International Journal on Power Engineering and Energy (IJPEE)
ISSN Print (2314 – 7318) and Online (2314 – 730X)
Vol. (6) – No. (3)
July 2015
An Analytic Hierarchy Process to Evaluate
Candidate Locations for Solar Energy Stations:
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a Case Study
Said Ali Hassan ElQuliti
Department of Industrial Engineering, King Abdulaziz University (KAU), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
saalquliti@kau.edu.sa
Abstract- Without doubt, the geographical location
represents the key factor in determining the suitable
site for solar power generation. Places that fit to the
carefully chosen criteria may be best suited to the use
of solar energy. Plenty of literatures are performed to
study the feasibility of different alternative sites
worldwide. However, all of them concentrated
exclusively on the economic factors, and none of them
demonstrated application of Analytic Hierarchy
Process as a quantitative technique to rank the
different candidate alternative sites.
Saudi Arabia is a world-renowned country for high
amounts of sunshine and a good climate, which makes
it a great geographical location for solar energy use. It
is one of the highest solar radiations in the world,
specifically; the Western and Southern regions have
the highest annual rate of solar radiation in the
country. Due to the fact that the peak loads as well as
the required generation capacity are very high in the
Western region compared to the Southern region,
Western region is selected to be the location for this
article.
The main objective of this article is to design a suitable
process for searching, assessing and ranking different
sites for solar power plants in the Western Region of
Saudi Arabia. Fourteen site selection criteria are
determined. The process starts with searching for
suitable sites, implementing some feasibility criteria for
the purpose of inspection, then vital screening criteria
are used to reduce the number of the available sites,
and finally the analytic hierarchy process is applied to
rank all the remaining sites. The used process is
general enough to be applied in other regions of Saudi
Arabia or in other countries worldwide.
Keywords- solar energy, western region, Saudi
Arabia, analytic hierarchy process.
history due to the invention of various types of machines,
such as the cotton gin and the steam engine. However, it
was the discovery of natural resources that would be used
as fuel that made this revolution possible. Two main
sources of fossil fuels, coal and oil, proved to be the top
forms of energy used [1].
Even today, coal and oil are used in abundance. The
agriculture and industry rely heavily on these natural
resources for their operations, economic growth, and
development. However, the rising costs for these fuels and
the demands for alternative forms of energy have put
increased pressure to integrate alternative forms of
energy[2].
Saudi Arabia is world renowned for high amounts of
sunshine and a good climate, which makes it a great
geographical location for solar energy use. The longitude
and latitude of specific locations are ideal in determining
the effectiveness of a solar power system due to varying
angles of direct sunlight.
It is clear from [3] that Saudi Arabia has the highest
solar radiation in the world, and that Western and Southern
regions have the highest annual rate of solar radiation in
Saudi Arabia. It is known also that the peak load and
required generation capacity is very high in the Western
region comparing to the Southern region.
Figure 1 shows that Western and Southern regions have
the highest annual rate of solar radiation in Saudi Arabia
[4]. Therefore, Western region is selected to be the
location for this study. The main objective of the location
and site assessment is to recognize and evaluate the
suitable sites for 1 GW solar power plant in Western
region, to consider one of the alternative solar
technologies, and to provide an estimate of site related
costs. It must be underlined that this assessment is
intended to support the overall objectives of the feasibility
study.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
I. INTRODUCTION
Fossil fuels have been the staple for economic
development and technological advances for hundreds of
years. The Industrial Revolution set a benchmark in
Reference Number: JO-P-0064
Location and site are often used synonymously but
must be distinguished [5], the choice of location should be
made from a fairly wide geographical area, within which
several alternative sites can be considered.
572
International Journal on Power Engineering and Energy (IJPEE)
ISSN Print (2314 – 7318) and Online (2314 – 730X)
Vol. (6) – No. (3)
July 2015
water, potential geologic hazards, ground motions and
liquefaction. [11].
A feasibility study at the Kenaitze Indian Tribe focused
on wind and solar energy resources for the tribe, wind and
solar data at a 30-meter meteorological tower constructed
on tribal land were collected. The place has more solar
energy available than other areas in Alaska, but not a high
amount compared to the rest of the world [12].
II.2 A Site in Predetermined Location
Figure (1): The solar radiation details of Saudi Arabia.
The main criteria or key requirements for selecting
proper locations and sites should always be identified at an
early stage of a feasibility study. The alternatives are
subject to a more in-depth qualitative and quantitative
analysis of technical and financial criteria, including
social, environmental and economic aspects. As solar
power plants are special nature projects, the choice of
suitable sites need specific evaluation criteria.
Plenty of feasibility studies are performed to assess the
feasibility of various places for different solar projects
around the whole world, the following sections review
some of examples classified according to the methods used
for assessment.
II.1 Feasibility of a Predetermined Site
A specific site is predetermined in advance. Then the
feasibility of the place is assessed, but no effort is done to
search the most suitable place for the location of the
project. This approach is applied in a feasibility study of
Solar Photovoltaics at the Stringfellow Superfund Site in
Riverside, California [6]. In another study, the feasibility
for a clean energy standard for the University of California
is performed [7].
A project is to be nominally located in the Australian
Capital Territory (ACT), using the existing infrastructure,
such as power transmission, gas, water and other services,
as much as is reasonable [8]. A study examines the
economic and technological feasibility of applying some
of the alternative energy sources for localized use by the
consumer in Ithaca, New York [9].
Another study for the State of Wisconsin is performed
to assess the suitability of the Refuse Hideaway Landfill.
The landfill was in operation from 1974 through 1988 and
is currently closed and capped [10].
Another special geotechnical feasibility study is done
by Ninyo & Moore for the proposed Saguache Solar
Energy Project located near the town of Center in
Saguache County, Colorado. The purpose of the study was
to evaluate the suitability of the site for the proposed
development from a geotechnical perspective. The
considered criteria are: Regional geologic setting, near
surface soil conditions, subsurface soil conditions, ground
Reference Number: JO-P-0064
In a study in New Jersey that has the second highest
installed solar capacity base in US country, behind only
California. The development of a solar facility on the
“Borough Farm” is the most viable option for a utilityscale renewable energy installation in Milford. The project
team has found that the “Borough Farm” is sufficiently
large, open, and flat to support a solar installation [13].
II.3 Feasibility of Alternative Locations
In some studies, it is required to determine all the
feasible locations for solar plant without making any
prioritization among them. For example, in a feasibility
study of solar photovoltaics on landfills in Puerto Rico,
over 30 landfills throughout the island were considered, to
narrow down the list with the most potential for solar PV
systems, screening criteria was applied.
The screening criteria are: solar resource availability,
acreage of the site, distance to graded road, distance to
transmission lines, and slope of the site. After applying the
above criteria, 16 landfills were deemed. It was concluded
that the landfills and sites considered are all feasible areas
implement solar PV systems [14].
II.4 Pass/Fail Testing for Candidate Sites
In some other studies, a decision is made as go, no-go
questions for all the candidate sites to determine the
feasibility of each one to meet the suitable site constraints
without preference to any of them specifically.
For example, a study for San Carlos, Arizona
considered 8 parameters: slope (less than 4%), aspect
(southerly facing), climate, environmental problems,
development, road access, power utilities, and
transmission to the grid. The study is to evaluate and
choose between 3 different possible sites [15].
II.5 Economic Assessment for Candidate Sites
Some studies are concentrated for economic
assessment of solar system configurations in some chosen
areas. The economic performance is based on some basic
parameters like: Annual cost savings ($/year), payback
period (years), array tilt (Deg), PV system size (kW),
annual output (kWh/year), annual O&M ($/year),system
cost with incentives ($), with incentive, jobs created and
jobs c sustained. For example, a study in the City of St.
Marks was performed to explore the feasibility for
573
International Journal on Power Engineering and Energy (IJPEE)
ISSN Print (2314 – 7318) and Online (2314 – 730X)
installing ground-mounted PV. Two sites located at the
former St. Marks Refinery were considered,
The PV system placement and area calculation are
based on solar access measurements around the perimeter
of the site to determine if there were any obstructions that
would shade out any portions of the site. Both sites that
were visited were found suitable to incorporate PV
systems. The economics of the potential systems were
analyzed using an electric rate of $0.08/kWh and the 30%
federal investment tax credit (ITC) and according to the
site production calculations, the most cost-effective system
in terms of return on investment is the fixed-tilt thin film
technology [16].
II.6 Assessing Using Radiation Criterion Only
A study investigated solar energy potential at four
different sites in Ethiopia; Addis Ababa, Mekele, Nazret,
and Debrezeit. The available data is sunshine duration
data. There is no radiation data available except for Addis
Ababa. Empirical relationships involving information on
sunshine duration, temperature and cloudiness are used to
determine the potential raduation. The results obtained are
given in the form of solar radiation plots for all the
selected locations [17].
Another study was done to explore and identify
possible renewable energy sources and the location of such
sources on the Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico. Detailed
research indicated 5 possible sites, with site description,
recommended approximate project size, demand capacity
and possible project configurations for each site [18].
II.7 Criteria Assessment Using Judgment
In another group of studies, the decision is based on
logical judgment of experts and decision makers without
using any assessment approach, For example, in a
feasibility study for concentrating solar plant in New
Mexico, assessing of seven candidate sites are evaluated.
The site assessment has included consideration of the
following criteria: Solar resource, adequate land and
topography (typically less than 1 percent slope),
transmission issues, land ownership, water resource,
economic
benefits/costs,
environmental/permitting
considerations, and sociological/political issues [19].
Another study was initiated in Spier Estate in the
Western Cape Province of South Africa to explore the
technical and economic feasibility of a concentrating solar
power plant. The farm was investigated using GIS satellite
data. The center of the farm provides two areas [20].
A third study in Western North America, site selection
depends on factors additional to solar resource and cost. A
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of the
Southwest is performed to identify candidate areas. GIS
data filters were applied with the following criteria: land
type (e.g., urban or agriculture), ownership (private, State,
Federal), environmental sensitivity, contiguous area,
topography and local transmission infrastructure
capabilities. Finally, State-level policies and regulatory
Reference Number: JO-P-0064
Vol. (6) – No. (3)
July 2015
frameworks must be assessed to determine the favorability
of renewable resource development [21].
II.8 Qualitative Feasibility and Cost Based
Quantitative Assessment
The site selection process for a case study in Australia
consists of three basic stages. Stage 1 is the qualitative
factor feasibility assessment to identify areas with a mix of
solar resource, transmission connection capability,
distribution infrastructure, land availability, water
availability, gas connection capability, environmental
factors, topography, planning, scope for embedded
(symbiotic) load, and scope for industry development
though not necessarily all in the same area. Annual energy
generation assessment is based on NASA data and the
generic solar system layout.
GIS layers were used to compare areas; the process
identified 16 potential areas. Stage 2 is the preliminary
quantitative factor assessment to identify five areas for a
more detailed technical assessment.
The following factors were assessed: average daily
insolation, capacity factor, distance to substation, distance
to 330kV line, total cost, cost per watt, distance to
pipeline, total cost, heritage sites, mining leases, and
wetlands, while the cost based quantitative assessment is
the key factor for the analysis. Stage 3 is a detailed
technical assessment for the five areas [22].
Another feasibility study of renewable energy on
several brown-field sites in Nitro, West Virginia area was
conducted. The purpose of the study is to assess the sites
designated by the City for possible solar PV installation
and to estimate the cost, performance and site impacts.
Eight sites were considered, all of which were found
suitable for PV systems. The economics of the potential
systems were analyzed using an electric rate of
$0.08/kWh, as well as incentives that are offered by the
State of West Virginia and by the serving utility.
According to the site production calculations, the most
cost effective system in terms of return on investment was
chosen for each site [23].
III. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
The main for the selection of a suitable site for a solar
power plant according to the expert’s opinion are as
follows:
1. Solar Radiation: The annual rate of solar radiation
(kWh/m2/d) is a key decision criterion for determining
the appropriate sites. This criterion is initially used to
shorten the list of selected sites.
2. Availability of Land Area: It is the availability of
suitable land area (m2) for the project and for the future
expansion. The following equation can be used to find
the minimum required area for a power solar thermal
power plant [24].
A = ( PC/ H ) * f
A: the solar power plant area,
PC: Plant capacity (W),
574
International Journal on Power Engineering and Energy (IJPEE)
ISSN Print (2314 – 7318) and Online (2314 – 730X)
H:Solar irradiation = 6 kWh/m2/day = 6 * (1000/24) =
250 W/m2,
f: Factor assumed for other buildings = 25 % .
A = (1000,000,000/250) * 1.25 = 5,000,000 m2.
The solar thermal power plant land area for a plant
capacity of 1,000, 000,000 W is equal to 5,000,000 m2.
For the solar photovoltaic power plant, the land area is
calculated using the RETScreen program [25] to be
10,256,411 m2.
3. Size and Room for Growth: In this context, we ask the
question whether the site have a future flexibility for
expansion. The technical specifications assume that the
minimum land area can be considered 40,000,000 m2 in
order to be suitable for the future expansion [26].
4. Cost of Land: It is the cost of the land ($/m2) including
construction and utility costs.
5. Construction Issues: Includes costs of building for
establishing of the solar power plant and all other
needed facilities, these costs are added to the cost of
land.
6. Urban Environment: We ask whether the site in a
location that allows users (staff, workers, visitors) to
benefit from the surrounding urban environment,
particularly in regard to retail outlets and private and
public facilities etc.
This is evaluated by considering the distance from the
candidate site to the nearest city.
7. Distance to the Transmission Line: The distance to the
transmission line (km) will be specified and used as a
criterion for assessing of different sites. This distance
will affect the amount of energy losses and the cost of
construction.
8. Availability of a Water Source: The availability of a
water source or the distance to the nearest water source
is considered. In the Western region of Saudi Arabia
the main water resources is the Red Sea.
Water acquisition costs are extremely site-related,
estimates of this cost is scaled relative to the distance
of the site to the water source.
9. Access Roads: The type of the access roads to the site
will be considered as a criterion for evaluation.
10. Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts: The
environmental and social impact of erecting and
operating the project plant should be assessed.
However, the solar power plant project is suitable from
environmental and socio-economic point view in all the
selected places in the western region.
11. Natural and Physical Characteristics: It is the natural
characteristics of the various places for the project. It
includes soil conditions, subsoil water levels, land
slope (grade), flora, fauna and rocks and site hazards,
like earthquakes and susceptibility to flooding
extending over a great area.
12. Climatic Conditions and Amounts of Rainfall:
Climatic conditions can be specified in terms of the
amounts of rainfall, air temperature, humidity, sunshine
hours, winds, precipitation, hurricane risk etc. Each of
these can be specified in greater details, such as
maximum, minimum and average.
Reference Number: JO-P-0064
Vol. (6) – No. (3)
July 2015
13. Town Planning and Investment Policy of the
Government: The establishment of the project in the
Kingdom is encouraged by the government.
14. Legal Aspects: The legal regulations and procedures
applicable for alternative locations should be studied
carefully. The various national or local authorities
responsible for power and water supplies, building
regulations, fiscal aspects, security needs etc. are
contacted for legal permissions.
At present, Saudi Electricity and Co-generation
Regulatory Authority (ECRA) has announced general
objectives for the development of renewable energy in
the Kingdom, including improving the diversification
of energy supplies, facilitating the supply of energy to
remote areas, developing in-Kingdom knowhow and
jobs and putting in place a supportive regulatory
framework for investment.
IV. SITE SELECTION PROCESS
A four stages process is used to identify the suitable sites
for the project. These stages are summarized in Table 1:
First Stage: Determining all candidate sites
In this stage, all the available free lands near the main
cities in the Western region of Saudi Arabia are
determined. The existing transmission lines and the line
proposed to connect between the solar power plant and the
existing transmission line are also indicated. Table 1
shows the 22 available sites.
Second Stage: Scanning Using Google Earth Program
In this stage, the Google Earth program is used to
confirm the availability of suitable land area for the project
and for the future expansion (5,000,000 m2 for CSP
10,256,411 m2 for PV and 40,000,000 m2 for future
expansion). The Google Earth program determines the area
of each available land and its longitude and altitude as
shown in Figure 2.
Table 2 shows the coordinates values for 22 sites in the
western region and the available land area. From the table
it is clear that 19 sites are suitable for the project required
area and for the future expansion. Site No. 4 "Taimaa" has
an area of 20 km2 which is suitable for the project required
land area and not suitable for future expansion. Site No. 22
"Turubah" has an area of 8 km2 which is suitable only for
CSP power plant and not suitable for PV power plant or
for the future expansion.
From the table it is clear that site areas No. 8 "Khaibar"
and No. 19 "Makkah" are less than 5 km2which is not
suitable to be considered. Moreover, in this stage the
natural and physical characteristics were considered. The
four sites numbered 4, 8, 19 and 22 will not be considered
for further investigation since the corresponding land area
is not sufficient.
575
International Journal on Power Engineering and Energy (IJPEE)
ISSN Print (2314 – 7318) and Online (2314 – 730X)
Vol. (6) – No. (3)
July 2015
Table (1): Site Selection Stages.
Stages
Stage 1:
Determine
all
candidate
sites
Criteria for Selection
Near to the main cities in
the Western Region of
Saudi Arabia.
Candidate Sites
1) Hakl,
2) Tabuk,
3) Alqalibah,
4) Taimaa,
5) Thiba,
6) Alula,
7) AlWajh,
8) Khaibar,
9) Omlog,
10) Henakia,
11) Almadina,
12) Yanbu,
13)MahdAlthaha
b 14) Rabigh,
Stage 2:
Scanning
Using
Google
Earth
Program,
Reconnaissance and
site visits.
Stage 3:
Screening:
By NASA
Surface
- Availability of suitable
land area.
- Size, room for growth.
- Land slope.
- Town planning and
government investment
policy.
- Climatic conditions and
Natural and physical
characteristics.
- Environmental and
socio-economic impact.
- Legal aspects.
- Solar radiation intensity
(for short listing).
Meteorology
and Solar
Energy
Stage 4:
Analytic
Hierarchy
Process
(AHP) for
ranking of
candidate
sites
1. Solar radiation.
2. Total Cost of: land,
water source,
constructions, facilities,
and other utilities.
3. Urban environment.
4. Distance to the main
transmission line.
5. Water availability.
6. Type of access roads.
Reference Number: JO-P-0064
15) Thowal,
16) Khulais,
17)Alkhormah,
18) Taif,
19) Makkah,
20) Jeddah,
21) Raniah
22) Turubah.
1) Hakl,
2) Tabuk,
3) Alqalibah,
4) Thiba,
5) Alula,
6) AlWajh,
7) Omlog,
8) Henakia,
9) Almadina,
10) Yanbu,
11)MahdAlthahab
12) Rabigh,
13) Thowal,
14)Khulais,
15)Alkhormah
16) Taif,
17) Jeddah
18) Raniah.
1) Thiba,
2) Alula,
3) AlWajh,
4) Almadina,
5) Rabigh,
6) Thowal
7) Khulais.
1. AlWajh,
2. Almadina,
3. Thiba,
4. Rabigh,
5. Thowal,
6. Khulais,
7. Alula
Figure (2): Google Earth Program.
Table (2): Site Data for available places in the Western
region.
Site
Latitude
Longitude
(Deg.)
(Deg.)
Availab
land
Area
2
km
1
Hakl
29.27
34.94
48
2
Tabuk
28.41
36.48
85
3
Alqalibah
28.38
37.67
60
4
Taimaa
27.61
38.48
20
5
Thiba
27.34
35.69
77
6
Alula
26.60
37.95
73
7
Alwajh
26.20
36.50
51
8
Khaibar
25.67
39.30
3
9
Omlog
25.05
37.27
60
10
Henakia
24.87
40.70
54
11
Almadina
24.60
39.70
58
12
Yanbu
24.10
38.10
60
13
MahdAlthahab
23.46
40.83
68
14
Rabigh
22.77
38.96
75
15
Thowal
22.26
39.10
63
16
Khulais
22.08
39.41
50
17
Alkhormah
21.93
42.02
83
18
Taif
21.40
40.56
81
19
Makkah
21.33
39.82
3
20
Jeddah
21.29
39.12
100
21
Raniah
21.27
42.84
49
22
Turubah
21.19
41.61
8
Feasibility
C
S
P
P
V
Exp.
√ √
×
× ×
×
× ×
×
√ ×
×
576
International Journal on Power Engineering and Energy (IJPEE)
ISSN Print (2314 – 7318) and Online (2314 – 730X)
Third Stage: Screening using NASA Surface
meteorology and Solar Energy
In this stage the collected data from first stage were
implemented in the website of NASA Surface meteorology
and Solar Energy [27] in order to find out all data related
to Climatic conditions for all the selected sites.
The data include the Elevation (m), Heating design
temperature (Co), Cooling design temperature (Co), Earth
temperature amplitude (Co), Frost days at site (day), Air
temperature (Co), Relative humidity (%), Daily solar
radiation – horizontal (kWh/m2/d), Atmospheric pressure
(kPa), Wind speed(m/s), Earth temperature Heating
degree-days (Co-d) and Cooling degree-days (Co-d).
The main criterion used to rank the current obtained sites
in this stage is the average daily solar radiation –
horizontal (H) (kWh/m2/d).
Table 3 shows the characteristics of the 18 available
sites. The last column of the table shows the rank of the 7
sites with the highest intensity of global solar radiation
(higher than 6 kWh/m2/d) for further evaluation in the next
stage.
Table (3): Intensity of Global Solar Radiations at Western
Region.
No.
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Hakl
Tabuk
Alqalibah
Thiba
Al-Ula
Alwajh
Omlog
Henakia
Almadina
Yanbu
MahdAlthahab
Rabigh
Thowal
Khulais
Alkhormah
Taif
Jeddah
Raniah
H
(kWh/m2)
5.65
5.84
5.9
6.43
6.03
6.23
5.93
5.89
6.36
5.9
6
6.04
6.04
6.04
5.97
5.95
5.99
5.97
Rank of H
1
7
3
2
4
5
6
Fourth Stage: Ranking Using Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP)
Vol. (6) – No. (3)
July 2015
For difficult decisions, a quantitative approach is
recommended. All of the important factors can then be
given appropriate weights and each alternative can be
evaluated in terms of these factors. This approach is called
the multifactor evaluation process (MFEP). With the
MFEP, we start by listing the factors and their relative
importance on a scale from 0 to 1. In situations in which
we can assign evaluations and weights to the various
decision factors, the MFEP described previously works
fine.
In other cases we may not be able to quantify our
preferences for various factors and alternatives. We then
use the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). This process
was developed by Thomas L. Saaty and published in his
1980 book The Analytic Hierarchy Process.
This process uses pairwise comparisons and then
computes the weighting factors and evaluations for us. The
decision maker starts by laying out the overall hierarchy of
the decision. This hierarchy reveals the factors to be
considered as well as the various alternatives in the
decision. Then, a number of pairwise comparisons are
done, which result in the determination of factor weights
and factor evaluations. As in MEEP, the alternative with
the highest total weighted score is selected as the best
alternative. Afterwards, the consistency ratio is calculated,
it tells us how consistent we are with our answers. A
higher number means we are less consistent, whereas a
lower number means that we are more consistent. In
general, if the consistency ratio is 0.10 or less, the decision
maker’s answers are relatively consistent. For a
consistency ratio that is greater than 0.10, the decision
maker should seriously consider reevaluating his or her
responses during the pairwise comparisons that were used
to obtain the original matrix of pairwise comparisons.
The only difference between MEEP and AHP is that
with the AHP, we compute the factor weights and factor
evaluations from a number of pairwise comparison
matrices. We also compute a consistency ratio to make
sure that our responses to the original pairwise comparison
matrix are consistent and acceptable. Although AHP
involves a larger number of calculations, it is preferred to
MFEP in cases in which you do not feel confident or
comfortable in determining factor weights or factor
evaluations without making pairwise comparisons. Of
course when using a computer software to solve the AHP,
then the large number of calculations will be solved [28].
The questionnaires were distributed and filled up by the
8 experienced participants. The response rate was 100%.
Each questionnaire was analyzed using “Super Decisions”
Software [29] .The Super Decisions software implements
the Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP, based on deriving
priorities by making judgments on pairs of elements, or
obtaining priorities by normalizing direct measurements.
Figures 3 and figure 4 show two samples from the Super
Decisions Software snapshots.
Many decision-making problems involve a number of
factors. In multifactor decision making, individuals
subjectively and intuitively consider the various factors in
making their selection.
Reference Number: JO-P-0064
577
International Journal on Power Engineering and Energy (IJPEE)
ISSN Print (2314 – 7318) and Online (2314 – 730X)
Figure (3): Super Decisions Software Decision Hierarchy
for Alternative Sites Selection
Figure (4): Super Decisions Software Pairwise
Comparison Screen
The obtained results indicate that participants rank the
candidate sites as follows: Thiba with a weight of
(0.238779584 out of 1.0), Madinah (0.219754031),
AlWajh (0.158927226), Rabigh (0.148702101), Thowal
(0.086063358), Khulays (0.079312709) and Al-Ula
(0.068460991).
AlWajh Site is 6.23 kWh/m2/day, the land is available
and it have the lowest price approximately 25 $/m2, near to
the water sources and near to the transmission line
approximately 3 km distance, see table (4).
The inconsistency value was less than 0.1 (an average of
0.068278), which is acceptable
Table (4): Ranking the Sites at Western Region
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Site
Thiba
Madinah
AlWajh
Rabigh
Thowal
Khulays
Al-Ula
Weight
0.238779584
0.219754031
0.158927226
0.148702101
0.086063358
0.079312709
0.068460991
VI. CONCLUSIONS
We can summarize the basic conclusions of this article
in the following points;
Reference Number: JO-P-0064
Vol. (6) – No. (3)
July 2015
1- The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to
make ranking of different sites in the Western region of
Saudi Arabia in order to evaluate and choose the most
suitable ones for a solar power plant.
2- A plenty of studies and researches dealt with
assessment of sites for the feasibility of establishing
solar power plants worldwide, but all of them
concentrate solely on the feasibility based on judgment
and on economic factors, none of them uses
quantitative criteria as that used in AHP to rank the
different alternatives.
3- A process of five phases for site selection and
assessment is proposed, the first phase is to scan the
whole area for suitable locations and to reconnaissance
for their feasibility. The second phase is to form a short
list of the candidate sites by screening them for solar
radiation intensity. The third phase is to apply the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to assign ranks for
the available alternatives. The fourth and fifth phases
are to test the robustness and to interpret the obtained
results.
4- 22 candidate sites were found in the first phase of the
site selection and assessment process, these are short
listed to 7 sites in the second phase, while the weighted
scores phase recognized only 3 sites as the most
suitable ones.
5- The robustness of the obtained results was tested by the
sensitivity analysis scenarios for both the weights and
the scores for the whole range of values designed by
the reviewed experts. Results show the stability of
ranking for all the alternative sites. Results for the base
case and for different scenarios reveal that the three
sites: Thiba, Madinah and Al-Wajh are stable at the top
of the ranked list with significant differences in total
scores than the remaining four sites.
VII. POINTS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHES
The work in the present work reveals some further
points for upcoming researches to the light; they are
summarized in these points:
1- To use other methods such as the Analytical Network
Process (ANP) and to compare the obtained results.
2- To do a complete feasibility study for planting solar
energy stations in the Western Region of Saudi Arabia
using results obtained in this research.
3- To perform similar studies for other regions of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
4- To perform similar studies for wind stations as another
type of renewable energy.
REFERENCES
[1] W. J. Baumol, and S.A. Blackman,
Natural
Resources, 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty. May
24, 2010.
Online at:
http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/naturalresources.html.
[2] K. W. Wright, Analysis of integrating solar power at
Cal Poly’s on-campus dairy operation, Bachelor of
578
International Journal on Power Engineering and Energy (IJPEE)
ISSN Print (2314 – 7318) and Online (2314 – 730X)
Science Project, Faculty of the Agribusiness Department,
California Polytechnic State University, 2010.
[3] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual
Energy Outlook 2010, Washington: EIA, 2010.
[4] S. Rehmana; M. A.Badera,; and S.A. Al-Moallemb,
Cost of solar energy generated using PV panels,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol.
11: 1843–1857, 2007.
[5] S. A. El-Quliti, Feasibility study with case studies,
Second Edition, Khawarizm Academic, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, 2013.
[6] O. VanGeet and G. Mosey, Feasibility Study of
Economics and Performance of Solar Photovoltaics at the
String fellow Superfund Site in Riverside- California,
Technical Report, Environmental Protection Agency for
the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: Siting
Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and
Mine Sites, ,2010.
[7] M. Munn, Feasibility study for a clean energy standard
for the University of California, Office of the President,
Energy and Utility Services, 2002.
[8] Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited, Solar
Power Plant Pre-feasibility Study, Actew AGL and ACT
Government, Brisbane, Australia, 2008.
[9] A. Lund-Hansen, Feasibility study of renewable energy
sources at the Emerson plant in Ithaca, Cornell University
College of Engineering, NY, 2011.
[10] J. Salasovich and G. Mosey, Feasibility study of
economics and performance of solar photovoltaics at the
Refuse Hideaway Landfill in Middleton-Wisconsin,
Environmental Protection Agency for the RE-Powering
America’s Land Initiative: Siting Renewable Energy on
Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy, Alliance for Sustainable Energy,
LLC.,Technical Report, 2011.
[11] Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental
Sciences Consultants, Geotechnical feasibility study,
Saguache solar energy project, Saguache County,
Colorado, Project No. 500316001, 2011.
[12] B. Trefon, Kenaitze Indian Tribe Wind and Solar
Feasibility Study, Tribal Environmental Program, Final
Renewable Energy Feasibility Report,US Department of
Energy, Golden Field Office, Kenai, Alaska, US, 2006.
[13] Rutgers University, Milford Renewable Energy
Feasibility Study, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning
and Public Policy, Renewable Energy Studio, 2010.
[14] J. Salasovich and G. Mose, Feasibility study of solar
photovoltaics on landfills in Puerto Rico, Technical
Report, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Weatherization and
Intergovernmental Program, Alliance for Sustainable
Energy, LLC. Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board,
2011.
Reference Number: JO-P-0064
Vol. (6) – No. (3)
July 2015
[15] US Department of Energy, Tribal Energy Program
San Carlos Apache Tribe, Energy Organization Analysis &
Solar Feasibility Study, San Carlos, Arizona, US, 2012.
[16] L. Lisell and G. Mosey, Feasibility study of
economics and performance of solar photovoltaics at the
Former St. Marks Refinery in St. Marks, Florida,
Technical Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
2010.
[17] G. Bekele, Study into the potential and feasibility of a
standalone solar-wind hybrid electric energy supply
system for application in Ethiopia, Doctoral Thesis,
Division of Applied Thermodynamics and Refrigeration,
Department of Energy Technology, School of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Royal Institute of
Technology KTH, Stockholm, 2009.
[18] C. Stewart, Renewable Energy Feasibility Study,
Pueblo of Laguna Utility Authority, Red Mountain Tribal
Energy, Final Report, New Mexico, USA, 2008.
[19] Black & Veatch, Building a World of Difference, New
Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources
Department, New Mexico concentrating solar plant
feasibility study, Draft Final Report, 2005.
[20] M. Lubkoll1, A. C. Brent and P. Gauché, A prefeasibility study of a concentrating solar power system to
offset electricity consumption at the Spier, South Africa,
2011.
[21] Western Governors’ Association, Clean and
Diversified Energy Initiative, Solar Task Force Report,
USA, 2005.
[22] AECOM Australia Pty. Ltd., Pre-Feasibility Study for
a Solar Power Precinct, Final report, department of
Environment, Climate Change and water, 2010.
[23] L. Lisell and G. Mosey, Feasibility study of
economics and performance of solar photovoltaics in
Nitro, West Virginia, Technical Report, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010.
[24] A. M. Al-Garni, Feasibility study for a solar power
plant in the western region of Saudi Arabia, M.Sc. Thesis,
Industrial Engineering Department, King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 2013.
[25] RETScreen, International Renewable energy project
analysis software. Available at: http://www.retscreen.net/.
[26] U. A. Elani, and S. A. Bagazi, The importance of
silicon photovoltaic manufacturing in Saudi Arabia,
Renewable Energy Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14: 89-94, 1998.
[27] Surface meteorology and Solar Energy, A renewable
energy resource web site:https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/
[28] B. Render, R. M. Stair and M. Henna, T. S. Hale,
Quantitative Analysis for Management, Prentice Hall
International Inc., 12th Edition, 2015.
[29] Creative Decisions Foundation: Super Decision
Software website:
http://www.superdecisions.com/. Accessed 15 March
2015.
579