diana mihaela pociovălişteanu - universitatea din craiova development, and liquid waste treatment....

Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2016 3

Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Environmental and technical evaluation of the use of alternative fuels through multi-criteria analysis model

Antonis A. Zorpas* Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, Environmental Conservation and Management, Cyprus Open University, P.O. Box 12794, 2252, Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprus Fax: +357-22411601 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Diana Mihaela Pociovălişteanu Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, “Constantin Brancusi” University of Targu-Jiu, Eroilor Street, No. 30, Targu-Jiu, Gorj 210135, Romania Fax: +40-726187718 Email: [email protected]

Lydia Georgiadou Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, Environmental Conservation and Management, Cyprus Open University, P.O. Box 12794, 2252, Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprus Email: [email protected]

Irene Voukkali Institute of Environmental Technology and Sustainable Development, IETS, P.O. Box 34073, 5309, Paralimni, Cyprus Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The current way in which the fossil natural resources are consumed as energy resources does not reflect the concept of sustainability and therefore raises new priorities for the existing energy system and sets the challenge to find alternative energy sources that enhance the quality of life without jeopardising the environmental and human health. This study investigated the consequences of the use of alternative fuels (hydrogen, natural gas, bio-ethanol and bio-gas) by focusing on several factors that can be expected to influence the environmental, economic and social sector, in order to verify the feasibility

4 A.A. Zorpas et al.

of increasing their share compared to conventional fuels. The results indicated that economy criteria of alternative fuels is consider to be significant advantage over traditional fuels, while the comparative evaluation that resulted from the combination of properties with the optimal values, highlights and drives the exploration of hydrogen as the ‘best’ alternative fuel source.

Keywords: alternative fuels; hydrogen; natural gas; bio-ethanol and bio-gas; sustainable development; analytic hierarchy process; AHP; multi-criteria analysis.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Zorpas, A.A., Pociovălişteanu, D.M., Georgiadou, L. and Voukkali, I. (2016) ‘Environmental and technical evaluation of the use of alternative fuels through multi-criteria analysis model’, Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.3–15.

Biographical notes: Antonis A. Zorpas is a Professor (Lecture) in Cyprus Open University. He is a Chemical Engineer and he holds a PhD in the Section of Environmental Engineer. He is the Editor in three scientific books: “Sludge Management; From the Past to Our Century”, “Natural Zeolites”, “Sustainability Behind Sustainability”. He has published more than 70 scientific papers and more than 200 papers in international conferences. He is research back-round includes: solid and liquid waste treatment and management, composting and bio solids, waste minimisation monitoring, evaluation, sustainable development and strategic planning, EIA, LCA, risk assessment analysis and multi criteria analysis models.

Diana Mihaela Pociovălişteanu is an Associate Professor at the “Constantin Brancusi” University of Targu-Jiu, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Tg-Jiu, Romania. Her PhD and Postdoctoral studies are in Economics. Her research focuses on macroeconomics, sustainability, migration and energy. She has been Visiting Researcher in the University of A Coruna, Department of Economic Analysis and Business Administration. She is a member of the scientific committee of several international conferences: Scientific 2nd World Symposium on Sustainable Development at Universities (WSSD-U-2014), Manchester, UK, 3–5 September, 2014; EDaSS 2014; EdaSS 2013; EdaSS 2012; A Coruna, Spania; Euro-Agroland 2015, Nitra, Slovakia.

Lydia Georgiadou holds a Master degree in Environmental Conservation and Management and she is acting as a Consultant.

Irene Voukkali holds a Master degree in Environmental Engineering and she is the Quality Control Manager of the Institute of Environmental Technology and Sustainable Development. Until now, she has published five chapters in scientific books; more than 15 research papers in scientific journals and more than 30 papers in international conferences. Her research mainly focuses on sustainable development, EMAS, environmental management systems, strategic development, and liquid waste treatment.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Environmental and technical evaluation of the use of alternative fuels’ presented at The International Conference “Sustainable Energy Use and Management” (SEUM), Targu-Jiu, Romania, 20 May, 2014.

Environmental and technical evaluation of the use of alternative fuels 5

1 Introduction

For decades, fossil energy sources (expect the energy produced from nuclear) played a dominating role in energy production all around the planet. The usage of fossil source like carbon and oil is considered to be very problematic mainly owing to their negative effects on climate change (Gaigalis et al., 2015). It can be said that from ecological and economic point of view, it is not reasonable in now a days to base energy supply on fossil energy sources.

Sustainable energy development requires alternative fuels, which are viewed as a cleaner means of chemical energy storage with respect to fossil fuels. Alternative fuels are derived from resources other than petroleum, and according to Iliev (2015) when those fuels are used they produce less air pollution compared to gasoline as well as economically beneficial than oil.

Generally fuels derived from biomass (Cervero et al., 2008) have several advantages in which the most important one includes:

• no emission of sulphur during their combustion because biomass lacks sulphur compounds in its composition

• no production of particulate matter or PAH’s (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) during their combustion

• biomass-derived CO2 in fuel emissions is recycled in the feedstock production.

Also the purity of ethanol is essential, with respect to its water content, since water occurrence in the reaction medium decreases selectivity. Biofuels are generally considered as offering many priorities, including sustainability, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, regional development, social structure and agriculture, security of supply (Ilkilic and Yucesu, 2008; Unal and Alibas, 2007).

Sustainable fuels may offer a promising alternative (Demirbas, 2008a, 2009b). Owing to the high price of petroleum especially after petrol crisis in 1973 and then gulf war in 1991, geographically reduced availability of petroleum and more stringent governmental and European regulations on exhaust emissions, researchers around the World have studied on alternative fuels and alternative solution methods (Demirbas, 2009a; Durgum and Sahin, 2007). Alternative fuels like biofuels are considered to be very important because they replace petroleum fuels contributing the way for the conservation of natural resources. It is expected that the demand for biofuels will rise in the nearest future. Biofuels are substitute fuel source for petroleum; however, some still include a small amount of petroleum in the mixture (Demirbas, 2008b).

The main benefit between alternative fuels (like bio) and conventional fuels (like petroleum) is the content of oxygen (Demirbas, 2007a). Alternative fuels are non-polluting, locally available, accessible, sustainable and reliable fuel obtained from renewable sources (Demirbas, 2007b). Sustainability of renewable energy systems must support both human and ecosystem health over the long term, goals on tolerable emissions should look well in the future (Ludwig, 1997; UNDP, 2004). Electricity generation from biofuels has been found to be a promising method in the nearest future (Karki et al., 2008). The future of biomass electricity generation lies in biomass integrated gasification/gas turbine technology, which offers high-energy conversion efficiencies (Demirbas and Urkmez, 2006).


Alternative fuels (Dincer and Zamfirescu, 2014) are non-conventional fuels that can be obtained from biomass (in which case they are called biofuels) or from fossil fuels (in which case they are called synthetic fossil-based fuels). Blends of fossil-derived fuels and biofuels are also considered alternative fuels (e.g., gasoline + bio-ethanol blends). The classification of fuels is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Fuels classification

The necessity for alternative fuels is clarified by the two main reasons:

• fossil-based fuels deplete, thus new fuel sources must be discovered

• high carbon dioxide emissions are associated with fossil fuel combustion, and it is desired to limit these in order to have a better environment and avoid the danger of global warming.

1.1 Hydrogen – natural gas – bio-ethanol – bio-gas

The use of hydrogen as an energy carrier is one of the options put forward in most governmental strategic plans for a sustainable energy system. The attractiveness of hydrogen lies in the variety of methods to produce hydrogen as well as the long-term viability of some of them (from fossil fuels, from renewable energy: biomass, wind, solar, from nuclear power, etc.), the variety of methods to produce energy from hydrogen (internal combustion engines, gas turbines, fuel cells), virtually zero harmful emissions and potentially high efficiency at the point of its use. Nevertheless, the advantages offered by hydrogen are significant enough to warrant the exploration of its possibilities (Verhelst and Wallner, 2009). The large-scale introduction of hydrogen as a fuel would reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and keep the air clean free from pollution (Ramesh Bapu et al., 2011). The world is heading toward hydrogen economy with the general perception that hydrogen as a fuel is environmentally clean because its combustion results in the generation of harmless water.

On the other hand as at the beginning of the 21st century, fuel cells poised to meet the power needs of variety of applications. Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that convert chemical energy to electricity and thermal energy (Ramesh Bapu et al., 2011). Electricity made by the conversion of primary energy sources is easily transported and delivered to end-users. Hydrogen is a clean fuel and efficient energy medium for fuel cells and other devices. Building an infrastructure that allows for easy and cost-effective transportation and delivery of hydrogen energy is a critical step toward a future hydrogen economy.


Hydrogen can be produced from water, renewable energy sources and from other fuels. Hydrogen (hydrogen life cycle in Figure 2) could be used for a broad range of applications to supplement or substitute the consumption of hydrocarbon fuels and fossil fuels in an environment friendly manner.

Figure 2 Hydrogen life cycle

The large-scale introduction of hydrogen as a fuel would reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and keep the air clean free from pollution. Hydrogen can be produced from renewable energy sources by various methods. Electrolytic, prototypic/photo-biological, photo-electrolysis and thermo-chemical hydrogen production technologies are currently under development and use. The combination of hydrogen with fossil fuels such as gasoline, natural gas, ethanol, methanol for fuelling IC engines provides less emission and increase performance (Ramesh Bapu et al., 2011). The aim of the hydrogen energy is to expand the role of hydrogen as a fuel for surface transportation. The use of hydrogen initially will be as an additive to conventional fuels. The combination of hydrogen with fossil fuels such as gasoline, natural gas, ethanol and methanol for fuelling IC engines provides less emission and increase performance.

Natural gas (NG) is recognised as the fossil fuel causing least damage to the environment (Gaudernack and Lynum, 1997), since it is the cleanest of all fossil fuels and the main products of combustion of natural gas are carbon dioxide and water vapour. The combustion of natural gas releases very small amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), other reactive hydrocarbons and virtually no particulate matter. Coal and oil are composed of much more complex molecules and when combusted, they release higher levels of harmful emissions such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide. They also release ash particles into the environment. The main component of natural gas, methane, is itself a potent greenhouse gas.

Bio-ethanol (CH3CH2OH) is an alcohol-based alternative renewable green fuel produced by fermenting and distilling starch crops that have been converted into simple sugars.


Feedstocks for this fuel include corn, barley, wheat, rice straw, sugar cane bagasse, pulpwood, switchgrass and municipal solid waste. The use of bio-ethanol is promoted for its positive environmental impacts on the climate change. Like other biofuels, bio-ethanol is not only expected to reduce CO2 emissions but also considered to be CO2-neutral (Balat, 2008).

Bio-gas is a gaseous matter that is similar to natural gas and can be defined as a biofuel produced by a large number of anaerobic microbial species that inherently possess the capability to ferment organic matter under controlled temperature, moisture and pH to yield a high energy value fuel. So the bio-gas is the end product of the microbiological fermentation (metabolic product of the methane bacteria) (Valeria and Emese, 2011). Anaerobic digestion embraces the concept of sustainability and proximity (Asam et al., 2011).

2 Materials and methods

For the determination of optimal alternative fuel, the multi-criteria model of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied (Zorpas and Saranti, 2015), for the pair-wise comparison of the candidate technologies. The objectives served by the application of AHP model include the determination of most viable fuels in terms of technical, environment, economic and social criteria.

The application of the methodology of AHP is performed by using the software MakeiItRational Professional (www.makeitrational.com).

The AHP analysis (Zorpas and Saranti, 2015) is based on three fundamental principles:

• breakdown of the problem into sub-problems

• pair-wise comparison of criteria and various alternative scenarios

• composition of preferences.

The analysis is completed through four steps as follows:

• degradation of the problem into sub-problems and formation of an hierarchical structure

• pair-wise comparison of decision elements used to derive normalised absolute scales of numbers whose elements are then used as priorities

• calculation of priorities for the problematic data

• composition of preferences for alternative scenarios to solve the problem.

The key element, of the method, is the pair-wise comparison of the components at each level of the hierarchical structure, namely the criteria and sub-criteria of the alternative scenarios, which affect the problem. For this purpose, comparison matrices are structured for the comparison of elements of a level of hierarchy with the elements of the next higher level and so. The input data in comparison matrices, which represent the expression of preferences of the decision makers, resulting from the fundamental scale of Saaty, is a qualitative scale that includes values from 1 to 9.


These values are used by the decision makers for the purpose of benchmarking as equal (1), moderately strong (3), strong (5), very strong (7) and very strong (9) importance. On the basis of the scale preferences of Saaty, all possible gradations of preference are P = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1/2.1/3.1/4.1/5.1/6.1/7.1/8.1/9}. Therefore, the scale proposed by Saaty is a mathematical approximation of preferences and the importance of the criteria and alternative scenarios is attributed to the decision makers. Nevertheless, in case that there is a precise measurement with respect to the preference of a criterion or alternative scenario over another, it is possible to use the accurate measurement (Bottero et al., 2011; Karimi et al., 2011; Saaty, 1987, 1990).

To ensure consistency in the pair-wise comparisons, during AHP analysis, the calculation of the consistency ratio (CR) is necessary to take place in order to assess any discrepancies in matrices of pair-wise comparisons that should lead the decision makers to revise their initial estimates. According to the literature, any pair-wise comparison matrix is considered to be consistent and hence acceptable when CR is less than 10% (Ozdemir, 2005). In addition to that, a sensitivity analysis on the AHP weights is unfolded to show the impact of varying weights to the final outcome (Georgiou et al., 2012).

The increased use of alternative fuels should be accompanied by a detailed analysis of the environmental, economic and social impact in order to determine the feasibility of increasing their share compared to conventional fuels. As part of this study we attempt a comparative assessment of alternative fuels: hydrogen, natural gas, bio-ethanol and bio-gas, through conducting a multi-criteria evaluation so as to justify the impetus to explore the ‘best’ alternative fuel resulting from this approach. To carry out the comparative evaluation of alternative fuel sources, data were gathered in terms of technical, environmental, economic, social and political aspects:

• technical criteria: calorific value, octane number, density

• environmental criteria: sustainability of production methods, emissions of carbon dioxide (complete combustion), main by-products (complete combustion), impacts on ecosystems

• economic criteria: production costs, labour force, resource availability

• social criteria: job creation, public acceptance, safety.

3 Results and discussion

Global warming causing a serious environmental problem owing to the release of high amounts of greenhouse gases during fossil fuel combustion. The increase in per capita energy use and improved living standard in both developed and developing countries has led to increase in fossil fuel consumption, much of that increase is from the transportation sector (Lanjewar et al., 2015; Speth et al., 2015). Several factors like the rising fuel prices, continual increasing of oil demand and alarming GHG emissions have turn the research worldwide to develop alternative fuels that are renewable, which produce less harmful emissions (COx, NOx, SOx) and can help nations to become more energy independent. Promotion of alternative automotive fuels as a clean and safe energy resource can be expected to play a major role in improving


the urban air quality and dependency on conventional fuels (Lanjewar et al., 2015; Rahman et al., 2015).

The evaluation of the parameters (Table 1) of the technical, environmental, economic and social criteria resulting from the approach of the Malty criteria analysis shows that the economy of alternative fuels has significant advantages over traditional fuels. Given that the use of non-renewable energy sources (fossil fuels) increases emissions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, with consequent environmental, economic and social costs, enhancing the use of alternative fuels may be an ideal solution to tackle these impacts.

It is the main energy property of a substance and is the energy obtained by burning a unit weight of fuel. Specifically calorific value defines the amount of heat which is released by the complete combustion of a unit quantity of the substance. Hydrogen has the highest calorific value: bio-ethanol < benzene < bio-gas < gas < hydrogen. Octane number is a measure of the quality of fuels for internal combustion engines. It shows the anti-knock rating of the fuel, i.e., how to withstand a compressed fuel without exploding. All alternative fuels have much higher octane rating than gasoline, with little difference between them: gasoline < bio-ethanol < ~hydrogen gas < bio-gas.

Regarding the environmental impacts (Table 1), the use of hydrogen as a fuel does not have negative ecological effects. Unlike natural gas which brings degradation of ecosystems by the processes of mining/extracting, bio-ethanol and bio-gas change land use for the cultivation of raw materials.

According to the economic criteria, natural gas has a much lower price than the conventional gasoline fuel as well as the lower production cost. On the other hand (on social criteria), all alternative fuels enhance employment. However, the attitude of the public for the hydrogen fuel contains positive and negative perceptions, natural gas constitutes a popular fuel and bio-gas is highly accepted by farmers. The dangers of hydrogen managed more easily than those of hydrocarbon fuels. The flammability limit of natural gas and bio-gas is narrow making them safer than gasoline as opposed to bio-ethanol which is slightly wider flammability limit of the fuel, as it is highly flammable.

Figure 3 shows the weights of the core evaluation criteria. 43.12% is the weight of the environmental criteria, followed by the social criteria (32.54%), technical criteria (20.51%) and economic criteria (3.83%).

The final ranking of the usage of the alternatives fuels is given in the form of bar chart, which lists the technologies under evaluation (y-axis) in conjunction with the overall alternative utility of each technology (x-axis). Total utility represents the total score that occupies each scenario with respect to the satisfaction of the criteria and sub-criteria (as presented in Table 1). The scenario with the highest total utility is considered to be the optimal one. From the application of AHP model it is determined that the use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel seems to be better than the usage of natural and bio-gas (which seems to be equal), which are better than bio-ethanol. However, as all the proposed alternative fuels were evaluated and compared with gasoline (Table 1 characteristics), it is determined that the proposed alternative fuels seem to be more accepted than gasoline. According to Figure 4, the best alternative fuel which accomplishes the criteria and sub-criteria is hydrogen. According to these results (Figure 4), hydrogen satisfies all the criteria in addition to the rate of 25%, when compared with the bio-gas and natural gas which rate between 20% and 22%, bio-ethanol range is close to 17% and gasoline up to 15%.


Table 1 Technical, environment, economic and social criteria of the alternative fuels


Figure 3 Basic categories of criteria weights (see online version for colours)

Similar behaviour with the final ranking is presented in the sensitive analysis (Figure 5). The adjacent chart gives the results of the sensitivity analysis (Figure 5 which is gradient sensitivity analysis diagram). X-axis shows the values attributed to the weighting factor being studied (e.g., no environmental effects – 40%) and y-axis shows the values corresponding to the score of each alternative technology. Ratings by each scenario are shown as lines in ascending or descending slope by varying the weighting factor. The line x = y represents the equation weighting attributed to the criterion being studied. It is obvious that hydrogen, natural gas and bio-gas have high satisfaction rate of environmental and social criteria and sub-criteria, while bio-gas has high satisfaction rate in economic criteria and sub-criteria. Gasoline has the worst satisfaction rate with respect to economic and environmental criteria and sub-criteria.

Energy is considered to be a key element in the interactions between nature and society and is considered a key input for the environment and sustainable development. Increased energy use is the universal driver for raising the quality of life in all societies, from developing to developed countries, thus is essential to human welfare and quality of life (Yilmaz and Ilbas, 2008). Energy resources are needed to satisfy human needs, improve quality of life and allow industrial, social and economic development. The environmental impact by the use of fossil fuels cannot be ignored. Carbon dioxide generated by burning hydrocarbons is a major component of greenhouse gases (by its weight). According to some estimates, the continued use of fossil fuels at the present levels will lead to an inevitable increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the existing policy on the use of energy resources is pursued further, the average temperature of the surface layer of the atmosphere may rise by 6°C by the end of this century. As a result, large-scale climate changes on the planet should be expected, which will be accompanied by irreversible damage to the biosphere and mankind, as the combustion of fossil fuels is accompanied by large amounts of harmful emissions hazardous for human health (Sinyak and Kolpakov, 2012).


Figure 4 Final ranking of the alternative fuels (see online version for colours)

Figure 5 Sensitive analysis of the alternative fuels (see online version for colours)

4 Conclusions

Alternative fuels contribute to domestic and international sustainability targets as the latter is non-polluting, accessible, sustainable, reliable and displace oil imports thus increasing energy security. From the application of AHP model it is determined that the use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel seems to be better than the usage of natural and bio-gas (which seems to be equal), which are better than bio-ethanol. However, as all the proposed alternative fuels were evaluated and compared with gasoline, it is determined that the proposed alternative fuels seem to be more accepted than gasoline.

Identifying the potential benefits of the alternative fuels justifies the feasibility of increasing their share compared to conventional fuels. The introduction of alternative


fuel economy may lead to improvements in the environment by reducing emissions of air pollutants and contribute to a cleaner and healthier air, following the replacement of fossil fuels, thus embracing the concept of sustainability.

Moreover further research must be done regarding the implementation of alternative fuels in industrial or local level and measure the impact on sustainability as well as how citizens accept or not those fuels.

References Asam, Ζ.Ζ., Poulsen, Τ.G., Nizami, A.S., Rafique, R., Kiely, G. and Murphy, J.D. (2011)

‘How can we improve biomethane production per unit of feedstock in biogas plants?’, Applied Energy, Vol. 88, No. 6, pp.2013–2018.

Balat, Μ. (2008) ‘Possible methods for hydrogen production’, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.39–50.

Bottero, M., Comino, E. and Riggio, V. (2011) ‘Environmental modelling and software application of the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems’, Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol. 26, No. 10, pp.1211–1224.

Cervero, M.J., Cosa, J. and Luque, S. (2008) ‘Production of biodiesel from vegetable oil’, Grasas Y Aceites, Vol. 59, No. 1, Enero-Marzo, pp.76–83.

Demirbas, A. (2007a) ‘Combustion systems for biomass fuels’, Energy Sources Part A, Vol. 29, pp.303–312.

Demirbas, A. (2007b) ‘Combustion of biomass’, Energy Sources Part A, Vol. 29, pp.549–561. Demirbas, A. (2008a) ‘Economic and environmental impacts of the liquid biofuels’, Energy Edu.

Sci. Technol., Vol. 22, pp.37–58. Demirbas, A. (2008b) ‘Present and future transportation fuels’, Energy Sources Part A, Vol. 30,

pp.1473–1483. Demirbas, A. (2009a) ‘Energy concept and energy education’, Energy Edu. Sci. Technol. Part B,

Vol. 1, pp.85–101. Demirbas, A. and Urkmez, A. (2006) ‘Biomass based combined heat and power (CHP) systems in

Turkey’, Energy Sources Part B, Vol. 1, pp.245–253. Demirbas, B. (2009b) ‘Biofuels for internal combustion engines’, Energy Edu. Sci. Technol. Part

A, Vol. 22, pp.117–132. Dincer, I. and Zamfirescu, C. (Eds.) (2014) ‘Fosil fuels and alternative fuels’, Advanced Power

Generation Systems, Elsevier, pp.95–141. Durgum, O. and Sahin, Z. (2007) ‘Theoretical investigations of effects of light fuel fumigation on

diesel engine performance and emissions’, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 48, pp.1952–1964.

Gaigalis, V., Markevicius, A., Skema, R. and Savickas, J. (2015) ‘Energy strategy of Lithuanian Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant region for 2012–2035 as a chance for regional development’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 51, pp.1680–1696.

Gaudernack, Β. and Lynum, S. (1997) ‘Natural gas utilisation without CO2 emissions’, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 38, Supplement, pp.S165–S172.

Georgiou, A., Polatidis, H. and Haralambopoulos, D. (2012) ‘Energy sources, Part A: recovery, utilization, and environmental effects wind energy resource assessment and development: decision analysis for site evaluation and application wind energy resource assessment and development: decision analysis for site evaluation and application’, Energy, Vol. 34, No. 19, February, pp.37–41.

Iliev, S. (2015) ‘A comparison of ethanol and methanol blending with gasoline using a 1-D engine model’, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 100, pp.1013–1022.


Ilkilic, C. and Yucesu, H.S. (2008) ‘The use of cottonseed oil methyl ester on a diesel engine’, Energy Sources Part A, Vol. 30, pp.742–753.

Karimi, A.R., Mehrdadi, N., Hashemian, S.J., Bidhendi, G.R.N. and Moghaddam, R.T. (2011) ‘Selection of wastewater treatment process based on the analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process methods’, Alternatives, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.267–280.

Karki, S., Mann, M.D. and Salehfar, H. (2008) ‘Environmental implications of renewable distributed generation technologies in rural electrification’, Energy Sources Part B, Vol. 3, pp.186–195.

Lanjewar, B.P., Rao, V.R. and Kale, V.A. (2015) ‘Assessment of alternative fuels for transportation using a hybrid graph theory and analytic hierarchy process method’, Fuel, Vol. 154, pp.9–16.

Ludwig, B. (1997) ‘On the sustainability of future energy systems’, Energy Conversion Management, Vol. 38, pp.1765–1776.

Ozdemir, M.S. (2005) ‘Validity and inconsistency in the analytic hierarchy process’, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 161, pp.707–720.

Rahman, A., Rasul, G.M., Khan, M.M.M. and Sharma, S. (2015) ‘Recent development on the uses of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing process’, Fuel, Vol. 145, pp.84–99.

Ramesh Bapu, Β.Ρ., Karthikeyan, J. and Vijayakumar Reddy, K. (2011) ‘Hydrogen fuel generation and storage’, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp.717–720.

Saaty, R.W. (1987) ‘The analytic hierarchy process – what it is and how it is used’, Mathematical Modeling, Vol. 9, Nos. 3–5, pp.161–176.

Saaty, T.L. (1990) ‘How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.9–26.

Sinyak, Y.V. and Kolpakov, A.Y. (2012) ‘Economic efficiency of synthetic motor fuels from natural gas’, Studies on Russian Economic Development, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.27–36.

Speth, L.R., Rojo, C., Malina, R. and Barrett, R.H.S. (2015) ‘Black carbon emissions reductions from combustion of alternative jet fuels’, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 105, pp.37–42.

Unal, H. and Alibas, K. (2007) ‘Agricultural residues as biomass energy’, Energy Sources Part B, Vol. 2, pp.123–140.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2004) World Energy Assessment, Overview 2004 Update, London, UK.

Valeria, Ν. and Emese, S. (2011) ‘Biogas from organic wastes’, Studia Universitatis Vasile Goldis Seria Stiintele Vietii (Life Sciences Series), Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.887–891.

Verhelst, S. and Wallner, T. (2009) ‘Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines’, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.490–527.

Yilmaz, Ι. and Ilbas, Μ. (2008) ‘An experimental study on hydrogen–methane mixtured fuels’, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.178–187.

Zorpas, A.A. and Saranti, A. (2016) ‘Multi-criteria analysis of sustainable environmental clean technologies for the treatment of winery’s wastewater’, Int. J. Global Environmental Issues, Vol. 15, Nos. 1–2, pp.151–168.

diana mihaela pociovălişteanu - universitatea din craiova development, and liquid waste treatment....

Documents