Page 153 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

7.3 Results and discussion 149
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
TCost NO x SO 2 CO CO 2 Other Tech Mental Charge
Coal-CHP 34.41 3.49 6.49 8.59 8.50 11.37 15.07 3.05 9.04
Gas-HOB 28.08 3.71 7.29 9.22 9.20 14.22 16.52 3.06 8.69
WSHP 25.34 3.76 7.00 9.64 10.27 15.40 17.16 3.07 8.36
GSHP 22.22 3.79 6.93 9.97 10.55 15.99 18.09 3.09 9.37
Solar-HP 16.06 4.19 4.12 12.90 11.50 18.86 17.07 2.46 12.83
c
FIG. 7.7 Central weights (w ) favoring different DH systems.

TABLE 7.3 Cross confidence factors (%), confidence factors are in bold, and the biggest cross confidence
factors are underlined.

Alt. Coal-CHP Gas-HOB Oil-HOB Coal-HOB Solar-HP WSHP GSHP Sum
Coal-CHP 75.752 23.187 – – 0 1.048 0.013 100
Gas-HOB 31.994 57.432 – – 0 9.806 0.768 100
Oil-HOB – – – – – – – –
Coal-HOB – – – – – – – –
Solar-HP 3.225 44.57 – – 0.021 32.316 19.868 100
WSHP 15.445 63.084 – – 0 18.916 2.555 100
GSHP 9.598 62.412 – – 0 23.118 4.872 100

gas-fired HOB (57.43%), and WSHP (18.92%). In addition, the first rank acceptability index
of coal-fired CHP is 51.2%, which already dominates the other DH systems. Nevertheless,
the second rank acceptability index is 24.9% and zero for worst ranks, which means that
coal-fired CHP is the most preferred DH technology in the study area with such a big DH
load (16.6MW) considering uncertainties. Gas-fired HOB and WSHP also can be the compro-
mise DH systems if their central weight vectors are used.
As can be seen from Fig. 7.6, coal-fired CHP favors criteria of total cost, but if the DMs are
not emphasizing the total cost, then gas-fired HOB is very suitable for DH in this area. This is
also justified by the SMAA result that gas-fired HOB competes well with the three HP systems
and has a good chance of being the best alternative, even when three HP systems’ central