Resiliency Analysis of Energy Demand System in Finland

Open access


Investigating the performance and productivity level of different energy consuming sectors in all countries is an inevitable action. This procedure will be conducted by comparing the energy input and the output of the system which is vital to ensure that the system is used properly. The proper utilization of systems will lead to more efficiency in the energy consumption section. One of the most important tasks in this type of study is the analysis of uncertainty indicators. The analysis and evaluation of uncertainty indices in energy consumption system is a tool that prioritizes the indicators in terms of importance and impact on each of the consumption targets. These consumption goals include energy, environmental, technical, economical, and social objectives. Ultimately, the output data of the uncertainty analysis will be very helpful for making the system more reliable and usable. In this study, we first introduced different sectors of the energy consumption system in Finland and examined each of these sectors in terms of physical and environmental goals. Then the uncertainty indexes in different sectors are extracted, evaluated qualitatively and quantified using the fuzzy logic method. Finally, indicators are prioritized based on the level of effectiveness and uncertainty. According to the results of this research, among 44 considered indices, the security of energy supply, carbon emission, equivalent annual cost, reliability, and political acceptability are respectively the most important indices for energy, environmental, economic, technical and social goals.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] “IEA - Report - Finland: Indicators.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 20-Oct-2017].

  • [2] S. Gurung “Attitude towards energy efficient buildings in Finland” no. May 2017.

  • [3] “Finland Unemployment Rate | 1959-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 20-Oct-2017].

  • [4] “Finland Inflation Rate | 1961-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 20-Oct-2017].

  • [5] “IEA - Report - Finland: Balances.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 18-Oct-2017].

  • [6] “Statistics Finland - Energy prices.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 20-Oct-2017].

  • [7] Tilastokeskus “Energy in Finland 2015” pp. 3–8 2015.

  • [8] C. M. Drapcho et al.Energy Systems Enginneering no. 1. 2014.

  • [9] “IEA - Report - Finland: Renewables and Waste.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 18-Oct-2017].

  • [10] S. Tabasi A. Aslani M. Naaranoja H. Yousefi Analysis of energy consumption in Finland based on the selected economics indicators. International Journal of Ambient Energy 2017. DOI: 10.1080/01430750.2016.1269675

  • [11] “Eurostat - Tables Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) table - Job vacancies in number and %.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 19-Oct-2017].

  • [12] Eurostat Eurostat regional yearbook 2014. 2014 p. 329.

  • [13] Christina Ratcliff “Transport and tourism in Finland” Tour. air Transp. no. February pp. 91–100 2016.

  • [14] IDAE “Energy Efficiency Trends and Policies in Finland” Natl. Rep. ODYSSEEMURE Proj. Plan. Stud. Dep. no. September p. 70 2015.

  • [15] A. Mirakyan and R. De Guio “Modelling and uncertainties in integrated energy planning” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. vol. 46 pp. 62–69 2015.

  • [16] A. Soroudi and T. Amraee “Decision making under uncertainty in energy systems: State of the art” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. vol. 28 pp. 376–384 2013.

  • [17] M. Kavgic D. Mumovic A. Summerfield Z. Stevanovic and O. Ecim-Djuric “Uncertainty and modeling energy consumption: Sensitivity analysis for a city-scale domestic energy model” Energy Build. vol. 60 pp. 1–11 2013.

  • [18] Y. C. Shen C. J. Chou and G. T. R. Lin “The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals” Energy vol. 36 no. 5. pp. 2589–2598 2011.

  • [19] T. Kaya and C. Kahraman “Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology” Expert Syst. Appl. vol. 38 no. 6 pp. 6577–6585 2011.

  • [20] T. Gwo-Hshiung S. Tzay-an and L. Chien-Yuan “Application of multicriteria decision making to the evaluation of new energy system development in Taiwan” Energy vol. 17 no. 10 pp. 983–992 1992.

  • [21] Ş. Erdoǧmuş H. Aras and E. Koç “Evaluation of alternative fuels for residential heating in Turkey using analytic network process (ANP) with group decision-making” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews vol. 10 no. 3. pp. 269–279 2006.

  • [22] C. Kahraman and I. Kaya “A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives” Expert Systems with Applications vol. 37 no. 9. pp. 6270–6281 2010.

  • [23] S. Ahmad and R. M. Tahar “Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia” Renew. energy vol. 63 pp. 458–466 2014.

  • [24] T. Allahviranloo and R. Saneifard “Defuzzification method for ranking fuzzy numbers based on center of gravity” Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst. vol. 9 no. 6 pp. 57–67 2012.

  • [25] A. Aslani T. Mazzuca-Sobczuk S. Eivazi K.Bekhrad Analysis of bioenergy technologies development based on life cycle and adaptation trends. Renewable Energy 127 2018.

  • [26] A.Aslani M. Rezaee M.Mortazavi Analysis of the robustness of Australia economy and energy supply/demand fluctuation. Present Environment and Sustainable Development. VOL. 11 no. 2 2017.

  • [27] M. Hamlehdar A. Aslani Analysis of energy system in norway with focus on energy. Management of Sustainable Development Sibiu Romania Volume 9 No.1 2017. DOI 10.1515/msd-2017-0008

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 182 182 24
PDF Downloads 110 110 10