摘要
Geothermal energy is considered a renewable,environmentally friendly,especially carbon-free,sustainable energy source that can solve the problem of climate change.In general,countries with geothermal energy resources are the ones going through the ring of fire.Therefore,not every country is lucky enough to own this resource.As a country with 117 active volcanoes and within the world’s ring of fire,it is a country whose geothermal resources are estimated to be about 40%of the world’s geothermal energy potential.However,the percentage used compared to the geothermal potential is too small.Therefore,this is the main energy source that Indonesia is aiming to exploit and use.However,the deployment and development of this energy source are still facing many obstacles due to many aspects from budget sources due to high capital costs,factory construction location,quality of resources,and conflicts of the local community.In this context,determining the optimal locations for geothermal energy sites(GES)is one of the most important and necessary issues.To strengthen the selection methods,this study applies a two-layer fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method.Through the layers,the Ordinal Priority Approach(OPA)is proposed to weight the sub-criteria,the main criterion,and the sustainability factors.In layer 2,the Neutrosophic Fuzzy Axiomatic Design(NFAD)is applied to rank and evaluate potential locations for geothermal plant construction.Choosing the right geothermal energy site can bring low-cost efficiency,no greenhouse gas emissions,and quickly become the main energy source providing electricity for Indonesia.The final ranking shows Papua,Kawah Cibuni,and Moluccas as the three most suitable cities to build geothermal energy systems.Kawah Cibuni was identified as the most potential GES in Indonesia,with a score of 0.46.Papua is the second most promising GES with a score of 0.45.Next is the Moluccas,with a score of 0.39.However,the three least potential sites among the 15 studied sites are Lumut Balai,Moluccas and Patuha,with scores of 0.08,0.11 and 0.17,respectively.The conclusion of this study also classifies positions into groups to aid in decision-making.
