CRITIC-WASPAS Yöntemleri ile Türkiye İçin En Uygun Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynağının Seçimine Dair Bir Uygulama

Öz

Yenilenebilir Enerji kaynağı bakımından zengin olarak tanımlanan ülkemizin, enerji kaynağı noktasında dışa bağımlılığının en aza indirilmesi ve mevcut olan yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının bölgesel olarak en verimli şekilde kullanılabilmesi önem arz etmektedir. Bu çalışmanın konusu Türkiye için en uygun yenilenebilir enerji kaynağının tespitinde çok kriterli karar yöntemlerinin kullanılması ile en uygun kaynağın tespitini yapabilmek, yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarından güneş, rüzgar, jeotermal, hidroelektrik, biyokütle ve dalga olmak üzere altı enerji türü için karşılaştırma amaçlı uygunluk kriterlerini tespit edebilmek ve bu kriterlere ilişkin verileri doğru bir şekilde toparlayarak, çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden CRITIC, WASPAS metotlarını bu veriler üzerinde uygulayarak örnek bir model oluşturmak ve uygulama sonucunda oluşan sonuçları analiz ederek, gelecekteki enerji yatırımları için bir değerlendirme kolaylığı sağlamaktır. Hesaplamalarımızın sonunda dalga enerjisi en yüksek WASPAS puanına sahip enerji kaynağı olarak belirlenmiştir (0,434). Rüzgâr enerjisi (0,374) ve jeotermal enerji (0,354) sırasıyla ikinci ve üçüncü sıralarda yer almaktadır. HES (0,330), güneş enerjisi (0,328) ve biyokütle enerjisi (0,297) ise daha düşük WASPAS puanlarına sahip enerji kaynaklarıdır. Fakat, oluşan sıralama başka faktörlere göre de değişebilir. Başka kaynakları da hesaba katılırsa sonuçlar farklı çıkabilir. Her ülkenin, her bölgenin farklı enerji ihtiyaçları ve kaynakları vardır. Bu yüzden, karar vericiler, bu faktörleri de dikkate alarak, kendi koşullarına göre en uygun yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarını seçmek için birden fazla kriteri dikkate almalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CRITIC
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• WASPAS
• Yenilenebilir Enerji Seçimi

A CASE ABOUT THE SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE FOR TURKEY BY USING CRITIC AND WASPAS METHODS

Öz

In our country, which is defined as rich in terms of renewable energy resources, these are important that; to be able to be used the existing renewable energy sources in the most efficient way as regional, minimize foreign dependency at the point of energy source. The topic of this case is to be able to select the most appropriate renewable energy source for Türkiye by using multi-criteria decision methods, to be able to determine the eligiblity criterias in an effort to compare for six sorts of renewable energy sources which are solar, wind, geothermal, hidroelectric, biomass, wave and by collecting the correct datas related to these criterias, to create a study case by applying CRITIC, WASPAS methods on these datas and immediately afterwards to analyze the results of application in order to be able to provide an ease of evaluation for energy investments which will be in the future. At the end of our calculations, wave energy was determined as the energy source with the highest WASPAS score (0.434). Wind energy (0.374) and geothermal energy (0.354) ranked as second and third, respectively. HydroEnergy (0.330), solar energy (0.328) and biomass energy (0.297) are energy sources with lower WASPAS scores. However, the ranking of results may vary according to other factors. If other sources are taken into account, the results may be different. Because Every country, every region has different energy needs and resources. Therefore, decision makers should consider multiple criteria to select the most suitable renewable energy sources according to their conditions, by taking these factors into account.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CRITIC
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• Renewable Energy Selection
• WASPAS

Kaynakça

1. Akon Grup, 2022. Access Date: 13.02.2023. http://akongrup.com.tr/index.php/tr/portfolio/bandirma-hes-projesi/
2. Anadolu Ajansı, 2022. Access Date: 12.02.2023. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/ekonomi/turkiyede-elektrik-tuketimi-gecen-yil-yuzde-12-artti/2470685
3. BP (2021). BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022, 71st edition, https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review- of-world-energy.html
4. Cumhuriyet Newspaper, 2022. Access Date: 14.02.2023. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/bilim-teknoloji/dunyanin-en-buyuk-dalga- enerji-santrali-turkiyeye-kurulacak-2011278
5. Çakır Süleyman & Perçin S. (2013). Performance Measurement in Logistics Companies with Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques. Ege Academic Review, Volume 13, No 4, page.452
6. Delucchi M. A. ve Mark Z. J., Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs and policies, Energy policy, 39, 3 (2011) 1170-1190.
7. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. ve Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
8. Dinler, A. (2019). An Overview of renewable energy potential and Utilization in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 100, 348-364.

9. Edenhofer O., Pichs-Madruga R., Sokona Y., Seyboth K., Kadner S., Zwickel T., Eickemeier P., Hansen G., Schlomer S., Von Stechow C. ve Matschoss P., Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
10. Energy Map, 2020. Access Date: 13.12.2022. https://www.enerjiatlasi.com/hidroelektrik/hasan-ugurlu-baraji.html
11. Energy Map, 2017. Access Date: 25.09.22. https://www.enerjiatlasi.com/haber/elektrik-uretiminde-karbon-salinimi
12. Energy Map, 2021. Access Date: 25.02.2023. https://www.enerjiatlasi.com/elektrik-uretimi/ Erdoğan, M., Şahin, M., & Kılınç, M. (2016). The Renewable energy potential of Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 820-832.
13. Ersöz F. & Kabak M. (2010). Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Defense Industry Applications. Journal of Defense Sciences, Turkish Military Academy No 9, page 110.
14. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium,2022. Access Date: 13.02.2023. Energy: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/index_en
15. FEBEL, Energy Terminology, Seckin Printing, Ankara 1991, p. 5-7.
16. Göktolga Z.G. & Gökalp B. (2012). Determination of Criteria and Alternatives Affecting Job Selection Using AHP Method. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Volume. 13, No 2, page 73.
17. IEA (2020). Renewables 2020: Analysis and forecast to 2025. International Energy Agency.
18. International Energy Agency, France, 20221. Access Date: 12.02.2023. https://www.iea.org/ Janic M. & Reggiani A. (2002). An Application of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Analysis to the “Selection of a New Hub Airport”. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol 2, No 2, s.119.
19. Kiracı, K. & Bakır, M. (2019). Performance measurement application in airline operations using the CRITIC-based EDAS method. Pamukkale University, Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 35, 157-174.
20. Mardani A. & Nilashi M. & Zakuan N. & Loganathan N. & Soheilirad S. & Saman M.Z.M. & İbrahim O. (2017) “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of SWARA and WASPAS Methods: Theory and Applications with Recent Fuzzy Developments.” Applied Soft Computing. 52:265-292.
21. Nilüfer Municipality, Bursa (2015). Feasibility Study for Biogas Production Plant from Organic Waste, Final Report.
22. OMC Engineering Co., 2018-2019. Access Date: 13.02.2023 https://www.omc.com.tr/projeler/tamamlanan-projeler/turkerler-jeotermal-enerji-santrali-3-projesi-uretim-boru-hatti-mekanik-imalat-ve-montaj-isleri
23. Renewable Energy World, 2022. Access Date: 05.01.2023. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/
24. Research Gate, 2009. Access Date: 15.03.2022 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26825049
25. Sağlam Mustafa & Uyar Tanay Sıdkı (2006), “Wave Energy and Turkey's Technical Potential in Wave Energy". Department of Mechanical Engineering, Energy Division, Marmara University. Göztepe, İstanbul
26. Selen Energy, 2021. Access Date: 15.02.2023. https://selenkaenerji.com/blog/ulkemizdeki-yenilenebilir-kaynakli-santrallerin-kapasite-faktoru-agustos-2021-17.html
27. Solar AVM, 2022. Access Date: 13.02.2023. https://solaravm.com/11-soru-cevap-ile-gunes-elektrik-santralleri
28. “Supplier Selection Based on SWARA-WASPAS Methodology: An Example from Iron-Steel Industry in Turkey”, Academic Platform Journal of Engineering and Science 6-3, 113-120, 2018
29. Şengül, Ö., & Öztop, H. F. (2018). The Renewable energy potential of Turkey: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1883-1893.
30. Tanay Sıdkı UYAR (Doç. Dr.), Turkish Young Businessmen Association: "Turkey's energy problems and proposed solutions", (2003)
31. Tayalı H.A. (Dr.) (2020), Istanbul University, Faculty of Business Administration. "Academic Social Research Journal", Year: 5, No: 47, June 2017, page. 368-380.
32. Presidency of the Republic of Turkey Strategy and Budget Directorate (2021). Renewable Energy Directive.
33. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, 2022. Access Date: 20.09.2022. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye_nin-enerji-stratejisi.tr.mfa
34. The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources of the Republic of Turkey (2021). Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı Faaliyet Raporu 2020.
35. TEIAS, December 2021 Board Power Report
36. TEİAŞ, 2021 https://www.teias.gov.tr/tr-TR/aylik-elektrik-uretim-tuketim-raporlari, 2021 Electricity Production-Consumption Report
37. Thorpe, T W. "A Brief Review of Wave Energy", ETSU Report No R-120, (1999)
38. Topçu, Y. İlker (Dr.) & Dr. Kabak Özgür, Istanbul Technical University Course Notes, Decision Analysis.
39. Tosun Gavcar, C. & Organ, A. (2020), “Evaluation of Online Travel Agencies Selling with AHP-Grey Relational Analysis and AHP-WASPAS Methods” BMIJ, (2020), 8(1): 731-753
40. Uludağ, Ahmet Serhat & Doğan, Hatice, A Service Quality Application Focused on the Comparison of Multi- Criteria Decision Making Methods, Çankırı Karatekin University, Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Y. 2016 Cilt 6, Sayı 2, ss. 17-47
41. World Bank, World Development Report 1993, ss. 246-247.
42. World Resources Institute, USA, 2001. Erişim Tarihi: 12.02.2023 www.wri.org/climate,
43. Yeh C.H. (2003). The Selection of Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods for Scholarship Student Selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol11, No 4, s.291.
44. Yeşil Aşkı Online Publication, 2022. Access Date: 13.02.202. https://www.yesilaski.com/dalga-enerjisi-ile-elektrik-uretimi.html
45. Yıldız, M., & Demirel, N. (2018). Turkey's renewable energy potential: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 2574-2584.
46. Yılmaz Bektur, Nazım Bayraktar, "Energy and Environment, Mulkiye Association Magazine., Kasım 1993, No. 161, Vol. XVII, ss. 5-6.