*2.3.1 Definition of criteria*

Criteria selection is required for making decisions. Possible alternatives must be quantified and must contribute to the decision-making process [33–35]. These criteria may be factors or limiters. A factor is a criterion that negatively or positively affects the possible location for the energy production plant, while a limiter (or exclusion criterion) restricts the location potential, excluding possible installation [33, 34].

The factors employed in this evaluation were as follows:


and potential demand. The selected sectors with a high demand were considered a priority and more suitable.


Each of these factors was discretized with values between 1 and 7, with 7 as the most suitable (**Table 3**).

Conversely, the following limiters were considered:

a.Restricted areas: This represents zones where installation is not viable for environmental, legal, or other reasons [33, 34]. These areas include those covered by the protected forest areas system (SNASPE), protected private areas (PPAs), bodies of water, cities, and the current road network. A value of 0 was assigned to the limiter areas, and 1 was assigned to those without restrictions.


#### **Table 3.**

*Discretization of the values for the factors used to determine the optimal location of an energy production plant based on the wheat biomass in the Araucanía region.*

**149**

*Selection of Optimal Localization for a Biomass Energy Plant that Uses Residual Biomass as…*

b.Availability of biomass: Districts where the minimum quantity of wheat residue is required for the production of 1 MWel were considered as feasible, such as the districts with a residue production less than 8534.8 t year<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

a plant with fluidized bed combustion and a generating turbine (C/ST),

*2.3.2 Proposals for energy production plant placements according to the energy* 

An AHP was used to determine the best location for an energy production plant using wheat biomass as a raw material. The main criterion for the plant location was the biomass supply, by which other major criteria were determined. The analysis was carried out considering the energy demand scenarios (current, potential, and

In the AHP, an importance value was assigned to each criterion according to its objective. The value scale ranged from 1 to 9, where 1 was considered to be equally important for two criteria (a and b) and 9 was considered to be more important for one criterion than another (a over b) [38, 39]. Therefore, when the relative importance of a over b was established, a value of 1/9 was automatically

a.Social scenario: The objective was to satisfy rural sector energy needs, supplying services to healthcare, educational, and rural resident sectors. This scenario was based on social and potential demand, and therefore, industrial and residential (that already have supply) sectors were not considered in this scenario. The availability of biomass, use of land, roads, and electrical supply network were considered as factors. Each of these factors was considered with a different relative weight

b.Feasibility scenario: The objective was to install an energy production plant based on the biomass, and thus, the residual biomass was considered as a lim-

energy demand had less relevance than other criteria because the availability of

therefore, the high-demand scenario was used, where priority was assigned to industrial and residential sectors that currently receive electricity. This was not considered relevant for rural sectors that do not receive. The electrical network had a greater relevance in this scenario because of the goal to satisfy the current

for G/CC [2]. The areas with an

for C/ST and 5536.1 t year<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

c.Demand scenario: The objective was to satisfy large consumer demand;

the raw material is most relevant (**Table 4**).

combined cycle of gas and steam (G/CC), based on the study carried out by Román-Figueroa et al. [2]. A value of 0 was assigned to the districts with residue production less than the minimum required to produce 1 MWel, while other districts with higher production were assigned a value of 1. Depending on the situation, the availability of biomass was used as a factor, with the production of biomass being classified with values from 1 to 7 (**Table 3**). C/ST and G/CC were considered independently as technologies for energy

, for a plant with fluidized bed gasifiers followed by a

, for

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83526*

and 5536.1 t year<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

production.

*demand scenarios*

social) as part of the analysis.

established [39].

(**Table 4**).

iter, 8534.8 t year<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

energy demand (**Table 4**).

*Selection of Optimal Localization for a Biomass Energy Plant that Uses Residual Biomass as… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83526*

b.Availability of biomass: Districts where the minimum quantity of wheat residue is required for the production of 1 MWel were considered as feasible, such as the districts with a residue production less than 8534.8 t year<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , for a plant with fluidized bed combustion and a generating turbine (C/ST), and 5536.1 t year<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , for a plant with fluidized bed gasifiers followed by a combined cycle of gas and steam (G/CC), based on the study carried out by Román-Figueroa et al. [2]. A value of 0 was assigned to the districts with residue production less than the minimum required to produce 1 MWel, while other districts with higher production were assigned a value of 1. Depending on the situation, the availability of biomass was used as a factor, with the production of biomass being classified with values from 1 to 7 (**Table 3**). C/ST and G/CC were considered independently as technologies for energy production.
