DOE OSTI2024
The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework provides a systematic evaluation of the diverse preferences and performance metrics associated with alternative solutions. This approach is advantageous over a single-criterion methodology, which are only valid under conditions that assume ceteris paribus or an "apples-to-apples" comparison. However, selecting suitable technologies for integrated energy systems (IES) can be likened to an "apples-to-oranges" comparison, given the heterogeneous factors at stake. These factors include economics and performance parameters, geological compatibility, and environmental impacts. Consequently, past research has often employed a mixture of qualitative and quantitative criteria tailored to the specific interests of each study. While the method proves effective in handling the intricate interplay of criteria, the resulting rankings and scores can vary from study to study. This inconsistency is introduced from the use of subjectively defined thresholds and weights. As a result, decision-makers frequently find it challenging to establish clear connections between specific criteria and the resulting scores, as the transformation of criteria into ordinal scores results in a substantial loss of information. To address this challenge, we introduce a data-informed IES evaluation framework that offers comprehensive, interpretable, and traceable evaluations backed by quantifiable rationale. First, we identified key IES evaluation criteria from a decade of literature, focusing on relevant IES applications in power, process heat, and hydrogen production. We leveraged state-of-the-art cost estimates from the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and technical data from 78 reactor designs from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD-NEA). Lastly, we established thresholds by analyzing the mean, variance, root mean square, and slope of values across alternatives, categorizing the preferences of decision-makers into distinct utility functions, such as linear, saturating, exponential, and stepwise. Our approach yielded two main outcomes: (1) it provided consistent assessments across different stakeholder groups and (2) it visualized uncertainties in the decision-making context via comprehensive sensitivity analysis. To demonstrate the impact of our framework, we conducted case studies on 6 reactor designs (AP1000, NuScale, BWRX-300, Xe-100, eVinci, iMSR) for the three applications. Our data-driven framework proved to be highly effective in addressing heterogenous uncertainties faced by varied decision-makers? preferences and IES applications, as well as cost and technical estimates of advanced reactors.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗