It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Fossil fuels as the primary energy source create career opportunities, provide industries with vital raw material and energy resources, have harmful emissions to the environment and are also related to finite natural resources. They rely on them as the main source of energy supply is unsustainable. Sustainability assessment tools may be useful in developing a more sustainable scenario. However, the resiliency of nature is not taken into account in this linear assessment. The detrimental effect of these fuels on the environment during their life cycle would suggest transitioning from cradle-to-grave to the cradle-to-cradle lifecycle viewpoint. This study implements the Circular Economic (CE) in fossil fuel development to minimize the unsustainable effects and ensure the environment’s resiliency. In this context, three different fossil fuels are assessed based on the CE model’s proposed lifecycle phases to find out the most sustainable fossil fuel option. A case study is carried out in an industrial location with high-level decision-makers. CE criteria are evaluated based on the E-SWARA method to ensure the assessment’s reliability at this critical step. Next, a novel MCDM method, MARCOS, is applied to this study. Based on the results, gas is the most sustainable energy generation plant in the intended region.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Enghelab Square, Tehran, Iran
2 School of Engineering, Catholic University of the North, Coquimbo, Chile
3 Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania
4 Office of Sustainable Development, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
5 Faculty of Economics and Tourism, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Pula, Croatia