En İyi–En Kötü Yöntemi, Entropi ve ARAS Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Güneş Paneli Seçimi

Öz

Etkin bir güneş paneli seçimi, yenilenebilir enerji sistemlerinde enerji verimliliğini ve sürdürülebilirliği en üst düzeye çıkarmak için kritik öneme sahiptir. Uygun panel seçimi, enerji üretimi, maliyetlerin azaltılması ve uzun vadeli performans üzerinde önemli ölçüde etkili olabilir. Küresel ölçekte yenilenebilir enerjiye geçiş sürecinde güneş enerjisinin giderek daha fazla önem kazanması, en uygun panellerin belirlenmesini daha da gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada seçim sürecini geliştirmek amacıyla Delphi, En İyi–En Kötü Yöntemi (Best Worst Method), Entropi ve ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment) yöntemleri birlikte kullanılmıştır. Delphi yöntemi kriterlerin belirlenmesi ve sıralanması için uygulanırken, En İyi–En Kötü Yöntemi öznel ağırlıkların, Entropi ise nesnel ağırlıkların hesaplanmasında kullanılmıştır. Ardından ARAS yöntemi alternatiflerin değerlendirilmesi ve sıralanması için uygulanmıştır. Literatür incelendiğinde, öznel ve nesnel ağırlıkların bütünleşik bir sıralama çerçevesinde birleştirilmesine ve hem nicel hem de nitel kriterlerin birlikte ele alınmasına yönelik önemli bir boşluk olduğu görülmektedir. Bu çalışma üç temel katkı sunmaktadır: (1) kriterlerin etkin biçimde ağırlıklandırılmasında En İyi–En Kötü Yöntemi ve Entropi’nin birlikte kullanımı, (2) hem nicel hem de nitel unsurları içeren kapsamlı bir kriter setinin oluşturulması ve (3) En İyi–En Kötü Yöntemi, Entropi ve ARAS yöntemlerinin ilk kez birlikte entegre edilerek güneş paneli değerlendirmesinde uygulanması

Anahtar Kelimeler

• En İyi-En Kötü Yöntemi
• Entropy
• ARAS
• Delphi
• Güneş Paneli

Solar Panel Selection using Best Worst Method, Entropy and ARAS Methods

Öz

Effective solar panel selection is crucial for maximizing energy efficiency and sustainability in renewable energy systems. The optimal choice of solar panels can sig substantially impact energy production, cost reduction, and long-term performance. As solar energy gains prominence in the global transition to renewable resources, selecting the most appropriate panels becomes increasingly critical. This study employs the Delphi, Best Worst Method, Entropy, and ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment) methods to enhance the selection process. The Delphi method is used to rank and substantiate the criteria, while the Best Worst Method assigns subjective weights and the Entropy determines objective weights. The ARAS is then applied to evaluate and rank the alternatives. Despite the importance of this topic, the literature reveals a significant gap in the integration of both subjective and objective weights into a unified ranking framework, as well as in the consideration of both quantitative and qualitative criteria. This study makes three notable contributions: first, it utilizes the Best Worst Method and Entropy for effective subjective and objective weighting of criteria; second, it establishes a comprehensive set of criteria for solar panel selection, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative attributes; and third, it introduces a novel approach by integrating the Best Worst Method, Entropy, and ARAS methods, marking their first combined application in solar panel evaluation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Best Worst Method
• Entropy
• ARAS
• Delphi
• Solar Panel

Kaynakça

1. European Commission. A clean energy transition. 2025. Available from: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/energy-and-green-deal_en#:~:text=The production and use of,achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.&text=This is a modal window. [Accessed 3 October 2025].
2. Kumar N, Mahanta J. A matrix norm-based Pythagorean fuzzy metric and its application in MEREC-SWARA-VIKOR framework for solar panel selection. Applied Soft Computing 2024;158:111592. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111592.
3. Alblawi A, Elkholy MH, Talaat M. ANN for assessment of energy consumption of 4 kW PV modules over a year considering the impacts of temperature and irradiance. Sustainability 2019;11(23). doi:10.3390/su11236802.
4. Dehghani E, Jabalameli MS, Jabbarzadeh A. Robust design and optimization of solar photovoltaic supply chain in an uncertain environment. Energy 2018;142:139-156. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.004.
5. Shayani Mehr P, Hafezalkotob A, Fardi K, Seiti H, Movahedi Sobhani F, Hafezalkotob A. A comprehensive framework for solar panel technology selection: A BWM-MULTIMOOSRAL approach. Energy Science & Engineering 2022;10(12):4595-4625. doi:10.1002/ese3.1292.
6. Balo F, Şağbanşua L. The Selection of the Best Solar Panel for the Photovoltaic System Design by Using AHP. Energy Procedia 2016;100:50-53. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.151.
7. Ziemba P. Fuzzy Decision-Making Model for Solar Photovoltaic Panel Evaluation. 2023.
8. Rani P, Mishra AR, Mardani A, Cavallaro F, Štreimikiene D, Khan SAR. Pythagorean fuzzy SWARA-VIKOR framework for performance evaluation of solar panel selection. Sustainability 2020;12(10):1-18. doi:10.3390/su12104278.

9. Sasikumar G, Ayyappan S. Multi-criteria Decision Making for Solar Panel Selection Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to ideal Solution (TOPSIS): An Empirical Study. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series C 2019;100(4):707-715. doi:10.1007/s40032-019-00520-2.
10. Bouzid M, Elleuch MA, Frikha A. Multi-criteria and multi-decision maker ranking of photovoltaic panels in Tunisia. In: 2021 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA 2021); 2021, p. 932-937. doi:10.1109/DASA53625.2021.9682287.
11. Kozlov V, Sałabun W. Challenges in reliable solar panel selection using MCDA methods. Procedia Computer Science 2021;192:4913-4923. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.269.
12. Bączkiewicz A, Kizielewicz B, Shekhovtsov A, Yelmikheiev M, Kozlov V, Sałabun W. Comparative analysis of solar panels with determination of local significance levels of criteria using the MCDM methods resistant to the rank reversal phenomenon. Energies 2021;14(18). doi:10.3390/en14185727.
13. Tüysüz N, Kahraman C. An integrated picture fuzzy Z-AHP & TOPSIS methodology: Application to solar panel selection. Applied Soft Computing 2023;149:110951. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110951.
14. Gnanasekaran S, Venkatachalam N. A review on applications of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for solar panel selection. International Journal of Mechanical Production Engineering Research and Development 2019;9(2):11-20. doi:10.24247/ijmperdapr20192.
15. Wang TC, Tsai SY. Solar panel supplier selection for the photovoltaic system design by using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches. Energies 2018;11(8):1-22. doi:10.3390/en11081989.
16. Cao Q, Esangbedo MO, Bai S, Esangbedo CO. Grey SWARA-FUCOM weighting method for contractor selection MCDM problem: A case study of floating solar panel energy system installation. Energies 2019;12(13). doi:10.3390/en12132481.
17. Cattani G. Combining data envelopment analysis and Random Forest for selecting optimal locations of solar PV plants. Energy AI 2023;11:100222. doi:10.1016/j.egyai.2022.100222.
18. Mian SH, Moiduddin K, Alkhalefah H, Abidi MH, Ahmed F, Hashmi FH. Mechanisms for Choosing PV Locations That Allow for the Most Sustainable Usage of Solar Energy. Sustainability 2023;15(4):1-24. doi:10.3390/su15043284.
19. Hooshangi N, Mahdizadeh Gharakhanlou N, Ghaffari Razin SR. Evaluation of potential sites in Iran to localize solar farms using a GIS-based Fermatean Fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023;384:135481. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135481.
20. Arman K, Kundakcı N. A Fuzzy Best Worst Method Based Prioritization of Solar Panel Selection Criteria. 2023:103-116.
21. Sánchez-Lozano JM, Teruel-Solano J, Soto-Elvira PL, Socorro García-Cascales M. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms locations: Case study in south-eastern Spain. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013;24:544-556. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.019.
22. Tahri M, Hakdaoui M, Maanan M. The evaluation of solar farm locations applying Geographic Information System and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods: Case study in southern Morocco. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015;51:1354-1362. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.054.
23. Rios R, Duarte S. Selection of ideal sites for the development of large-scale solar photovoltaic projects through Analytical Hierarchical Process - Geographic information systems (AHP-GIS) in Peru. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021;149:111310. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111310.
24. Simsek Y, Watts D, Escobar R. Sustainability evaluation of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) projects under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by using Multi Criteria Decision Method (MCDM). Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018;93:421-438. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.090.
25. Yushchenko A, de Bono A, Chatenoux B, Patel MK, Ray N. GIS-based assessment of photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) generation potential in West Africa. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018;81:2088-2103. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.021.
26. Sasikumar G, Sivasangari A. Multi-criteria decision-making for solar panel selection using an integrated analytical hierarchy process and VIKOR approach: a case study. International Journal of Business Information Systems 2022;40(2).
27. Huang G, Xiao L, Zhang G. An integrated design concept evaluation method based on best-worst best-worst entropy and generalized TODIM considering multiple factors of uncertainty. Applied Soft Computing 2023;140:110165. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110165.
28. Ayağ Z. An integrated approach to concept evaluation in a new product development. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 2016;27(5):991-1005. doi:10.1007/s10845-014-0930-7.
29. Chen Z, Ming X. A rough-fuzzy approach integrating best-worst method and data envelopment analysis to multi-criteria selection of smart product service module. Applied Soft Computing 2020;94:106479. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106479.
30. Shidpour H, Da Cunha C, Bernard A. Group multi-criteria design concept evaluation using combined rough set theory and fuzzy set theory. Expert Systems with Applications 2016;64:633-644. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.022.
31. Keršulienė V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. Selection of Rational Dispute Resolution Method By Applying New Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (Swara). Journal of Business Economics and Management 2010;11(2):243-258. doi:10.3846/jbem.2010.12.
32. Pamučar D, Petrović I, Ćirović G. Modification of the Best-Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers. Expert Systems with Applications 2018;91:89-106. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.08.042.
33. Žižovic M, Pamucar D. New model for determining criteria weights: Level based weight assessment (lbwa) model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 2019;2(2):126-137. doi:10.31181/dmame1902102z.
34. Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Sremac S. A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry 2018;10(9):1-22. doi:10.3390/sym10090393.
35. Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. 1995.
36. Liu P, Shen M, Teng F, Zhu B, Rong L, Geng Y. Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic entropy-based TODIM approach using evidential theory. Information Sciences 2021;547:223-243. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2020.07.062.
37. Xu AY, et al. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for Gamma Knife radiosurgery. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2017;18(6):152-168. doi:10.1002/acm2.12205.
38. Wang YM. Using the method of maximizing deviation to make decision for multi-indices. Journal of System Engineering and Electronics 1997;8(3):21-26.
39. Emovon I, Norman RA, Murphy AJ. Hybrid MCDM based methodology for selecting the optimum maintenance strategy for ship machinery systems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 2018;29(3):519-531. doi:10.1007/s10845-015-1133-6.
40. Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 2015;53:49-57. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
41. Liang F, Brunelli M, Rezaei J. Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega 2020;96:102175. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2019.102175.
42. Rezaei J. Best Worst Method. 2025. Available from: https://bestworstmethod.com/ [Accessed 3 October 2025].
43. Dwivedi PP, Sharma DK. Application of Shannon entropy and CoCoSo methods in selection of the most appropriate engineering sustainability components. Clean Materials 2022;5:100118. doi:10.1016/j.clema.2022.100118.
44. Chen CH. A novel multi-criteria decision-making model for building material supplier selection based on entropy-AHP weighted TOPSIS. Entropy 2020;22(2):10-12. doi:10.3390/e22020259.
45. Sivalingam V, Ganesh Kumar P, Prabakaran R, Sun J, Velraj R, Kim SC. An automotive radiator with multi-walled carbon-based nanofluids: A study on heat transfer optimization using MCDM techniques. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 2022;29:101724. doi:10.1016/j.csite.2021.101724.
46. Ecer F. A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021;143:110916. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916.
47. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Çevre Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. Binalarda Yenilenebilir Enerji Zorunluluğu 1 Ocakta Başlıyor. 2025. Available from: https://www.csb.gov.tr/binalarda-yenilenebilir-enerji-zorunlulugu-1-ocakta-basliyor-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-37361 [Accessed 3 October 2025].
48. JA Solar Co. Jam60s20 365-390/mr/1500v. 2020. Available from: https://www.jasolar.com/uploadfile/2020/0619/20200619041705631.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2025].
49. Jinko Solar Co. Tiger Neo N-type 54HL4-(V). 2022. Available from: https://cdn.enfsolar.com/z/pp/2023/11/060s2hw38kru5fm1/1643457411654c6cf94a83d.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2025].
50. SELFA GE SA. Selfa SV108M.3-405. 2025. Available from: https://www.selfa-pv.com/materials/pobierz_pliki_pdf/467.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2025].
51. Phono Solar Co. Twinplus Module Series 410-430 W. 2023. Available from: https://www.kovetools.cz/user/related_files/3164_gl-en-twinplus-166-132-9bb.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2025].
52. Risen Energy Co. Rsm40-8-390m-410m 120. 2022.
53. Trina Solar Limited. Vertex S Backsheet-TSM-DE09.08. 2021. Available from: https://static.trinasolar.com/sites/default/files/EN_Datasheet_VertexS_DE09.08_2021B.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2025].
54. REC Company. REC Alpha series-Product Datasheet. 2025. Available from: https://www.solarelectricsupply.com/media/sparsh/product_attachment/custom/upload/REC-Alpha-Series-360-380W-solar-panel-datasheet.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2025].
55. Aslay F. TOPSİS çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi ile güneş enerjisi sistemlerinde panel seçimi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 2021;(28):548-551.
56. Seker S, Kahraman C. Socio-economic evaluation model for sustainable solar PV panels using a novel integrated MCDM methodology: A case in Turkey. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 2021;77:100998.