Research Papers: Alternative Energy Sources

Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Wave Power Technology in Canada

[+] Author and Article Information
Joshua R. Monds

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Energy Resources Technology. Manuscript received October 27, 2012; final manuscript received August 10, 2013; published online October 17, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Muhammad M. Rahman.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(2), 021201 (Oct 17, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: JERT-12-1252; doi: 10.1115/1.4025408 History: Received October 27, 2012; Revised August 10, 2013

Three individual wave power generation technologies were studied and evaluated using multicriteria decision analysis through the use of the PROMETHEE method. To evaluate the three technologies, data were collected from previously performed experimental testing on the performance of each wave power generation technology. These data were used to feed into seven different criteria; namely the capacity factor, rated power, capital cost, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, cost of electricity (COE) for a 10 year payback, maturity, and survivability. The associated data and criteria were used to determine the optimal technology. The results from the Decision Lab modeling ranked the Wave Dragon, AquaBuOY, and Pelamis technologies as 1, 2, and 3, respectively, for all three locations: Tofino/Ucluelet, Hibernia Oil Platform, and St. John's, Newfoundland. A sensitivity analysis of the threshold values determined for the baseline modeling indicated that the original ranking was essentially unaffected when the threshold values were modified (increased and decreased). The weights of the criterion were individually adjusted to evaluate any change in ranking order. A sizable increase in weighting of greater than 40% of any one criterion (while the others were weighed equally) resulted in a change of the overall ranking order of the three technologies. Final weightings on each of the criterion were assigned with preference on rated power, COE, and maturity stage. All other criteria were weighted equally and like the baseline modeling output, the results of the model ranked Wave Dragon, AquaBuOY, and Pelamis from most favorable to least favorable for all three of the locations analyzed.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Dalton, G. J., Alcorn, R., and Lewis, T., 2010, “Case Study Feasibility Analysis of the Pelamis Wave Energy Convertor in Ireland, Portugal and North America,” Renew. Energy, 35, pp. 443–455. [CrossRef]
Dunnett, D., and Wallace, J. S., 2009, “Electricity Generation From Wave Power in Canada,” Renew. Energy, 34(1), pp. 179–195. [CrossRef]
Koola, P. M., Ravindran, M., and Guenther, D. A., 1994, “Studies on the Relative Performance of Three Oscillating Water Column Wave Energy Devices,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 116, pp. 287–289. [CrossRef]
Brown, D. G., Jones, D., and Aswathanarayana, P. A., 1979, “Power Extraction From Ocean Surfaces Waves,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 101, pp. 141–144. [CrossRef]
Burdette, E. L., and Gordon, C. K., 1983, “Available Ocean Wave Power and Prediction of Power Extracted by a Contouring Raft Conversion System,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 105, pp. 492–498. [CrossRef]
Beyene, A., and Wilson, J. H., 2007, “Digital Mapping of California Wave Energy Resource,” Int. J. Energy Resour., 31, pp. 1156–1168. [CrossRef]
Beatty, S. J., Wild, P., and Buckham, B. J., 2010, “Integration of a Wave Energy Converter into the Electricity Supply of a Remote Alaskan Island,” Renew. Energy, 35, pp. 1203–1213. [CrossRef]
McGowin, C., 2005, “Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy: Renewable Energy Technical Assessment Guide,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Paper No. TAG-RE: 2005.
Baz, A., Ezz, M., and Bayoumi, M. S., 1979, “Optimization of Power Absorption From Sea Waves,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 101, pp. 145–152. [CrossRef]
Mohamadabadi, H., Tichkowsky, G., and Kumar, A., 2008, “Development of a Multi-Criteria Assessment Model for Ranking of Renewable and Non-Renewable Transportation Fuel Vehicles,” Energy, 36, pp. 112–125. [CrossRef]
Brans, J. P., and Vincke, P., 1985, “A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making,” Manage. Sci., 31(6), pp. 647–656. [CrossRef]
Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., and Mareschal, B., 1986, “How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The PROMETHEE Method,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 24(2), pp. 228–238. [CrossRef]
Visual Decision Inc., 2004, Getting Started Guide, Executive edition Decision Lab 2000, Visual Decision Inc., Montreal, Quebec.
Kumar, A., Sokhansanj, S., and Flynn, P., 2006, “Development of a Multicriteria Assessment Model for Ranking Biomass Feedstock Collection and Transportation Systems,” Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., 129–132(1–3), pp. 71–87. [CrossRef]
Le Teno, J. F., and Mareschal, B., 1998, “An Interval Version of PROMETHEE for the Comparison of Building Products' Design With Ill-Defined Data on Environmental Quality,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 109(2), pp. 522–529. [CrossRef]
Visual Decision Inc., 2004, Decision Lab 2000, Visual Decision Inc., Montreal, Quebec, http://www.visualdecision.com.
Holmes, B., and Barrett, S., 2009, “State of the Art Analysis. HMRC Internal Report for Waveplam,” http://www.waveplam.eu/files/downloads/SoA.pdf.
Sheng, W., and Lewis, A., 2012, “Assessment of Wave Energy From Seas: Numerical Validation,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 134, p. 041701. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The AquaBuOY WEC [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The Preproduction prototype Pelamis [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The WaveDragon WEC [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Tofino/Ucluelet Promethee I Partial (a) and Promethee II (b) Complete Rankings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Hibernia Oil Platform Promethee II complete (a) and I partial (b) rankings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

St. John's Promethee II complete (a) and I partial (b) rankings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Final weighting used for each of the criterion previously defined

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) PROMETHEE II and (b) PROMETHEE I rankings for each site using the final weighting



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In