Which of the technologies for producing hydrogen is the most prospective in Korea?: Evaluating the competitive priority of those in near-, mid-, and long-term

In order to evaluate the alternative technologies for producing hydrogen in Korea stage by stage, we searched for impact factors, calculated the weights of them and evaluated the hydrogen production technologies in Korea using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. The AHP is a useful method for resolving multi-criteria decision making problems. We investigated 4 criteria (technical characteristics, economic efficiency, marketability, internal capability) and 11 sub-criteria (scale, efficiency, key barriers, carbon dioxide reduction, current production cost, expected production cost in 2017, feed-stock, technical maturity, R&D competitive level, technology gap with competing agencies, and domestic infrastructure). And the alternatives are natural gas reforming technology, coal gasification technology, biomass gasification technology, water electrolysis technology, thermochemical production technology, photoelectrochemical hydrogen production technology, and biological hydrogen production technology. In order to maintain the objectivity of the analysis result and observe the difference among the groups, the questionnaire survey targets were divided into the R&D professional group and policy professional group. This result of study is expected to serve as important basic information in the establishment of a national R&D strategy to prepare for the imminent hydrogen economy era.

[1]  Eunnyeong Heo,et al.  Selecting hydrogen production methods using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with opportunities, costs, and risks , 2012 .

[2]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1980 .

[3]  Yong Wang,et al.  Review of developments in portable hydrogen production using microreactor technology. , 2004, Chemical reviews.

[4]  Soo Uk Park,et al.  Development of assessment model for demand-side management investment programs in Korea , 2007 .

[5]  S. Lee,et al.  A study on making a long-term improvement in the national energy efficiency and GHG control plans by the AHP approach , 2007 .

[6]  Ernest H. Forman,et al.  Decision by Objectives , 2001 .

[7]  Ralph E. Steuer,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years , 1992 .

[8]  Thomas L. Saaty.  Exploring optimization through hierarchies and ratio scales , 1986 .

[9]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[10]  Gento Mogi,et al.  The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: The AHP approach , 2008 .

[11]  Po-Chien Chang,et al.  Fuzzy Delphi method for evaluating hydrogen production technologies , 2011 .

[12]  P. Vincke,et al.  Note-A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making , 1985 .

[13]  Ana F. Carazo,et al.  Using AHP and binary integer programming to optimize the initial distribution of hydrogen infrastructures in Andalusia , 2012 .

[14]  Ibrahim Dincer,et al.  Canada’s program on nuclear hydrogen production and the thermochemical Cu–Cl cycle , 2010 .

[15]  Jong Wook Kim,et al.  Prioritizing the weights of hydrogen energy technologies in the sector of the hydrogen economy by using a fuzzy AHP approach , 2011 .

[16]  Bong-Jin Gim,et al.  The Status of Domestic Hydrogen Production, Consumption, and Distribution , 2005 .

[17]  Grace T. R. Lin,et al.  The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals , 2011 .

[18]  Jooho Hwang,et al.  Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear technology using the analytic hierarchy process: A Korean case , 2010 .

[19]  Jingzheng Ren,et al.  Sustainability of hydrogen supply chain. Part II: Prioritizing and classifying the sustainability of hydrogen supply chains based on the combination of extension theory and AHP , 2013 .