Renewable Energy for Sustainable Growth Assessment. Группа авторов
Doukas, H., Karakosta, C., Psarras, J., A linguistic TOPSIS model to evaluate the sustainability of renewable energy options. Int. J. Glob. Energy Issues, 32, 102-118, 2009.
43. Ertay, T., Kahraman, C., Kaya, I., Evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using MACBETH and fuzzy AHP multicriteria methods: the case of Turkey. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., 19, 38-62, 2013.
44. Kabir, A.B.M.Z., Shihan, S.M.A., Selection of renewable energy sources using analytic hierarchy process. In: International symposium on the analytic hierarchy process, Bali Indonesia, pp. 267–276, 2003.
45. Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Fouladgar, M.M., Zavadskas, E.K., Moini, S.H.H., Selecting the optimal renewable energy using multi criteria decision making. J. Bus. Econ. Manag., 14, 957-978, 2013.
46. Browne, D., O’Regan, B., Moles, R., Use of multi-criteria decision analysis to explore alternative domestic energy and electricity policy scenarios in an Irish city-region. Energy, 35, 518-528, 2010.
47. Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., Kaya, I., Selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design: The case of Turkey. J. UCS., 16, 82-102, 2010.
48. Troldborg, M., Heslop, S., Hough, R.L., Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 39, 1173-1184, 2014.
49. Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Mistretta, M., Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renewable Energy, 28, 2063-2087, 2003.
50. J. Burton, and K. Hubacek, Is small beautiful? A multicriteria assessment of small-scale energy technology applications in local governments. Energy Policy, 35, 6402-6412, 2007.
51. Tsoutsos, T., Drandaki, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Iosifidis, E., Kiosses, I., Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy, 37, 1587-1600,2009.
52. Yi, S.K., Sin, H.Y., Heo, E., Selecting sustainable renewable energy source for energy assistance to North Korea. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 15, 554-563, 2011.
53. Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F. Zhao, J.H., Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 13, 2263-2278, 2009.
54. Doukas, H.C., Andreas, B.M., Psarras, J.E., Multi-criteria decision aid for the formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic variables. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 182, 844-855, 2007.
55. Goumas, M., Lygerou, V., An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 123, 606-613, 2000.
56. Matos, M.A. Fuzzy filtering method applied to power distribution planning. Fuzzy Sets Syst., 102, 53–58, 1999.
57. Levitin, G., Tov, SMT., Elmakis, D., Genetic algorithm for open-loop distribution system design. Electr. Power Syst. Res., 32, 81-87, 1995.
58. Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Kharb, R.K., Sustainable assessment in energy planning and management in Indian perspective. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 47, 58-73, 2015.
59. Vučijak B., Kupusović, T., Midžić-Kurtagić, S., Ćerić, A., Applicability of multicriteria decision aid to sustainable hydropower. Applied Energy, 101, 261-267, 2013.
60. Dudhani, S., Sinha, A.K., Inamdar, S.S., Renewable energy sources for peak load demand management in India. Int J Elec Power, 28, 396-400, 2006.
61. IRENA, Future of solar photovoltaic deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects (A global energy transformation paper), International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2019.
62. Mishra, M.K., Khare N., Agrawal, A.B., Small hydro power in India: Current status and future perspectives. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 51, 101-115, 2015.
63. Laha, P., Chakraborty, B., Østergaard, P.A., Electricity system scenario development of India with import independence in 2030. Renewable Energy, 151, 627-639, 2020.
64. Kumar, R.P., Bharathiraja, B., Kataki, R., Moholkar, V.S. (eds.), Biomass Valorization to Bioenergy. Springer, 2020.
65. Kumar, A., Kumar, N., Baredar, P., Shukla, A., A review on biomass energy resources, potential, conversion and policy in India. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 45, 530-539, 2015.
66. Purohit, P., Chaturvedi, V., Biomass pellets for power generation in India: a techno-economic evaluation. Environ Sci Pollut R, 25, 29614-29632, 2018.
67. IRENA, Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series, Biomass for power generation, 2012.
68. IRENA, Wind Power Technology brief, 2016.
69. IRENA, Hydropower Technology brief, 2015.
70. Kumar, S., Madlener, R., CO2 emission reduction potential assessment using renewable energy in India. Energy, 97, 273-282, 2016.
71. Mallah, S., Bansal, N.K., Renewable energy for sustainable electrical energy system in India. Energy Policy, 38, 3933-3942, 2010.
72. Rehman, S., Al-Hadhrami, L.M., Alam, M.M., Pumped hydro energy storage system: A technological review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 44, 586–598, 2015.
73. IRENA, Renewable power generation cost in 2018. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2019.
74. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), The proposed generic levellised generation tariff or various renewable energy technologies, for FY 2014–15, 2015.
75. Gagnon, L., Belanger, C., Uchiyama, Y., Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy, 30, 1267-1278, 2002.
76. Gagnon, L., an de Vate, J.F., Greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower: the state of research in 1996. Energy Policy, 25, 7-13, 1997.
77. Amponsah, N.Y., Troldborg, M., Kington, B., Aalders, I., Hough, R.l., Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources: A review of lifecycle considerations. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 39, 461-475, 2014.
78. Raadal, H.L., Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation systems. Tracking and claiming in environmental reporting, Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 2013.
79. Ribeiro, F., Ferreira, P., Araújo, M., Braga, A.C., Public opinion on renewable energy technologies in Portugal. Energy, 69, 39-50, 2014.
80. Joy, J., Joy, D., Panwar, T.S., People’s perception study-renewable energy in India 2014, https://www.wwfindia.org/?12862/Peoples-Perception-Study-Renewable-Energy-in-India-2014, 2014
81. Mercom, Survey of India Consumer Perceptions on Renewable Energy, https://2rjrmf33rccw3lrxgi3x82yy-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SurveyMercomIndiaSurveyRenewables.pdf 2014.
82. Narula, S., The story of Narmada Bachao Andolan: human rights in the global economy and the struggle against the World Bank, pp. 08-62. In Human rights advocacy stories, Deena R. Hurwitz, Margaret L. Satterthwaite, Douglas B. Ford, eds., West, 2009.
83. Höffken, J.I., A closer look at small hydropower projects in India: Social acceptability of two storage-based projects in Karnataka, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 34, 155-166, 2014.
84. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. A state-of-the-art survey, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.
85. I. Ertuğrul, and N. Karakaşoğlu, Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS