Evaluation of Solar Energy Efficiency by Composite Index over Four Continents

Haine, Kamel; Blumberga, Dagnija

doi:10.2478/rtuect-2021-0058

Abstract

This paper aims to provide an evaluation of solar energy efficiency by composite index and to compare the value of solar energy across 19 countries located over four continents: Europe, Africa, America, and Asia. 15 indicators were evaluated for the year of 2019 and grouped into four dimensions: economic, social, technical, and environmental. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to estimate the weight of each indicator, and consistency tests were calculated to evaluate weight efficiency. The obtained results of the SEI reveals that the technical dimension and economic dimension play an important role in the solar energy efficiency of a country. The results indicate potential improvement areas for increasing solar efficiency. SEI can be used as a tool in assessing solar energy potential integration in a country.

References

[1] Freudenberg M. Composite indicators of country performance: A Critical assessment. OECD Science, Technology and Industry working papers. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2003.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[2] Ang B. W., Choong W., Ng T. Energy security: Definitions, dimensions and indexes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015:42:1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.06410.1016/j.rser.2014.10.064
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[3] Saisana M., Saltelli A. Uncertainty and sensitivity Analysis of the 2010 Environmental Performance Index. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2010.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[4] Brundtland G. H., et al. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[5] Matteo Mazziotta A. P. Methods for Constructing Composite Indices: One for All or All for One? The Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies 2016:82:394–411.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[6] Becker W., et al. Weights and importance in composite indicators: Closing the gap. Ecological Indicators 2017:80:12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.05610.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[7] Slišāne D., et al. Assessment of energy sustainability in statistical regions of Latvia using energy sustainability index. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2020:24(2):160–169. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2020-006310.2478/rtuect-2020-0063
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[8] Castillo H., Pitfield D. E. ELASTIC – A methodological framework for identifying and selecting sustainable transport indicators. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2010:15:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2009.09.00210.1016/j.trd.2009.09.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[9] OLADE, ECLAC, GTZ. Energy and Sustainable Development in Latin America and the Caribbean: approaches to energy policy. Latin American Energy Organization (OLADE), 1997.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[10] Barrera-Roldán A., Saldívar-Valdés A. Proposal and application of a Sustainable Development Index. Ecological Indicators 2002:2(3):251–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00058-410.1016/S1470-160X(02)00058-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[11] Shah S. A. A., et al. Energy security and environmental sustainability index of South Asian countries: A composite index approach. Ecological Indicators 2019:106:105507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.10550710.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105507
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[12] Saltelli A. Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social indicators research 2007:81:65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-0024-910.1007/s11205-006-0024-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[13] Krajnc D., Glavič P. A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2005:43(2):189–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(04)00120-X10.1016/S0921-3449(04)00120-X
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[14] Mathiesen B. et al. Smart energy systems for coherent 100 % renewable energy and transport solutions. Applied Energy 2015:145:139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.07510.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.075
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[15] Dolge K., Kubule A., Blumberga D. Composite index for energy efficiency evaluation of industrial sector: sub-sectoral comparison. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 2020:8:100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.10006210.1016/j.indic.2020.100062
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[16] Ouma Y. O., Tateishi R. Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water 2014:6(6):1515–1545. https://doi.org/10.3390/w606151510.3390/w6061515
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[17] Neofytou H., Nikas A., Doukas H. Sustainable energy transition readiness: A multicriteria assessment index. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2020:131:109988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.10998810.1016/j.rser.2020.109988
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[18] Saaty, T. L. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 1990:48(1):9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Evaluation of Solar Energy Efficiency by Composite Index over Four Continents

Abstract

Paradigm

My account