Comparative Safety Assessment of Solid Gravity Energy Storage Pathways Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Résumé fourni par la source

Solid gravity energy storage (SGES) has emerged as a promising long-duration energy storage option, but systematic safety comparisons among its principal technology pathways remain limited. This study develops a unified expert-based framework for the comparative safety screening of vertical tower-based SGES (VT-SGES), vertical shaft-based SGES (VS-SGES), inclined cable-driven SGES (IC-SGES), and inclined rail-based SGES (IR-SGES). The principal methodological contribution is an integrated evaluation architecture that combines a three-dimensional, nine-indicator safety hierarchy, group AHP weighting, criterion-specific anchored scoring, non-compensatory critical-indicator screening, and multi-method robustness analysis. Ten experts completed three consultation rounds, and the valid pairwise judgments were aggregated using the geometric mean. Structural safety received the highest criterion weight (0.5788), while structural load response and critical-component reliability (0.3127), long-term service stability (0.1718), and start-up and braking safety (0.1528) were the three most influential indicators. The aggregate pathway scores (mean ± SD) were 4.4203 ± 0.1440 for IR-SGES, 3.9688 ± 0.1212 for IC-SGES, 3.1463 ± 0.1689 for VS-SGES, and 3.0690 ± 0.1320 for VT-SGES, yielding the ranking IR-SGES > IC-SGES > VS-SGES > VT-SGES. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was 0.916 (p < 0.001), and the critical-indicator screen identified C5 and C9 as priority mitigation items for VT-SGES. Criterion-weight scenarios, 100,000-run weight–score perturbations, leave-one-expert-out analysis, rank-reversal calculation, and a TOPSIS cross-check supported the stability of the first two positions and identified the condition-dependent ordering of VS-SGES and VT-SGES. By coupling compensatory aggregation with critical-indicator screening and robustness testing, the framework provides a transparent and reproducible basis for comparative safety screening and technology-pathway selection in SGES.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.