Table 1 is constructed in order to decide the location of the city. The candidate locations are from
different climate areas which are: southern Canada, a desert in the middle of United States, an
island in Oceania region and a floating structure in Atlantic Ocean. 5 criteria were chosen for
these locations which are: energy reliability, disaster-proneness, resources availability,
topography and size. Energy reliability and disaster-proneness are the most important factor for
deciding the location, so each one weighted as 0.25. Topography and size have the lowest
importance, so each one weighted as 0.15. The importance of resources availability is listed as
average which is 0.2.The ranking scale for this table is a linear, symmetrical scale is between -2,
greatly inferior compared to the alternatives, and 2, greatly superior in compared to the
alternatives. Masdar city was chosen as the reference which provides baseline for the
comparison. Masdar city is a zero-carbon and zero-waste project in Abu Dhabi, UAE, which
relies entirely on renewable energies. Since Masdar city is the reference point, all of its criteria
weights are listed as zero. A desert in the middle of United States has the same situation as
Masdar city except its size which could be greater than Masdar city.
The energy reliability in the island is the most, 2, since it can get advantage of the land and ocean
energy resources. South Canada energy reliability listed as 1 since it cannot use the ocean energy
sources. The floating structure has the worst energy reliability, -1, since it is very inconvenient to
build wind tower, geothermal plant, and etc. Since the oceans are more likely to come across
storm, flood and etc, the island and floating structure are listed as -1 in disaster-proneness. Since
Southern Canada does not experience sand storm, it has slightly better situation than Masdar city
and listed as 0.5. Southern Canada and an island in Oceania are very rich in resources availability
such as rich soil, water, lakes and rivers, so it is marked as 2. The natural resources in the
floating structure at Atlantic Ocean is listed as 1, slightly lower than the southern Canada and the
island. The topography is based on the surface shape and features of the location which were
assumed to be 1 for island, 0 for the floating structure and -1 for the Southern Canada. It was
assumed that the All of the listed location has the potential for different size cities, so all of them
listed as 1.
Table 2 is constructed in order to decide the energy sources. The candidate energy sources are:
solar, nuclear, wind, waste incineration and geothermal. 5 criteria were chosen for these energy
sources which are: accessibility, easiness to build, efficiency of energy produced, renewable and
damage to the environment. Accessibility is the most important factor for deciding the energy
sources, so it was weighted as 0.30. The renewable and efficiency of energy produced are listed
as second and third importance by 0.25 and 0.20 respectively. Damage to the environment and
easiness to build are the least important factors which are listed as 0.15 and 0.10 respectively.
The ranking scale for this table exactly similar to table 1 and scaled from -2, greatly inferior
compared to the alternatives, to 2, greatly superior in compared to the alternatives. Hydro was
chosen as the reference which provides baseline for comparison. Since hydro is the reference
point, all of its criteria weights are listed as zero.
The accessibility of the solar and geothermal is the most, 1.5, since they easily can find in any
location. Nuclear is listed as the least accessible,-1, and waste incineration is listed as average, 0.
Wind accessibility is average, 0, since in some areas the wind speed is not enough to generate
electricity. Waste incineration is not as easy as solar power and not as difficult as nuclear plant,
so it was listed as average, 0. Solar and wind farms are the easiest energy sources to build, 1 and
0.5 respectively. Nuclear and geothermal have high efficiency of energy produced, but they are
expensive and difficult to build. They both are listed as -1 because for easiness to build, since
they are very complicated plants and require many investigations prior to the construction
initiation. As already explained efficiency of energy produced of nuclear and geothermal is high
and listed as 2 and 1 respectively. Solar and waste incinerations have the lowest efficiency by
listing as -1 and wind efficiency is average, 0. Nuclear is the only source which is listed to be
less renewable than hydro, -1. Solar, wind and geothermal are the best renewable sources which
are listed as 2. Waste incineration is a good renewable energy, but it also required some fossil
fuel to produce energy from the waste, so it is listed slightly lower than other renewable energies,
1. Wind and geothermal energies does not impact the environment, so they are listed as 1 in the
table. Solar energy is placed after wind and geothermal as the most environmental friendly
source, 0.5. Nuclear and waste management obviously have some waste which harms the
environment, so they are listed as -1 in the table.