Technical potential appraisal and optimal site screening comparing AHP and fuzzy AHP methods for large-scale CSP plants: A GIS-MCDM approach in Morocco

• Published in: Sustainable energy technologies and assessments 2024-08, Vol.68, p.103877, Article 103877
• Main Authors: Jbaihi, Ouafae, Ouchani, Fatima-Zahra, Ghennioui, Abdellatif, Ferfra, Mohammed, Cherkaoui, Mohamed
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: AHP; Energy planning; Fuzzy-AHP; GIS; Large-scale CSP; MCDM; Morocco; Technical potential
• ISSN: 2213-1388
• DOI: 10.1016/j.seta.2024.103877

•CSP technical potential assessment in Morocco and MCDM-GIS site selection analysis.•The potential totals 21,100.32 TWh/year, varying from 0.20 to 47.97 GWh/year per cell.•Screening criteria were related to climate, orography, water and location aspects.•FAHP method with CoA can help reduce subjectivity more than α-cut defuzzification.•AHP scoring was slightly higher for the top-ranked areas but more restrictive for the highly suitable and suitable classes. Given that Direct Normal Irradiation (DNI) levels are consistently elevated, Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technology is a highly viable alternative in Morocco enabling reliable power generation. Herein, an assessment of the solar CSP technical potential was initiated, along with a comparative site suitability analysis for CSP plants using two methods: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy AHP. Findings brought to light Morocco’s sizeable potential reaching 21,100.32 TWh/year. Turning to distribution, most regions are appropriate, notably southern ones. Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra and Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab regions rank first as regards potential, reaching 5,549.72 and 5,117.31 TWh/year accordingly. Thereafter, site screening to draw comparisons between AHP and FAHP methods was established depicting discrepancies in weighting and ranking maps. Consistent with literature, screening criteria were structured by climate, orography, proximity to water resources and location. Weightings were calculated, revealing roughly the same results, with minor variations. Climate was ranked first (57.72 % for FAHP with α-cut, 57.34 % for FAHP with CoA, 57.70% for AHP) and location was last (5.04% for FAHP with α-cut, 5.07 % for FAHP with CoA, 5.00% for AHP). Ranking maps and area ratio calculations allowed variation highlight. The α-cut defuzzification provides closer approximation to subjectivity than the CoA method.