Environmental assessment of renewable energy scenarios for a sustainable future in Turkey

Abstract

In this study, we aim to present the outcomes of the environmental impact assessment of renewable energy scenarios relevant with the sustainable perception in Turkey using energy modelling for the period 2014–2050. Therefore, we use the Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System model and develop three scenarios as follows: Reference Scenario, Alternative Scenario-I, and Alternative Scenario-II. We find that the total social costs in Reference Scenario, Alternative Scenario-I and Alternative Scenario-II are $88.75 billion, $76.73 billion and $71.15 billion per annum, respectively. Self-sufficiency of the country as the political impact factor in Reference Scenario is expected to be 10.5% in 2050, while it is 41.4% in Alternative Scenario-I and 54% in Alternative Scenario-II. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, Reference Scenario leads to 736 million metric tons of CO₂-eq per annum, which is calculated to be 77.4% and 99.5% higher than Alternative Scenario-I and Alternative Scenario-II, respectively. We conclude that it is a necessity for Turkey to employ its renewable energy potential that it possesses in abundance with efficiency measures. Otherwise, missing this paradigm shift process may stir up a hornet’s nest of harder sectoral challenges and externalities in the near future of the country.

Keywords

Sustainability renewable energy environmental assessment energy scenarios Turkey

Introduction

Due to its geographic and topographic advantages, Turkey is one of the richest countries in the World in terms of renewable energy potential.^1,2 From that point of view, the main question of this research is to present the possible role of renewable sources in bringing the energy sector of Turkey into a more sustainable context. However, obtaining the energy in a sustainable way is not an easy process. There are certain issues related to politic and economic aspects. For instance, concerning energy diplomacy, the country has complications with the neighbouring countries such as Russia and Iran, and the imbalanced external dependency makes the country vulnerable.³ Related to the economic aspects, buoyant increase in the fossil energy source imports creates severe problems. Additionally, the externalities such as gradual expansion of current accounts deficit or the deterioration of foreign trade balance are the other triggering reasons. As a result, such problems are contradicting directly with the sustainable development principle.⁴ On the other hand, Turkey has become a net importer country,⁵ which furnishes more than 74% of the energy sources that inevitably need to sustain its enduring growth.⁶ Within the environmental aspect, dramatic increase in fossil fuel consumption also ends up with a noteworthy raise in GHG emission. For instance, CO₂ emissions being 127.1 million metric tons in 1990 have reached to 283.8 million metric tons in 2013.⁷ From a financial perspective, renewable sources do not constitute any commercial value for they are already available in almost every part of the world.

In addition, despite the fact that the installation costs of renewable-based technologies are still relatively higher in common, thanks to growing technological maturity and extensity of use, this fact is reversing swiftly.⁸ In a political manner, renewable sources and related technologies assist energy importer countries to get more self-sufficient, where they are used. From an environmental perspective, regarding the climate-change issue exclusively, renewables again can be labelled as remarkably effective that they almost minimize the GHG emissions.⁹

Yet, renewable energy sources and technologies, about to be ignored so far in Turkey, are based thoroughly on efficiency and focus on sustainability. In this respect, renewables play a critical role in new energy paradigm that take place extensively in most part of developed and even developing world.¹⁰

In the field about the renewable energy, scenarios and sustainable energy researches for Turkey are very scarce and limited. For instance, Atılgan and Azapagic¹¹ employed life cycle environmental, economic and social sustainability assessments of future electricity scenarios for Turkey up to 2050.Balat¹² conducted a study on renewable perspective for sustainable energy development. Yüksel¹³ explained the use of hydropower for clean and sustainable energy future. Yüksel¹⁴ and Kick² have studied energy production and sustainable energy policies about Turkey. Saygın^10,15 investigated the challenges of nuclear energy in sustainable development agenda, sustainable energy policies and energy efficiency of Turkey. Kaygusuz¹⁶ investigated the relationships between renewable energy and sustainable development in Turkey. As the result, we did not notice any studies about the development and assessment of future energy scenarios up to the year 2050 for Turkey, employing Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP).

The aim of this study is to present the outcomes of the environmental impact assessment of renewable energy scenarios relevant with the sustainable perception in Turkey using energy modelling for the period 2014–2050.

Methodology

We employ LEAP software to model the future energy sector of Turkey. We determine the basic parameters, key assumptions and various cost projections, respectively, as crucial parts of this model. Then, we develop three scenarios – one is reference and two others are alternatives based on these parameters and assumptions (Figure 1). There is also no ‘right’ way to build a Business as Usual (BAU) or a Reference Scenario (RS). Some BAU scenarios are based on historical trends while others may focus on expected trends for the future. The key thing to understand is that your baseline scenario is what you will be comparing back to; you will not be only looking at your baseline, but instead you will be looking at how your mitigation or alternative scenarios (AS) relate to the baseline.¹⁷ In RS, we forecast a future energy overview based on today’s circumstances and the political conditions. On the other hand, the ASs are designed to present the impacts of a political shift that prioritizes renewable energy sources and technologies. In the final stage, we simulate all these scenarios and compare them by analysing the outcomes regarding economic, political and environmental aspects of sustainability criteria.

Figure 1.

The flowchart of methodology.

Data sources

We benefit from a variety of national and international, also scientific and official sources while constructing data sets that constitute the input data of this model. Greenpeace International and EREC,¹⁷ International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and C2E2,¹⁸ Price Waterhouse Coopers,¹⁹ Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and Promotion Agency²⁰ and Turkish Statistical Institute^17–21 can be stated as major sources of the model used in this study. We also use the obtained data from these sources to define the actual variation/amounts of energy sources in different scenarios in the model.

The LEAP software

The LEAP software is an integrated, scenario-based modelling tool, which can be used to track energy consumption, production and resource extraction in all sectors of subjected actors.¹⁷ We established scenarios, which are simulated via LEAP software, and the results arise such as total social costs, self-sufficiency and GHG emissions, allowing us to make significant quantitative analysis for this study.²²

Basic parameters

As the scope, transformation and resources, statistical differences and stock changes, costs, energy and non-energy sector effected loadings, complex effects and other indicators are used, respectively. Regarding time constraints of the model, as base year (first calculated year) 1990, as first scenario year (first year in which scenario expressions used) 2014 and as end year (last calculated year) 2050 are chosen. Even though considerable amount of information can be reached up to the year 2016,⁶ some part of important data that may affect the cost analysis part can only be reachable up to 2014 (ETP 2014). Therefore, we are in 2018, but we decided to start the scenarios from the year 2014 in which all the necessary information can completely be taken into consideration. As a result, that decision enabled us to benefit wide range of information in harmony with a comprehensive manner. Given the fact that calculations and modelling of the scenarios must be conducted on a yearly basis for cost and stock turnover analysis, results are expected for every one year.

Key assumptions

In modelling applications, projections and estimates considering energy sector depend strongly to least social and economic assumptions as key assumptions. In this section, we have presented key assumptions.

Demographic evolution

Demographic evolution is a matter of the utmost importance as a social parameter within energy modelling studies. We take TurkStat²¹ as reference for demographic evolution estimates of Turkey (Table 1) and insert the data set of the Demographic Projection of Turkey for the period 2013–2075 into calculations using cohort-component method.

Table 1.

Demographic projection of Turkey, 2015–2050.

Years	Population (million)	Years	Population (million)	Years	Population (million)	Years	Population (million)
2015	78.1	2024	84.9	2033	89.9	2042	92.7
2016	78.9	2025	85.5	2034	90.3	2043	92.9
2017	79.8	2026	86.2	2035	90.7	2044	93
2018	80.6	2027	86.8	2036	91.1	2045	93.2
2019	81.3	2028	87.3	2037	91.4	2046	93.3
2020	82.1	2029	87.9	2038	91.7	2047	93.4
2021	82.8	2030	88.4	2039	92	2048	93.4
2022	83.5	2031	88.9	2040	92.3	2049	93.5
2023	84.2	2032	89.4	2041	92.5	2050	93.5

GDP growth estimates

Economic development estimates constitute another vital factor in making energy demand projections. The GDP data for Turkey that are derived from purchasing power parity calculations given below are taken into account as the main economic indicator. We benefit from Energy (R)evolution¹⁷ and World in 2050.²³ We calculate the arithmetic means presented in each report for every year with the aim of objectivity (Table 2).

Table 2.

GDP growth estimates of Turkey, 2014–2050.

Energy (R)evolution	2009–2020	2020–2035	2035–2050
Energy (R)evolution	5.1%	2.8%	1.8%
World in 2050	2014–2030	2030–2050
World in 2050	5%	4.6%
The role of renewables	2014–2020	2020–2035	2035–2050
The role of renewables	5.1%	3.8%	3.2%

Cost projections

Cost projections including fossil fuel price projections, technology investment, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs estimates based on a variety of energy transformation technologies are taken into account as the basis of economic analysis. In addition, carbon mitigation costs are also considered as another factor.

Fossil fuel price projections

We build the fossil fuel price projection data sets depending basely on Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) 2014 and Energy (R)evolution reports.^7,23 While processing the data with the aim of objectivity again, we calculate the arithmetic means of 4-degree scenario (4DS) estimates within ETP 2014 and Energy (R)evolution scenario estimates. The values that are not presented in Table 3 are included after estimating using interpolation preserving the inclination angle (positive/negative) of related values.

Table 3.

Fossil fuel costs projection (US$/unit).

Fuels	Unit	2015	2020	2025	2030	2035	2040	2045	2050
Crude oil imports
ETP 2014-4DS	Barrel		112	118	123	128	132	135	137
E (R) 2015	Barrel	105		105	143	143	143		143
The Role of Renewables	Barrel	105	109	112	133	136	138	139	140
Natural gas imports
ETP 2014-4DS (Europe)	Tons of oil equivalent		441	460	480	492	504	516	524
E (R) 2015 (Europe)	Tons of oil equivalent	557		714	765	819	873		1032
The Role of Renewables (Europe)	Tons of oil equivalent	499	538	587	623	656	689	734	778
OECD coal imports
ETP 2014-4DS	Tons		101	105	108	110	112	114	116
E (R) 2015	Tons	119		152	160	170	186		193
The Role of Renewables	Tons	110	118	129	134	140	149	152	155

Transformation capital and O&M costs projections

In addition to fossil fuel price projections, transformation capital and O&M costs are also determined for the model. A cost projection set built up concerning the technologies depending on conventional sources. The values that reflect the cost estimates are presented in Table 4, and these are approved by the Chamber of Mechanical Engineers (CME) of Turkey.²⁴ The presented values are inserted to the model directly, and they are expected not to change in the near future. We can explain this with the learning factor. Conventional systems have relatively higher learning factors, so that they have reached at a level, which makes not only their installation capitals, but also O&M costs stable. These costs determined to be decreasable in only case of efficiency measures and corresponding applications. Therefore, under normal conditions in Table 4, the presented costs are valid up to the year 2050.

Table 4.

Cost Projections for Conventional Technologies, 2015–2050.

Plant type	Capital costs (US $/kWh)	Fixed O&M costs (US $/kW)	Variable O&M costs (US $/MWh)
Coal-fired power plant	3246	37.8	4.47
Natural gas-fired power plant	917	13.17	3.6
Nuclear power plant	5530	93.28	2.14

As for renewable energy technologies, the cost estimates of Energy (R)evolution – achieved by paying regard to over mentioned learning factor – are referenced directly in this model. It is noteworthy to state that cost data regarding too photovoltaic and wind technologies include additional integration costs up to 25% which are supposed to derive particularly from issues of adaptation to existing energy system.¹⁷ Newly, in addition to Energy (R)evolution estimates, we also take into account the variable O&M costs of biomass technologies which are approved by CME.¹⁷ Since, unlike other renewable energy sources, all kinds of biomass materials including agricultural, even residuals, are considered as productable.

As can explicitly be seen in Table 5, owing to increasing but relatively still lower learning factors of renewable technologies, almost all accounted costs tend to fall through a perspective up to 2050.

Table 5.

Cost projections for renewable technologies, 2015–2050.

Plant type	2015	2020	2030	2040	2050
Wind
Capital Costs (US $/kW)	1270	1100	1092	1098	1147
Fixed O&M Costs (US $/kW)	47	46	47	50	52
Solar photovoltaic (PV)
Capital Costs (US $/kW)	1355	1072	960	880	847
Fixed O&M Costs (US $/kW)	33	18	12	12	12
Concentrated solar power (CSP)
Capital Costs (US $/kW)	7340	5646	4892	4495	4097
Fixed O&M Costs (US $/kW)	293	226	195	179	164
Hydro
Capital Costs (US $/kW)	2900	2988	3122	3235	3333
Fixed O&M Costs (US $/kW)	116	120	125	130	133
Geothermal
Capital Costs (US $/kW)	10,520	7950	5446	4523	3890
Fixed O&M Costs (US $/kW)	458	356	271	253	239
Biomass
Capital Costs (US $/kW)	2629	2482	2398	2299	2251
Fixed O&M Costs (US $/kW)	158	149	143	139	135
Variable O&M Costs (US $/MWh)	5.26	5.26	5.26	5.26	5.26

Environmental assessment

Via the LEAP model, we calculate GHG emissions in an uncomplicated way taking activity levels in all sectors and multiplying them by emission levels.²⁵ Then, the model takes these together and reports the results in an adaptable way, so we can make further comparable environmental analysis.

Historical data

As for historical data, the values belong to the period 1990–2013 are compiled and processed depending chiefly on MNEP Blue Papers and IEA Energy Atlas.^6,23,25 We have also benefitted from Turkey Starter Data set of LEAP software embedded. It represents quite extensive historical data for the period 1971–2008.

Scenario development

We have developed three scenarios in order to compare and analyse the results and their possible impacts in terms of sustainability.

Reference scenario

This RS aims to reveal the official political priorities and targets adopted and being already applied by TRPM and MENR. With this scenario, we expect to foresee Turkey’s energy situation and general overview under present circumstances within the realm of viability up to 2050.

In this context, RS basely estimates that the support mechanisms prevail through 2050 to conventional energy resources and fossil fuels. In addition, first nuclear power plant is engaged in supply mix by 2020 and in pursuit of this year, it is extended in proportion gradually in electricity sector of Turkey. In terms of external dependency abatement, ‘attack to coal plan’ becomes effective, while the nuclear power plants, which are stepping in progressively, play a crucial role in fulfilment of the country’s energy needs. Although an expectation in terms of renewable development exists slighting, RS anticipates no comprehensive growth of modern variable renewables, such as wind, photovoltaic and concentrated solar power. Moreover, RS does not expect any radical shift and amelioration in terms of energy efficiency.

Alternative scenario-I

In AS-I, we represent a future in which effective energy policies based primarily on prioritized renewable sources are put into use. Hence, in AS-I, a radical change in energy paradigm commences constitutively. In this sense, priorities and support mechanisms towards production and consumption of conventional energy, especially fossil fuels, are abandoned. Instead of these, AS-I increases the use of renewables simultaneously in both residential, industrial and transportation sectors, in terms of not only electric, but also thermal needs.

Variable renewables such as wind, solar and, at the same time, geothermal energy uses increase extensively. Furthermore, hydraulic energy and biomass sources are also preserved under strict environmental impact surveillance measures. Serious restrictions are carried into effect in consumption notably of coal, oil and natural gas. AS-I gives no place to nuclear energy. In parallel with the expending use of various renewables by 2050, a far more diversified energy mix is expected to gain functionality in energy demand sector of Turkey.

Alternative scenario-II

AS-II considers the fact that renewable energy sources and technologies are in harmony and synergy with energy efficiency principles.²⁶ Therefore, AS-II brings the paradigm shift regarding energy future a step further. It is aiming to determine the possible influences in future energy sector of the country in the most comprehensive accordance with the main proposals of this study.

In order to highlight the difference between two alternatives, it can be noted that AS-I prioritizes renewable development, whereas it focuses on increasing the proportion of renewable energy sources by only additional intensive investments. However, AS-II, keeping the supply mix almost the same with its counterpart, also takes efficiency and efficiency-related measures into action. Hence, renewable-efficiency interaction comes into effect and renewable development is bolstered, respectively. For instance, more forceful and dissuasive applications regarding illegal use of electricity play a crucial role in AS-II. Similarly, the support mechanisms that bolster energy efficiency in residential and industrial sectors are implemented. A social awareness and consciousness is also built-up, changing consuming habits of the individuals, so that renewable development is more wisely supported.

Results and discussion

Future energy supply mix according to scenarios

When simulating Turkey’s energy future scenarios under explained-in-detail conditions, we have achieved remarkable results. Figures 2 and 3 below present and show the future energy supply mixes that are expected according to each scenario.

Figure 2.

RS – total primary energy supply mix, 2013–2050.

Figure 3.

AS-I and II, Total Primary Energy Supply Mix, 2013–2050.

When observed, above all, under RS in resource portfolio, no radical shift except nuclear energy that gains gradual increase especially in proportion is encountered. In this respect, conventional energy sources, fossil fuels in particular, sustain their dominance in supply mix. Although it is clear to notice a significant decrease in consumption of oil and oil products, the increase in consumption of coal is more noteworthy (Figure 2).

However, under AS, the resource portfolio seems to be far more various (Figure 3). While fossil resources are losing their dominancy, especially solar, wind and geothermal energy use is expanding conspicuously. Thus, it can be more widely to take advantage of renewable sources in meeting energy needs and filling the energy gap so efficiently. Besides, the quantitative increase of resource portfolio results inevitably in energy security of the country, which can be basically and the most comprehensively explained by the variety principle.

Total energy demand estimates

Second, as another key result of this model, Figure 4 presents the comparison of the scenarios in terms of energy demands. Accordingly, under the conditions of RS – in which present energy policies prevails – by the year 2050, the total energy demand is expected to rise from 113.5 million tons of oil equivalent (TOE) in 2013 to 269.9 million TOE in 2050, with an increase rate of 138%. This value seems to be so convergent with gross energy demand value of the Bringing Europe and Third Countries Closer Together Through Renewable Energies low scenario for the year 2050, with respect to realisability.²⁷ However, in AS, the expected energy demands to meet the least energy needs – under the conditions of AS-I and AS-II – increase only to 243.6 million TOE and 209.8 million TOE in the year 2050, with the increase rates of 114% and 85%, respectively, which are both relatively far less than RS.

Figure 4.

Total Primary Energy Demand Comparison, 2013–2050.

As can be clearly noticed in Figure 4, ASs are more advantageous than RS, in terms of meeting the future energy needs of the country. AS-I succeeded to result in a noteworthy decrease of energy demand thanks to the prioritization of renewables, although it provides almost nothing with regard to energy efficiency. AS-II supported this prioritization with the renewable energy–energy efficiency interaction, and hence, it ensures a greater decrease of the energy demand that makes it the most advantageous scenario. This finding is highly compatible with the IRENA and Copenhagen Center on Energy Efficiency (C2E2) report, which expects a growth up to 25% in total primary energy supply in case of combined deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.¹⁸

Economic analysis

In order to be able to make a least assessment and analysis, above all, it requires handling total costs that can be considered as vital to realize these scenarios. They are composed of transformation capitals, fixed O&M costs, variable O&M costs and fuel import costs. Figures 5 to 7 presented below, first, show the transformation capitals as well as fixed and variable O&M costs, under the conditions of RS, AS-I and AS-II, respectively.

Concerning this, it is quite possible to make a comparison by numerical values. Under RS conditions, for the period 2013–2050, the total transformation capitals that must be made is US$386.2 billion which is the value of US$at 2016 (2016 US$). When fixed and variable O&M costs are added to this, as can be seen in Figure 5, cumulative output costs are US$642.9 billion in total, or US$16.9 billion per year, respectively, except fuel imports for both. On the other hand, under AS conditions, in consequence of comprehensive energy paradigm shifts coming to effect, the transformation capitals seem relatively higher than RS. Therefore, it requires US$580.3 billion and US$580.6 billion-cost-transformation capitals in order to realize AS-I and AS-II, respectively. With fixed and variable O&M costs, as shown in Figures 6 and 7, cumulative output costs are US$960 billion and US$956.1 billion in total, or US$25.3 billion and US$25.2 billion per year, respectively, except again fuel imports for all.

Figure 5.

Transformation capitals and O&M costs, RS, 2013–2050.

Figure 6.

Transformation capitals and O&M costs, AS-I, 2013–2050.

Figure 7.

Transformation capitals and O&M costs, AS-II, 2013–2050.

Figure 8 shows that transformation capitals and O&M costs of AS-I and AS-II need to be US$317.1 billion and US$313.2 billion more in total, or US$8.34 billion and US$8.24 billion more per year, respectively, than that of RS.

Figure 8.

Transformation capitals and O&M costs comparison, 2013–2050.

Since an intense investments period focused on wind, photovoltaic power plants and concentrated solar plants started immediately in both AS-I and AS-II, and transformation capitals increased sharply in the beginning of 2014. In addition, O&M costs take higher these prices in the same period which continue to go upwards slightly up to the year 2043. Due to the approximate 30-year-economic life span as amortation, we project that a tremendous amount of old power plants will be out of use which leads a dramatic decrease in the aftermath of disconnection around 2044. Simultanously, O&M costs do not cause a remarkable raise in prices with the increasing number of more effective and modern renewable systems by then, as can be observed explicitly in Figures 6 to 8.

When we analyse the economic results, we need to recognize that fuel import costs must also be taken into account. In terms of this, under RS conditions, for the reason that the scenario lies heavily on the conventional resources that Turkey mostly lacks, as observed in Figure 9, a dramatic increase in fuel import costs is expected to emerge. On the other hand, under both AS-I and AS-II conditions, related to concentration on renewables that the country possesses in abundance, and with efficiency, the import costs have shown similarity.

Figure 9.

Imported fuel costs comparison, 2013–2050.

Given the fact that Turkey contributes to its self-sufficiency with relatively abundant of hard coal and lignite reserves in conventional thinking, decision makers prefer to keep trusting in fossil sources rather than efficient modern renewebles in RS. However, these coal and lignite reserves are forecasted to be degraded drastically around 2038–2040. That prediction leads the country to import more for feeding its fossil-dominated conventioanal energy industry, as can be seen in Figure 9. On the contrary, that inevitable degradation can be faced comparatively later (around 2044–2046) with smoother impacts which are considered to be easier to deal with, thanks to a more diversified sustainable energy supply system in AS-I and AS-II.

Then, in terms of social costs of scenarios, for the period 2014–2050 under RS conditions, it costs US$3372.5 billion in total for the country, whilst under AS-I and AS-II, it costs US$2916.1 billion and US$2703.6 billion in total, respectively (2016 US$). In other words, up to 2050 RS requires US$88.75 billion per annum, whereas AS-I and AS-II require only US$76.73 billion and US$71.15 billion per annum, respectively (2016 US$). Besides, when analysing Figure 10, an abrupt increase in social costs for just the beginning of AS-I and AS-II draws attention. The reason for this can be explained as the implementation of paradigm shifting measures with high transformation capitals. However, the long-term advantages of these scenarios are obvious in comparison with RS, as can be seen in Figure 10. Accordingly, AS-I and AS-II succeed to be US$456.4 billion and US$668.9 billion (in cumulative total) more advantageous than the baseline scenario (2016 US$). Alternative scenarios, with fuel import cost savings, compensate for their additional transformation capitals and O&M costs, so in AS-I, AS-II, 144 and 214% of their total transformation capitals and O&M costs are reimbursed.

Figure 10.

Total scenario social costs comparison, 2013–2050.

Therefore, we have found that although AS require a comprehensive shift of energy paradigm in Turkey’s energy sector, they appear to be more advantageous than their reference counterpart is. In other words, at first sight, despite the fact that alternatives seem quiet more expensive because of the extensive outgoings notably in the early years, up to 2050, this fact is reversing thoroughly due to their much lower fuel imports.

When comparing the alternatives between each other to achieve the most rational scenario in terms of sustainability’s economic aspect, AS-II, thanks to the efficiency and additional saving measures, is one-step ahead of AS-I. With respect to total social costs, AS-II reveals to be US$212.5 billion, in cumulative total, and US$5.59 billion, per annum, more advantageous than the former (2016 US$). Therefore, we can state clearly that, as a result of social costs comparison, economically, the most feasible and rational scenario is AS-II. This result has also paralleled with the key findings of Turkey’s Renewable Power report by Bloomberg, a scenario modelling study on future electricity sector of the country.²⁸

Political analysis

In order to make a political analysis, within another vital aspect of sustainability, we handle the external dependency of the country, given the fact that the more a country becomes self-sufficient, the more it gets stable and secure. Correspondingly, first, we take the expected fuel imports in TOE of each scenario for the period 2014–2050 in hand. Then, we compare the amounts of these exogenous sources with the formerly presented total scenario energy demands. Therefore, revealing the overview in terms of self-sufficiency of the country, we reach to be able to discuss the political sustainability of the scenarios.

The outcome of LEAP model as Figure 11 presents, first, in RS, the self-sufficiency of the country, which is 23.6% for the year 2013, decreases under 11% by 2050. Under RS, even though in the beginning of 2040s, the self-sufficiency of the country increases to 37% due to the grow in coal and hydro power use, a noteworthy negative trend is expected to be experienced towards 2050 in a result of a dramatic degradation of its own resources, especially for the hard coal and lignite reserves.

Figure 11.

Self-sufficiency of Turkey (%), 2013–2050.

In addition to the degradation problem, RS foresees that nuclear energy will be in the portfolio, which means a deterioration in the likely situation of country in terms of self-sufficiency. Since Turkey does not seem to acquire nuclear technology know how shortly in this case, new nuclear plants will be installed with the aid of foreign technologically developed ‘partners’ such as Russia and Japan. Besides, the stockpile of enriched uranium as mandatory fuel for these nuclear plants will also be provided by exportation via special agreements, which are included within the nuclear energy contracts.

As a whole, Turkey starts to export much of its energy sources in an unsustainable manner with technology transfer in terms of nuclear energy after 2040 in RS. This results in a sharp fall down in the percentage of self-sufficiency with the ignorance of efficient renewables for the baseline scenario as can be noticed in Figure 11. What is more, a relatively delayed decrease can also be realised in ‘nuclear-less’ AS-I due to unescapable shortage of fossil sources. However, when compared with more efficient AS-II, renewables and efficiency come to the forefront with its explicit strengths.

Therefore, in baseline scenario, Turkey becomes a net importer country, as it gets external dependant with a rate of 89% in the year 2050. Despite a partial controversy, this forecast seems to be quiet in parallel with.²⁶ In his study, using artificial neural network technique, under the current circumstances, like our baseline scenario – even before 2025 – the energy import dependency of the country reaches up to 82%.²⁹ In consequence, in RS, the country comes to be far more vulnerable in terms of political sustainability than it is today.

However, as Figure 11 also presents, in AS, we foresee that the self-sufficiency of the country rises with relatively a more stable acceleration up to 2050. Because the alternatives defer the usage of country’s indigenous but consumable resources, instead, they concentrate on efficient renewable resources. Under AS-I, Turkey’s external dependency regarding energy sources commences to decrease remarkably. Even in this regard, for the most of the period 2014–2050, it can be stated that AS-I seems to present the most rational results. But, in the year 2045 and upwards, due to indigenous coal reserves that becomes not able to meet the demand – without efficiency and energy savings, the self-sufficiency rate faces with a sudden fall, and in the end, it slips to 41.35%. Nevertheless, eventually, in AS-II, Turkey becomes so self-sufficient, as its external dependency falls the most consistently. Thanks to the energy efficiency measures and additional savings in comparison with AS-I; by 2050, the country’s self-sufficiency rate goes up to 54.04% with a drastical amelioration, which makes this scenario again the most reasonable.

It is so meaningful that AS-II offers Turkey, in 2050, to get able to meet more than half of its expected energy needs, which undisputedly leads to minimizing the political risks derived from energy diplomacy. By this means, the political vulnerabilities vis-à-vis the countries that Turkey highly depends in terms of fuel imports, such as Russia and Iran, are expected to diminish significantly. Therefore, under the conditions of AS-II, Turkey can strengthen its hand in political manner, and hence, it gets more powerful in terms of the ability and flexibility to control and manage the issues, highly possible to encounter in the future. Because for that matter, a better-balanced source countries’ portfolio emerges as an occasion, while foreign trade of the country comes to happen in relatively more equalized distribution with a higher variety factor. All these, undoubtedly, ensure energy security and thus ameliorate the energy future of Turkey, making it also more sustainable.

Environmental analysis

Last, with respect to the possible environmental impacts, we also compare the scenarios analysing them environmentally, so we can achieve the most sustainable and feasible energy scenario for Turkey’s future. In order to analyse the scenarios in this context, we handle the expected GHG emissions, which derives – mostly and dominantly – from fossil fuel consumption. In Figure 12, the comparison of scenarios in terms of emission trends can be observed.

Figure 12.

Greenhouse gas emissions comparison, 2013–2050.

As can be understood at first sight from this, the expected emission trends show that the ASs generate far more environment-friendly and lower risky impacts than the baseline scenario. In numeric values, under RS conditions, GHG emissions of Turkey’s energy sector in the period 2014–2050 reach from 338 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-eq) to 871 million metric tons of CO₂-eq, with an increase rate of 158%. Despite its conspicuousness, this estimate can be considered so realizable when comparing with the 20-year-projection that World Wide Fund and International Post Corporation BAU scenario makes for the period 2010–2030, as with an increase rate of more than 102%.³⁰ However, on contrast, under AS conditions, nor AS-I nor AS-II does expect any noteworthy increase. Total emissions rise from the same value to 504 million metric tons in AS-I and 467 million metric tons of CO₂-eq in AS-II, with the increase rates of only 49 and 38%, respectively. In addition, we encounter these modest increases mostly up to 2020 as a result of paradigmal shift process. So, after that year, the emission trends of AS stay so horizontal that they seem almost stable (Figure 12).

As another result, it is explicit that again AS-II, in also terms of environmental aspect of sustainability, is the most rational and reasonable alternative for the energy future of Turkey. Under the unique characteristics of this scenario, even excluding the nuclear energy that can be widely seen as a manner vis-à-vis the above-mentioned climate change issue, increase of sectoral GHG emissions gets much slower than the reference and even than its alternative counterpart. Hence, most importantly, with respect also to the struggle against global warming and climate change, the role of efficient renewables in Turkey’s energy future again comes to sight.

Conclusion

In this study, we find that AS-II is the most feasible scenario in terms of both economic, political and environmental aspects for Turkey’s energy future. Therefore, it is clear that we develop AS-II for aiming to prioritize renewable energy sources and technologies while, at the same time, taking additional advantages of energy efficiency and saving measures results in the most sustainable impacts.

We conclude that renewable energy sources and technologies serve undeniable opportunities for Turkey to tackle its energy-related issues. The key findings achieved from this LEAP modelling study, in which we have developed, simulated and discussed energy future scenarios up to 2050, analysing their results, verify this suggestion, not only qualitatively, but also quantitatively. Turkey must keep pursuing the most rational and reasonable pathways, in which the role of efficient renewables is embedded. However, time factor is also vital, and decision makers should take this seriously into consideration for the country to reach a more sustainable energy future. Accordingly, it is a fact that a comprehensive change in the renewable energy policy needs to launched, but at the same time, the speed of this change has to be accelerated.

As the result, given the current situation and sectoral challenges, the country faces not so many options. Added to that, there is no much time enough to wait for Turkey, because waiting naturally requires a long period to make shifts in energy sectors to develop or even to adapt new energy technologies owing to the inertia of the great infrastructure. This long period is needed as well to reap the fruits of them. Therefore, we conclude that it is a necessity for Turkey to support and prioritize the renewable energy potential that it possesses in abundance more efficiently. Otherwise, missing this paradigm shift process, which can also be described as new industrial revolution, may stir up a hornet’s nest of harder sectoral challenges and externalities in the energy future for Turkey.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for Environmental assessment of renewable energy scenarios for a sustainable future in Turkey

Supplemental Material for Environmental assessment of renewable energy scenarios for a sustainable future in Turkey by Hasan Saygın, Hasan V Oral and Serkan Kardaşlar in Energy & Environment

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Hasan Saygın is Professor of Engineering, specializing in Applied Sciences. He received his PhD from École Polytechnique de Montréal, Institut de génie énergétique at the Université de Montréal, and his MSc in Nuclear Energy from Istanbul Technical University. He is currently the director of the Application and Research Center for Advanced Studies at Istanbul Aydin University. His scientific fields of study are Nuclear Energy, Thermodynamic, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Computing in Physics (Microwave and Antenna, High Energy Physics), Energy Policy (Sustainable Development, Renewable Energy Management, Climate Change), Computing in Chemistry (Nanoparticles, Environmental Sciences).

Hasan V Oral obtained his MSc and PhD degrees from Institute of Environmental Sciences, Bogazici University of Istanbul. After obtaining his PhD degree, he conducted his post-doctorate studies at Ben Gurion University, Israel. His scientific fields of study are the climate change modelling, renewable energy management, and environmental sustainability applications. He is currently working as a full time researcher at Department of Civil Engineering and Energy Politics and Market Center, İstanbul Aydın University.

Serkan Kardaşlar obtained his MSc degree from War Academy of Turkey, Institute of Strategic Researchs in 2016.

References

Çapık

, et al. Present situation and potential role of renewable energy in Turkey. Renew Energ 2012; 46: 1–13.

Kick

How is 100% renewable energy possible for Turkey by 2020? San Diego, CA: Global Energy Network Institute (GENI), 2011, pp.15–30.

Bilgin

Turkey’s energy security and regional relations. In: Sönmezoğlu

, et al. (eds) XXI: Yüzyılda Türk diş politikasinin analizi. Istanbul: Der Yayınları, 2014, pp. 779–800.

Demir

Energy import current account deficit relationship, a research in Turkey with VAR analysis. Akad Araştırmalar Çalışmalar Derg 2013; 5: 2–27.

Kotcioglu

İ.

Clean and sustainable energy policies in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energ Rev. 2011; 15: 5111–5119. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.045.

International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy atlas, www.iea.org/statistics/ieaenergyatlas/ (2016, accessed 14 August 2016).

International Energy Agency (IEA). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. 2015 edition. Paris: OECD/IEA, 2015, p.51.

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable power generation costs in 2014, Abu Dhabi, 2015, pp.55–75.

Sathaye

, et al. Renewable energy in the context of sustainable development. In: Edenhofer

, et al. (eds) Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp.707–790.

10.

Saygın

Sustainable energy policies and energy efficiency. Enerji 2005; 10: 29.

11.

Atılgan

Azapagic

Energy challenges for Turkey: identifying sustainable options for future electricity generation up to 2050.

Sustain Prod Consump 2018; 12: 234–254.

12.

Balat

Renewable perspective for sustainable energy development in Turkey: the case of small hydropower plants. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2007; 11: 2152–2165.

13.

Yüksel

Hydropower in Turkey for a clean and sustainable energy future.

Renew Sust Energ 2008; 12: 1622–1640.

14.

Yüksel

Energy production and sustainable energy policies in Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2010; 35: 1469–1476.

15.

Saygın

The challenges of nuclear energy in sustainable development agenda. Elektr Mühend Odası Dergisi 2004; 42: 3–40.

16.

Kaygusuz

Renewable and sustainable energy use in Turkey: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012; 6: 339–366.

17.

Greenpeace International and EREC. Energy (R)evolution (GIEREC): a sustainable turkey energy outlook. GPI reference number JN 439.2015, pp.41–42.

18.

IRENA and C2E2. Synergies between renewable energy and energy efficiency. Working Paper. IRENA, 2015; Abu Dhabi and C2E2, Copenhagen.

19.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC). World in 2050: will the shift in global economic power continue? PwC Economics 2015, p.3.

20.

Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and Promotion Agency. Energy and renewable resources, www.invest.gov.tr/tr-TR/sectors/Pages/Energy.aspx (2016, accessed 14 August 2016).

21.

Turkish Statistical Institute. (Population Projections, 2013-2075), www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=15844.Turkish (2016, accessed 14 August 2016).

22.

Kardaşlar

The role of renewable sources in Turkish Energy Security. Master’s Thesis, War College, İstanbul, Turkey, 2016. pp.12–45.

23.

MNEP Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources Blue Papers, www.enerji.gov.tr/en-US/Mainpage (2017, accessed 10 April 2017).

24.

Kaya

Koç

Cost analysis of power plants. Mühendis Makine 2015; 56: 61–68.

25.

AGGERPRNTFI Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Potential and Recommended National Target for Israel, Ministry of Environmental Protection of Israel, www.sviva.gov.il/infoservices/reservoirinfo/doclib2/publications/p0801-p0900/p0823-a.pdf 2015 (2015, accessed 14 January 2017).

26.

Prindle

, et al. The twin pillars of sustainable energy: synergies between energy efficiency and renewable energy technology and policy. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Report Number E074, 2007, p.2.

27.

Bringing Europe and Third Countries Closer Together Through Renewable Energies (BETTER). D5.2.1: Renewable energy targets, potentials and energy demand scenarios of Turkey. Contract No.: IEE/11/845/SI2.616378, 2013, p.24.

28.

BNEF Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Turkey’s renewable power: alternative power supply scenarios for turkey. WWF-Turkey. Report 2014; ISBN: 978-605-9903-01-1. Istanbul.

29.

Sözen

Future projection of the energy dependency of turkey using artificial neural network.

Energ Pol 2009; 37: 4827–4833.

30.

WWF-Turkey and Sabancı University Istanbul Policy Center. Low carbon development pathways and priorities for turkey. ISBN: 978-605-9903-05-9. Istanbul, 2015, p.42.

31.

Heaps

Long range energy alternatives planning system: a tool for energy analysis and climate change mitigation assessment. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), 2012, p.12.

32.

International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy technology perspectives: harnessing electricity’s potential. Paris: OECD/IEA, 2014, p.350.

33.

Saygın

Çetin

New energy paradigm and renewable energy: Turkey’s vision. Insight Turkey 2010; 12: 107–128.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.40 MB