# 218

Dear Mohammed Alghassab

I read your paper:

A computational Case Study on Sustainable Energy Transition in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

My comments:

1- In the abstract you say “This research yields promising results, demonstrating the superior capabilities of the proposed fuzzy TOPSIS-based framework compared to traditional decision-making techniques”

It appears that you ignore that this type of hybrid procedures, TOPSIS included, is not new. There are probably hundreds of published papers about it.

2- Abstract “ Through comprehensive evaluations and rankings, decision-makers gain valuable insights into alternative solutions, facilitating informed and strategic decision-making processes”

Sorry, I don’t share your opinion. Comparing rankings between several MCDM methods, don’t show anything, although perhaps in some cases they can give an idea of the best alternative, simply because the DM never knows which is the real ranking. Which are the’ valuable insights’ you refer to?

In may opinion, energy transition is much more than determining which is the best alternative. You forget that this is a dynamic not static problem, and as thus, everything may change along time. In your case you say nothing about replacing your actual oil-fired installations with renewables, including some better that solar, like organic PV, wind, changes in soil temperature, green gas installations, fusion energy, etc.

In order to use renewables or other no contaminating sources you need to work with several periods of time, along ma be 25 years. You need time to fabricate new units and decide how progressively reduce CO2 generation, how much and in what units

3- Page 2. “Traditional decision-making methods often fall short when it comes to evaluating and ranking options for sustainable energy transition. These methods often overlook the inherent uncertainties, complexities, and interdependencies involved in such evaluations”

Agreed, but you do not consider them.

4- Page 5 “The sensitivity analysis revealed that the weights assigned to each criterion influenced the model’s outcomes”

Yes, weights may influence a model output, not due to a rational analysis, but because they can change geometrically the boundaries of the criteria dimensional space, and in so doing modifying the distances from each alternative to that boundary, but they do not participate in alternatives evaluation. See Shannon’s Theorem

5- In page 6 “By integrating fuzzy set theory and the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method, we extend the capabilities of MCDA to capture and handle imprecision and uncertainty associated with sustainable energy transition decision problems”

I agree that fuzzy is a great and scientific tool very often used in MCDM methods, and as you said, trying to reduce uncertainty. It does, when the model is fed with reasonable valuesderived from analyses, expertise, research and consulting, but not when these values come from subjective or arbitrary or invented estimates based on intuition, as those coming from AHP.

Fuzzy works improving data but if this data is artificial, which is the advantage of using fuzzy, other that simply finding the degree of coherence of the DM or DMs estimates?

And where is this related to reality? Nowhere, it is only a personal assumption with no foundation, even if it comes from a group of experts

Energy transition necessitates much more than that. We need forecasted demands or targets, a lot of planning and engineering to determine the fabrication of new units, selection of renewables, and be able to measure the decline of CO2 generation. We require MCDM experts doing a lot of simulations to help them determine the unit that must be decommissioned, we need to consider aspects as job generation, land use, life cycles, environmental contamination for producing PV cells and wind blades, and being alert to new developments, like energy storage.

All of this has nothing to do with fuzzy logic which is no more than an internal procedure, not the base or solution of the problem, that depends on engineering, trends, government polices, economics, mathematical simulations, extracting lessons and analyzing them from past periods, discussions, etc., where the human activity is paramount. Remember that any MCDM method delivers a solution according to data inputted, it does not reason, only can give a base to work on. If that base is grounded on presumptions, interpretations and subjectivity, the result is most probably useless. We are not to solve mathematical problems; we use mathematical algorithms as well as our reasoning, research, consultation and from there we take a decision.

Energy transition is a very complex and time -related issue, and it should be a symbiosis between MCDM methods and experts like mathematicians, economists, energy generation experts, social workers, that discuss, reason, research, rationally, not based on intuitions or pure mathematics. You can get an excellent result from a method, but if it did not consider also variable external factors, it is a waste of time. Even one of them, may cause a complete failure of the model.

6- Page 7 “To ensure a comprehensive and robust set of criteria, a combined approach of expert consultation and literature review is adopted. In our research, we engaged a panel of 75 experts who possess extensive practical experience and expertise in the field of sustainable energy transition”

This is really an impressive number of experts in sustainable energy and transition, but how many of them are experienced in MCDM?

7- In page 8 you make and excellent detail of criteria and alternatives

8- In page 9, what you say about trade-offs is true. This is an example of what I said about theory. Trade-offs means that there is compensation if you normalize them to 1, or that an increase in one criterion is compensated by a proportional decrease in other, which is mathematically true, but unreal.

Why an increase of say maximizing cost-effectiveness (C2) should affect social-acceptance and equity (C5)? Because compensation says so?

9- It is not my intention to be rude or to demerit your work, far from it, it would be a lack of respect, and in addition, nobody appointed me as a judge, but Figure 2 looks as a blackboard example. It is not realistic. Sorry, but it is misleading people.

10- In page 13 “De technique offers a different approach to decision making and ranking alternatives. The purpose of conducting a comparative analysis is to assess the consistency and reliability of the results obtained from both methods [40–45]. `is the most favorable alternative, followed by EA6, EA7, EA4, EA5, EA3, and EA2”.

11- My question: And how is this information good for? For nothing. What a high correlation means? That two alternatives have very similar ups and downs cycles, and what this knowledge is good for?

12- “ It enables decision-makers to make more informed decisions by considering multiple perspectives and gaining a broader understanding of the alternatives. Conducting a comparative analysis of fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP helps in assessing the consistency, reliability, and Comparative findings of fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP analysis are conducted to compare and evaluate the outcomes obtained from two different MCDA methods. Fuzzy TOPSIS and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) are widely used MCDA techniques that offer different approaches to decision making and ranking alternatives. The purpose of conducting a comparative analysis is to assess the consistency and reliability of the results obtained from both methods

With due respect, you use a lot of vacuum words that mean nothing in concrete. You talk about consistency. And what does it mean? Look at this sentence “and Comparative findings of fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP analysis are conducted to compare and evaluate the outcomes obtained from two different MCDA methods” why don’t you explain how can you evaluate? Regarding what?

Could you demonstrate each one of these underlined points, that in reality do not prove anything?

To be reliable, authors must demonstrate each one of their assertions. Words are not enough, and most of the times no mathematical formulas are needed, only reasoning and common sense

Of course, this is only my opinion and I do not pretend that everybody agrees with it. Some people may think differently.

These are my comments, I hope they can help

Nolberto Munier