatives are prioritized and
ranked (Daim et al., 2009). Commonly used MCDA methods include
the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), Goal Programming, MultiAttribute Global Inference of Quality (MAGIQ), Simple MultiAttribute Rating Technique (SMART), SIMOS etc. (Daim et al., 2009;
Wang et al., 2009).
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a widely used MCDA method
and considered a very effective and powerful technique. AHP approach was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and it has
been used by decision-makers in diverse applications to resolve decision problems. International scientic community has accepted AHP
as a robust and exible multi criteria decision making technique useful for complex decision problems (Elkarmi and Mustafa, 1993). AHP
is primarily used for the resolution of choice problems in a multicriteria environment (Forman and Gass, 2001). AHP technique allows

Table 1
Assessment, evaluation and prioritization of sustainable energy technologies from multi-perspective.
Publication year

2002
2004
2004
2004
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2010

Multi-criteria used in energy sector

Reference

Technical

Economical

Environmental

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Social

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

Political

X
X
X

X
X
X

(Afgan and Carvalho, 2002)

(Aras et al., 2004)
(Kablan, 2004)
(Nigim et al., 2004)
(Lee et al., 2007b)
(Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2007)
(Nava and Daim, 2007)
(Diakoulaki et al., 2007)
(Lee et al., 2007a)
(Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2008a)
(Jaber et al., 2008)
(Lee et al., 2008b)
(Papalexandrou et al., 2008)
(Stephens et al., 2008)
(Chen and Yu, 2009)
(Lee et al., 2008a)
(Pilavachi et al., 2009)
(Daim et al., 2009)
(Kahraman et al., 2009)
(Tsoutsos et al., 2009)
(Lee and Hwang, 2010)

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

decision maker to decompose the complex decision problem in a logical manner into many small but related sub-problems in the form of
levels of a hierarchy (Saaty, 1980). AHP technique also allows the decision makers to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative judgments into a decision problem (Gerdsri and Kocaoglu, 2007). Thus
AHP methodology provides a comprehensive and rational framework
for structuring a decision problem. AHP technique has the following
three fundamental concepts (Saaty, 1980):
a. Structure complex decision problem as a hierarchy of goal, criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives, with goal at the top of the hierarchy, criteria and sub-criteria at lower levels and alternatives at
the bottom of the hierarchy
b. Pair-wise comparison of elements (criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives) at each level of the AHP model with respect to each criterion on the preceding level. Through pairwise comparison the
ratio-scaled importance of each alternative is calculated
c. Synthesizing the judgments over the different levels of the
hierarchy.
Pairwise comparisons are used to prioritize and rank the criteria and alternatives for decision making. Satty recommends to
use 19 scale measurements and eigenvector approach (Saaty,
1980). In contrast to this Kocaoglu recommends constant sum
approach by allocating 100 points between each pair (Kocaoglu,
1983). Constant sum method using 100 points is considered better than 19 scale measurement approach because user can state
their judgments without limiting to nine point scale (Gerdsri,
2009). By following these three steps AHP estimates the impact
of each alternative on the overall mission or goal of the decision
hierarchy. This approach also helps the decision-makers to compare conicting criteria and subsequently prioritize and rank the
alternatives.
AHP method employs a consistency test to screen out inconsistent
judgments by any expert and this is also considered as an advantage
of using AHP. It is important that the decision-makers should be consistent in their preference ratings expressed by pairwise comparisons.
It has been recommended that consistency ratio (CR) should be less
than 0.10 and mentioned that CR greater than 0.10 indicates serious
inconsistencies and in that case AHP may not provide meaningful results (Saaty, 1980).

425

AHP has become a very useful tool and has been used to resolve
multi-objective decision problems and this methodology has been
used in over 1000 articles and 100 doctoral dissertations (Forman
and Gass, 2001). AHP has been extensively applied to a wide variety
of decision problems in various domains including project selection
and evaluation, measuring business performance, technology evaluation and selection, technology policy, energy policy, new product
screening, portfolio management, customer requirement structuring,
arms control, transport systems, agriculture sector, real estate investment, conict resolution, quality management, public policy, and
heath care (Ahsan and Bartlema, 2004; Daim et al., 2009; Elkarmi
and Mustafa, 1993; Forman and Gass, 2001; Gerdsri and Kocaoglu,
2007; Kablan, 2004).

Energy sector and AHP

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has also been extensively
used in the energy sector for multi perspective analysis. The
reviewed literature highlights the use of AHP in energy sector for
energy policy formulation, energy planning, power plant selection,
power plant location selection, energy resource allocation, integrated resource planning, energy exploitation, controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and developing energy management
systems.
Wang et al. (2009) presented a very detailed literature review on
the use of MCDA methods as an aid in sustainable energy decisions
and concluded after thorough analysis of various MCDA methods
that AHP is the most popular and comprehensive MCDA technique.
They recommended that AHP is a powerful tool for decision making
for sustainable energy systems. They also observed that the investment cost, CO2 emission, efciency and job creation are the most
common criteria for the selection and prioritization of sustainable energy alternatives from the economic, environmental, technical and
social aspects (Wang et al., 2009).
Elkarmi and Mustafa (1993) used AHP for policy selection in
order to increase utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in
Jordan. Daim et al. (2009) applied AHP approach to assess and prioritize an appropriate wind energy and clean coal technologies for
the Pacic Northwest. Akash et al. (1999) developed an AHP model
for the selection of an optimum electric power plant from ve

Fig. 5. Proposed decision model for selection, evaluation and ranking of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation.

426

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

Table 2
Criteria and sub-criteria of the decision model.
Criteria

Sub-criteria

Description

Reference

Economical

R&D cost

Expenses occurred on the research and development of a technology

alternative.
Alternative that has less R&D cost is considered better
Capital cost consists of total expenditure occurred in establishing a
power plant including the equipment, labor, installation,
infrastructure and commissioning cost.
Alternative that has less capital cost is considered better
Operations and maintenance cost includes the plant running cost
including salaries of the employees, cost of the parts/spares required
for scheduled maintenance purposes etc.
Alternative that has less O&M cost is considered better
Economic viability of the power plant in the long run, it can be
accessed by using NPV or payback period method.
Alternative that has less payback period is considered better
Expected cost of the electricity generated by power plant.
Alternative that can generate electricity at a lower cost is considered
better
Technology maturity is indicated by how widespread technology is at
regional, national and international levels. This measure also indicates
that technology has reached the theoretical efciency limit or still
technology can be improved.
Mature technology alternative is considered better
Generally efciency of a power plant refers to the ratio of the output
energy to the input energy. Capacity factor is the ratio of the electrical
energy produced during a time period to the energy that could have
been produced at continuous full power operation during the same
period. It also indicates that how much useful energy can be obtained
from a source.
Alternative with higher capacity factor is considered better
Reliability is dened as the ability of a system to perform as intended/
designed under stated conditions. Reliability of a power plant is very
critical.
Alternative having higher reliability is considered better
Time required to set up power plant including installation, testing and
commissioning time.
Alternative with less deployment time is considered better
Expert man power available in the region/country to install, operate
and maintain the equipment.
Availability of more expert human resources for an alternative is
considered better
Availability and proximity of distribution grid for power transmission
to the end users.
Alternative that can easily transmit power through grid at lower cost is
considered better
Availability of renewable resources (wind speed, solar radiations etc.)
to generate energy.
Alternative having more resource available is considered better
A social benet represents the social progress in the local community
and region by initiating a power project.
Alternative that provides more social benets to the society is considered
better
Energy projects generate employment opportunities especially for the
local communities.
Alternative that creates more job opportunities is considered better
Public opinion toward a type of power plant represents the social
acceptance.
Alternative that has favorable opinion in society is considered better
Every power plant occupies some land, which may affect the landscape
and increase the project cost especially if it is near a city.
Alternative that occupies less land is considered better
Emissions released by power plant operations such as greenhouse
gasses, small particles etc.
Alternative that emits less pollution is considered better

(Lee et al., 2008a; Lee et al., 2008c)

Capital cost

O&M cost

Economic value/
viability
Electricity cost

Technical

Technology
maturity

Efciency/capacity
factor

Reliability

Deployment time/
duration
Expert human
resource

Distribution grid
availability

Resource
availability
Social

Social benets

Job creation

Social acceptance

Environmental

Land requirement

Emissions
(greenhouse
gasses etc.)
Stress on ecosystem
Political

National energy
security

National economic
benets

It is a measure of environmental friendliness and impact of the power

plant on the environment.
Alternative that puts less emphasis on eco-system is considered better
A country can enhance the energy security by utilizing indigenous
renewable energy resources and reduce dependency on the foreign
energy resources.
Alternative that would make the country less dependent on imported
energy resources is considered better
Benets to national economy by utilizing indigenous renewable
energy resources of the country.
Alternative that produces more economic benets for the country is
considered better

(Akash et al., 1999; Aras et al., 2004; Chatzimouratidis and

Pilavachi, 2009a; Daim et al., 2009; Harmon and Cowan, 2009;
Kablan, 1997; Kahraman et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2007b; Nigim
et al., 2004; Pilavachi et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009)
(Akash et al., 1999; Aras et al., 2004; Chatzimouratidis and
Pilavachi, 2009a; Harmon and Cowan, 2009; Lee et al., 2008a;
Nava and Daim, 2007; Pilavachi et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009)
(Daim et al., 2009; Elkarmi and Mustafa, 1993; Kahraman et al.,
2009; Lee et al., 2007b; Nava and Daim, 2007; Nigim et al.,
2004; Wang et al., 2009)
(Wang et al., 2009)

(Daim et al., 2009; Elkarmi and Mustafa, 1993; Kahraman et al.,

2009; Lee et al., 2008c; Nigim et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009)

(Akash et al., 1999; Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2009a;

Daim et al., 2009; Kablan, 1997; Wang et al., 2009)

(Akash et al., 1999; Kahraman et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009)

(Kahraman et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2007b; Nava and Daim, 2007)

(Kahraman et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2008c)

(Aras et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2008a; Nigim et al., 2004)

(Akash et al., 1999; Aras et al., 2004; Chatzimouratidis and

Pilavachi, 2009a; Lee et al., 2008a; Lee et al., 2008d; Nigim et al.,
2004; Papalexandrou et al., 2008)
(Akash et al., 1999; Nigim et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009)

(Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2008a, b; Harmon and Cowan,

2009; Kablan, 1997; Kahraman et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009)
(Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2008a, b; Kahraman et al.,
2009; Wang et al., 2009)
(Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2008a, b; Lee et al., 2008d;
Nava and Daim, 2007; Nigim et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009)
(Akash et al., 1999; Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2007,
2008a,b; Kablan, 1997; Kahraman et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2007b;
Nava and Daim, 2007; Nigim et al., 2004; Papalexandrou et al.,
2008; Pilavachi et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009)
(Kablan, 1997; Nava and Daim, 2007; Nigim et al., 2004)

(GoP, 2006; Kahraman et al., 2009; Nigim et al., 2004; Sahir and
Qureshi, 2007)

(Akash et al., 1999; Elkarmi and Mustafa, 1993; GoP, 2006;

Kablan, 2004; Nigim et al., 2004)

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

Table 3
Levelized capital cost, levelized O&M cost and levelized transmission investment of
various technologies based on U.S. data in U.S. Dollars per MW h (EIA, 2011).
Type of power plant
Wind
Solar photovoltaic
Solar thermal
Biomass

Capital cost
($/MW h)

O&M cost
($/MW h)

Transmission investment
($/MW h)

83.9
194.6
259.4
55.3

9.6
12.1
46.8
13.7

3.5
4.0
5.8
1.3

potential alternatives. Kablan (2004) used AHP to prioritize policy

instruments that encourage more energy conservation. AHP methodology has been applied to prioritize energy technologies for
Korea in order to ensure long term energy efciency, greenhouse
gasses (GHG) emission control, and calculate national competiveness of Korea and other developed countries for the development
of hydrogen energy technology (Lee et al., 2007b; Lee et al.,
2008b; Lee et al., 2008c). AHP was used for making site selection
decisions of wind farms in China (Lee et al., 2008a) and for selection of wind observation location (Aras et al., 2004). Jaber et al.
(2008) applied AHP method to evaluate various energy sources
for space heating in the household sector.
AHP has been used to assess the potential of offshore wind energy
in Taiwan (Lee et al., 2008d). Pilavachi et al. (2009) developed an AHP
decision model for the evaluation of seven hydrogen production processes against the criteria. Afgan and Carvalho (2002) performed
multi-criteria assessment of ten types of conventional and renewable
energy power plants. AHP is also used to evaluate impact of power
plants on the standard of living and non-radioactive emissions from
power plants (Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2007, 2008a, 2009b).
Tsoutsos et al. (2009) used multi-criteria analysis approach to
plan for sustainable energy development for the island of Crete.
Wijayatunga et al. (2006) applied AHP methodology to identify and
rank the barriers to the promotion of cleaner and energy efcient
electric generation technologies in Sri Lanka. AHP framework is also
used for the evaluation of bio-fuels for European transport sector
(Papalexandrou et al., 2008) and evaluation of alternate fuels for
USA (Nava and Daim, 2007). Moreover, Clarke (1997) used AHP to

427

Table 5
Average capacity factor of various technologies calculated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration based on U.S. data (EIA, 2011).
Type of power plant

Capacity factor %

Wind
Solar photovoltaic
Solar thermal
Biomass

34
25
18
83

Table 6
Land requirements for electricity generation using different RETs based on global data
(Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2008a; Muller-Steinhagen, 2008).
Type of power plant

Land requirements (km2/1000 MW)

Wind
Solar photovoltaic
Solar thermal
Biomass

100
35
40
5000

facilitate decision making for the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP)

for electric utilities.
It can be seen from the literature survey that AHP based decision models are widely used in the energy and renewable energy
sector. Therefore AHP is considered appropriate methodology for
the selection and ranking of suitable renewable energy
technologies.

AHP model
After analyzing the renewable energy potential of Pakistan, conducting extensive literature review related to the use of AHP methodology for the selection and evaluation of renewable energy
technologies and interaction with experts, an AHP based decision
model has been formulated. This model consists of four tiers comprising of goal, criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives. The goal of the decision model is placed on the top of the hierarchical model. Selection,

Table 4
Cost of electricity generation from various RETs in U.S. cents () per kW h based on data obtained from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries (IEA, 2007).

Type of

Average

power plant

electricity cost
(US /kWh)

Wind

10

Solar

35

Photovoltaic
Solar

18

Thermal
Biomass

428

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

Table 7
Percentage of favorable public opinion toward various RETs in the European Union
countries (EWEA, 2009).
Type of power plant

Public opinion in favor of a technology

Wind
Solar photovoltaic
Solar thermal
Biomass

71%
80%
80%
55%

Table 10
Relative weights of sub-criteria with respect to the goal.
Criteria

Sub-criteria

Relative weight

Economical

R&D cost
Capital cost
O&M cost
Economic value/viability
Electricity cost
Technology maturity
Efciency/capacity factor
Reliability
Deployment time/duration
Expert human resource
Distribution grid availability
Resource availability
Social benets
Job creation
Social acceptance
Land requirement
Emissions (greenhouse gasses etc.)
Stress on eco-system
National energy security
National economic benets

0.035
0.095
0.067
0.063
0.091
0.049
0.026
0.052
0.021
0.031
0.026
0.057
0.043
0.050
0.026
0.056
0.063
0.032
0.047
0.073

Technical

Social
Table 8
Average job creation by various technologies in U.S. (Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi,
2008a; ESTIA, 2005).
Type of power plant

Job creation (employees/500 MW)

Wind
Solar photovoltaic
Solar thermal
Biomass

5635
5370
2793
36,055

Environmental

Political

evaluation and ranking of appropriate renewable energy technologies

for electricity generation in Pakistan is the goal of this decision model.
The AHP model is shown in Fig. 5.
Five criteria and twenty sub-criteria were identied that have direct impact on the goal of the decision model. Description of criteria
from economical, technical, social, environmental and political aspects is presented below in Table 2.
Table 3 to Table 8 present quantitative data related to capital/
investment cost, O&M cost, transmission investment, electricity
cost, capacity factor, land requirements, job creation and social acceptance. However, it is pertinent to mention that these tables rate
the different alternate technologies in the USA and other countries.
Since these technologies are not commercially deployed in Pakistan
so country specic data are not available. However, it is likely that
same technology will have similar relative requirements when
deployed for electricity generation in a different country.
Table 3 indicates levelized capital cost, O&M cost and transmission
investment based on U.S. data (EIA, 2011).
Tables 4, 5 and 6 indicate cost of electricity generation, capacity
factor and land requirements for deployment of RETs. These factors
depend on the availability of RE resource which is location specic.
It is likely that these technologies will be deployed in Pakistan at
good locations having availability of RE resources.
In case of wind energy the area occupied by wind farms can also
be used for other activities, e.g. farming, cattle grazing etc. Hence
the net area taken up by the equipment and transmission lines is
smaller than the total area captured by the wind farm. Table 6
shows gross area occupied by the wind farm. For the other three options, there is no alternative use of the land.

Table 9
Relative weights of criteria with respect to the goal.
Economical

Technical

Social

Environmental

Political

0.35

0.26

0.12

0.15

0.12

Table 7 highlights public opinion toward a type of a power plant

which represents the social acceptance of these projects and Table 8
indicates the number of employment opportunities generated from
energy projects employing these RETs. Public opinion and number
of job creations are sub-criteria from the social aspects.
The public opinion toward various RE technologies can signicantly vary from one country to another. However, in general public opinion is favorable toward greener technologies. Results of the model
(highlighted in the next section) indicate that wind and biomass are
the most preferred alternatives for Pakistan.
Table 8 indicates the average number of jobs created in U.S. by
deploying these RETs. So these data are obtained from an industrialized country where human resource is quite expensive. It is likely
that deployment of these technologies in Pakistan will result to
higher number of job creations than U.S.

Results and discussion

In applying the AHP process, pairwise comparisons are made to
state the importance of one element of the decision problem with another (e.g. criteria, sub-criteria, alternatives etc.). A survey instrument was developed for obtaining subjective judgments from
experts from universities and industry (survey instrument attached
as Appendix A). Experts were asked to make pairwise comparisons

Table 11
Ten (10) most important sub-criteria.
Sub-criteria

Relative impact

Capital cost
Electricity cost
National economic benets
O&M cost
Economic value/viability
Emissions (greenhouse gasses etc.)
Resource availability
Land requirement
Reliability
Job creation

9.50%
9.10%
7.30%
6.70%
6.30%
6.30%
5.70%
5.60%
5.20%
5.00%

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

429

generation cost, and the lowest capacity factor among other

alternatives.

Table 12
Priority weight of each alternative.
Alternatives

Priority weight

Biomass energy
Wind energy
Solar thermal
Solar photovoltaic

0.315
0.260
0.222
0.205

of the criteria with respect to the goal and sub-criteria with respect to
each criterion. Respondents were asked to express their relative judgment of one element versus another by distributing 100 points. Results indicate that economical and technical aspects are the most
important criteria identied by the experts with relative weights of
0.35 and 0.26 respectively (as shown in Table 9). The environmental
aspects emerged as the third most important factor for decision making. Both social and political aspects got the least but equal importance (0.12 relative weights). The overall disagreement was
observed to be 0.026 and inconsistency of the judgments by each expert was less than 0.01.
Relative weights of sub-criteria with respect to the goal of the decision model are also mentioned in Table 10.
Pakistan is a developing country with limited nancial resources,
therefore experts emphasized economical criterion. Capital/investment cost emerged as the most important sub-criterion from the economical aspects. Generation cost of electricity and O&M (operations
and maintenance) costs are also very critical because people cannot
afford to use power if generation cost is very high. From the technical
aspects availability of energy resource, reliability of technology and
technology maturity are the most important sub-criteria. It indicates
that there is a desire to invest in a mature and reliable technology
having abundance of resources available in the country. Moreover, it
also indicates that due to nancial constraints, decision makers are
not willing to take any technical risk and their behavior is more risk
averse.
Job creation is the most important sub-criterion from the social aspects followed by social benets. Due to high unemployment rate in
the country, there is more emphasis on the creation of new job opportunities. Electrication of the local community is considered as the
most important social benet for remote communities/villages that
don't have access to electricity. Emission of greenhouse gasses and
land requirement are important sub-criteria from environmental aspects and national economic benet is the most important subcriterion from the political aspects. Since more than 60% of the foreign
exchange of Pakistan is consumed to import energy, therefore, it is
expected that utilization of indigenous renewable energy resources
will yield economic benets to the country and reduce dependence
on imported energy. Table 11 highlights the ten most important
sub-criteria identied by experts having an impact of 5% or more on
the overall goal.
Based upon the relative weights of the sub-criteria, priority
weights of each alternative were calculated as shown in Table 12.
This calculation of priority weights ranking is partly based upon
the actual objective data related to the sub-criteria. However, for
some elements of sub-criteria actual data was not available, therefore subjective data was used obtained from the experts through
pairwise comparisons. Due to lowest capital cost, lowest electricity
generation cost, resource availability and higher employment opportunities, the biomass energy has the highest priority weight (0.315)
among other technologies. Wind energy has the second highest priority weight. Solar thermal and solar photovoltaic have the lowest
priority weights mainly due to highest capital cost and electricity

Conclusions
We have evaluated and compared four types of renewable energy technology options for electricity generation using multiperspective approach. AHP model has been used for the rst time
in the energy sector of Pakistan for the prioritization and ranking
of renewable energy technologies. In the model, several criteria
and sub-criteria were identied for the selection and ranking of
the best alternative. The survey instrument was distributed to experts from university and industry and experts were asked to give
their personal judgment, opinion and priority for the criteria, subcriteria and alternatives (survey instrument attached as
Appendix A). Experts quantied that the economical and technical
criteria are the most important factors for selecting and ranking of
these technologies. Due to the present economic recession and
weaker economy of Pakistan, experts emphasized more on investment cost, O&M cost and power generation cost from economical
aspects. The expected economic benets to country from these
technologies are also considered critical. Availability of renewable
energy resource, reliability and technology maturity were the
most important sub-criteria from technical aspects. The results indicate that experts give preference to the mature, reliable and
least expensive technology and decision makers want to reduce
technical and nancial risk.
Results further indicate that biomass energy and wind energy
emerged as the preferred alternatives. Utilization of biomass energy on large scale can reduce dependence on conventional fossil fuel
in the country. It will enhance energy security for the country, create job opportunities in the villages and reduce dependence on
imported fossil fuel. Wind energy can also play an important role
in overcoming the energy shortages in the country. There are thousands of villages in Pakistan without electricity and all these technology alternatives can be used for distributed energy generation
close to the load being served. However, it is pertinent to mention
that no single alternative is ideal for the whole country, but a combination of multiple suitable technologies offers diversity, system
redundancy, energy independence and long-term sustainable development. Utilization of these technologies can signicantly help
the country to overcome the electricity shortage, improve living
standards of the society, contribute to economic growth of the
country, improve rural economy, reduce energy import bill, and ensure environment sustainability. It is recommended to use AHP
based decision model for the formulation of the next national renewable energy policy and development of national and regional
renewable energy roadmaps for the country. The proposed model
can be used for the assessment of various green technologies for
electricity generation.

Acknowledgments
Authors acknowledge the valuable contribution of RISE (Research
Institute for Sustainable Energy) research team of the Engineering
and Technology Management (ETM) Department, Portland State University for the development of this AHP model.

Appendix A
Survey instrument.
Selection and evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for
Pakistan.

430

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

Name:

Occupation:

Directions: Divide 100 points between every pair

depending on your comparison.

Example: Divide 100 comparing taste between

an apple and an orange.

Apple
30

1) Complete the pairwise comparison for each of the pairings for selection, evaluation and ranking of renewable energy
alternatives for Pakistan.
Economical

Technical

Economical

Social

Economical

Environmental

Economical

Political

Technical

Social

Technical

Environmental

Technical

Political

Social

Environmental

Social

Political

Environmental

Political

2) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account the economical aspects.

R&D Cost

Investment cost

R&D Cost

O&M Cost

R&D Cost

Economic value

R&D Cost

Electricity cost

Investment cost

O&M Cost

Investment cost

Economic value

Investment cost

Electricity cost

O&M Cost

Economic value

O&M Cost

Electricity cost

Economic value

Electricity cost

Orange
70

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

431

Name:

Occupation:

Directions: Divide 100 points between every pair

depending on your comparison.

Example: Divide 100 comparing taste between

an apple and an orange.

Apple
30

3) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account the technical aspects.

Technology maturity

Efficiency/Capacity factor

Technology maturity

Reliability

Technology maturity

Deployment time

Technology maturity

Expert HR available

Technology maturity

Distribution grid

Technology maturity

Resource availability

Efficiency/Capacity factor

Reliability

Efficiency/Capacity factor

Deployment time

Efficiency/Capacity factor

Expert HR available

Efficiency/Capacity factor

Distribution grid

Efficiency/Capacity factor

Resource availability

Reliability

Deployment time

Reliability

Expert HR available

Reliability

Distribution grid

Reliability

Resource availability

Deployment time

Expert HR available

Deployment time

Distribution grid

Deployment time

Resource availability

Expert HR available

Distribution grid

Expert HR available

Resource availability

Distribution grid

Resource availability

4) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account the social aspects.

Social benefits

Job creation

Social benefits

Social acceptance

Job creation

Social acceptance

5) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account the environmental aspects.

Land requirement

Pollution / Emissions

Land requirement

Stress one eco-system

Pollution / Emissions

Stress one eco-system

6) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account the political aspects.

National energy security

National economic benefits

Orange
70

432

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

Name:

Occupation:

Directions: Divide 100 points between every pair

depending on your comparison.

Example: Divide 100 comparing taste between

an apple and an orange.

Apple
30

7) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with less R&D cost.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

8) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with better economic viability.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar Thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

9) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with higher technology maturity.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

10) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with better reliability.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

Orange
70

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

433

Name:

Occupation:

Directions: Divide 100 points between every pair

depending on your comparison.

Example: Divide 100 comparing taste between

an apple and an orange.

Apple
30

11) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with less deployment time.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

12) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with more expert HR&D available.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

13) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with better resource availability.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

14) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with better social benefits.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

Orange
70

434

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

Name:

Occupation:

Directions: Divide 100 points between every pair

depending on your comparison.

Example: Divide 100 comparing taste between

an apple and an orange.

Apple
30

15) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with less Emissions / Pollution.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

16) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with less stress on eco-system.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

17) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with better energy security.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

18) Complete a pairwise comparison taking into account alternative with better economic benefits.
Wind energy

Solar PV energy

Wind energy

Solar Thermal energy

Wind energy

Biomass energy

Solar PV energy

Solar thermal energy

Solar PV energy

Biomass energy

Solar thermal energy

Biomass energy

Orange
70

M. Amer, T.U. Daim / Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 420435

References
AEDB Alternate Energy Development Board. available at:http://www.aedb.org/2010.
(accessed: Jan 8, 2010).
Afgan NH, Carvalho MG. Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy
power plants. Energy 2002;27:73955.
Ahsan MK, Bartlema J. Monitoring healthcare performance by analytic hierarchy process: a developing-country perspective. Int Trans Oper Res 2004;11:46578.
Akash BA, Mamlook R, Mohsen MS. Multi-criteria selection of electric power plants
using analytical hierarchy process. Electr Power Syst Res 1999;52:2935.
Aras H, Erdogmus S, Koc E. Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process. Renewable energy 2004;29:138392.
Asif M. Sustainable energy options for Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2009;13:9039.
Chandler H, Bjerg J, Kerr T, Remme U, Beck B, Philibert C, et al. Wind energy technology
roadmap. International Energy Agency (IEA); 2009.
Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants
and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy
Policy 2007;35:402738.
Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on
the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 2008a;36:
107489.
Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Sensitivity analysis of the evaluation of power plants
impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Convers
Manag 2008b;49:3599611.
Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Sensitivity analysis of technological, economic and
sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 2009a;37:78898.
Chatzimouratidis AI, Pilavachi PA. Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy
2009b;37:77887.
Chaudhry AM, Raza R, Hayat SA. Renewable energy technologies in Pakistan: prospects
and challenges. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2009;13:165762.
Chen T-Y, Yu OS, Hsu GJ-y, Hsu F-M, Sung W-N. Renewable energy technology portfolio planning with scenario analysis: a case study for Taiwan. Energy Policy 2009;37:29006.
Clarke RR. Validation and legitimation of an analytic hierarchy approach to integrated
resource planning for electric utilities. Energy Conversion Engineering Conference
(IECEC-97). Honolulu, HI. USA: IEEE; 1997. p. 2197201.
Daim T, Yates D, Peng Y, Jimenez B. Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: the case of the Pacic Northwest. Technol Soc 2009;31:23243.
Diakoulaki D, Georgiou P, Tourkolias C, Georgopoulou E, Lalas D, Mirasgedis S, et al. A
multicriteria approach to identify investment opportunities for the exploitation
of the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy 2007;35:108899.
EIA. International energy outlook. DOE/EIA-0484(2009), energy information administration. U.S. Department of Energy; 2009.
EIA. Annual energy outlook 2011. Energy Information Administration; 2011.
Elkarmi F, Mustafa I. Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in Jordan analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy 1993;21:97882.
EPIA. European Photovoltaic Industry Association. available at:http://www.epia.org/
publications/epia-publications/solar-generation-6.html?0=2010. (accessed: Nov
10, 2010).
ESTIA. Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change: concentrated solar
thermal power. European Solar Thermal Industry Association; 2005.
EWEA. Social acceptance of wind energy and wind farms. Wind energy the facts. The
European Wind Energy Association; 2009.
Forman EH, Gass SI. The analytic hierarchy process an exposition. Oper Res 2001;49:
46986.
Gerdsri N, Kocaoglu DF. Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to build a strategic
framework for technology roadmapping. Math Comput Model 2007;46:107180.
Gerdsri P. A systematic approach to developing national technology policy and strategy
for emerging technologies [PhD Dissertation]. Portland: Portland State University
Ghayur A. Role of satellites for renewable energy generation technologies in urban regional
and urban settings. International Conference on Advances in Space Technologies,
ICAST 2006Islamabad, Pakistan: Inst. of Elec. and Elec. Eng. Computer Society; 2006.
p. 15761.
GoP. Policy for development of renewable energy for power generation. Government of
Pakistan; 2006.
GoP. Pakistan economic survey 20062007. Government of Pakistan; 2007.
Harmon RR, Cowan KR. A multiple perspectives view of the market case for green energy. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 2009;76:20413.
IEA. Renewables in global energy supply: an IEA fact sheet. International Energy Agency;
2007.
IEA. Key world energy statistics. International Energy Agency; 2009.
Jaber JO, Jaber QM, Sawalha SA, Mohsen MS. Evaluation of conventional and renewable
energy sources for space heating in the household sector. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2008;12:27889.
Jefferson M. Sustainable energy development: performance and prospects. Renewable
energy 2006;31:57182.
Kablan M. Prioritization of decentralized electricity options available for rural areas in
Jordan. Energy Convers Manag 1997;38:151521.

435

Kablan MM. Decision support for energy conservation promotion: an analytic hierarchy process approach. Energy Policy 2004;32:11518.
Kahraman C, Kaya I, Cebi S. A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among
renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 2009;34:160316.
Kocaoglu DF. A participative approach to program evaluation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage
1983;30.
Lee AHI, Chen HH, Kang H-Y. Multi-criteria decision making on strategic selection of
wind farms. Renewable Energy 2008a;34:1206.
Lee DJ, Hwang J. Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear technology using the
analytic hierarchy process: a Korean case. Energy Policy 2010;38:1617.
Lee SK, Mogi G, Kim JW. The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: the AHP approach. Energy Policy 2008b;36:128491.
Lee SK, Mogi G, Kim JW, Gim BJ. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach for assessing national competitiveness in the hydrogen technology sector. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2008c;33:68408.
Lee SK, Mogi G, Shin SC, Kim JW. An AHP/DEA hybrid model for measuring the relative
efciency of energy efciency technologies. IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, IEEM 2007Singapore: Inst. of
Elec. and Elec. Eng. Computer Society; 2007a. p. 559.
Lee SK, Yoon YJ, Kim JW. A study on making a long-term improvement in the national energy efciency and GHG control plans by the AHP approach. Energy Policy 2007b;35:
28628.
Lee TL, Lin HM, Jeng DS, Hsu TW. Application of fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to assess
the potential of offshore wind energy in Taiwan. Proceedings of the international offshore and polar engineering conferenceVancouver, BC, Canada: International Society
of Offshore and Polar Engineers; 2008d. p. 4615.
Mirza IK, Khan AN, Memon N. Development of benchmark wind speed for Gharo and
Jhimpir, Pakistan. Renewable Energy 2010;35:57682.
Mirza UK, Ahmad N, Harijan K, Majeed T. Identifying and addressing barriers to renewable energy development in Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2009;13:
92731.
Mirza UK, Ahmad N, Majeed T. An overview of biomass energy utilization in Pakistan.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2008;12:198896.
Mirza UK, Ahmad N, Majeed T, Harijan K. Wind energy development in Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2007;11:217990.
MMA. High temperature solar thermal technology roadmap for New South Wales and
Victorian Governments. McLennan Magasanik Associates (MMA) and Wyld Group
Pty Ltd; 2008.
Muller-Steinhagen H. Solar thermal power plants on the way to commercial market introduction. Stuttgart, Germany: Institute for Technical Thermodynamics,
German Aerospace Center (DLR); 2008.
Nava MR, Daim TU. Evaluating alternative fuels in USA: a proposed forecasting framework using AHP and scenarios. Int J Automot Technol Manage 2007;7:289313.
Nigim K, Munier N, Green J. Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources. Renewable energy 2004;29:
177591.
NREL. Biomass research. US National Renewable Energy Laboratory. available at:http://
www.nrel.gov/biomass/2010. (accessed: Jan 10, 2010).
NREL. Solar map of Pakistan. US National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2010b.
NREL. Wind map of Pakistan. US National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2010c.
Papalexandrou MA, Pilavachi PA, Chatzimouratidis AI. Evaluation of liquid bio-fuels
using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Process Saf Environ Prot 2008;86:36074.
PCRET. Pakistan Council of Renewable Energy Technologies. available at:http://www.
pcret.gov.pk/2010. (accessed: Jan 8, 2010).
PEYB. Pakistan Energy Year Book. Hydrocarbon development institute of Pakistan.
Islamabad, Pakistan: Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources; 2009.
Pilavachi PA, Chatzipanagi AI, Spyropoulou AI. Evaluation of hydrogen production methods
using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:5294303.
PMD. Pakistan Metrological Department. Wind power potential of Sindh; 2007.
Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation.
McGraw Hill International; 1980.
Sahir MH, Qureshi AH. Specic concerns of Pakistan in the context of energy security
issues and geopolitics of the region. Energy Policy 2007;35:20317.
Sheikh MA. Renewable energy resource potential in Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2009;13:2696702.
Sheikh MA. Energy and renewable energy scenario of Pakistan. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2010;14:35463.
Stephens JC, Wilson EJ, Peterson TR. Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment
(SPEED): an integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 2008;75:122446.
Tsoutsos T, Drandaki M, Frantzeskaki N, Iosidis E, Kiosses I. Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy 2009;37:1587600.
Wang J-J, Jing Y-Y, Zhang C-F, Zhao J-H. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid
in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev
2009;13:226378.
Wijayatunga PDC, Siriwardena K, Fernando WJLS, Shrestha RM, Attalage RA. Strategies to overcome barriers for cleaner generation technologies in small developing power systems: Sri Lanka case study. Energy Convers Manag 2006;47:
117991.