Assessing the Sustainability of Current and Future Electricity Options for Turkey

Transcription

1 Assessing the Sustainability of Current and Future Electricity Options for Turkey A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences 2015 Burcin Atilgan School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science

2 Contents List of Tables... 9 List of Figures Abbreviations Abstract Declaration Copyright Statement Acknowledgements Chapter 1: Introduction Background Aim, objectives and novelty Structure of the thesis Methodology Goal and scope definition Selection of sustainability issues and indicators Selection of the electricity technologies Definition of the scenarios Sustainability assessment Environmental assessment Economic assessment Social assessment Multi-criteria decision analysis Data quality assessment Conclusions and recommendations References Chapter 2: Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Electricity from Fossil Fuels in Turkey Abstract Introduction Methodology Page 2 of 303

3 2.1. Goal and scope definition Data and assumptions Results and discussion Environmental impacts per kwh of electricity generated Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) Abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) Acidification potential (AP) Eutrophication potential (EP) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) Global warming potential (GWP) Human toxicity potential (HTP) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) Comparison of results with literature Annual environmental impacts Conclusions References Chapter 3: Renewable Electricity in Turkey: Life Cycle Environmental Impacts Abstract Introduction Methodology Goal and scope definition Data and assumptions Results and discussion Environmental impacts per kwh of electricity generated Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) Abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) Acidification potential (AP) Eutrophication potential (EP) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) Page 3 of 303

4 Global warming potential (GWP) Human toxicity potential (HTP) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) Comparison of results with literature Annual environmental impacts Conclusions References Chapter 4: Assessing the Environmental Sustainability of Electricity Generation in Turkey on a Life Cycle Basis Abstract Introduction Methodology Goal and scope definition Inventory data Electricity from fossil fuels Electricity from renewables Results and discussion Environmental impacts of different electricity technologies Comparison of results with the literature Environmental impacts of electricity generated in the base year Impacts per kwh Total annual impacts Environmental impacts from electricity generation from Conclusions References Chapter 5: An Integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation in Turkey Abstract Page 4 of 303

5 1. Introduction Methodology Goal and scope definition Sustainability issues and indicators Sustainability assessment: data and assumptions Environmental data and assumptions Economic data and assumptions Social data and assumptions Multi-criteria decision analysis Data quality assessment Results and discussion Environmental sustainability assessment Environmental sustainability of electricity technologies Environmental sustainability of the Turkish electricity mix Economic sustainability assessment Capital costs Total annualised costs Levelised costs Social sustainability assessment Direct employment Total employment (direct and indirect) Worker injuries Large accident risk Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Multi-criteria decision analysis Equal preferences for the sustainability criteria Different preferences for the sustainability criteria Summary of the MCDA outcomes Data quality assessment Conclusions and policy recommendations References Page 5 of 303

6 Chapter 6: Energy Challenges for Turkey: Identifying Sustainable Options for Future Electricity Generation up to Abstract Introduction Methodology Sustainability issues and indicators Electricity technologies Fossil fuels and nuclear power Renewables Scenarios Sustainability assessment Multi-criteria decision analysis Data quality assessment Results and discussion Environmental sustainability assessment Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) Abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) Acidification potential (AP) Eutrophication potential (EP) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) Global warming potential (GWP) Human toxicity potential (HTP) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) Summary Economic sustainability assessment Capital costs Annualised costs Levelised costs Summary Social sustainability assessment Page 6 of 303

7 Direct employment Total employment Worker injuries Large accident fatalities Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Summary Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) Equal preferences for the sustainability aspects Different preferences for the sustainability aspects Summary Data quality assessment Conclusions and policy recommendations References Chapter 7: Conclusions, Recommendations and Future Work Conclusions Sustainability assessment of current electricity generation in Turkey Environmental aspects Economic aspects Social aspects Multi-criteria decision analysis Sustainability assessment of future electricity scenarios for Turkey Environmental aspects Economic aspects Social aspects Multi-criteria decision analysis Policy and industry recommendations Recommendations for future work Concluding remarks Appendices Appendix 1: Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology Appendix 2: Renewable power plants in Turkey Appendix 3: Total annual environmental impacts over the period Page 7 of 303

8 Appendix 4: Summary of the sustainability assessment results (2010) Appendix 5: Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and sensitivity analysis results for different electricity options in Turkey Appendix 6: Data quality summary for different electricity options Appendix 7: Assumptions for the current electricity mix and future scenarios Appendix 8: Economic sustainability of electricity technologies Appendix 9: Social sustainability of technologies Appendix 10: Environmental impacts of current and future electricity technologies, per kwh generated electricity Appendix 11: Summary of the sustainability assessment results for scenarios Appendix 12: Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and sensitivity analysis results for scenarios Appendix 13: Data quality summary for the sustainability of future scenarios Page 8 of 303

9 List of Tables Table 1: Environmental, economic and social issues and indicators Table 2: Data quality criteria used in this research Table 3: Lignite power plants in Turkey in Table 4: Hard coal power plants in Turkey in Table 5: Natural gas power plants in Turkey in Table 6: Assumptions and summary of inventory data for fossil fuels Table 7: The amount of fuels used for electricity generation in 2010 and transport distances for imported fuels Table 8: Air emissions from coal and gas power plants Table 9: Renewable power plants in Turkey in Table 10: Assumptions and summary of inventory data for renewable sources Table 11: Summary of transport modes and distances Table 12: Some LCA studies of electricity generation Table 13: Power plants in Turkey (2010) Table 14: Assumptions and summary of inventory data for electricity technologies Table 15: Recent studies on life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity technologies in different countries Table 16: Costs of power plants in Turkey Table 17: Employment factors in different sectors in Turkey estimated in this study Table 18: Domestic and imported fuels in Turkey in Table 19: Sustainability ranking of the electricity options with different weights on the environmental, economic and social aspects Table 20: Indicators used for assessing the sustainability of electricity scenarios Table 21: Capacity factors and lifetimes of future electricity technologies Table 22: Assumptions for future electricity generation technologies Table 23: Overview of the current electricity mix and scenarios in Page 9 of 303

10 Table 24: Sustainability ranking of the scenarios with different weights on the environmental, economic and social aspects Table 25: Reservoir hydropower plants in Turkey in Table 26: Run-of-river hydropower plants in Turkey in Table 27: Wind power plants in Turkey in Table 28: Geothermal power plants in Turkey in Table 29: Annual abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) over the period Table 30: Annual abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) over the period Table 31: Annual acidification potential (AP) over the period Table 32: Annual eutrophication potential (EP) over the period Table 33: Annual freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) over the period Table 34: Annual global warming potential (GWP) over the period Table 35: Annual human toxicity potential (HTP) over the period Table 36: Annual marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) over the period Table 37: Annual ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) over the period Table 38: Annual photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) over the period Table 39: Annual terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) over the period Table 40: Sustainability assessment per kwh of electricity generated (2010) Table 41: Sustainability assessment of electricity generated annually (2010) Table 42: Data quality assessment for lignite power Table 43: Data quality assessment for hard coal power Table 44: Data quality assessment for natural gas power Table 45: Data quality assessment for large reservoir hydropower Table 46: Data quality assessment for small reservoir hydropower Table 47: Data quality assessment for run-of-river hydropower Page 10 of 303

11 Table 48: Data quality assessment for wind power Table 49: Data quality assessment for geothermal power Table 50: Data quality scores for the sustainability assessment of current electricity technologies and mix Table 51: Current technology mix (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Table 52: Current installed capacity (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Table 53: Current electricity generation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Table 54: Sustainability assessment of current electricity (2010) and future scenarios (2050), per kwh of electricity generated Table 55: Sustainability assessment of current electricity (2010) and future scenarios (2050), for annual generation of electricity Table 56: Data quality scores of future technologies for each environmental indicator Table 57: Data quality scores of future technologies for each economic indicator Table 58: Data quality scores of future technologies for each social indicator Table 59: Data quality scores for the sustainability assessment of future scenarios Page 11 of 303

12 List of Figures Figure 1: Research methodology for assessing the sustainability of electricity generation in Turkey Figure 2: Turkey s electricity mix in Figure 3: Electricity generation from coal and natural gas in Turkey and their share in total electricity generation from 1985 to Figure 4: The life cycle of lignite, hard coal and gas electricity from cradle to grave Figure 5: Environmental impacts per kwh of electricity Figure 6: Comparison of the results from current study with the literature for lignite power Figure 7: Comparison of the results from current study with the literature for hard coal power Figure 8: Comparison of the results from current study with the literature for gas power.. 71 Figure 9: Annual environmental impacts from fossil-fuel electricity generated in Turkey in Figure 10: Share of different technologies in electricity generation in Turkey in Figure 11: The life cycle of renewable electricity from cradle to grave Figure 12: Environmental impacts from different renewable electricity options in Turkey. 91 Figure 13: Comparison of results from the current study with the literature for reservoir hydropower Figure 14: Comparison of results from the current study with the literature for run-of-river hydropower Figure 15: Comparison of results from the current study with the literature for wind power Figure 16: Annual environmental impacts from renewable electricity generated in Turkey in Figure 17: The life cycles of electricity from coal, natural gas, hydro, wind and geothermal power Figure 18: Environmental impacts for different electricity options in Turkey Page 12 of 303

13 Figure 19: Comparison of the results from current study with literature for coal and gas power Figure 20: Comparison of the results from current study with literature for hydropower and wind power Figure 21: Environmental impacts per kwh of electricity for the base year (2010) Figure 22: Total annual environmental impacts for the base year (2010) Figure 23: Annual impacts from electricity generation in Turkey in the base year (2010) normalised to the annual EU28 impacts Figure 24: Environmental impacts of electricity in Turkey in the period for total annual generation and per kwh Figure 25: Methodology for assessing the sustainability of electricity generation Figure 26: The life cycle of the electricity options currently present in Turkey Figure 27: Environmental sustainability of electricity technologies in Turkey Figure 28: Environmental sustainability assessment of electricity in Turkey in comparison to electricity in some European countries Figure 29: Estimated capital and total annualised costs from different power technologies in Turkey Figure 30: Contribution of different costs to the total annualised costs for different electricity technologies Figure 31: Levelised costs of electricity in Turkey in comparison to some other countries Figure 32: Direct and total employment provided by different electricity options and the Turkish electricity mix Figure 33: Worker injuries and large-accident fatalities for different electricity technologies and the overall electricity mix Figure 34: Ranking of the electricity options with equal weights on the environmental, economic and social aspects Figure 35: Ranking of the electricity options with different preferences for the sustainability aspects Figure 36: Methodology for assessing the sustainability of future electricity scenarios Figure 37: The life cycles of electricity technologies considered in this study Figure 38: Current electricity mix (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 13 of 303

14 Figure 39: Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 40: Abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 41: Acidification potential (AP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 42: Eutrophication potential (EP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 43: Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 44: Global warming potential (GWP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 45: Human toxicity potential (HTP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 46: Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 47: Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 48: Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 49: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 50: Total capital costs for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 51: Total annualised costs for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 52: Levelised costs for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050). 213 Figure 53: Employment for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 54: Total injuries and fatalities for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 55: Avoidance of fossil fuels potentially imported for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Figure 56: Ranking of the electricity options with equal weights on the environmental, economic and social aspects Page 14 of 303

15 Figure 57: Ranking of the scenarios with different preferences for the sustainability aspects Figure 58: LCA methodology and applications Figure 59: MCDA decision tree showing the three sustainability aspects, 20 indicators and eight electricity options Figure 60: MCDA results with equal weights on the sustainability aspects showing the contribution of different indicators to the total score for each electricity option Figure 61: Sensitivity analysis for different electricity options in Turkey with the equal weights on sustainability aspects Figure 62: Sensitivity analysis for different electricity options in Turkey with the environmental aspect five times more important than the economic and social, displayed for the environmental aspect Figure 63: Sensitivity analysis for different electricity options in Turkey with the economic aspect five times more important than the environmental and social, displayed for the economic aspect Figure 64: Sensitivity analysis for different electricity options in Turkey with the social aspect five times more important than the environmental and economic, displayed for the social aspect Figure 65: Costs of current (2010) and future electricity technologies (2050) Figure 66: Social sustainability of current (2010) and future electricity technologies (2050) Figure 67: Environmental indicators for current situation (2010) and future electricity technologies (2050) Figure 68: MCDA decision tree showing the three sustainability aspects, 19 indicators, current situation (2010) and 14 future scenarios Figure 69: MCDA results with equal weights on the sustainability aspects showing the contribution of different indicators to the total score for each scenario Figure 70: Sensitivity analysis for scenarios with the equal weights on sustainability aspects Figure 71: Sensitivity analysis for scenarios with the environmental aspect five times more important than the economic and social, displayed for the environmental aspect Figure 72: Sensitivity analysis for scenarios with the economic aspect five times more important than the environmental and social, displayed for the economic aspect Figure 73: Sensitivity analysis for scenarios with the social aspect five times more important than the environmental and economic, displayed for the social aspect Page 15 of 303

16 Abbreviations ADP AP BAU BOTAS CCGT CCS CHP CFB CFC CML Abiotic depletion potential Acidification potential Business-as-usual Turkish Petroleum Pipeline Corporation Combined cycle gas turbine Carbon capture and storage Combined heat and power Circulating fluidised bed Chlorofluorocarbon Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen Leiden (Leiden Institute of Environmental Sciences, the Netherlands) CPI DCB FAETP FGD EMRA EP EREC EU EUAS GDP GEMIS GHG GWP HFC Consumer price index Dichlorobenzene Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential Flue gas desulphurisation Energy Market Regulatory Authority Eutrophication potential European Renewable Energy Council European Union Turkish Electricity Generation Corporation Gross domestic product Global emission model for integrated systems Greenhouse gas Global warming potential Hydrofluorocarbon Page 16 of 303

17 HCFC HTP IEA IGCC ISO koe LCA LEAP MAETP MCDA MENR NEEDS ODP OECD PC PFC POCP PV PWR SC TEIAS TETP toe UNFCCC VOC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon Human toxicity potential International Energy Agency Integrated gasification combined cycle International Standard Organization kilogram oil equivalent Life cycle assessment Long-range energy alternative planning system Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential Multi-criteria decision analysis Turkish Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources New energy externalities development for sustainability Ozone depletion potential Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development Pulverised coal Perfluorocarbon Photochemical oxidants creation potential Photovoltaic Pressurized water reactors Supercritical coal Turkish Electricity Transmission Company Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential tonnes of oil equivalent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Volatile organic compound Page 17 of 303

18 Assessing the Sustainability of Current and Future Electricity Options for Turkey Burcin Atilgan, The University of Manchester, 2015 Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Abstract This research has assessed the environmental, economic and social sustainability of electricity generation in Turkey to contribute towards a better understanding of the overall sustainability impacts of the electricity sector and of possible future scenarios. The assessment of environmental sustainability has been carried out using life cycle assessment; capital, annualised and levelised costs have been used for the economic sustainability and various social indicators along the life cycle of the technologies have been estimated for the social assessment. Multi-criteria decision analysis has been carried out to integrate the three dimensions of sustainability for current electricity generation and future scenarios as well as to help with decision-making. The sustainability assessment of current electricity generation considers all the options present in the Turkish electricity mix: coal (lignite, hard coal), gas, hydro (large and small scale reservoir, run-of-river), onshore wind and geothermal. Each technology has been assessed and compared using 20 sustainability indicators, addressing 11 environmental, three economic and six social aspects. The findings suggest that trade-offs are needed, as each technology is better for some sustainability indicators but worse for others. For example, coal has the highest environmental impacts, except for ozone depletion for which gas is the worst option; gas is the cheapest in terms of capital costs but it provides the lowest direct employment and has the highest levelised costs. Geothermal is the best option for six environmental impacts but has the highest capital cost. Large reservoir has the lowest depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as acidification. Moreover, large reservoir is the cheapest option in terms of levelised costs and the best option for worker injuries and fatalities but provides the lowest life cycle employment. The results for the current electricity sector show that electricity generation in Turkey is responsible for around 111 million tonnes of CO 2 eq. emissions annually. Total capital costs of the current electricity sector of Turkey are estimated at US$69 billion, with hydropower, coal and gas plants contributing together to 96%. Total annualised costs are equal to US$26 billion per year, of which fuel costs contribute nearly 64%. The levelised costs for the Turkish electricity generation are estimated at 123 US$/MWh. The social assessment results indicate that the electricity sector in Turkey provided 57,000 jobs. A total of 3670 worker injuries and 15 fatalities are also estimated related to the electricity sector annually. A range of future electricity generation scenarios has been developed for the year 2050 considering different mixes, carbon emission targets and generation options, including fossil-fuel technologies with and without carbon capture and storage, nuclear and a range of renewable options. Overall, business-as-usual scenarios are the least sustainable options to meet the country s electricity demand in the future. Despite the fact that these scenarios have the lowest costs, their poor environmental and social performances make them the worst options. Increasing the contribution from renewables and nuclear power translates to a better sustainability performance. The scenario with the highest penetration of these options (C-3) is found to be the most sustainable option in this work. Although the most renewable intensive scenario (C-4) scores as the second best option overall, it performs poorly for the economic categories. The trade-offs between the different sustainability indicators highlighted by the results of this research illustrate that assessments of a range of environmental, economic and social impacts from different electricity technologies and scenarios should be considered when planning sustainability strategies for the electricity sector. Page 18 of 303

19 Declaration No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university of other institution of learning. Copyright Statement i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the Copyright ) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the Intellectual Property ) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables ( Reproductions ), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library s regulations (see and in The University s policy on presentation of Theses. Page 19 of 303

20 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Professor Adisa Azapagic, for her continuous support, patience and motivation throughout the period of this project. Her understanding and personal guidance have been of great value for me. I owe many thanks to all of my colleagues in the Sustainable Industrial Systems (SIS) research group, many of whom have encouraged me and provided support and advice throughout the duration of this work. My deep gratitude and genuine love goes out to all of you. I would also like to acknowledge the support of Ministry of National Education of Turkey during my education in the UK. I would like to thank all my friends for making my stay in the UK a pleasant and memorable one. A special thank goes to Bahar, who has given an inestimable friendship and endless support. Last but not least, I would also like to thank all my family particularly my parents Sevin and Murat, my brother Burak, and my fiancé Volkan for all their encouragement, love and great patience they have provided during the course of my PhD. Thank you for always being there for me. You mean the world to me. Page 20 of 303

21 Chapter 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1. Background Energy plays a key role in achieving the goals of sustainable development as it helps to provide basic human need; however, it also contributes to a number of environmental, social and economic issues. Sustainable energy generation must meet the demand in an affordable and secure manner, keeping negative environmental effects as low as possible, supporting human and ecosystem health and using minimal levels of resources (Onat and Bayar, 2010). Therefore, one of the biggest challenges facing the world today is the provision of sustainable energy to the growing population. Energy poverty is one of the main global concerns. Worldwide, approximately 1.2 billion people (around one in six people) still have no access to electricity, and another 2.8 billion rely on traditional use of biomass such as wood for heating and cooking (SE4All, 2014). The global demand for energy is increasing as a consequence of population growth and economic development. By 2050, the global energy demand is expected to increase by at least 27% and up to 61% (WEC, 2013). Most of the energy resources currently used are finite and will be depleted in the near future, due to the continuous and increasing energy needs in the world. Existing crude oil, coal and gas reserves are concentrated in a few countries; this causes serious supply security challenges that many countries are currently facing. Energy security for countries and regions is one of the key elements for sustainable development (GEA, 2012). In addition, the energy sector exerts significant pressures on the environment. For example, around two-thirds of the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions currently arise from the energy generation and use, of which CO 2 emissions account for the vast majority (IEA, 2015). Similar to other countries, Turkey is concerned about its energy sector. Turkey is one of the fastest growing energy markets in the world with its rapidly growing economy and population; therefore meeting energy demand in a sustainable way is important for the country. Although Turkey does not have adequate fossil fuel reserves, its primary energy consumption is mainly based on fossil fuels. Moreover, there is a large potential in renewable energy resources but their current utilisation is low (MENR, 2012). Page 21 of 303

22 Chapter 1 Turkey s energy demand has been growing rapidly over the past few decades, rising more than double in the period between 1990 and 2010 (MENR, 2012; WEC, 2005). As a result of this increasing energy demand and the lack of domestic energy sources, Turkey has become dependent on other countries. Since 2003, around 70% of the country s energy system depends on imported energy sources (Eurostat, 2014). Moreover, the high share of imported energy sources creates a huge economic burden on the country. Turkey s total imports recorded as $186 billion in The annual energy imports of the country accounted for 21% of its total imports across all sectors in the same year (TUIK, 2014). The energy sector is also a significant contributor to the GHG emissions in Turkey, comprising nearly 71% of the total (TUIK, 2013). The total GHG emissions reached Mt CO 2 eq. in 2010, more than double of 1990 levels (EEA, 2012). Turkey is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol but only as Annex I country so it has not yet set a target for emission reduction 1 (MEU, 2011). Furthermore, occupational safety is a serious problem in Turkey, in particular in the energy sector; for instance, the Turkish mining sector recorded two major coal mine accidents that resulted in over 300 deaths in 2014 (Acar et al., 2015). Electricity is a vital need for economic, social and technological development of societies and its demand also has been increasing rapidly in Turkey in the last years (MENR, 2012). In 2010, the total installed capacity of 49,524 MW generated 211,208 GWh of electricity; four times more than in 1990 (TEIAS, 2012). Although there are various types of generation technologies installed in Turkey, the power sector is dominated by coal, gas and hydropower, which contribute 97.1% to the total generation (EUAS, 2011). The structure of the Turkish electricity market consists of generation, transmission, distribution and trading. Electricity suppliers in Turkey are diverse, but the majority (45%) is generated by the state-owned company and its affiliates. Turkey s electricity sector is facing great sustainability challenges as a result of heavy reliance on imported fossil fuels. There are energy security problems concerning coal and gas usage to meet the increasing electricity demand. As a result of the high share of fossil fuels, the direct GHG emissions from electricity reached 99 Mt CO 2 -eq. in 2010; a quarter 1 As Turkey is a member of OECD, it was in Annex I and Annex II of the UNFCCC together with the developed countries in In 2001, Turkey was taken out from Annex II and remained in Annex I in a different position than other Annex I countries (MEU, 2011). Page 22 of 303

23 Chapter 1 of the total national emissions in that year (FutureCamp, 2011). Moreover, electricity prices have been increasing due to the high cost of imported fossil energy sources. The electricity prices in Turkey are still above the OECD average (IEA, 2014). However, they are not the only criteria which sustainability of electricity generation should be gauged. Despite the significance of the electricity sector in sustainability development, the sustainability of the Turkish electricity generation has not been assessed yet. 2. Aim, objectives and novelty In an attempt to reduce the dependence on imported fuels and environmental impacts from the electricity sector, the government is trying to maximise the use of domestic fuel reserves and the renewable energy potential as well as to introduce nuclear energy (MENR, 2009b). However, it is not clear which energy options are the most sustainable for the future electricity generation in Turkey, since the environmental, economic and social impacts from the current and potential future technologies are largely unknown. Therefore, the main aim of this research is to assess the sustainability of current and future electricity generation options for Turkey, considering relevant environmental, economic and social aspects. To ensure that the sustainability implications have been assessed across the whole electricity supply chain and avoid shifting of impacts from one part of the chain to another, a life cycle approach is applied throughout the research. The specific objectives of the research are: to assess the life cycle environmental, economic and social sustainability of electricity generation in Turkey at present time; to develop future scenarios for electricity generation in Turkey with an outlook to 2050, and to evaluate the environmental, economic and social sustainability of future electricity technologies and scenarios; to identify the most sustainable technologies and scenarios for electricity generation through a multi-criteria decision analysis considering different environmental, economic and social sustainability aspects; and to identify hotspot and improvement opportunities and make recommendations to electricity generators, policy and decision makers for a sustainable development of the future electricity sector in Turkey. Page 23 of 303

24 Chapter 1 As far as the authors are aware, this is the first attempt of such a study for the electricity sector in Turkey. The main novelty of the research is in the following outputs: evaluation of the life cycle environmental, economic and social sustainability of current electricity generation in Turkey; scenario development for the Turkish electricity sector by 2050; estimation of the life cycle environmental, economic and social impacts from possible future electricity technologies and scenarios for Turkey; identification of hotspot and improvement opportunities along the life cycle of current and future electricity technologies for Turkey; and multi-criteria decision analysis to help identify the most sustainable technologies and scenarios for electricity generation in Turkey. 3. Structure of the thesis This thesis is presented in the alternative format as a collection of five papers (Chapters 2-6). The first paper has been published (Atilgan and Azapagic, 2015). The second paper has been accepted for publication. The other papers have been submitted to journals and are under review. Following an overview of the methodology used in the research, the first paper in Chapter 2 estimates and compares the life cycle environmental impacts from fossil fuel power plants, including lignite, hard coal and gas plants in Turkey. This is followed by the life cycle assessment of renewable electricity generation technologies from large and small reservoir and run-of-river hydropower, onshore wind and geothermal power plants in Chapter 3, which contains the second paper. The third paper (Chapter 4) considers the life cycle environmental impacts of the electricity mix in Turkey for the period The life cycle environmental, economic and social assessment of current electricity sector, using 20 sustainability indicators, is then broadened in the next paper (Chapter 5). The last paper (Chapter 6) focuses on scenario analysis; this paper discusses the assessment of the environmental, economic and social sustainability of possible electricity scenarios for the year Finally, Chapter 7 summarises the conclusions and recommendations; in this part of the thesis, the findings and the conclusions from the research are given along with the recommendations for electricity generators, policy and decision makers; suggestions for further research are also included. All appendices are presented at the end of the thesis. Page 24 of 303

25 Chapter 1 4. Methodology The methodology used for assessing the sustainability of energy options for current and possible future electricity generation in Turkey is presented in Figure 1. The methodology involves the environmental, economic and social sustainability assessment, scenario analysis, multi-criteria decision analysis and data quality assessment. The following sections describe the individual stages of the research methodology. The methodology used in each paper is detailed in their respective chapters Goal and scope definition (Step 1) The first step of the methodology is the definition of goal and scope. This project focuses on the electricity sector in Turkey. As mentioned previously, the goal of the research is to evaluate the environmental, economic and social sustainability of electricity generation in Turkey. Since there are no sustainability studies of the Turkish electricity system reported to date, the purpose of this study is to contribute towards a better understanding of the overall sustainability impacts of the current electricity sector and possible future scenarios in order to identify improvement opportunities. The framework is based on a life cycle approach to obtain a full picture of sustainability, so the scope of the research is from cradle to grave, comprising the extraction, processing and transport of fuels (where relevant) and raw materials as well as construction, operation and decommissioning of power plants. Since the focus of the work is on electricity generation, its transmission, distribution and consumption are outside the system boundary. A detailed definition of the system boundaries for each current and future technologies considered in this work can be found in their respective papers (see Figure 1). Page 25 of 303

26 Chapter 1 1. Goal and scope definition 2. Selection of sustainability issues and indicators 3a. Selection of electricity technologies 3b. Definition of future scenarios 4. Sustainability Assessment Environmental sustainability assessment Economic sustainability assessment Social sustainability assessment Paper 1 (Chapter 2): Fossil fuel electricity generation Paper 2 (Chapter 3): Renewable electricity generation Paper 3 (Chapter 4): Electricity mix ( ) 5. Multi-criteria decision analysis Paper 4 (Chapter 5): Current electricity generation Paper 5 (Chapter 6): Future electricity generation scenarios to Data quality assessment 7. Conclusions and recommendations Figure 1: Research methodology for assessing the sustainability of electricity generation in Turkey 4.2. Selection of sustainability issues and indicators (Step 2) In the second step, relevant environmental, economic and social sustainability issues associated with electricity sector have been identified. These are presented in Table 1, together with the related indicators used to quantify the level of sustainability. As indicated in the table, the sustainability issues considered in this research include climate change, emissions to air, water and soil, resource depletion, costs, energy security, provision of employment, health and safety. Based on these issues, eleven environmental, three economic and six social (five for the future electricity scenarios) indicators have been selected to assess the relative sustainability performance of the energy options for Page 26 of 303

27 Chapter 1 electricity generation in Turkey. The indicators are described in more detail in Section 4.5, including how they are calculated. Table 1: Environmental, economic and social issues and indicators Sustainability aspects Sustainability issues Sustainability indicators Units Environmental Resource Abiotic resource depletion kg Sb eq./kwh depletion potential (elements) Abiotic resource depletion MJ/kWh potential (fossil fuels) Climate change Global warming potential kg CO 2 eq./kwh Emissions to Acidification potential kg SO 2 eq./kwh air, water and Eutrophication potential kg PO 4 eq./kwh soil Fresh water aquatic kg DCB a eq./kwh ecotoxicity potential Human toxicity potential kg DCB a eq./kwh Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg DCB a eq./kwh potential Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq./kwh potential Photochemical oxidants kg C 2 H 4 eq./kwh creation potential Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg DCB a eq./kwh potential Economic Costs Capital costs US$ Total annualised costs US$/year Levelised costs US$/kWh Social Provision of Direct employment jobs-years/twh employment Total employment jobs-years/twh (direct + indirect) Worker safety Injuries no. of injuries/twh Fatalities due to large no. of fatalities/twh accidents Energy security Imported fossil fuel potentially koe b /kwh avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix score (0-1) c a DCB: dichlorobenzene. b koe: kilogram oil equivalent. c A score of 1 represents a diverse fuel supply and a score of 0 indicates an over-reliance on one exporter. The relevant indicators for the electricity sector considered to estimate life cycle environmental impacts comprise those typically estimated in life cycle assessment, which has been used as a tool in this work. In particular, the CML 2001 impact assessment method (Guinée et al., 2001) has been applied which comprises eleven environmental indicators, as detailed in Table 1. These indicators have also been used in the majority of Page 27 of 303

28 Chapter 1 other studies that analysed the life cycle environmental impacts from electricity systems in other countries; some examples include (e.g. Santoyo-Castelazo et al., 2011; Koornneef et al., 2008; Pascale et al., 2011; Gujba et al., 2010; Lechón et al., 2008; Brizmohun et al., 2015; Lahuerta and Saenz, 2011; Greening and Azapagic, 2013; Martínez et al., 2009; Suwanit and Gheewala, 2011; Garrett and Rønde, 2013a; Garrett and Rønde, 2013b; Cooper et al., 2014; Alsema and de Wild-Scholten, 2004; Weinzettel et al., 2009; El-Fadel et al., 2010; Stanley and Dávila-Serrano, 2012). For the economic sustainability of electricity generation technologies, this study has considered capital costs, total annualised and levelised costs. These indicators have also been used by other researchers to compare the electricity costs across the different electricity systems (e.g. Santoyo-Castelazo and Azapagic, 2014; IEA/NEA, 2011; Stamford and Azapagic, 2012; El-Fadel et al., 2010; Maxim, 2014; Jeswani et al., 2011; Evans et al., 2009; May and Brennan, 2006; Gujba et al., 2010; Begić and Afgan, 2007). The social indicators considered in this work have been selected taking into consideration the key social issues for the electricity sector, which include provision of employment, accidents and energy security. As shown in Table 1, in order to assess these issues as fully as possible, six indicators have been selected for this work. These indicators have also been used in other studies of electricity options (e.g. Stamford and Azapagic, 2012; Hirschberg et al., 2004; May and Brennan, 2006). One of the health issues is human toxicity related to toxic emissions to air, land and water. This has been assessed using the human toxicity potential (HTP) impact estimated as part of the environmental life cycle assessment. Definitions of the environmental, economic and social indicators and equations used to calculate them are described in Section Selection of the electricity technologies (Step 3a) The next step involves the selection and specification of electricity generation technologies as well as data sourcing. For this research, 2010 has been chosen as the reference year since most complete data sets were available for this year. The study has considered all the technological options currently present in the Turkish electricity mix: lignite, hard coal, natural gas, hydro (large and small scale reservoir and run-of-river), onshore wind and geothermal power. A total of 516 plants currently operating has been considered in this work. Page 28 of 303

29 Chapter Definition of the scenarios (Step 3b) Possible scenarios for a future electricity mix and technologies have been defined for the year Scenario analysis has been used to explore the sustainability results of different potential electricity futures in Turkey. Four main scenarios are considered, each with two to four sub-scenarios. In total, 14 scenarios have been defined representing possible electricity mixes, including business as usual (BAU) and different carbon reduction targets scenarios. The scenarios comprise 14 technologies: lignite, hard coal and gas, both with and without CCS, nuclear and a range of renewable options such as solar, onshore and offshore wind, biomass and geothermal power. The selected technologies are currently available or the most promising options for future electricity generation in Turkey. For most technologies, future technological improvements have been taken into account, based on projections by various sources (e.g. Bauer et al., 2008; Frankl et al., 2006; Gärtner, 2008; Kouloumpis et al., 2015). Where data for future technologies were not available, the existing power plant technologies have been assumed. For some technologies, the optimistic and pessimistic cases have been considered, referring to future development of the technologies. The optimistic case includes considerable technological developments and better geographical conditions leading to best outcomes while the pessimistic case assumes the worst outcomes Sustainability assessment (Step 4) The current and possible future electricity generation technologies have been assessed on the environmental, economic and social sustainability using the indicators listed in Table 1. The methods used for estimating each indicator are described in the following sections. The system boundaries, assumptions and data sources for different electricity technologies and future scenarios are discussed in the subsequent chapters Environmental assessment As mentioned earlier, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used as a tool for the environmental sustainability assessment. In addition to estimating the impacts along the whole supply chain, LCA also helps to identify the hot spots and areas for improvement in the life cycle. The LCA study has been carried out in compliance with the ISO and standards (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b). An overview of the LCA methodology can be found in Appendix 1. Here, the focus is on the methodology for estimating the different environmental indicators (impacts) used to assess the environmental sustainability. Page 29 of 303

30 Chapter 1 The study is based on two functional units. The first is defined as generation of 1 kwh of electricity to enable comparisons of the environmental impacts for individual electricity technologies as well as for different electricity mixes. The second functional unit is defined as the total annual electricity generation to estimate the total annual environmental impacts from electricity generation. The LCA modelling and estimation of the environmental impacts have been carried out using GaBi software v.6 (PE International, 2013). The environmental impacts have been estimated following the CML 2001 impact assessment method, November 2010 update (Guinée et al., 2001; van Oers, 2010). The impact categories considered in this research are described in more detail below. Abiotic resource depletion potential of non-renewable elements (ADP elements) This impact measures depletion of non-renewable resources such as metal and mineral elements. It is expressed in kilograms of antimony (Sb) used and can be calculated using the equation (Azapagic, 2010): ADP elements J ADP B [1] j j j where: ADP elements - abiotic resource depletion potential for elements (kg Sb-eq.) ADP j - abiotic depletion potential for element j (kg Sb-eq./kg) B j - quantity of abiotic resource j used (kg) J - total number of elements depleted Abiotic resource depletion potential of fossil fuels (ADP fossil) ADP fossil measures the depletion of fossil energy sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. This impact is expressed in MJ and can be calculated using the equation (Azapagic, 2010): ADP fossil J ADP j B j j [2] Page 30 of 303

31 Chapter 1 where: ADP fossil - abiotic resource depletion potential of fossil fuel (MJ) ADP j - abiotic depletion potential of fossil fuel j (MJ/kg) B j - quantity of fossil fuel (kg) J - total number of elements depleted Acidification potential (AP) Acidification potential is based on the contributions of acidifying pollutants such as sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), hydrogen chloride (HCl) and ammonia (NH 3 ) to the potential acid deposition in the form of H + ions (Baumann and Tillman, 2004b). It is expressed in kg of SO 2 -eq. This impact can be calculated as (Azapagic, 2010): J AP AP j B j j [3] where: AP - acidification potential (kg SO 2 -eq.) AP j - acidification potential of acid gas j (kg SO 2 -eq./kg) B j - emission of acid gas j (kg) J - total number of acid gases Eutrophication Potential (EP) Eutrophication is the potential of nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) to cause over fertilisation of water and soil, which results in an increase growth of biomass (algae). This impact is expressed relative to PO 3-4 and calculated as (Azapagic, 2010): J EP EP j B j j [4] where: 3- EP - eutrophication potential (kg PO 4 eq.) 3- EP j - eutrophication potential of nutrient j (kg PO 4 eq./kg) B j - emission of nutrient j (kg) J - total number of nutrients Page 31 of 303

32 Chapter 1 Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential is based on the impacts of toxic substances in freshwater. It is expressed relative to 1,4-dichlorobenzene (DCB) (Guinée et al., 2001). This impact can be calculated as (Azapagic, 2010): J FAETP FAETP j B j [5] j where: FAETP - freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (kg DCB-eq.) FAETP j - FAETP of substance j (kg DCB-eq./kg) B j - emission of substance j (kg) J - total number of substances Global warming potential (GWP) Global warming potential expresses the potential of different greenhouse gases (GHGs) to cause the climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is the main greenhouse gas, followed by methane (CH 4 ), water vapour, nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) (Baumann and Tillman, 2004b). The reference GHG for this impact category is CO 2. GWP can be calculated as (Azapagic, 2010): GWP J GWP j B j j [6] where: GWP - global warming potential (kg CO 2 -eq.) GWP j - GWP factor for GHG j (kg CO 2 -eq./kg) B j - emission of GHG j (kg) J - total number of GHGs Human toxicity potential (HTP) Human toxicity potential represents the measure of the impact of human toxic pollutants, such as particles and heavy metals releases to air, water and soil. It is expressed relative to DCB. This impact can be calculated as (Azapagic, 2010): Page 32 of 303

33 Chapter 1 HTP J HTP j B j j [7] where: HTP - human toxicity potential (kg DCB-eq.) HTP j - HTP of substance j (kg DCB-eq./kg) B j - emission of substance j (kg) J - total number of substances Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) The impact of toxic substances in marine aquatic ecosystems is measured using MAETP. DCB is used as a relative substance for this impact (Guinée et al., 2001). It can be calculated according to the equation (Azapagic, 2010): J MAETP MAETP j B j [8] j where: MAETP - marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (kg DCB-eq.) MAETP j - MAETP of substance j (kg DCB-eq./kg) B j - emission of substance j (kg) J - total number of substances Ozone depletion potential (ODP) The ODP expresses the potential of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and halons for depleting the stratospheric ozone layer. This causes an increasing the amount of solar UV-B radiation reaching the earth s surface, which may have negative effects on human and animal health, ecosystems, biochemical cycles and materials (Guinée et al., 2001; Azapagic, 2010). It is expressed relative to the ODP of CFC-11. This impact can be calculated as (Azapagic, 2010): ODP J ODP j B j j [9] Page 33 of 303

34 Chapter 1 where: ODP - ozone depletion potential (kg CFC11-eq.) ODP j - ODP of ozone depleting gas j (kg CFC11-eq./kg) B j - emission of ozone depleting gas j (kg) J - total number of ozone depleting gases Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) This impact measures the potential for the formation of photochemical smog, also known as summer smog, due to the reaction of reactive chemical compounds such as NO x, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), CH 4 and carbon monoxide (CO) by the action of sunlight. This may in turn, impact negatively on human health and ecosystems (Azapagic, 2010; Guinée et al., 2001). This impact is expressed relative to the POCP of ethylene (C 2 H 4 ). It can be calculated according to the equation (Azapagic, 2010): J POCP j B j POCP [10] j where: POCP - photochemical oxidants creation potential (kg C 2 H 4 eq.) POCP j - POCP of substance j (kg C 2H 4 eq./kg) B j - emission of substance j (kg) J - total number of substances Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential measures the potential impacts of toxic substances on terrestrial ecosystems. This impact is expressed relative to DCB and can be calculated as (Azapagic, 2010): TETP J TETP j B j j [11] where: TETP - terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (kg DCB-eq.) TETP j - TETP of substance j (kg DCB-eq./kg) B j - emission of substance j (kg) J - total number of substances Page 34 of 303

35 Chapter Economic assessment Capital, total annualised and levelised costs have been considered for the economic sustainability assessment to choose the best option for the electricity generation and reducing the costs. The economic assessment considers all the life cycle stages as in the environmental and social assessments, except for the decommissioning of the plants, due to the lack of data. The costs are presented in the US dollars (US$). The costs are estimated for the electricity mix in 2010 as the base year. However, the cost data used in this analysis are taken from the year 2012 for which the most complete data have been available. All the costs have been converted to US$ 2012 using the currency exchange rates and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the given year (X-rates, 2015; World Bank, 2015). Definitions of the economic indicators and equations used to calculate them are given below. Capital cost Capital costs represent the sum of all the costs required to construct and install power plants. The total capital costs can be calculated using the equation (Santoyo-Castelazo and Azapagic, 2014): TC C C C E [12] where: TC C - total capital costs (US$) C C - capital costs (US$/kW) E - installed electricity capacity (kw) Total annualised cost The total annualised costs represent costs accrued during the operation of the power plant to generate electricity. It comprises annualised capital costs, annual fixed and variable costs and fuel costs. The annual fixed costs reflect the cost of operating the power station over a year and include labour costs, materials, property taxes, insurance, maintenance and repair costs, while the annual variable costs include expenses directly related to running the plant such as consumable materials, water and wastewater treatment costs; excluding the fuel cost (EIA, 2013; Gujba et al., 2010). Total annualised cost is calculated as the sum of annualised capital costs and annual fixed, variable and fuel costs (Gujba et al., 2010): Page 35 of 303

36 Chapter 1 T AC F V f [13] AC C C C C where: T AC - total annualised costs (US$/year) AC C - annualised capital costs (US$/year) F C - annual fixed costs (US$/year) V C - annual variable operation and maintenance costs (US$/year) f C - annual fuel costs (US$/year) The annualised capital costs are calculated by taking into account capital costs and an annuity factor (Gujba et al., 2010): AC C TC C f [14] where: AC C - annualised capital costs (US$/year) TC C - total capital costs (US$) f - annuity factor The annuity factor is equal to (Gujba et al., 2010): f t z 1 z t 1 z 1 [15] where: z - discount rate t - life time (year) Levelised cost This indicator refers to the total cost of building and operating a power plant over its lifetime. It is used to define the unit cost of electricity generation over the life time of the plant (Rubin, 2013). Levelised or unit electricity costs are calculated according to (Gujba et al., 2010): T AC LC [16] A E Page 36 of 303

37 Chapter 1 where: LC - levelised costs (US$/kWh) T AC - total annualised costs of electricity generation (US$/year) A E - annual electricity generation (kwh/year) Social assessment The social indicators considered in this work have been selected taking into consideration some of the key social issues for the electricity sector, which include provision of employment, accidents and energy security (Stamford and Azapagic, 2011). All social impacts, except for the amount of fossil fuel potentially avoided and diversity of fuel supply mix, have been estimated using a life cycle approach. Definitions of the social indicators and equations used to calculate them are described below. Provision of employment (Direct and indirect) These indicators estimates the number of people employed in the electricity sector. Direct employment refers to the jobs that are created in the operation and maintenance, as well as in the construction and decommissioning of the plant. Indirect employment measures the jobs in fuel extraction or mining, fuel processing, manufacturing and waste management associated with electricity generation. Total employment is the sum of direct and indirect employment; both direct and indirect employment is expressed in jobs-years per total amount of electricity generated over the life time of the electricity technology. Direct and indirect employment are calculated as follows: E T t 1 C I t i 1 P EF d i i [17a] where: E - employment in the life cycle of electricity generation (jobs-years/twh) C t - installed capacity of electricity technology t (MW) EF i - employment factor for the life cycle stage i (jobs/mw) d i - duration of employment in life cycle stage i (years) P - total electricity generation over the lifetime (TWh) I - total number of life cycle stages T- total number of technologies in the electricity mix Page 37 of 303

38 Chapter 1 The employment factor EF i for Turkey is estimated for each life cycle stage as: EF i GDP OECD Ei,OECD EFi,OECD [17b] GDP E Turkey i,turkey where: GDP OECD - gross domestic product for member countries of the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) (US$) GDP Turkey - gross domestic product for Turkey (US$) E i, OECD - employment in the life cycle stage i in the OECD countries (jobs/mw) E i, Turkey - total employment in the life cycle stage i in Turkey (jobs/mw) EF i, OECD - employment factor in the OECD countries for the life cycle stage i (jobs/mw) GDP OECD /E i, OECD - labour productivity factors for the OECD for the life cycle stage i GDP Turkey /E i, Turkey - labour productivity factors for Turkey for the life cycle stage i Injuries This indicator is calculated by taking into account the total number of injuries per unit of electricity generated over the life time of each energy technology: WI T t I i 1 E r i i [18] where: WI - total number of worker injuries (no. of injuries/twh) E i - employment in life cycle stage i (jobs-years/twh) r i - average annual injury rate in life cycle stage i (no. of injuries/worker). I - total number of life cycle stages t - electricity technology t T - total number of electricity technologies in the electricity mix Large accident fatalities This indicator represents the total number of fatalities due to large accidents in the life cycle of energy technology and it can be calculated using the following equation: Page 38 of 303

39 Chapter 1 LAR T t I i 1 LAR i [19] where: LAR - total number of large accident fatalities (no. of fatalities/twh) LAR i - number of fatalities in life cycle stage i per TWh of electricity produced (no. of fatalities/twh) I - total number of life cycle stages t - electricity technology t T - total number of electricity technologies in the electricity mix Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided This indicator relates to the amount of imported fossil fuels that would be avoided through the use of technologies which utilise energy sources other than imported fossil fuels. This includes renewables, nuclear and lignite, the latter being a domestic resource. This indicator applies only to the power plant operation and not the other life cycle stages, as follows: IFA N C n 1 n K [20] where: IFA - imported fossil fuel potentially avoided (toe/kwh) η - weighted efficiency of the plants using imported fossil fuels based on their contribution to the total generation (%) C n - contribution to the electricity mix of the technology n not using imported fossil fuels (%) N - total number of technologies not using imported fossil fuels K - conversion for kwh to toe (toe/kwh) Diversity of fuel supply mix This indicator evaluates the national supply diversity of fuels supplied domestically and imported based on the Simpson Diversity index. A score of 1 represents a fully diverse supply and a score of 0 represents an overly reliant one nation fuel supply. This indicator applies only for the operation of the power plant. Diversity of fuel supply mix is calculated as follows (Stamford and Azapagic, 2011): Page 39 of 303

40 Chapter 1 C nc n c 1 c DFS P in Pim 1 [21] 9900 where: DFS - diversity of fuel supply mix (score 0-1) P in - proportion of fuel demand produced indigenously P im - proportion of national fuel demand imported n c - percentage of fuel imports supplied by exporting country c 4.6. Multi-criteria decision analysis (Step 5) Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to integrate the three dimensions of sustainability for the current and future electricity generation. MCDA helps with decision making where there is a wide range of criteria to choose the best option (Azapagic and Perdan, 2005a). MCDA methods have been used by other researchers to evaluate the energy options on a number of sustainability criteria (e.g. Santoyo-Castelazo and Azapagic, 2014; Roth et al., 2009; Begić and Afgan, 2007; Azapagic et al., 2011; Maxim, 2014; Jacobson, 2009; Wang et al., 2009). MCDA allows for a more robust comparison of the alternatives by considering different preferences for the criteria. In this work, the MCDA analysis has been carried out using Multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) as incorporated in the Web-HIPRE software, version 1.22 (Mustajoki and Hämäläinen, 2000). In order to evaluate the outcome of alternatives, the sustainability score for each alternative has been estimated as follows (Azapagic and Perdan, 2005b): I v(a) w v (a) [22] i 1 i i where: v(a) - overall sustainability score of electricity option a w i - weight of importance for decision criterion i (sustainability indicator or aspect) v i (a) - score reflecting the performance of option ɑ on criterion i (sustainability indicator or aspect) I - total number of decision criteria (sustainability indicators or aspects) Page 40 of 303

41 Chapter 1 The MCDA has been carried out in two stages. In the first stage, eqn. [22] has been used to obtain the scores for environmental, economic and social sustainability aspect based on the values of the corresponding sustainability indicators estimated in the sustainability assessment and their weights of importance. In that case, the decision criteria in eqn. [22] represent the sustainability indicators. In the second stage, the decision criteria are the sustainability aspects and eqn. [22] is applied to estimate the overall sustainability score of an option using the scores for the environmental, economic and social aspects estimated in the first stage and the weights of importance for each aspect. The MCDA was first performed assuming equal importance of all the environmental, economic and social aspects. This was followed by assuming in turn high preference of different sustainability aspects to find out how the results of the analysis may change if the environmental, economic and social aspects have different importance. The second part of the analysis has been carried out without the involvement of decision makers and stakeholders preferences so that a range of potential weights have been defined by the author of this study. It was outside of the scope of this research to consult the decision makers and other stakeholders. To test the MCDA results, sensitivity analysis has been carried out to determine how the ranking of the technologies and scenarios could change with different weighting of the aspects. Based on the MCDA results, the electricity options and scenarios have been ranked taking into account their environmental, economic and social performance to determine which options and scenarios are the most preferable Data quality assessment (Step 6) Data quality assessment has been carried out to identify uncertainties and future improvement needs for the data. The data quality assessment applied here is based on the pedigree matrix used in LCA, considering five criteria as shown in Table 2. The data quality assessment methodology has been adapted from the one developed for the LCA software CCaLC (2011), whereby each criterion is assigned a score from 1 to 3 depending on their quality level, with 1 denoting the lowest and 3 the highest. Page 41 of 303

42 Chapter 1 Table 2: Data quality criteria used in this research, adapted from CCaLC (2011) Data quality criteria Data quality indicators High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Age of data < 5 years 5-10 years > 10 Geographical origin of data Source of data Completeness of data Reproducibility/reliability/ consistency of data Specific Partly specific Generic/average Measured and/or modelled based on specific data (e.g. the company data or from suppliers) All inputs and outputs considered Completely reproducible/reliable/ consistent Modelled using generic data from LCA databases; some data derived using expert knowledge Majority of relevant inputs and outputs considered Partly reproducible/reliable/ consistent Mainly sourced from literature and/or estimated and/or derived using expert knowledge Some relevant inputs and outputs considered or known Not reproducible/reliable/ not known The data quality assessment has been carried out in three main steps. The first step considers the quality of the data used for each sustainability indicator or life cycle stage where applicable. Based on the accuracy of the data, a score is given to each criterion showed in Table 2. These scores are then summed and weighted according to their life cycle contribution with the exception of the following indicators: total capital costs, imported fossil fuel potentially avoided and diversity of fuel supply mix. The scores are summed up without taking into account the contributions of the life cycle stages because these indicators apply to only one life cycle stage (total capital costs for the plant construction and the energy security indicators for the plant operation stage). The second step involves summing up the total scores for each sustainability indicator (obtained in the previous step) to obtain data quality score for each technology. Depending on the range of these scores, the quality of the data was considered low, medium or high, as shown below: Low data quality: total score in the range of 1-100; Medium data quality: total score in the range of ; and High data quality: total score in the range of Page 42 of 303

43 Chapter 1 Finally, the overall data quality score for the whole electricity mix was estimated by multiplying each technology s score (obtained in the second step) with the contribution of each technology to the electricity mix. The same method has been used for future technologies but without taking into account the contributions of the life cycle stages (weighting step) because only aggregated data were available for these groups of technologies. Depending on the number of indicators considered, the quality of the data for the future technologies and scenarios was considered low, medium or high, as shown below: Low data quality: total score in the range of 1-95; Medium data quality: total score in the range of ; and High data quality: total score in the range of Conclusions and recommendations (Step 7) In the final step of the methodology, the results are brought together in order to draw the conclusions. Based on the findings, technological and policy recommendations have been made so that decision makers can opt for more sustainable electricity generation options in Turkey. Page 43 of 303

44 Chapter 1 References Alsema, E.and de Wild-Scholten, M., Environmental life cycle assessment of advanced silicon solar cell technologies. The 19 th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference June 2004; Paris, France. Acar, S., Kitson, L.and Bridle, R., Subsidies to coal and renewable energy in Turkey. The International Institute for Sustainable Development. Atilgan, B.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from fossil fuels in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, Azapagic, A., Assessing environmental sustainability: Life cycle thinking and life cycle assessment. In: Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists. Second ed (Azapagic, A. and Perdan, S. eds.). Chichester, UK. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Azapagic, A., Grimston, M., Anderson, K., Baker, K., Glynn, S., Howell, S., Kouloumpis, V., Perdan, S., Simpson, J., Stamford, L., Stoker, G., Thomas, P.and Youds, L., Assessing the Sustainability of Nuclear Power in the UK. SPRIng Project. Azapagic, A.and Perdan, S., 2005a. An integrated sustainability decision-support framework Part I: Problem structuring. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 12(2), Azapagic, A.and Perdan, S., 2005b. An integrated sustainability decision-support framework Part II: Problem analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 12(2), Bauer, C., Heck, T., Dones, R., Mayer-Spohn, O.and Blesl, M., Final report on technical data, costs, and life cycle inventories of advanced fossil power generation systems, NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability). Baumann, H.and Tillman, A. M., Life cycle impact assessment. In: The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA : An Orientation in Life Cycle Assessment Methodology and Application. Lund Studentlitteratur. Begić, F.and Afgan, N. H., Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in selection of energy system-bosnian case. Energy, 32(10), Brizmohun, R., Ramjeawon, T.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mauritius. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, CCaLC, CCaLC manual. University of Manchester, Sustainable Industrial Systems: Manchester. Page 44 of 303

45 Chapter 1 Cooper, J., Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Environmental impacts of shale gas in the UK: Current situation and future scenarios. Energy Technology, 2(12), EEA, European Environment Agency, Greenhouse Gas Data Viewer: European Environment Agency [Online]. Available from: EIA, Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants. Washington: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). El-Fadel, R., Hammond, G., Harajli, H., Jones, C., Kabakian, V.and Winnett, A., The Lebanese electricity system in the context of sustainable development. Energy Policy, 38(2), EUAS, Annual Report. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Generation Company. Eurostat, Energy Dependence (%). Available from: e=en&pcode=tsdcc310 Evans, A., Strezov, V.and Evans, T. J., Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(5), Frankl, P., Menichetti, E., Raugei, M., Lombardelli, S.and Prennushi, G., Final report on technical data, costs and life cycle inventories of PV applications, NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability). FutureCamp, Baseline Emission Calculations. Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), version 3. Ankara, Turkey. Garrett, P.and Rønde, K., 2013a. Life cycle assessment of electricity production from an onshore V MW wind plant. Denmark: Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Garrett, P.and Rønde, K., 2013b. Life cycle assessment of wind power: Comprehensive results from a state-of-the-art approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), Gärtner, S., Final report on technical data, costs and life cycle inventories of biomass CHP plants, NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability). GEA, Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable Future Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. Greening, B.and Azapagic, A., Environmental impacts of micro-wind turbines and their potential to contribute to UK climate change targets. Energy, 59, Page 45 of 303

46 Chapter 1 Guinée, J. B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R.and Koning, A., Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gujba, H., Mulugetta, Y.and Azapagic, A., Environmental and economic appraisal of power generation capacity expansion plan in Nigeria. Energy Policy, 38(10), Hirschberg, S., Dones, R., Heck, T., Burgherr, P., Schenler, W.and Bauer, C., Sustainability of electricity supply technologies under German conditions: A comparative evaluation. Comprehensive Assessment of Energy Systems. Switzerland: Paul Scherrer Institut. IEA, Electricity Information Paris: International Energy Agency. IEA, World Energy Outlook Special Report 2015: Energy and Climate Change. Paris: International Energy Agency. IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. Paris: International Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency. ISO, 2006a. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. ISO, 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. Jacobson, M. Z., Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy & Environmental Science, 2(2), Jeswani, H. K., Gujba, H.and Azapagic, A., Assessing options for electricity generation from biomass on a life cycle basis: Environmental and economic evaluation. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2(1), Koornneef, J., van Keulen, T., Faaij, A.and Turkenburg, W., Life cycle assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of CO 2. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2(4), Kouloumpis, V., Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Decarbonising electricity supply: Is climate change mitigation going to be carried out at the expense of other environmental impacts? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1, Lahuerta, F.and Saenz, E., Life cycle assessment of the wind turbines installed in Spain until Europe's Premier Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition March 2011; Brussels, Belgium. Lechón, Y., de la Rúa, C.and Sáez, R., Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity production by solarthermal power plants in Spain. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 130(2), Page 46 of 303

47 Chapter 1 Martínez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jiménez, E.and Blanco, J., Life-cycle assessment of a 2 MW rated power wind turbine: CML method. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(1), Maxim, A., Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy, 65(0), May, J. R.and Brennan, D. J., Sustainability assessment of Australian electricity generation. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 84(2), MENR, The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources Strategic Plan ( ). Ankara, Turkey: The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. MENR, Mavi Kitap (Blue Book). Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. MEU, National Climate Change Action Plan. Ankara, Turkey: The Republic of Turkey, The Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, General Directorate of Environmental Management, Climate Change Department. Mustajoki, J.and Hämäläinen, R. P., Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR, 38(3), Onat, N.and Bayar, H., The sustainability indicators of power production systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), Pascale, A., Urmee, T.and Moore, A., Life cycle assessment of a community hydroelectric power system in rural Thailand. Renewable Energy, 36(11), PE International, GaBi version 6. Stuttgart, Echterdingen. Roth, S., Hirschberg, S., Bauer, C., Burgherr, P., Dones, R., Heck, T.and Schenler, W., Sustainability of electricity supply technology portfolio. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 36(3), Rubin, E. S., G. Booras, J. Davison, C. Ekstrom, M. Matuszewski, S. McCoy and C. Short, Toward a Common Method of Cost Estimation for CO 2 Capture and Storage at Fossil Fuel Power Plants. A White Paper. Global CCS Institute. Santoyo-Castelazo, E.and Azapagic, A., Sustainability assessment of energy systems: Integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80(0), Santoyo-Castelazo, E., Gujba, H.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mexico. Energy, 36(3), SE4All, Sustainable Energy for All: Annual Report Page 47 of 303

48 Chapter 1 Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Sustainability indicators for the assessment of nuclear power. Energy, 36(10), Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK. International Journal of Energy Research, 36(14), Stanley, J. R.and Dávila-Serrano, M., A life cycle assessment of a coal fired power plant with carbon capture and storage in Mexico. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 7(41), Suwanit, W.and Gheewala, S., Life cycle assessment of mini-hydropower plants in Thailand. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(9), TEIAS, Electricity Generation and Transmission Statistics of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation [Online]. Available from: TUIK, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistical Institute. TUIK, Turkey's Foreign Trade Statistics. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistical Institute [Online]. Available from: van Oers, L., CML-IA Characterisation Factors. [November 2010]. Available from: Wang, J. J., Jing, Y. Y., Zhang, C. F.and Zhao, J. H., Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), WEC, Turkey Energy Balance Table ( ): World Energy Council Turkish National Committee [Online]. Available from: WEC, World Energy Scenarios: Composing Energy Futures to World Energy Scenarios. World Energy Council. Weinzettel, J., Reenaas, M., Solli, C.and Hertwich, E. G., Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind turbine. Renewable Energy, 34(3), World Bank, Consumer price index (CPI) data. Available from: X-rates, Historical Exchange Rates. Available from: Page 48 of 303

49 Chapter 2 Chapter 2: Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Electricity from Fossil Fuels in Turkey This paper was published in the Journal of Cleaner Production in November 2015 with the following citation: Atilgan, B. and Azapagic, A. (2015), Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from fossil fuels in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, This research consists of an environmental life cycle assessment of lignite, hard coal and gas power plants in Turkey. Table and figure numbers have been amended to fit into the structure of this thesis. Page 49 of 303

50 Chapter 2 Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Electricity from Fossil Fuels in Turkey Burcin Atilgan and Adisa Azapagic* School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK * Corresponding author, Tel: , adisa.azapagic@manchester.ac.uk Abstract This paper presents for the first time the life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation from fossil fuel power plants in Turkey which supply three quarters of national demand. There are 16 lignite, eight hard coal and 187 gas power plants in Turkey, all of which are considered in the study. The results suggest that electricity generation from gas has the lowest impacts for 10 out of 11 impacts considered. However, its ozone layer depletion is 48 times higher than for lignite and 12 times greater than for hard coal electricity. Lignite is the worst option overall, with eight impacts higher than for hard coal, ranging from 11% higher fossil fuel depletion to six times greater fresh water ecotoxicity. Conversely, its depletion of elements and ozone layer are four times lower than for hard coal; global warming is 6% lower. Most impacts are mainly caused by the operation of power plants and transportation of imported fuels. Annually, electricity generation from fossil fuels emits 109 Mt CO 2 -eq. and depletes 1660 PJ of primary fossil energy. These and the majority of other impacts are from lignite and hard coal power, despite the gas plants generating almost three and five times more electricity, respectively. Therefore, reducing the share of lignite and hard coal power and expanding the contribution of natural gas would lead to significant reductions of environmental impacts from the electricity sector in Turkey, including greenhouse gas emissions; however, ozone layer depletion would increase substantially. Keywords: Electricity generation; environmental impacts; fossil fuels; life cycle assessment; Turkey Page 50 of 303

51 Chapter 2 1. Introduction Turkey is one of the MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Turkey) countries projected to grow rapidly (REPRISK, 2014). Like many other countries, it already has difficulties in meeting energy demand as the endogenous fossil energy resources are insufficient, the problem that will only be exacerbated by the growing economy and population. On the other hand, although there is a large potential of renewable energy resources, their current utilisation is low (MENR, 2012). In 2010, the total energy generation in Turkey was 377,894 GWh while the total consumption amounted to 1,270,764 GWh, more than three times higher than the country s generation capacity. This has led to Turkey s dependency on energy imports from other countries so that nearly 70% of the national demand is being met by imported fossil fuels and their share continues to increase each year (TUIK, 2011b; MENR, 2012). Turkey s largest domestic energy source is coal, which was the main energy source until the 1970s. Overall, Turkey has 1.5% of the world s coal reserves. The large majority of this is lignite, with the reserves of 11.8 billion tonnes; this represents 6% of the global lignite deposits (TKI, 2012). However, most of Turkish lignite is of low quality, with low calorific value and high sulphur and ash content. The second most important coal type is hard coal with the reserves of about 1.3 billion tonnes; like lignite, it is of low grade but of cokeable or semi-cokeable quality (TTKI, 2011). Other types of coal found in Turkey are asphaltite, bituminous shale and peat, but their reserves are much smaller. In 2010, total coal production reached 73.4 Mt of which 69.7 Mt was lignite, 2.5 Mt hard coal and 1.2 Mt asphaltite (TKI, 2012). By comparison, 24.3 Mt (MENR, 2011) were imported, of which 60% from Russia and Colombia and 40% from the USA and South Africa (TKI, 2012). In the mid-1980s, natural gas overtook coal to become the main energy source and, despite the low domestic production (Ozturk et al., 2011), its consumption has been growing rapidly since, increasing from 0.74 billion m 3 in 1987 to billion m 3 in 2010 (EIA, 2011; MENR, 2011). With the gas reserves estimated at 6.2 billion m 3 in 2011 and at the current production levels, the reserve-to-production ratio of domestic gas is around nine years (BOTAS, 2011; TPAO, 2011; EIA, 2011). Thus, the majority of gas is imported, with Russia being the main supplier, providing 17.5 billion m 3 (EMRA, 2011; BOTAS, 2011). Page 51 of 303

52 Chapter 2 Both coal and natural gas are still the dominant sources of electricity in Turkey. In 2010 they generated 153,190 GWh, contributing 72.5% to the total generation of 211,208 GWh (TEIAS, 2011), of which 46.5% was supplied by gas and 26.1% by coal power plants (see Figure 2). The next largest contribution is from hydropower (24.5% in 2010). Figure 3 shows that the generation by coal and gas power plants has grown rapidly since the mid- 80s to help meet the fast growing national demand, with the gas electricity supply increasing 1700 times and the coal around four times. Hard coal and asphaltite 9.1% Wind 1.4% Liquid fuels 1.0% Geothermal 0.3% Others and waste 0.2% Lignite 17.0% Natural gas 46.5% Hydro 24.5% Figure 2: Turkey s electricity mix in 2010 (EUAS, 2011) In total, there are 16 lignite and eight hard coal power plants with the total installed capacity of 11,891 MW that in 2010 generated over 55,046 GWh (Figure 3). The majority (85%) of the plants are pulverised coal (PC) and the rest are circulating fluidised bed (CFB) plants. By comparison, 187 gas power plants with 18,213 MW of installed capacity generated 98,144 GWh in the same year (Figure 3). More than 90% of this are combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT), including the oil power plants most of which have been converted to gas so that Turkey has almost no oil installations left. Page 52 of 303

53 Generation (GWh) Share in total production (%) Generation (GWh) Share in total production (%) Chapter 2 60,000 Generation Share 50 50, ,000 30,000 20,000 10, a) Coal 100,000 Generation Share 60 90,000 80, ,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, b) Natural gas Figure 3: Electricity generation from coal and natural gas in Turkey and their share in total electricity generation from 1985 to 2010 (TEIAS, 2012) The high share of fossil fuels in Turkey s electricity mix, together with the increasing demand, has led to a steady increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reaching 99 Mt CO 2 eq. in 2010 (FutureCamp, 2011), a quarter of the total national emissions of Mt in the same year (EEA, 2012). While Turkey still has the lowest GHG emission per Page 53 of 303

54 Chapter 2 capita in Europe t CO 2 -eq. compared to 9 t in the EU28 countries (EEA, 2012; TUIK, 2011a) - they are set to increase owing to the growing energy demand. At the same time, being a party to both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, the government is keen to reduce the GHG and other emissions (MEU, 2007). It is, therefore, important that Turkey identifies and deploys sustainable energy technologies suitable for the country, if climate change and other environmental impacts are to be curbed. However, the environmental impacts of energy generation in Turkey are largely unknown so that it is not possible to identify sustainable or otherwise options for the country. In an attempt to contribute towards this goal, this paper presents for the first time the life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation in Turkey. Given their current dominance, the focus is on generation from fossil fuels: lignite, hard coal and gas. The impacts have been estimated using life cycle assessment (LCA) as detailed in the rest of the paper. 2. Methodology The LCA has been carried out following the ISO 14040/14044 guidelines (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b). GEMIS 4.8 (Öko Institute, 2012) and GaBi v.6 (PE International, 2013) software packages have been used for LCA modelling and estimation of the impacts. The goal of the study, data and the assumptions are discussed below Goal and scope definition The goal of the study is to estimate the life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation from the fossil fuel power plants in Turkey, using 2010 as the base year. Two functional units are considered: generation of 1 kwh of electricity by lignite, hard coal and gas power plants; and annual generation of electricity from these plants (153,190 GWh). The scope of the study is from cradle to grave, comprising extraction, processing, and transportation of the fuels, their combustion to generate electricity in power plants and plant construction and decommissioning at the end of their lifetime (see Figure 4). Since the functional units are related to the generation rather than supply of electricity, its distribution and consumption are outside the system boundary. Page 54 of 303

55 Chapter 2 Plant construction Coal supply (lignite and hard coal) Mining and processing Transport and storage Coal power plant operation Electricity Plant decommissioning Plant construction Extraction and processing Natural gas supply Transport and distribution Natural gas power plant operation Electricity Plant decommissioning Figure 4: The life cycle of lignite, hard coal and gas electricity from cradle to grave 2.2. Data and assumptions As mentioned previously, there are 16 lignite, eight hard coal and 187 gas plants in Turkey, all of which are considered in this study. Primary data have been obtained from the Turkish Petroleum Pipeline Corporation (BOTAS), Turkish Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR), Turkish Electricity Generation Corporation (EUAS), Turkish Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAS) and Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA). Additional information was collected from government and industrial reports as well as academic literature as detailed further below. Detailed data have been available for all the lignite and hard coal plants (Table 3 and Table 4); however, for the gas plants, the data are more scant (Table 5). For this reason, an average efficiency of 55% has been assumed for all the gas plants; this matches the average efficiency for the CCGT plants for which the data have been available (Table 5) but also the efficiency of the plants in Turkey reported by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Nuclear Energy Agency (IEA/NEA, 2005) as well as others (Aslanoglu, 2012). Note that the power plants listed in Table 3-Table 5 are those that are connected to the grid and for which the data were available. Specific data were not available for autoproducer plants which are not connected to the grid but generate electricity for own consumption. However, total generation from these plants has been considered (see notes to the tables), although specific data for each plant were not available. Page 55 of 303

56 Chapter 2 The power plant and generation data have been used together with the fuel composition data in Table 6 and the amount of fuels used for electricity generation in Table 7 to estimate the emissions from the individual plants using GEMIS 4.8 (Öko Institute, 2012). The results are summarised in Table 8. The emissions calculated in GEMIS have then been imported into GaBi v.6 to estimate the life cycle impacts of electricity generated by lignite, hard coal and gas plants, using the inventory data and the assumptions in Table 6. The background life cycle inventory data have been sourced from Ecoinvent (Ecoinvent, 2010) but have been adapted as far as possible to Turkey s conditions. Page 56 of 303

57 Chapter 2 Table 3: Lignite power plants in Turkey in 2010 a Power plant Location Type Installed capacity (MW) Annual generation in 2010 (GWh) Contribution to total generation (%) Efficiency (%) Secondary fuel oil (t) 1. Afsin Elbistan A K. Maras PC b Afsin Elbistan B K. Maras PC+FDG c Mart Can Canakkale CFB d Kangal Sivas PC+FDG e Orhaneli Bursa PC+FDG Seyitomer Kutahya PC Tuncbilek Kutahya PC Kemerkoy Mugla PC+FDG Soma A Manisa PC Soma B Manisa PC Yatagan Mugla PC+FDG Yenikoy Mugla PC+FDG Cayirhan Park Beypazarı PC+FDG Total 8081 (8140 f ) 35,494 (35,942 f ) a The 13 plants listed in the table are connected to the grid. The remaining three plants are autoproducers which are not connected to the grid. b PC: pulverised coal. c FGD: flue gas desulphurisation. d CFB: circulating fluidised bed. e FGD installed on one unit of 157 MW. f The total lignite installed capacity in 2010 was 8140 MW and the generation was 35,942 GWh. The difference from the installed capacity and the generation shown in the table is due to a lack of data for the three autoproducer plants not included in the table. However, total actual electricity generation has been used to estimate the impacts from lignite plants. Page 57 of 303

58 Chapter 2 Table 4: Hard coal power plants in Turkey in 2010 a Power plant Location Type Installed capacity (MW) Annual generation in 2010 (GWh) Contribution to total generation (%) Efficiency (%) 1. Catalagzi Zonguldak Hard coal, PC Karabiga Canakkale Imported coal, CFB Isken Sugozu Adana Imported coal, PC+FGD Silopi/Sirnak Silopi Asphaltite, CFB Eren Catalagzi Zonguldak Imported coal, SC b +CFB 1360 c Total ,099 (3751 d ) (19,104 d ) a The five plants listed in the table are connected to the grid. The remaining three plants are autoproducers which are not connected to the grid. b SC: supercritical coal. c 1230 MW of supercritical coal and 160 MW of circulating fluidised bed. d The total installed capacity in 2010 was 3751 MW and the generation was 19,104 GWh. The difference from the installed capacity and generation shown in the table is due to a lack of specific data for some of the three autoproducer plants not included in the table. However, total actual electricity generation has been used to estimate the impacts from hard coal plants. Page 58 of 303

59 Chapter 2 Table 5: Natural gas power plants in Turkey in 2010 a Gas plant Location Installed capacity (MW) Annual generation in 2010 (GWh) Contribution to total generation (%) Efficiency (%) 1. Ambarli Istanbul Bursa Bursa Hamitabat Luleburgaz Aliaga Izmir Adapazari-1 Adapazari , Adapazari-2 Adapazari Baymina Ankara Izmir Izmir , Enron Trakya Tekirdag Esenyurt Istanbul Colakoglu Dilovasi Kocaeli Uni Mar IPR Tekirdag Aksa Antalya Antalya Aksa Manisa Manisa Alarko Altek Kirklareli Cakmaktepe Izmir Antalya Antalya Arenko Denizli Ayen OSTIM Ankara Berk Istanbul Binatom Emet BIS Bursa BOSEN Bursa Burgaz Luleburgaz Can Enerji Tekirdag Can Tekirdag Camis Mersin Cengiz Samsun Page 59 of 303

60 Chapter Cebi Celik Uzunciftlik Cerkezkoy Tekirdag Delta Enerji SA Bandirma Entek Koc Istanbul Entek Kosekoy Falez Global Pelitlik Hacisirahmet HABAS Izmir Hayat Kagit Karege Arges Kemalpasa Modern Noren RASA Van Sayenerji Kayseri Sonmez Usak Sahinler Corlu Tekirdag T Enerji Ugur Tekirdag Zorlu (B.Karistiran) Luleburgaz Zorlu (Bursa) Bursa Zorlu (Sincan) Ankara Zorlu (Kayseri) Kayseri Zorlu (Yalova) Yalova AK (K.Pasa) Kemalpasa AK (Bozuyuk) Bozuyuk AK (C.Koy) Cerkezkoy AKSA Yalova ATAER Baticim Bil Balgat Ankara Camis Trakya Page 60 of 303

61 Chapter DESA Gul Ege Birlesik Izmir Enerji-SA Kosekoy Enerji-SA Canakkale Enerji-SA Adana Enerji-SA Mersin Entek Demirtas Eskisehir 2 Eskisehir KEN Kipas Karen K.Maras MOSB Manisa Maksi Nuh Yurtbay Eskisehir Total 16,709 91,369 (18,213 b ) (98,144 b ) Blank spaces in the table indicate no data availability. a The plants listed in the table are connected to the grid. The remaining 111 plants are autoproducers which are not connected to the grid. b The total installed capacity in 2010 was 18,213 MW and the generation was 98,144 GWh. The difference from the installed capacity and generation shown in the table is due to a lack of data for the autoproducer plants not included in the table. However, total actual electricity generation has been used to estimate the impacts from gas plants. Page 61 of 303

62 Chapter 2 Table 6: Assumptions and summary of inventory data for fossil fuels Life cycle stage Lignite Hard coal Natural Gas Mining and processing Domestic Open pit and underground mining Composition (% w/w): Sulphur: % Ash: 19-40% Water: 20-50% Net heating value: MJ/kg Domestic and imported Open pit and underground mining Composition (% w/w): Sulphur: % Ash: 7-11% Water: 4-7% Net heating value: MJ/kg Transport Power plants adjacent to the mine Shipping and rail transport; see Table 7 for details Electricity generation Plant construction See Table 3 for details Average water use: 37.3 kg/kwh Lifetime: 30 years a Data from Ecoinvent based on average size of the plant of 380 MW (a mix of 500 MW and 100 MW plants in a 70:30 ratio) Plant Metals and concrete: 50% decommissioning b recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled a Source: TEIAS (2013). b The system has been credited for recycling. See Table 3 for details Average water use: 32.7 kg/kwh Lifetime: 30 years a Data from Ecoinvent based on average size of the plant of 460 MW (a mix of 500 MW and 100 MW plants at 90:10 ratio) Metals and concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled Composition (% vol.): C 1 : % C 2 : 1-3.4% C 3 : % C 4 : % C 5+ : % CO 2 : % N 2 : % Net heating value: MJ/kg Leakage during extraction: 0.38% Leakage in production: 0.12% Pipeline; see Table 7 for details Leakage from pipeline: 0.023% per 100 km Energy use by compressor stations: 0.27% per 100 km All plants assumed to be CCGT with efficiency of 55% Average water use: 3.4 kg/kwh Lifetime : 25 years a Data from Ecoinvent assuming 400 MW plant Metals and concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled Page 62 of 303

63 Chapter 2 Table 7: The amount of fuels used for electricity generation in 2010 and transport distances for imported fuels Natural gas (million m 3 ) Hard coal (million tonnes) Lignite (million tonnes) Transport distances (km) Gas a Hard coal b Domestic fuel Imported fuel Russia c Iran Azerbaijan Algeria Nigeria USA ,500 South Africa ,000 Other Total 21, ,850 28,500 a Transport by pipeline. Total weighted average distance of 4000 km used for LCA modelling, taking into account the amounts of gas imported from each country as listed in the table. b Russia: 4500 km by rail, 500 km by shipping; USA: 1000 km by rail, 9500 km by shipping; South Africa: 500 km by rail, 12,500 km by shipping. c This includes the amount of hard coal imported from Colombia but as there are no LCA data for the Colombian coal, the LCA impacts from the Russian coal have been used instead. Page 63 of 303

64 Chapter 2 Table 8: Air emissions from coal and gas power plants a Lignite (g/kwh) a Hard coal (g/kwh) b Natural gas (g/kwh) c CO CO NO x N 2 O SO CH Particles (>PM10) Particles (PM2.5-PM10) Particles (PM2.5) a The emissions calculated using GEMIS 4.8 and GaBi v.6 software packages. b Weighted average taking into account the contribution of each power plant to the total mix. c Average values for all gas plants. 3. Results and discussion The environmental impacts have been estimated following the CML 2001 impact assessment method, November 2010 update (Guinée et al., 2001; van Oers, 2010) The following impacts are considered: abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements and fossil), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP), global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity potential (HTP), marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP), photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP). The results for each impact are discussed in the following sections, first for the functional unit related to the generation of 1 kwh of electricity and then for the annual generation of electricity from fossil fuels in Environmental impacts per kwh of electricity generated The results in Figure 5 suggest that electricity from gas has the lowest impacts for all the categories except for ODP which is 48 times higher than for lignite and 12 times greater than for hard coal. Lignite is the worst option overall, with eight out of 11 impacts higher than for hard coal, ranging from 11% higher ADP fossil to almost six times greater FAETP. On the other hand, the ADP elements and ODP are four times lower from lignite power than from hard coal; the GWP is 5.7% lower. Most of the impacts are mainly caused by the operation of power plants and transportation of fuels. Construction and decommissioning of the plants have negligible impacts, with the Page 64 of 303

65 Chapter 2 credits for recycling of materials after decommissioning having a marginal effect on reducing the overall impacts (by <1%); the only exception to this is depletion of elements which is reduced by around 35% through recycling (based on the assumptions made in this study). These results are discussed in more detail below. Note that all the results incorporate the credits for material recycling Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) The depletion of elements for lignite and gas power are estimated at 20 and 24 μg Sbeq./kWh, respectively (Figure 5). The value for hard coal power is equivalent to 81 μg Sbeq./kWh, around four times higher than for lignite power. The main reason for this is the long-distance transport of hard coal (see Table 7) which contributes 63% to the total impact (Figure 5), with mining adding a further 25% and plant construction 10%. By contrast, most of the ADP elements for electricity from lignite occurs during mining (81%) as lignite is not imported so there is no transport; the rest is from plant operation (11%) and construction (8%). For gas plants, fuel distribution is also a significant contributor (20%) but still much lower than its extraction (45%) and plant construction (33%) Abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) Fossil resource depletion associated with power generation from hard coal is equivalent to 13.5 MJ/kWh and from lignite to 15.1 MJ/kWh. The impact from gas power is nearly two times lower (8.8 MJ/kWh) owing to the lower efficiency of coal-based plants compared to those using natural gas as well as the lower heating value of lignite and hard coal compared to gas (see Table 3-Table 6). Fuel extraction is the single largest contributor to the ADP fossil from hard coal (92%) and gas (90%) electricity with the transport contributing the rest. Fuel extraction accounts for all of this impact for the lignite plants as there is no fuel transportation Acidification potential (AP) Lignite electricity has the AP of 10.8 g SO 2 -eq./kwh. The single biggest contributor (87%) is the emission of SO 2 from lignite combustion. This is primarily due to the high sulphur content in the lignite and a lack of desulphurisation at some power plants (see Table 3). Estimated at 6 g SO 2 -eq./kwh, the impact from hard coal power is 1.8 times lower than for lignite. The majority of the AP for hard coal is due to the emissions of SO 2 (86%) and NOx (12%), generated largely during the operation of power plants. At 0.8 g SO 2 -eq./kwh, the AP from gas is around 13 times lower than from lignite. The majority of the impact comes from gas extraction (57%) and its combustion to generate electricity (26%); gas Page 65 of 303

66 Chapter 2 distribution makes up the rest (17%). The emissions of SO 2 and NO x contribute respectively 57% and 40% to the total AP of gas plants, with the majority of SO 2 (88%) emitted during gas extraction and NO x during gas combustion (64%) as well as gas transportation (26%) Eutrophication potential (EP) The EP for electricity generation from lignite is equal to 11.9 g PO 4 -eq./kwh. Nearly 85% of this impact is due to the emissions of phosphates to fresh water, occurring primarily in the mining stage. The EP for hard coal is around five times lower (2.3 g PO 4 -eq./kwh) and for gas two orders of magnitude smaller (0.1 g PO 4 -eq./kwh) than for lignite. Like lignite, the emissions of phosphates during mining are the biggest contributor (73%) for hard coal power while for natural gas. NO x emissions from fuel combustion (64%) and transportation (26%) contribute the majority of this impact Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) Lignite power has an estimated FAETP of 2.1 kg dichlorobenzene (DCB)-eq./kWh. The value for FAETP for hard coal power is 0.4 kg DCB-eq./kWh, around five times lower than for lignite power. Both values are still several orders of magnitude higher than for gas power which is estimated at 3.5 g DCB-eq./kWh. Mining is the single largest contributor to the FAETP (>80%) for both lignite and hard coal, while for gas, 40% is from gas extraction, 31% from its transportation and 20% from plant construction. The majority of the impact for all three options is due to the emissions of metals to freshwater during mining, including nickel, beryllium, cobalt, vanadium, copper and barium Global warming potential (GWP) As can be seen in Figure 5, this impact is highest for hard coal at 1126 g CO 2 -eq./kwh, followed by lignite with 1062 g CO 2 -eq./kwh and gas with less than half of that (499 g CO 2 -eq./kwh). For all three options, the majority of the GWP is from fuel combustion, ranging from 97% for lignite to 83% for hard coal and 74% for gas. The second largest contributor for the latter is gas distribution (17%) because of its leakage during the longdistance pipeline transport. The CO 2 emissions account for 98% of the total GWP for lignite and around 90% for both hard coal and gas power. Page 66 of 303

67 Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Lignite Hard coal Gas Chapter 2 16 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling credits ADP elements x ADP fossil [MJ] AP [g SO2-eq.] EP [g PO4-eq.] FAETP [kg 0.01 [mg Sb-eq.] DCB-eq.] GWP x 0.1 [kg CO2-eq.] HTP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP [t DCBeq.] ODP x 0.01 [mg R11-eq.] POCP x 0.1 [g C2H4-eq.] TETP [g DCBeq.] Figure 5: Environmental impacts per kwh of electricity [The values shown on top of each bar represent the total impact after the recycling credits for the plant construction materials have been taken into account. Some values have been rounded off and may not correspond exactly to those quoted in the text. ADP elements: Abiotic depletion of elements; ADP fossil: Abiotic depletion of fossil; AP: Acidification potential; EP: Eutrophication potential; FAETP: Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential; GWP: Global warming potential; HTP: Human toxicity potential; MAETP: Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential; ODP: Ozone layer depletion potential; POCP: Photochemical oxidants creation potential; TETP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential] Page 67 of 303

68 Chapter Human toxicity potential (HTP) The HTP for electricity from lignite is estimated at 1393 g DCB-eq./kWh, nearly five times higher than for hard coal (301 g DCB-eq./kWh) and 232 times greater than for gas electricity (6 g DCB-eq./kWh). This is largely due to the impact from lignite mining (62%) and particularly as a result of emissions of selenium, molybdenum, beryllium and barium. The rest of the impact is associated with the emissions generated during fuel combustion to generate electricity. Similar contribution is found for hard coal electricity, except that, in addition to mining (64%) and plant operation (25%), coal transport is also a contributor (10%). Gas power shows a different trend, with plant construction contributing nearly half of the HTP (46%) owing to the emissions of heavy metals to air, including chromium, arsenic and nickel. The next largest contributor is gas extraction (26%), with the rest being from transport (17%) and plant operation (11%) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) Electricity from lignite emits 6.4 t DCB-eq./kWh, nearly five times more than hard coal (1.4 t DCB-eq./kWh) and three orders of magnitude more than gas power (6.9 kg DCBeq./kWh). For all three types of technologies, mining is the main source of this impact (Figure 5), mainly because of the emissions of heavy metals to water Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) The ODP of lignite is estimated at 1.9 µg R11-eq./kWh, 60% of which is from mining and the rest from plant operation. The impact from hard coal is four times higher (7.6 µg R11- eq./kwh) and that from gas 48 times higher (92 µg R11-eq./kWh), largely from transport of fuels and in particular the emissions of halons 1211 and 1301 used as fire suppressants in gas pipelines Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) Lignite and hard coal-based power have the POCP of 0.48 g C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh and 0.33 g C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh, respectively. The large majority of this impact is due to the emissions of SO 2, NO x and CO from coal combustion (see Figure 5). By contrast, the main source of the POCP estimated at 180 mg C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh for gas electricity is fuel extraction (66%) because of the emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds, N 2 O and SO 2. Page 68 of 303

69 Chapter Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) The TETP of the lignite power life cycle is equivalent to 3.9 g DCB-eq./kWh and that of hard coal to 1.9 g DCB-eq./kWh; the impact from gas power is one order of magnitude lower (0.3 g DCB-eq./kWh). Emissions to air and soil of mercury, chromium, vanadium and arsenic are the main cause of this impact for all three options Comparison of results with literature As far as we are aware, there are no other LCA studies of electricity generation from fossil fuels in Turkey so comparison of the results with other studies is not possible. However, similar studies for other countries abound in LCA databases (PE International, 2013; Ecoinvent, 2010) and academic literature (e.g. Stamford and Azapagic, 2012; Pehnt and Henkel, 2009; Santoyo-Castelazo et al., 2011) so that the current results are compared to these sources in Figure 6-Figure 8. As can be seen, a wide range of values has been reported for each impact across different studies. This is primarily due to the different technological assumptions, such as plant efficiency, fuel origin and pollution control measures as well as the background data used to estimate the impacts. As can be seen from the figures, all the impacts per kwh generated electricity estimated in this study are well within the ranges reported in the literature. For example, for lignite power the GWP falls between 866 and 1700 g CO 2- eq./kwh, which compares well with the estimate in this study of 1062 g CO 2 -eq./kwh. For hard coal electricity, the GWP in the literature ranges between 872 and 1628 g CO 2- eq./kwh so that the value of 1126 g CO 2- eq./kwh obtained in the current study sits well within the range. The GWP for gas power reported in the literature ranges between 383 and 996 g CO 2- eq./kwh, compared to the value of 499 g CO 2 -eq./kwh obtained in the current study. Page 69 of 303

70 Chapter Current study Literature ADP ADP fossil elements x 100 [MJ] x 0.1 [mg Sb-eq.] AP x 0.1 [kg SO2- eq.] EP x 0.1 [kg PO4- eq.] FAETP x 10 [kg DCB-eq.] GWP [kg CO2-eq.] HTP [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP x 10 [t DCBeq.] ODP x 0.01 [mg R11-eq.] POCP [g C2H4-eq.] TETP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq.] Figure 6: Comparison of the results from current study with the literature for lignite power [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated, estimated using the CML 2001 method. Literature data from Ecoinvent (2010), PE International (2013), Weisser (2007) and Pehnt and Henkel (2009). For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 5.] 1.8 Current study Literature ADP ADP fossil elements x x 100 [MJ] 0.1 [mg Sb-eq.] AP x 0.1 [kg SO2- eq.] EP x 0.01 FAETP [kg GWP [kg [kg PO4- eq.] DCB-eq.] CO2-eq.] HTP [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP x 10 [t DCBeq.] ODP x 0.01 [mg R11-eq.] POCP [g C2H4-eq.] TETP x 0.01 [kg DCB-eq.] Figure 7: Comparison of the results from current study with the literature for hard coal power [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated, estimated using the CML 2001 method. Literature data from Ecoinvent (2010), PE International (2013) and Stamford and Azapagic (2012). For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 5.] Page 70 of 303

71 Chapter Current study Literature 0.0 ADP elements [mg Sbeq] ADP fossil AP x 0.01 x 100 [MJ] [kg SO2- eq] EP [g PO4-eq] FAETP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq] GWP [kg CO2-eq] HTP [kg DCB-eq] MAETP [t DCB-eq] ODP [mg R11-eq] POCP [g C2H4-eq] TETP [g DCB-eq] Figure 8: Comparison of the results from current study with the literature for gas power [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated, estimated using the CML 2001 method. Literature data from Ecoinvent (2010), PE International (2013), Weisser (2007), Kannan et al. (2005), Santoyo-Castelazo et al. (2011) and Stamford and Azapagic (2012). For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 5.] 3.3. Annual environmental impacts The annual environmental impacts from fossil-based electricity generated in Turkey in 2010 have been estimated using the impacts per kwh discussed in the previous section and the total fossil-fuel electricity generated that year (153,190 GWh); the results are shown in Figure 9. For example, the annual GWP is estimated at 109 Mt CO 2 -eq., of which gas power contributes 45%, lignite 35% and hard coal 20%. The direct emissions are equivalent to 91.2 Mt CO 2 -eq. which compares well to the direct emissions of 95.8 Mt CO 2 -eq. from coal and gas electricity estimated by FutureCamp (2011). The difference (4.8%) between the two estimates stems from different assumptions, including the efficiency of the power plants and the amount of fuel used in different power plants. As can also been seen from Figure 9, the majority of the impacts are from lignite and hard coal. This is despite the fact that the amount of electricity generated by the gas power plants is 2.7 and 5.1 times higher than that of lignite and hard coal, respectively (Table 3- Table 5). The notable exception to this is the ODP, which is almost entirely (98%) from gas electricity because of the fire suppressants mentioned in the previous section. Page 71 of 303

72 Chapter Lignite Hard coal Natural Gas ADP ADP fossilap x 10 [kt elements xx 100 [PJ] SO2-eq.] 0.1 [t Sbeq.] EP x 0.01 [Mt PO4- eq.] FAETP [Mt DCBeq.] GWP [Mt CO2-eq.] HTP [Mt DCB-eq.] MAETP x 10 [Gt DCB-eq.] ODP x 100 [kg R11-eq.] POCP [kt TETP x 10 C2H4-eq.] [kt DCBeq.] Figure 9: Annual environmental impacts from fossil-fuel electricity generated in Turkey in 2010 [For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 5.] 4. Conclusions This study has estimated for the first time the life cycle environmental impacts of fossil-fuel electricity in Turkey. The results suggest that electricity from gas has the lowest impacts than power from lignite and hard coal for ten out of 11 categories considered, including GWP. The latter is estimated at 499 g CO 2 -eq./kwh for gas, which is less than half the value for lignite (1062 g CO 2 -eq./kwh) and hard coal power plants (1126 g CO 2 -eq./kwh). However, the ODP from gas electricity is 48 times higher for gas than for lignite and 12 times greater than for hard coal. Power from lignite is the worst option overall, with eight impacts higher than for hard coal, ranging from 11% higher ADP fossil to almost six times greater FAETP. On the other hand, the ADP elements and ODP are around four times lower from lignite power than from hard coal; the GWP is almost 6% lower. The impacts are caused mainly during the operation of power plants and transportation of fuels. Construction and decommissioning of the plants have negligible impacts. The credits for recycling of materials after decommissioning reduce the impacts by less than 1%; the only exception to this is depletion of elements which is reduced by around 35%. Page 72 of 303

73 Chapter 2 Annually, electricity generation from fossil fuels emits 109 Mt CO 2 -eq. on a life cycle basis, of which the majority is from lignite and hard coal power, despite the gas plants generating 2.7 and 5.1 more electricity, respectively. These results highlight the importance of reducing the share of lignite and hard coal power in the electricity mix of Turkey which would lead to significant reductions in environmental impacts from the electricity sector, including GHG emissions. In the short term, this could be achieved by expanding the use of natural gas; however, ozone layer depletion would increase significantly compared to electricity from lignite and hard coal. Further short-term measures to reduce emissions include energy efficiency improvements to the current plants and wider adoption of pollution control technologies; the latter should be legislated more tightly. In the medium to long term, expansion of renewable electricity generation should be considered, including wind and sun energy which are abundant in Turkey. The role of carbon capture and storage as well as nuclear power in country s future electricity mix should also be investigated. A sustainability assessment considering life cycle environmental impacts, economic costs and social aspects of these options would help the industry and policy makers in Turkey to identify and implement most sustainable electricity options for the future. This is the subject of ongoing research by the authors. Page 73 of 303

74 Chapter 2 References Aslanoglu, S. Y., Koksal, M.A, Elektrik uretimine bagli karbondioksit emisyonunun bolgesel olarak belirlenmesi ve uzun donem tahmini. Hava Kirliligi Arastirma Dergisi (HKAD), 1, BOTAS, Natural Gas / Crude Oil Report. Ankara, Turkey: Petroleum Pipeline Corporation. Ecoinvent, Ecoinvent Database v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: St Gallen, Switzerland. EEA, European Environment Agency, Greenhouse Gas Data Viewer: European Environment Agency [Online]. Available from: EIA, Turkey Energy Data, Statistics and Analysis: Oil, Gas, Electricity and Coal. Country Analysis Briefs. Energy Information Administration. EMRA, Natural Gas Sector Report. Ankara, Turkey: Republic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority. EUAS, Annual Report. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Generation Company. FutureCamp, Baseline Emission Calculations. Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), version 3. Ankara, Turkey. Guinée, J. B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R.and Koning, A., Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. Paris: International Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency. ISO, 2006a. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. ISO, 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. Kannan, R., Leong, K. C., Osman, R., Ho, H. K.and Tso, C. P., Gas fired combined cycle plant in Singapore: Energy use, GWP and cost and life cycle approach. Energy Conversion and Management, 46(13 14), Page 74 of 303

75 Chapter 2 MENR, Energy Statistics of Turkey, 2010: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources [Online]. Available from: =244&id=398 MENR, Mavi Kitap (Blue Book). Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. MEU, First National Communication of Turkey on Climate Change. Ankara, Turkey: Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Öko Institute, Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems (GEMIS) v.4.8. Available from: Ozturk, M., Yuksel, Y. E.and Ozek, N., A bridge between East and West: Turkey's natural gas policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), PE International, GaBi version 6. Stuttgart, Echterdingen. Pehnt, M.and Henkel, J., Life cycle assessment of carbondioxide capture and storage from lignite power plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(1), REPRISK, Special Report on MINT Countries: ESG Issues in Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey. Santoyo-Castelazo, E., Gujba, H.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mexico. Energy, 36(3), Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK. International Journal of Energy Research, 36(14), TEIAS, Annual Report. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation. TEIAS, Electricity Generation and Transmission Statistics of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation [Online]. Available from: TEIAS, Turkiye Elektrik Enerjisi Uretim Planlama Calismasi ( ). Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation, Research Planning and Coordination Department. TKI, Lignite Sector Report of Turkey Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, General Directorate of Turkish Coal Enterprises. TPAO, The Oil and Gas Sector Report of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Petroleum Corporation. Page 75 of 303

76 Chapter 2 TTKI, Hard Coal Sector Report of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, General Directorate of Turkish Coal Enterprises. TUIK, 2011a. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistical Institute. TUIK, 2011b. Turkey's Statistical Year Book. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistical Institute. van Oers, L., CML-IA Characterisation Factors. [November 2010]. Available from: Weisser, D., A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy, 32(9), Page 76 of 303

77 Chapter 3 Chapter 3: Renewable Electricity in Turkey: Life Cycle Environmental Impacts This paper was published in Renewable Energy in December 2015 with the following citation: Atilgan, B. and Azapagic, A., Renewable electricity in Turkey: Life cycle environmental impacts. Renewable Energy, 89, This research consists of an environmental life cycle assessment of large and small reservoir hydropower, run-of-river hydropower, onshore wind and geothermal plants in Turkey. Table and figure numbers have been amended to fit into the structure of this thesis. Annex During the Viva examination for this thesis, it was agreed that clarification was required with respect to the uncertainties related to the GHG emissions from the large reservoir hydropower plants. As described within the paper, the biggest contributor (86.6%) is the emissions of methane from the degradation of biomass submerged in the water. The methane emission factor for the large reservoir power has been sourced from the Ecoinvent v2.2. and assumed as g/kwh (Bauer and Bolliger, 2007; Dones et al., 2007). This methane emission factor depends on the geographical conditions such as depth and the altitude of the reservoir. In addition biomass degradation depends on the temperature. When the altitude and the depth of the reservoir are low and temperature is high, the methane emission is high (Bauer and Bolliger, 2007). Due to the lack of specific data on these conditions for the large reservoir hydropower plants in Turkey, the methane emission factor was used without any changes. Page 77 of 303

78 Chapter 3 Renewable Electricity in Turkey: Life Cycle Environmental Impacts Burcin Atilgan and Adisa Azapagic* School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK * Corresponding author, Tel: , adisa.azapagic@manchester.ac.uk Abstract This paper applies a life cycle approach to evaluate for the first time the environmental impacts of renewable electricity in Turkey. There are 305 power plants utilising hydro, wind and geothermal resources, all of which are considered in the study. The results indicate that the impacts from large reservoir hydropower are lower than for the small reservoir (by 45%-72%) and run-of-river hydropower (by 74%-84%). The exceptions are the global warming potential (GWP) and summer smog which are two times and 45% higher for large than small reservoir, respectively. Onshore wind is the worst option overall, with nine out of 11 impacts higher than for hydropower and geothermal. However, its GWP is 9 times and 11% lower than for geothermal and large reservoir, respectively. Acidification from geothermal is 281 times higher than for wind power. Geothermal is the best option for six impacts. Large reservoir has the lowest depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as acidification. Small reservoir and run-of-river plants are the best and geothermal the worst options for the GWP. The majority of the annual impacts from the renewable electricity mix are from hydropower with the exception of acidification which is largely from geothermal electricity. Keywords: Electricity generation; environmental impacts; life cycle assessment; renewable energy; Turkey Page 78 of 303

79 Chapter 3 1. Introduction Turkey has a significant potential for a variety of renewable energy resources, including solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy and hydropower. Despite this, the country's energy sector is still dominated by imported fossil fuels with only around 10% of the total energy consumption supplied by renewable sources in 2010 (MENR, 2012). The majority of this was from hydropower (4%) and biomass (3%). The contribution from other sources was low, ranging from 1.1% for animal and vegetable waste, 0.5% for geothermal, 0.3% for wind to 0.1% for solar energy (WEC, 2011; MENR, 2012). The share of renewables in the primary energy mix has been declining since the 1970s, particularly biomass, mainly because of deforestation and other environmental concerns (MENR, 2012; WEC, 2005). The country also imports twice as much energy as it generates: 109,266 kt of oil equivalent (ktoe) of primary energy was consumed in 2010, of which only 32,493 ktoe was generated domestically and the rest was imported (MENR, 2012). Hydropower is currently the most common renewable energy source and plays an important part in Turkey s electricity sector. The theoretical viable hydroelectric potential of the country has been estimated at 433 TWh/year, nearly 1% of the total hydropower potential of the world (DSI, 2010; DSI, 2011). However, when technological limitations are considered, this potential decreases to 216 TWh/year. The country s economically viable hydroelectric potential is 140 TWh/year which is equal to around 16% of Europe s economically viable hydroelectric potential (DSI, 2010; DSI, 2011). In 2010, the total hydropower installed capacity was 15,831 MW, generating an average of 51,795 GWh/year. This is nearly 24% of the technical and 37% of the economically viable hydroelectric potential of the country. Turkey also has a significant potential for wind energy, estimated at approximately 48,000 MW with an annual production capacity of 130 TWh/year (EMRA, 2014). Currently, only a fraction of the wind potential is utilised: in 2010, the installed onshore wind power capacity was 1320 MW producing 2916 GWh per annum; there are no offshore installations. Turkey is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of geothermal energy resources, with the overall potential of 31.5 GW (EMRA, 2014). Like wind, only a fraction of the geothermal potential is realised at present, with the installed electrical capacity of 94.2 MW which in 2010 generated 668 GWh (TEIAS, 2012). The majority of the installations are flash (62.4%) and the rest are binary cycle plants (Parlaktuna et al., 2013). Page 79 of 303

80 Chapter 3 Electricity demand has been increasing rapidly in Turkey (MENR, 2012). The total installed capacity in 2010 reached 49,524 MW, generating 211,208 GWh, almost seven times higher than in the mid-80s (TEIAS, 2012). As indicated in Figure 10, the large majority (73.6%) of electricity was generated by fossil fuels, with the rest contributed mainly by hydropower (24.5%). Coal 26.1% Liquid fuels 1.0% Hydro 24.5% Renewables 26.4% Geothermal 0.3% Natural gas 46.5% Wind 1.4% Other renewables and wastes 0.2% Figure 10: Share of different technologies in electricity generation in Turkey in 2010 (EUAS, 2011) In an attempt to reduce the country s dependence on imports and maximise use of the domestic energy potential, the Turkish government has set a target for 30% of the electricity generation to be provided from renewable resources by 2023 (SPO, 2009). This includes a target for 20,000 MW of wind and 600 MW of geothermal power. The government is also encouraging the expansion and utilisation of solar energy for electricity generation. To stimulate investment in renewables, various incentive schemes have been introduced (Simsek and Simsek, 2013; Kilic, 2011). For example, renewable energy plants with an installed capacity of 500 kw or less are exempt from licencing obligations (Baris and Kucukali, 2012). Legal entities applying to obtain a licence from the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA) to generate electricity from renewable sources are required to pay an initial 1% of the total licencing fee and then they are exempt from the annual licencing costs for the first eight years from the facility completion date (Kilic, 2011). Page 80 of 303

81 Chapter 3 Furthermore, the fees to be paid for planning permission, rent, right of access or usage permission are reduced by 85% during the first 10 years. The government also guarantees to buy electricity from renewable power plants that started operation between 18 May 2005 to 31 December 2015, offering a feed-in tariff of 7.3 US$ cent/kwh for wind and hydropower, 10.5 US$ cent/kwh for geothermal and 13.3 US$ cent/kwh for solar and biomass (including landfill gas) plants (Simsek and Simsek, 2013). Turkey is also concerned about the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which are rising rapidly: in 2010, they reached Mt CO 2 -eq., a two-fold increase on 1990 levels (EEA, 2012). Of this, 71% was emitted by the energy sector (TUIK, 2011a) to which electricity generation contributed 25% or 99 Mt CO 2 -eq. (FutureCamp, 2011). While Turkey still has the lowest GHG emission per capita (5.6 t CO 2 -eq.) in Europe (9.4 t CO 2 -eq. in the EU28) (EEA, 2012), they are set to increase owing to the growing energy demand. Given the country s large potential for renewable energy, a significant amount of GHG emissions could be avoided. However, at present it is not known how much and also how some other environmental impacts may be affected by the planned expansion of renewables. For that reason, this paper sets out to explore the environmental sustainability of current renewable electricity generation in Turkey, to provide a baseline for future planning. Taking a life cycle approach, the study considers environmental impacts of electricity generation from reservoir and run-of-river hydropower, wind and geothermal power plants. As far as the authors are aware, this is the first time such a study has been carried out for renewable electricity in Turkey. The following section details the methodology, assumptions and data sources. This is followed in Section 3 by a discussion and comparison of the results with literature. The conclusions and recommendations are summarised in Section Methodology The environmental impacts of electricity generation from renewable sources in Turkey have been estimated using life cycle assessment (LCA), following the ISO and methodology (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b). The software package GaBi v.6 (PE International, 2013) has been used to model the power options and estimate the environmental impacts. The following sections describe the goal and scope of the study as well as the systems considered. Page 81 of 303

82 Chapter Goal and scope definition The main goal of the study is to estimate the life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation from the renewable power systems in Turkey. A further aim is to compare the impacts from large and small reservoir, run-of-river, wind and geothermal power plants to help inform future energy planning. The year 2010 has been chosen as the time reference since this is the year for which the most complete data are available. Two functional units are considered: generation of 1 kwh of renewable electricity; and annual generation of renewable electricity, in this case 55,379 GWh generated in The scope of the study for all electricity options is from cradle to grave, comprising the following life cycle stages: operation to generate electricity, plant construction and decommissioning at the end of their useful lifetime. Figure 11 outlines the life cycle system boundaries for each technology considered. Since the functional units are related to generation of electricity, its distribution, transmission and consumption are outside the system boundary. Hydropower Hydropower Hydropower plant construction Hydropower plant operation Hydropower plant decommissioning Electricity Wind Wind power Wind turbine construction Wind turbine operation Wind turbine decommissioning Electricity Geothermal Geothermal power Geothermal plant construction Geothermal plant operation Geothermal plant decommissioning Electricity Figure 11: The life cycle of renewable electricity from cradle to grave Page 82 of 303

83 Chapter Data and assumptions There are 55 reservoir hydropower, 205 run-of-river hydropower, 39 onshore wind and six geothermal power plants in Turkey, all of which are considered in this study; for details, see Appendix 2. The primary data for this study have been obtained from the Turkish Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR), Turkish Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAS), Turkish Electricity Generation Corporation (EUAS), the Directorate General of State Hydraulic Works (DSI), Turkish Wind Energy Association (TUREB) and Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA). Additional information and data have been gathered from government and industrial reports, academic literature as well as through personal communication with members from the Turkish Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR). All data sources are detailed further below. The data for the renewable power plants for the year 2010 are summarised in Table 9; for details for the individual plants see Appendix 2. The inventory data and assumptions used to model the hydro and wind plants can be found in Table 10 and Table 11. Table 9: Renewable power plants in Turkey in 2010 Type of power plant Number of plants Installed capacity (MW) Annual Generation (GWh) Percentage of total renewable electricity generation (%) Large reservoir , hydropower (capacity >500 MW) Small reservoir , hydropower (capacity <500 MW) Run-of-river hydropower Onshore wind (682 turbines) Geothermal Total 17,245 55, The background life cycle inventory data for reservoir hydropower plants have been sourced from Ecoinvent (Ecoinvent, 2010) and ESU (Flury and Frischknecht, 2012). Since the data for construction materials for reservoir plants in these sources correspond to smaller plants (175.6 MW in Ecoinvent and 95 MW in ESU), the size of plants has been scaled up to estimate the materials needed for bigger plants (see Table 10 for details). All life cycle data for the run-of-river hydropower plants are from ESU (Flury and Page 83 of 303

84 Chapter 3 Frischknecht, 2012). The size of the plant has been scaled up from 8.6 MW to 13.5 MW. The construction data set for large and small reservoir as well as run-of-river plants includes manufacturing, processing and transportation of construction materials and energy requirements for construction. Construction materials are assumed to be transported 200 km by rail and 100 km by lorry. During the operation of the hydropower plants, no resources are used except lubrication oil. At the end of the useful lifetime, the plant construction waste is recycled assuming that 50% of metals and concrete and 20% of plastics is recycled (Table 10); the system has been credited for the recycled materials. The inventory data for onshore wind turbines are taken from a model for 2 MW turbines (Kouloumpis et al., 2015), based on the Vestas V80 turbine. The size of the turbine has been scaled down from 2 MW to 1.94 MW. Both fixed (tower and basement) and moving parts (rotor, nacelle, mechanics, cabling and electronics) are considered for the construction of the turbines, taking into account manufacturing of construction materials, transportation and energy requirements for installation. Construction materials are assumed to be transported 100 km by lorry and 100 km by rail; the turbine is transported at a distance of 2000 km by rail and 150 km by lorry to the installation location (see Table 11). Lubrication oil is used during maintenance and operation of the turbines. Transportation for operation and maintenance purposes is also included in the model. At the end of its service life, the turbine is dismantled and components are recycled using the same recycling rates as for the hydro-plants. Since no Turkish data are available for geothermal power, the model available in the GaBi database (PE International, 2013). The installed capacity of the power plant is 30 MW and it generates 250 GWh/year using a flash steam design. It consists of geothermal production wells with well head and spencer, power plant buildings and the collection pipes that transport the hot water and steam. As it was not possible to alter the model to Turkish conditions owing to a lack of data, the data were used without any changes. However, the geothermal power contributes only about 1% of the renewable electricity generation in Turkey (see Table 1), so that this limitation is not deemed significant. Moreover, the GaBi model is representative of standard, widely adopted geothermal plant designs. As mentioned above and shown in Table 10, the data for the size of reservoir and run-ofriver hydropower plants and wind turbines have been scaled in order to match the average plant capacity in Turkey. The scaling approach typically used to estimate the costs of plants with differing capacities (Coulson et al., 1993) has been used for these Page 84 of 303

85 Chapter 3 purposes. This method takes into account the economies of scale, whereby larger plants cost less to build per unit of capacity than smaller installations. The same analogy has been applied to the environmental impacts, which would also be lower per unit of capacity for bigger than smaller plants. Thus, the impacts have been scaled according to the following relationship (Greening and Azapagic, 2013): E 2 C E1 [23] C1 where: E 1 - environmental impacts of the larger plants E 2 - environmental impacts of the smaller plants C 1 - capacity of the larger plant C 2 - capacity of the smaller plant the six-tenths scaling factor. Further detail on the assumptions related to large and small reservoir, run-of-river and wind plants is provided below. Page 85 of 303

86 Chapter 3 Table 10: Assumptions and summary of inventory data for renewable sources Life cycle stage Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Plant construction Plant operation Large reservoir See Table 9 for details Data based on Ecoinvent a,b with the average size of MW plant and scaled up to 1057 MW plant Lifetime: 150 years a,c Small reservoir See Table 9 for details Data based on ESU c with the average size of 95 MW plant and scaled up to 98 MW plant Life time: 150 years a,c Large reservoir Lubricating oil: 7 mg/kwh Small reservoir Lubricating oil: 0.03 mg/kwh See Table 9 for details Data based on ESU c with the average size of 8.6 MW plant and scaled up to 13.5 MW plant Life time: 80 years a,c Lubricating oil: 0.12 mg/kwh See Table 9 for details Data based on the average size of 2 MW turbine d and scaled down to 1.94 MW turbine Lifetime: 40 years for fixed parts and 20 years for moving parts Lubricating oil: 43.1 mg/kwh Plant decommissioning e Metals and concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled Metals and concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled a Source: Dones et al. (2007). b Source: Bauer and Bolliger (2007). c Source: Flury and Frischknecht (2012). d Source: Kouloumpis et al. (2015). e The system has been credited for recycling. The recycling rates are assumed due to a lack of data. Metals and concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled Page 86 of 303

87 Chapter 3 Table 11: Summary of transport modes and distances Transport mode Distance b Large and small reservoir hydropower Construction materials a Freight train 200 km Lorry > 16 tonne 100 km Run-of-river hydropower Construction materials a Freight train 200 km Lorry > 16 tonne 100 km Onshore wind turbine Construction materials Freight train 100 km Lorry > 16 tonne 100 km Turbine Freight train 2000 km Lorry > 16 tonne 150 km Maintenance Passenger car 100 person. km/year a It is assumed that gravel is extracted at the construction site. b Estimated by using online mapping. 3. Results and discussion The CML 2001 impact assessment method, November 2010 update (Guinée et al., 2001; van Oers, 2010), has been used to estimate the environmental impacts via GaBi software (PE International, 2013). The following impacts are considered: abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements and fossil), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP), global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity potential (HTP), marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP), photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP), also known as summer smog, and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP). The results are shown in Figure 12 Figure 16 and are discussed in the following sections, first per kwh of electricity and then for the total electricity generation from renewables in Environmental impacts per kwh of electricity generated The life cycle environmental impacts per kwh of electricity generated by different renewable technologies are compared in Figure 12. The impacts from large reservoirs are lower than for small reservoirs, ranging from 45% lower ADP fossil to 72% lower ADP elements. Large reservoir hydropower also has lower impacts than run-of-river plants, ranging from 74% lower TETP to 84% lower ADP elements. The exceptions to this are the GWP and POCP. The former is around two times higher for large than for the small Page 87 of 303

88 Chapter 3 reservoir and run-of-river hydropower. This is largely due to the greenhouse gases emitted by the flooded biomass and soil, mainly dependent on the type of plant, reservoir size, water depth and climate. The POCP for small reservoir is 45% lower than for the large reservoir and run-of-river plants. This is because the large reservoir has higher biogenic emissions of methane while run-of-river has higher impact from construction than small reservoir plants. The results also indicate that electricity from onshore wind is the worst option overall, with nine out of 11 impacts higher than for hydroelectricity and geothermal power. This is due to the impacts from the life cycles of construction materials. However, the GWP of wind power is 88% and 11% lower than for geothermal electricity and large reservoir hydropower, respectively. On the other hand, the acidification potential of geothermal power is around 280 times higher than from wind power because of the air emissions of hydrogen sulphide (99.9%). Overall, geothermal power is the best option for six impacts (eutrophication, ozone layer depletion and all the toxicity categories). Large reservoir hydropower has the lowest depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as acidification. Small reservoir and run-of-river plants are the best and geothermal power worst options for the global warming potential. Figure 12 also shows that construction of the power plants is the main contributor to the environmental impacts. Recycling of materials after decommissioning reduces the impacts by up to 40% (based on the assumptions made in this study). These results for each impact are discussed in more detail below. Note that all the results incorporate the credits for material recycling Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) The depletion of elements for large reservoir hydropower is estimated at 3 μg Sb-eq./kWh. This is four times lower than the impact for small reservoir plants and seven times smaller than for the run-of-river option (see Figure 12). Almost all of the impact is incurred in the construction stage (>97%) for all three types of hydroelectricity. Recycling of construction materials reduces depletion of elements by 21% for large reservoir and 40% for run-ofriver. The wind turbine plants deplete 67 μg Sb-eq./kWh of abiotic elements. Similar to hydropower options, power plant construction is almost entirely (99.7%) responsible for the elements depletion because of the use of metals such as chromium (35%), copper Page 88 of 303

89 Chapter 3 (29%), molybdenum (14%) and nickel (12%). Some reduction (33%) in the impact is also due to the credits for the recycled materials. The depletion of elements from geothermal power is estimated at 5 μg Sb-eq./kWh, mainly because of the depletion of natural gypsum (29%), lead (25%), chromium (22%), molybdenum (13%) and copper (6%) Abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) This impact for all the options is mainly due to the energy used for the extraction and processing of construction materials. Large reservoir hydropower consumes 10 kj/kwh of fossil resources. By comparison, the amount depleted by the small reservoir is 18 kj/kwh and that by the run-of-river plants is 40 kj/kwh. However, the worst option is wind power which consumes 109 kj/kwh, almost six times more than the small reservoir hydropower and geothermal electricity Acidification potential (AP) Large reservoir hydropower has the lowest AP, with a value of 3 mg SO 2 -eq./kwh. The impact from small reservoir hydroelectricity is around two times higher (7 mg SO 2 - eq./kwh) than for large reservoir hydroelectricity (Figure 12). The emissions of SO 2 and NO x contribute respectively 53% and 44% to the total impact from reservoir hydropower. At 15 mg SO 2 -eq./kwh, the AP from run-of-river is five times higher than from large reservoir and is due to the emissions of NO x (51%) and SO 2 (47%), generated largely during the construction of the plant. The onshore wind AP is estimated at 31 mg SO 2 - eq./kwh, around 10 times higher than for large reservoir. Almost all of the impact is due to the emissions of SO 2 (72%) and NO x (25%), mainly from the production of the metal components. Geothermal power is significantly worse than any other option considered here, with the AP of 8755 mg SO 2 -eq./kwh and almost all of the impact (99.9%) is due to the air emissions of hydrogen sulphide Eutrophication potential (EP) The EP of electricity from the run-of-river plants is equal to 6.3 mg PO 4 -eq./kwh. This impact from large reservoir is around five times lower (1.2 mg PO 4 -eq./kwh) and for small reservoir around two times lower (2.8 mg PO 4 -eq./kwh) than for run-of-river hydropower. Plant construction is the main hotspot, contributing between 89% for large reservoir and 99% for run-of-river power, owing to the emissions of phosphates to freshwater and NO x to air. Electricity from onshore wind emits 15.2 mg PO 4 -eq./kwh with 97% arising from the Page 89 of 303

90 Chapter 3 plant construction stage and particularly the emissions of phosphates to freshwater related to the copper and steel production chain. As can be seen in Figure 12, recycling of construction materials reduces the impact by around 25% for the wind and the hydroplants, except for the large reservoir (12%). Despite these reductions, the best option is geothermal power with 1 mg PO 4 -eq./kwh. The main contributors (86%) to the EP from geothermal power are NO x emissions to air Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) Large reservoir hydropower has an estimated FAETP of 0.4 g DCB-eq./kWh and small reservoir 1.1 g DCB-eq./kWh, nearly three times higher. Both values are still lower than for run-of-river hydropower which is equivalent to 2.1 g DCB-eq./kWh (Figure 12). The majority of the impact for all three hydroelectricity options is due to the emissions of metals to fresh water associated with the construction materials, including nickel, beryllium, cobalt and vanadium. FAETP from wind power is estimated at 11.6 g DCBeq./kWh, around 10 times higher than for small reservoir hydroelectricity. Emissions of copper (38%), nickel (36%), cobalt (8%) and beryllium (5%) to fresh water are the main contributors to this impact. The estimated value for the FAETP for geothermal power is g DCB-eq. per kwh of generated electricity, caused largely by emissions of copper, vanadium and nickel Global warming potential (GWP) Large reservoir has a GWP of 8.3 g CO 2 -eq./kwh. As can be seen in Figure 12, the biggest contributor (87%) is the operation of the power plant and in particular emissions of CO 2 (12.8%) and CH 4 (86.6%) from the degradation of biomass submerged in the water. The GWP for small reservoir and run-of-river hydropower is two times lower, estimated at 4.2 and 4.1 g CO 2 -eq./kwh, respectively. For the small reservoir, the GHG emissions during plant construction (64%) and operation (35%) are the biggest contributors while for the run-of-river, almost all of the impact (99%) is from plant construction. The emissions from the operation of the run-of-river plants are the smallest as the water is stored for a short time. For wind power, the GWP of 7.3 g CO 2 -eq./kwh is mainly due to the emissions associated with the energy used to manufacture the turbine components. This is nine times lower than the GWP from geothermal power (63.0 g CO 2 -eq./kwh) which is the worst option for this impact. The CO 2 emissions account for 91% of the total GWP for wind and 99% for geothermal power. Page 90 of 303

91 Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Chapter 3 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling credits Total geothermal ADP elements x ADP fossil x [mg Sb-eq.] [MJ] AP x 0.1 [g SO2-eq.] EP x 0.01 [g PO4-eq.] FAETP x 0.01 [kg DCB-eq.] GWP x 0.01 [kg CO2-eq.] HTP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP x 10 [kg DCB-eq.] ODP [μg R11- eq.] POCP x 0.01 [g C2H4-eq.] TETP [g DCBeq.] Figure 12: Environmental impacts from different renewable electricity options in Turkey [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated. For geothermal, the breakdown by life cycle stage is not available so that only total impacts are shown. The values shown on top of each bar represent the total impact after the recycling credits for the plant construction materials have been taken into account. ADP elements: Abiotic depletion of elements; ADP fossil: abiotic depletion of fossil resources; AP: acidification potential; EP: eutrophication potential; FAETP: fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential; GWP: Global warming potential; HTP: human toxicity potential; MAETP: marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential; ODP: ozone layer depletion potential; POCP: photochemical oxidants creation potential; TETP: terrestrial ecotoxicity potential.] Page 91 of 303

92 Chapter Human toxicity potential (HTP) The HTP for electricity from large reservoirs is estimated at 2 g DCB-eq./kWh, 2.5 times lower than for small reservoir (5 g DCB-eq./kWh) and 3.5 times smaller than for run-ofriver hydropower (7 g DCB-eq./kWh). As indicated in Figure 12, the plant construction accounts for nearly all (99%) of the HTP for the hydropower technologies, in particular the emissions of chromium, selenium, arsenic and nickel. Onshore wind is the worst option for this impact, with a value of 21 g DCB-eq./kWh. Turbine manufacturing is responsible for almost all the HTP, primarily because of the emissions to air and water of chromium (72%), arsenic (8%) and selenium (5%). The HTP for geothermal power is 21 times lower (1 g DCB-eq./kWh) than for wind power. The main contributor is the emission of hydrogen sulphide (93%) to air Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) Electricity from large reservoir hydro-plants emits 0.7 kg DCB-eq. per kwh. The impact from run-of-river hydropower is 3.5 kg DCB-eq./kWh, twice as high as from small reservoirs (1.7 kg DCB-eq./kWh). Emissions of beryllium, cobalt, selenium, vanadium and nickel to water and hydrogen fluoride emissions to air are the main burdens contributing to this category for all three hydroelectricity technologies. Wind power is the worst option for this impact, with a value of 12.5 kg DCB-eq./kWh, mainly caused by construction (87%) and decommissioning (12%) of the turbine. Similar to hydroelectricity, the main contributors are emissions to water of beryllium (27%), cobalt (9%), vanadium (10%), copper (7%) and selenium (4%) as well as air emissions of hydrogen fluoride (17%). Crediting the system for the recycled materials reduces the MAETP of wind power by 22% (Figure 12). Geothermal power is the best option with 0.5 kg DCB-eq./kWh, caused almost entirely (99%) by hydrogen fluoride emissions Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) The ozone layer depletion for the hydro options ranges from 0.06 µg R11-eq./kWh for large reservoir to 0.25 µg R11-eq./kWh run-of-river (see Figure 12). The impact from wind power is twice as high as the worst hydro option (0.49 µg R11-eq./kWh). The main contributors for both wind and hydropower are halons (1301 and 1211) used as fire suppressants during the production of construction materials such as glass fibre, concrete, chromium and steel as well as transport of the parts. The ODP from geothermal power is negligible (-4x10-6 µg/kwh). Page 92 of 303

93 Chapter Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) The POCP is similar for large reservoir and run-of-river, estimated at 2.1 mg C 2 H 4 - eq./kwh. This is higher than for small reservoir hydropower (1.2 mg C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh). The majority of the POCP for large reservoirs is due to the biogenic CH 4 (81%). For small reservoirs, the biggest contributors are plant construction and operation, particularly the emissions of biogenic CH 4 (30%), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) (27%), NO x (15%), SO 2 (13%) and CO (10%). By contrast, almost all of the impact (98%) for the run-of-river plants is from construction as a result of emissions of NMVOCs (40%), NO x (21%), CO (20%) and SO 2 (14%). The POCP of wind power is 4.1 mg C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh and it is mainly due to the construction stage (90%) with CO, NO x, SO 2 and NMVOCs contributing 91%. Geothermal power has the same impact as small reservoir power (1.2 mg C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh), caused by the emissions of NMVOCs (54%), CO (21%), NO x (16%) and SO 2 (10%) Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) The TETP of large reservoir hydropower is equivalent to 0.06 g DCB-eq./kWh and that of small reservoir to 0.14 g DCB-eq./kWh; the impact from run-of-river hydropower is 1.6 times higher than the latter (0.22 g DCB-eq./kWh). Emissions to air and soil of mercury, chromium and arsenic are the main cause of this impact for all three options. At 0.68 g DCB-eq./kWh, wind power is the worst option for this impact, with chromium (81%) and mercury (14%) emissions being the main contributors. As for the other toxicity categories, geothermal power is the best options with 1 mg DCB-eq./kWh, which is around two orders of magnitude lower than for wind power Comparison of results with literature As far as the authors are aware, there are no other studies on the life cycle environmental impacts of renewable electricity generation in Turkey, so direct comparison of the results is not possible. However, quite a few studies on renewable electricity technologies based in other countries are available in LCA databases (Ecoinvent, 2010; ESU, 2012) and academic literature; therefore, the current results are compared to these sources for each electricity option considered here. As can be seen from Figure 13-Figure 15, a wide range of values has been reported for each impact across different studies. This is primarily due to the different background data and assumptions, such as geographical regions, installed capacities, capacity factors, recycling rates and lifetimes. Page 93 of 303

94 Chapter 3 There are very few LCA studies of reservoir hydropower plants and most do not distinguish between the large and small reservoir. For this reason, the values for the large and small reservoir plants obtained in the current study (Figure 12) have been averaged and are compared in Figure 13 to the range of values found in the literature. As can be seen, the average values for the GWP, AP, EP, ODP, POCP and TETP estimated here fall within the range reported in other studies (Ecoinvent, 2010; ESU, 2012; Arnøy, 2013). For example, the GWP ranges between 2.7 and 11.6 g CO 2 -eq./kwh in the literature, which compares well to this study s average of 6.9 g CO 2 -eq./kwh for reservoir hydropower in Turkey. On the other hand, the results for the ADP elements, ADP fossil, FAETP, HTP and MAETP fall below the range of values in the existing databases (ESU, 2012; Ecoinvent, 2010). This is mainly because the size of the large reservoir plant assumed in this study is six times bigger than the one reported in Ecoinvent (see Table 10 for further details). Consequently, a lower amount of construction materials is required per kwh of energy generated and the associated impacts are lower. The large hydropower plants in Turkey also have a higher capacity factor than what is assumed in some studies, further reducing their impacts per kwh Reservoir - current study Reservoir - literature ADP ADP fossil elements [MJ] [mg Sbeq.] AP [g SO2-eq.] EP [g PO4-eq.] FAETP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq.] GWP [kg CO2-eq.] HTP [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP [t DCB-eq.] ODP x 0.1 [mg R11- eq.] POCP [g C2H4-eq.] TETP x 0.01 [kg DCB-eq.] Figure 13: Comparison of results from the current study with the literature for reservoir hydropower [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated. The current study results present the average values for large and small reservoir. Literature data from: ESU (2012), Ecoinvent (2010), Arnøy (2013). All impacts estimated using the CML 2001 method. For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 12.] Page 94 of 303

95 Chapter 3 As opposed to the reservoir, a number of LCA studies of run-of-river hydropower plants have been carried out (Arnøy and Modahl, 2013; Suwanit and Gheewala, 2011; Schuller and Albrecht, 2008; Ecoinvent, 2010; ESU, 2012; Pascale et al., 2011; Raadal et al., 2011). As indicated in Figure 14, all the environmental impacts obtained in the present study are comparable to the values reported in the literature. For example, the GWP reported in the literature is between 0.3 and 5.2 g CO 2 -eq./kwh, compared to the value of 4.1 g CO 2 -eq./kwh obtained in the current work Run-of-river - current study Run-of-river - literature ADP elements [mg Sbeq.] ADP fossil AP x 10 [g [MJ] SO2-eq.] EP [g PO4-eq.] FAETP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq.] GWP [kg CO2-eq.] HTP [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP [t DCB-eq.] ODP x 0.1 [mg R11- eq.] POCP [g C2H4-eq.] TETP x 0.01 [kg DCB-eq.] Figure 14: Comparison of results from the current study with the literature for runof-river hydropower [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated. Literature data from: Suwanit and Gheewala (2011), Schuller and Albrecht (2008), Arnøy and Modahl (2013), Pascale et al. (2011), Raadal et al. (2011), ESU (2012), Ecoinvent (2010). All impacts estimated using the CML 2001 method. For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 12.] There are also a number of LCA studies of onshore wind turbines (Ecoinvent, 2010; Martínez et al., 2009; Pereg and Hoz, 2013; Garrett and Rønde, 2013b; Garrett and Rønde, 2013a; Palomo and Gaillardon, 2014; Lahuerta and Saenz, 2011). As shown in Figure 8, the impacts range widely between the studies and the estimates in this study are well within the values reported in the literature. Page 95 of 303

96 Chapter Wind - current study Wind - literature ADP ADP fossil elements [MJ] [mg Sbeq.] AP [g SO2-eq.] EP [g PO4-eq.] FAETP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq.] GWP x 0.1 [kg CO2-eq.] HTP [kg MAETP [t DCB-eq.] DCB-eq.] ODP x 0.01 [mg R11-eq.] POCP x 0.1 [g C2H4-eq.] TETP x 0.01 [kg DCB-eq.] Figure 15: Comparison of results from the current study with the literature for wind power [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated. Literature data from: Ecoinvent (2010), Martínez et al. (2009), Pereg and Hoz (2013), Garrett and Rønde (2013a), Garrett and Rønde (2013b), Palomo and Gaillardon (2014), Lahuerta and Saenz (2011). All impacts estimated using the CML 2001 method. For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 12.] 3.3. Annual environmental impacts The annual environmental impacts from renewable electricity generated in Turkey in 2010 have been estimated using the impacts per kwh discussed in Section 3.1 and the total electricity of 55,379 GWh generated that year by the power plants (see Appendix 2); the results are shown in Figure 9. For example, the annual GWP is estimated at 404 kt CO 2 - eq., of which large reservoir plants contribute 62.5%, small reservoir 14.3%, geothermal 10%, run-of-river 7.5% and wind 5.3%. By comparison, the total annual GWP from fossil fuel plants in Turkey is estimated at 109 Mt CO 2 -eq. (Atilgan and Azapagic, 2015). This is 270 times higher than the impact from renewable electricity, although fossil fuels supply only 2.7 times more electricity (153,190 GWh/year). The difference in the impacts is even starker for some other impacts such as eutrophication which is around 2900 times higher and marine ecotoxicity which is almost 2400 times greater for the fossil-based electricity. The majority of the impacts from renewable electricity are from hydropower, whose contribution ranges from 5% for acidification to 88% for summer smog. This is despite the hydropower plants generating around 18 and 78 times more electricity than the wind and Page 96 of 303

97 Chapter 3 geothermal plants, respectively. The exception to this is acidification which is mainly (94%) due to geothermal electricity because of the previously-mentioned emissions of hydrogen sulphide. 120 Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal ADP elements x 10 [kg Sbeq.] ADP fossil AP x 0.1 [kt EP x 10 [t x 10 [TJ] SO2-eq.] PO4-eq.] FAETP [kt DCB-eq.] GWP x 10 [kt CO2- eq.] HTP x 10 [kt DCBeq.] MAETP [ Mt DCBeq.] ODP x 0.1 [kg R11- eq.] POCP [t C2H4-eq.] TETP x 100 [t DCB-eq.] Figure 16: Annual environmental impacts from renewable electricity generated in Turkey in 2010 [For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 12.] 4. Conclusions This study represents a first attempt to analyse the life cycle environmental impacts of renewable electricity in Turkey. Eleven environmental impacts have been estimated for large and small reservoir, run-of-river, onshore wind and geothermal power. The results suggest that per kwh of electricity generated, onshore wind is the worst option overall, with nine out of 11 impacts higher than for geothermal and hydropower. This is due to the related impacts from the extraction and processing of the construction materials. On the other hand, its GWP is 88% and 11% lower than for geothermal and large reservoir hydropower, respectively. The acidification potential of geothermal electricity is 281 times higher than for wind power. The findings suggest that large reservoir plants are environmentally more sustainable than small reservoir and run-of-river plants for nine out of 11 environmental categories. However, the GWP for large reservoirs is around two times higher than for small reservoir and run-of-river hydropower. Furthermore, the potential for summer smog is 45% lower for the small than large reservoir plants. Page 97 of 303

98 Chapter 3 Geothermal power is the best option for six impacts: eutrophication, ozone layer depletion, human toxicity and all eco-toxicity categories. Large reservoir hydropower has the lowest depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as acidification. Small reservoir and run-of-river plants are the best and geothermal power worst options for the global warming potential. Construction of the power plants is the main contributor to the impacts for all the options considered. Recycling of materials at the end of the plant lifetime reduces the impacts by up to 40%. The results also indicate that the generation of renewable electricity in Turkey emits around 404 kt CO 2 -eq. per year. The majority of the impacts are from hydroelectricity owing to the amount of electricity generated by hydropower plants which is 18 and 78 times higher than from wind and geothermal plants, respectively. A greater penetration of renewable energy sources into the grid as an alternative to fossil fuels is important for Turkey to reduce the dependence on imported energy, provide security of supply and reduce the environmental impacts from the electricity sector. For example, the GWP of fossil-fuels electricity is around 109 Mt CO 2 -eq./year, 270 times higher than for renewable electricity, despite the fossil-based plants generating only 2.7 times more electricity. Therefore, the government should encourage and possibly incentivise further increasing the share of renewables in the electricity mix as well as diversifying the portfolio of technological options to include offshore wind and solar power. However, renewable electricity options should be chosen with care. For example, increasing the proportion of geothermal power in the electricity mix would increase some of the life cycle impacts such as acidification and GWP compared to increasing the share of hydropower and wind. Nevertheless, these would still be several orders of magnitude lower than from fossil-fuels electricity. Page 98 of 303

99 Chapter 3 References Arnøy, S., Hydroelectricity from Trollheim power station. Environmental Product Declaration ISO OSLO: Østfoldforskning AS. Arnøy, S.and Modahl, I. S., Life cycle data for hydroelectric generation at Embretsfoss 4 (E4) power station: Background data for Life cycle assessment (LCA) and Environmental product declaration (EPD). EB Kraftproduksjon LCA Vasskraft. Ostfold Research. Atilgan, B.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from fossil fuels in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, Baris, K.and Kucukali, S., Availibility of renewable energy sources in Turkey: Current situation, potential, government policies and the EU perspective. Energy Policy, 42(0), Bauer, C.and Bolliger, R., Ecoinvent Report: Wasserkraft. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Coulson, J. M., Sinnott, R. K.and Richardson, J. F., Coulson & Richardson's Chemical Engineering. Oxford ; Boston: Butterworth Heinemann Ltd. Dones, R., Bauer, C., Bolliger, R., Burger, B., Faist Emmenegger, M., Frischknecht, R., Heck, T., Jungbluth, N., Röder, A.and Tuchschmid, M., Ecoinvent Report: Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other UCTE Countries. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. DSI, Turkey Water Report 200. Ankara, Turkey: State Hydraulic Works (DSI) [Online]. Available from: DSI, Annual Activity Report of Ankara, Turkey: State Hydraulic Works (DSI). Ecoinvent, Ecoinvent Database v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: St Gallen, Switzerland. EEA, European Environment Agency, Greenhouse Gas Data Viewer: European Environment Agency [Online]. Available from: EMRA, RE: Data on Energy Potential of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Republic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority [Personel communication, ]. ESU, ESU Database. ESU-services Ltd.: Öko-Institute e.v. EUAS, Annual Report. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Generation Company. Page 99 of 303

100 Chapter 3 Flury, K.and Frischknecht, R., Life Cycle Inventories of Hydroelectric Power Generation. ESU Database. Uster: Öko-Institute e.v. FutureCamp, Baseline Emission Calculations. Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), version 3. Ankara, Turkey. Garrett, P.and Rønde, K., 2013a. Life cycle assessment of electricity production from an onshore V MW wind plant. Denmark: Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Garrett, P.and Rønde, K., 2013b. Life cycle assessment of wind power: Comprehensive results from a state-of-the-art approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), Greening, B.and Azapagic, A., Environmental impacts of micro-wind turbines and their potential to contribute to UK climate change targets. Energy, 59, Guinée, J. B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R.and Koning, A., Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISO, 2006a. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. ISO, 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. Kilic, F. C., Recent renewable energy developments, studies, incentives in Turkey. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part A, 28(1), Kouloumpis, V., Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Decarbonising electricity supply: Is climate change mitigation going to be carried out at the expense of other environmental impacts? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1, Lahuerta, F.and Saenz, E., Life cycle assessment of the wind turbines installed in Spain until Europe's Premier Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition March 2011; Brussels, Belgium. Martínez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jiménez, E.and Blanco, J., Life-cycle assessment of a 2 MW rated power wind turbine: CML method. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(1), MENR, Mavi Kitap (Blue Book). Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. Palomo, B.and Gaillardon, B., Life cycle assessment of a French wind plant. In: Europe s Premier Wind Energy Event, 2014 Barcelona, Spain. Page 100 of 303

101 Chapter 3 Parlaktuna, M., Mertoglu, O., Simsek, S., Paksoy, H.and Basarir, N., Geothermal Country Update Report of Turkey ( ) European Geothermal Congress Pisa, Italy. Pascale, A., Urmee, T.and Moore, A., Life cycle assessment of a community hydroelectric power system in rural Thailand. Renewable Energy, 36(11), PE International, GaBi version 6. Stuttgart, Echterdingen. Pereg, J. R. M.and Hoz, J. F., Life cycle assessment of 1 kwh generated by a Gamesa onshore windfarm G MW, Spain. Raadal, H. L., Gagnon, L., Modahl, I. S.and Hanssen, O. J., Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(7), Schuller, O.and Albrecht, S., Setting up life cycle models for the environmental analysis of hydropower generation, considering technical and climatic boundary conditions. In: Life Cycle Assessment VIII, 2008 Seattle, USA. Simsek, H. A.and Simsek, N., Recent incentives for renewable energy in Turkey. Energy Policy, 63(0), SPO, Elektrik Enerjisi Piyasası ve Arz Güvenliği Strateji Belgesi. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish State Planning Organization (SPO). Suwanit, W.and Gheewala, S., Life cycle assessment of mini-hydropower plants in Thailand. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(9), TEIAS, Electricity Generation and Transmission Statistics of Turkey Ankara: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation [Online]. Available from: TUIK, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistical Institute. van Oers, L., CML-IA Characterisation Factors. [November 2010]. Available from: WEC, Turkey Energy Balance Table ( ): World Energy Council Turkish National Committee [Online]. Available from: WEC, Turkiye Enerji Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: World Energy Council, Turkish National Committee. Page 101 of 303

102 Chapter 4 Chapter 4: Assessing the Environmental Sustainability of Electricity Generation in Turkey on a Life Cycle Basis This paper was published in Energies in January 2016 with the following citation: Atilgan, B.and Azapagic, A., Assessing the environmental sustainability of electricity generation in Turkey on a life cycle basis. Energies, 9(1), This research consists of life cycle environmental impacts from electricity generation in Turkey over the period Table and figure numbers have been amended to fit into the structure of this thesis. Page 102 of 303

103 Chapter 4 Assessing the Environmental Sustainability of Electricity Generation in Turkey on a Life Cycle Basis Burcin Atilgan and Adisa Azapagic* School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK * Corresponding author, Tel: , adisa.azapagic@manchester.ac.uk Abstract Turkey s electricity mix is dominated by fossil fuels but the country has ambitious future targets for renewable and nuclear energy. At present, environmental impacts of electricity generation in Turkey are unknown so that this paper represents a first attempt to fill this knowledge gap. Taking a life cycle approach, the study considers eleven impacts from electricity generation over the period All 516 power plants currently operational in Turkey are assessed: lignite, hard coal, natural gas, hydro, onshore wind and geothermal. The results show that the annual impacts from electricity have been going up steadily over the period, increasing by 2-9 times, with the global warming potential being higher by a factor of five. This is due to a four-fold increase in electricity demand and a growing share of fossil fuels. The impact trends per unit of electricity generated differ from those for the annual impacts, with only four impacts being higher today than in 1990, including the global warming potential. Most other impacts are lower from 35% to two times. These findings demonstrate the need for diversifying the electricity mix by increasing the share of domestically-abundant renewable resources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar energy. Keywords: Electricity generation; environmental impacts; life cycle assessment; Turkey Page 103 of 303

104 Chapter 4 1. Introduction With its young population, fast growing economy and industrialisation, Turkey has become one of the fastest growing energy markets in the world. Its energy demand has been increasing rapidly over the past few decades, rising almost six-fold in the period between 1970 and 2010 (MENR, 2012; WEC, 2005). The demand for electricity has also followed this trend. In 2010, the total installed capacity of 49,524 MW generated 211,208 GWh of electricity, four times more than in 1990 (TEIAS, 2012). However, only 43% of the demand is met by domestic energy resources (lignite, hydropower, geothermal and wind) with the rest of electricity generated by imported fuels (hard coal and natural gas) (EUAS, 2011). As a result, Turkey has become dependent on other countries for the supplies of fuels, particularly natural gas, which provides 46.5% of electricity (see Figure 2). In 2010, around 98% of the country s natural gas demand was met through imports, mainly from Russia (TPAO, 2011). At current production levels (730 million m 3 in 2010), Turkey has the equivalent of only nine years of domestic gas reserves remaining (TPAO, 2011). There are currently 187 gas power plants with 18,213 MW of installed capacity which in 2010 generated 98,144 GWh (EUAS, 2011). The majority of the installations are combined cycle power plants (MMO, 2010). The next most significant fuel is coal which supplies 26% of electricity (EUAS, 2011). Turkey has significant coal reserves with lignite being much more abundant than hard coal: 10.8 billion tonnes vs 515 million tonnes of proven reserves, respectively (TKI, 2012). However, most of Turkish lignite is of low quality with poor calorific value and high sulphur content. Hard coal is also of low grade, but of cokeable or semi-cokeable quality. In 2010, total coal production reached 73.4 Mt of which 69.7 Mt was lignite, 2.5 Mt hard coal and 1.2 Mt asphaltite (TKI, 2012). By comparison, 24.3 Mt were imported, of which 60% from Russia and Colombia and 40% from the USA and South Africa (TKI, 2012). There are 16 lignite and eight hard coal plants in Turkey, with the total installed capacity of 11,891 MW, which generated 55,046 GWh of electricity in 2010 (EUAS, 2011); the majority (65%) of this was from the lignite plants. Around 85% of the capacity is based on pulverised coal and the rest on circulating fluidised bed installations. In contrast to gas and coal, the contribution from oil power plants has been declining over the years and today almost no oil power plants remain in Turkey as most have been converted to natural gas combined cycle power plants (MMO, 2010). Page 104 of 303

105 Chapter 4 The contribution of hydropower is close to that of coal, providing around a quarter of electricity (Figure 2). The theoretically-viable hydroelectric potential of Turkey is estimated at 433 TWh/year (DSI, 2010). Almost half of this is technically and nearly 30% economically exploitable (DSI, 2010). Currently, there are 55 reservoir and 205 run-ofriver plants with the total installed capacity of 15,831 MW, generating on average 51,795 GWh per year. The only other sources of renewable energy available at present in the electricity mix in Turkey are wind and geothermal, providing 1.4% and 0.3% of the total, respectively. Turkey has a good wind potential, estimated at 48,000 MW with an annual production capacity of 130 TWh/year (EMRA, 2014). There are currently 39 onshore wind power plants with an installed capacity of 1320 MW that produced 2916 GWh in The capacity of the individual turbines varies from 0.85 to 3 MW. At present, there are no offshore wind turbines in Turkey. Located on the Alpine-Himalayan tectonic belt, Turkey is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of geothermal energy resources, with an estimated capacity of 31,500 MW (EMRA, 2014). However, the majority of this (88%) has the temperature below 200 C, which is less suitable for electricity generation (unless an organic Rankine cycle system is used), but is still useful for direct use as heat (Komurcu and Akpinar, 2009). Thus, there are only six geothermal power plants in Turkey with the installed capacity of 94.2 MW which generated 668 GWh in 2010 (TEIAS, 2012). As a result of the high share of fossil fuels, the direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity (largely from burning fossil fuels) reached 99 Mt CO 2 -eq. in 2010, a quarter of the total national emissions in that year (FutureCamp, 2011). Since Turkey is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex I), it is important that it identifies sustainable energy technologies suitable for the country to reduce the GHG emissions and other environmental impacts from the electricity sector. However, environmental impacts from the electricity sector in Turkey are currently unknown and there is no baseline to help the country identify the best way forward. Therefore, this paper sets out to estimate the environmental impacts of electricity in Turkey on a life cycle basis over the last 25 years ( ). Although many life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of different electricity technologies have been carried out elsewhere, as far as the authors are aware, there are no such studies for Turkey. The only exception is the previous work by Atilgan and Azapagic (2015; 2016), but that only Page 105 of 303

106 Chapter 4 considered electricity from individual technologies rather than the whole electricity supply mix which is the focus of this work. Therefore, this is the first study of its kind for Turkey and the findings will provide an insight into the past trends and current environmental impacts of electricity generation, helping to identify opportunities for improving the environmental sustainability of the sector. A further feature is that each of the 516 plants currently present in the Turkish electricity system have been considered individually. This has seldom been the case in other studies, which typically use average values for different technologies. Some of the existing LCA studies relevant to the technologies present in Turkey s electricity mix are summarised in Table 12. The results from these studies are compared to the current study later in the paper. As can be seen in the table, the scope varied across the studies, including the type of technologies and environmental impacts considered. All studies, however, considered GHG emissions and the related global warming potential. Most also considered eutrophication, acidification and photochemical smog, except Kannan et al. (2005) who considered the global warming potential and energy and Weisser (2007) who focused on the global warming potential alone. Most studies used the CML 2001 method (Guinée et al., 2001) to estimate the impacts. The same method has been applied in the current study, which considers 11 environmental categories, as discussed in the next sections. Page 106 of 303

107 Chapter 4 Table 12: Some LCA studies of electricity generation Aim and scope of the study Technologies Country Environmental impacts Reference Life cycle energy use, GWP and cost assessment of gas fired combined cycle plant Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from electric supply technologies Setting up life cycle models for the environmental analysis of hydropower generation, considering technical and climatic boundary conditions LCA of carbon dioxide capture and storage from lignite power plants LCA of a 2 MW rated power wind turbine Natural gas Singapore Global warming, energy use Kannan et al. (2005) Lignite, hard coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, CCS, hydro, wind, solar PV, biomass, energy storage Run-of-river, storage and pumped storage hydro Pulverised coal (PC), PC with CO 2 capture, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), IGCC with CO 2 capture, oxyfuel plant with CO 2 capture Not specified Germany Germany Global warming Global warming, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, energy demand Global warming, energy demand, photochemical smog, eutrophication, acidification Onshore wind Spain Global warming, resource depletion, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity LCA of mini-hydropower plants Run-of-river hydro Thailand Global warming, resource depletion, acidification, human toxicity, photochemical smog, water ecotoxicity LCA of electricity generation Nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, renewables Mexico Global warming, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity, resource depletion Weisser (2007) Schuller and Albrecht (2008) Pehnt and Henkel (2009) Martínez et al. (2009) Suwanit and Gheewala (2011) Santoyo- Castelazo et al. (2011) Page 107 of 303

108 Chapter 4 LCA of the wind turbines Onshore wind Spain Global warming, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity, resource depletion LCA of a hydroelectric power Run-of-river hydro Thailand Global warming, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, resource depletion Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation LCA of 1 kwh generated by a Gamesa onshore wind farm Life cycle data for hydroelectric generation at Embretsfoss 4 power station Life cycle data for hydroelectricity from Trollheim power station Life cycle assessment of electricity from an onshore V MW wind plant Life cycle assessment of wind power LCA of a wind plant Nuclear, coal, natural gas, offshore wind, solar PV UK Global warming, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, land use, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, resource depletion Onshore wind Europe Cumulative energy demand, global warming, summer smog, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, acidification, human toxicity, land use Run-of-river hydro Norway Global warming, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, ozone layer depletion, waste Reservoir hydro Norway Global warming, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, ozone layer depletion, waste Onshore wind Onshore wind Not specified Not specified Global warming, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity, resource depletion Global warming, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity, resource depletion Onshore wind France Resource depletion, acidification, eutrophication, global warming, photochemical smog Lahuerta and Saenz (2011) Pascale et al. (2011) Stamford and Azapagic (2012) Pereg and Hoz (2013) Arnøy and Modahl (2013) Arnøy (2013) Garrett and Rønde (2013a) Garrett and Rønde (2013b) Palomo and Gaillardon (2014) Page 108 of 303

109 Chapter 4 2. Methodology The study has been carried out according to the LCA methodological guidelines in the ISO and standards (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b). The LCA modelling has been carried out in GaBi v.6 (PE International, 2013). The CML 2001 method, November 2010 update (Guinée et al., 2001; van Oers, 2010), has been used to estimate the following impacts: abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements and fossil), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP), global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity potential (HTP), marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP), photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP). The goal of the study, key assumptions and data sources are detailed in the following sections Goal and scope definition The goal of the study is to estimate life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation in Turkey and to identify improvement opportunities for the future. To enable that, the impacts of the individual power plants had to be estimated first. For these purposes, 2010 has been chosen as the base year because the most complete data were available for the individual plants for that year. In addition to this, the impacts have been estimated for electricity generation over the past 25 years, covering the period from 1990 to 2014, to identify the impact trends and find out whether the electricity sector is becoming more or less environmentally sustainable. The study is based on two functional units. The first is defined as generation of 1 kwh of electricity to enable comparisons of the impacts for individual electricity technologies as well as for different electricity mixes for over the period. The second functional unit is defined as the total annual electricity generation to estimate the total annual impacts from electricity over the last 25 years. Page 109 of 303

110 Chapter 4 As indicated in Figure 17, the study considers all the options present in the Turkish electricity mix: coal, gas, hydro (large- and small-scale reservoir, run-of-river), wind and geothermal. The scope is from cradle to grave, comprising the extraction, processing and transport of fuels (where relevant) and raw materials as well as the construction, operation and decommissioning of power plants. Since the focus of the work is on electricity generation, its transmission, distribution and consumption are outside the system boundary. Coal supply Plant construction Coal Mining and processing Transport and storage Coal power plant operation Plant decommissioning Natural gas Extraction and processing Natural gas supply Transport and distribution Plant construction Natural gas power plant operation Plant decommissioning Plant construction Hydro Hydro energy Hydropower plant operation ELECTRICITY Plant decommissioning Wind turbine construction Wind Wind energy Wind turbine operation Wind turbine decommissioning Plant construction Geothermal Geothermal energy Geothermal plant operation Plant decommissioning Figure 17: The life cycles of electricity from coal, natural gas, hydro, wind and geothermal power Page 110 of 303

111 Chapter Inventory data In 2010, 211,208 GWh of electricity were generated by a total of 516 power plants, specifically, by 16 lignite, eight hard coal, 187 gas, 55 reservoir and 205 run-of-river hydropower, 39 wind and six geothermal installations. All of these plants are considered in this study (see Table 3-Table 5, Table 13 and Appendix 2). The key assumptions are summarised in Table 7 and Table 14 with further details provided below. Table 13: Power plants in Turkey (2010) Type of power plant Number of plants Installed capacity (MW) Annual generation (GWh/year) Lignite ,942 Hard coal a ,104 Natural gas ,213 98,144 Large reservoir ,583 hydropower (capacity >500 MW) Small reservoir hydropower ,885 (capacity <500 MW) Run-of-river hydropower Onshore wind Geothermal Total , ,569 (49,524) b (211,208) c a Hard coal type power plant includes hard coal, imported coal and asphaltite power plants in Turkey. b The total installed capacity in 2010 was 49,524 MW. The difference from the installed capacity shown in the table is due to multi-fuel, liquid fuel and other renewable-waste plants not included in the table. c The total generation was 211,208 GWh. The difference from the generation shown in the table is due to liquid fuel and other renewable-waste plants not included in the table. However, the total actual electricity generation has been used to estimate the impacts from electricity mix Electricity from fossil fuels Detailed data have been available for each lignite and hard coal power plants so that each has been modelled separately based on the data in Table 3 and Table 4. For the natural gas plants, data availability has been more limited (see Table 5). Therefore, an average efficiency of 55% has been assumed for all the gas plants; this matches the average efficiency of the combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants for which the data have been available but also the efficiency of the plants in Turkey reported by IEA/NEA (2005) as well as some other sources (Aslanoglu, 2012). Specific data have not been available for the auto-producer plants; as mentioned earlier, they are not connected to the grid but Page 111 of 303

112 Chapter 4 generate electricity for own consumption. However, the total generation from these plants has been considered. The data for the coal and natural gas power installations (Table 3-Table 5) have been used together with the fuel composition data (Table 14) to estimate the emissions from each plant using GEMIS 4.8 software (Öko Institute, 2012). These have then been combined with the other inventory data in Table 7 and Table 14 to estimate the life cycle impacts from the power plants in GaBi. The background life cycle inventory data have been sourced from Ecoinvent v2.2 (Dones et al., 2007) but have been adapted as far as possible to Turkey s conditions Electricity from renewables The data for the hydropower plants and onshore wind turbines are summarised in Table 13 and Table 14; for details for the individual plants see Table 25-Table 28 in Supplementary information. The background inventory data for hydropower have been sourced from the Ecoinvent v2.2 (Bauer and Bolliger, 2007; Dones et al., 2007) and ESU (Flury and Frischknecht, 2012) databases. Since the data for construction materials for reservoir plants in the databases correspond to a different size to the ones considered here, it has been necessary to apply some scaling of the impacts to reflect the difference in the size of the installations. Typically in LCA this is carried out by assuming a linear relationship between the size of the plant and its impacts. However, in reality, the relationship is non-linear. To account for this, the scaling approach introduced in Chapter 3 has been used to scale the environmental impacts for the hydropower and wind turbines (Coulson et al., 1993; Greening and Azapagic, 2013). The construction materials for the hydro plants are assumed to be transported for 200 km by rail and 100 km by lorry (see Table 14). At the end of its service life, the plants are dismantled and components are recycled using the assumed recycling rates given in Table 10. The inventory data for onshore wind turbines have been sourced from (Kouloumpis et al., 2015) based on the Vestas V80 2 MW turbine. The size of the turbine has been scaled down from 2 MW to match the average turbine size in Turkey of 1.94 MW (see Table 14). The construction materials are assumed to be transported 100 km by lorry and 100 km by rail. The turbines are imported into Turkey from Europe, assuming an average distance of 2000 km by rail and a further 150 km by lorry to the installation locations in Turkey. At the end of life, the turbine construction materials are recycled as specified in Table 14. Page 112 of 303

113 Chapter 4 Detailed data for the geothermal plants have not been available so that the LCA data have been taken directly from the GaBi database (PE International, 2013). The only dataset available is for a 30 MW flash-steam plant with an annual electricity generation of 250 GWh. The data are aggregated so that it has not been possible to adapt them to Turkeyspecific conditions. However, as geothermal power contributes only 0.3% of the total electricity (see Figure 2), this limitation is not deemed significant. Moreover, the database model is representative of the standard, widely-used type of geothermal plant. The total annual environmental impacts for the base year have been calculated based on the impacts of all the options present in the Turkish electricity mix, their share in the electricity mix and the total electricity generation in The same approach has been applied across all the other years considered in this work. To model the electricity mix in Turkey over the period, the following assumptions have been made: the contribution of the liquid-fuel power plants to the total generation of electricity is small (1%) and for simplicity has been substituted with the equivalent amount of electricity generated by the gas power plants; the data on the specific technologies for other renewables and waste have not been available. As their contribution to the total electricity generation is small (0.2%), they have been substituted by small-reservoir hydropower. It has also been assumed that there were no technology changes over the period considered, using the characteristics of technologies in 2010 to model the impacts for the previous years. This is arguably a reasonable assumption as fossil and hydrotechnologies are well established and have long lifetimes so that no technological changes would be expected over the period. Wind and geothermal are less well established but their contribution to the total generation in the earlier years was negligible (<0.03% and <0.1%, respectively). Page 113 of 303

114 Chapter 4 Table 14: Assumptions and summary of inventory data for electricity technologies Coal Gas Hydropower Wind Mining and processing Mining and processing Plant construction Plant construction Lignite Imported (see Table 7) Reservoir Lifetime: 40 years for fixed Domestic (see Table 7), open pit and underground mining Composition (% w/w) a : sulphur: %; Composition (% vol.) a : C 1 : % C 2 : 1-3.4% Life time: 150 years d,f Large reservoir Data based on Ecoinvent d,g parts and 20 years for moving parts d Number of turbines: 682 ash: 19-40%; water: 20-50% C 3 : % with average size of Data based on the Net heating value (NHV): MJ/kg C 4 : % MW plant and scaled up to average size of 2 MW Hard coal C 5+ : % 1057 MW plant turbine i and scaled down to Domestic and imported (see Table 7), open CO 2 : % Small reservoir the average size of 1.94 MW pit and underground mining N 2 : % Data based on ESU f with Composition (% w/w) a : Sulphur: %; NHV: MJ/kg average size of 95 MW plant Transport b ash: 7-11%; water: 4-7% Leakage during extraction: 0.38% and scaled up to 98 MW Construction materials NHV: MJ/kg plant Freight train: 100 km Transport b Run-of-river Lorry > 16 tonne: 100 km Transport b Pipeline Life time: 80 years d,f Turbine Lignite Russia: 5750 km Data based on ESU f with Freight train: 2000 km Power plants adjacent to the mine Iran: 2700 km average size of 8.6 MW Lorry > 16 tonne: 150 km Hard coal Azerbaijan: 1150 km plant and scaled up to 13.5 Maintenance Russia: Freight train (4500 km); freight ship Nigeria: 4000 km MW plant Passenger car: 100 (500 km) Other: 4500 km p.km/year USA: Freight train (1000 km); freight ship Transport b (9500 km) South Africa: Freight train (500 km); freight Plant construction Lifetime : 25 years c Construction materials h Freight train: 200 km Plant operation Lubricating oil: 4.31x10-5 ship (12,500 km) Data from Ecoinvent assuming Lorry > 16 tonne: 100 km kg/kwh 400 MW plant Page 114 of 303

115 Chapter 4 Plant construction Lifetime: 30 years c Lignite: Data from Ecoinvent d based on average size of the plant of 380 MW (a mix of 500 MW and 100 MW plants in a 70:30 ratio) Hard coal: Data from Ecoinvent d based on average size of the plant of 460 MW (a mix of 500 MW and 100 MW plants at the 90:10 ratio) Plant operation Lignite Efficiency: 29-38% Average water use: 37.3 kg/kwh Hard coal Efficiency: 31-40% Average water use: 32.7 kg/kwh Plant decommissioning e Metals: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled Plant operation All plants assumed to be CCGT with efficiency of 55% Average water use: 3.4 kg/kwh Plant decommissioning e Metals: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled Plant operation Reservoir Large reservoir Lubricating oil: 7.0x10-6 kg/kwh Small reservoir Lubricating oil: 3.24x10-8 kg/kwh Run-of-river Lubricating oil: 1.22x10-7 kg/kwh Plant decommissioning e Metals: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled a Based on data from different mines and countries. b Estimated by using online mapping. c Source: TEIAS (2013). d Source: Dones et al. (2007). e The system has been credited for recycling. The recycling rates are assumed due to a lack of data. f Source: Flury and Frischknecht (2012). g Source: Bauer and Bolliger (2007). h It is assumed that gravel is extracted at the construction site. i Source: Kouloumpis et al. (2015). Plant decommissioning e Metals: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Concrete: 50% recycled, 50% landfilled Plastics: 20% recycled, 80% landfilled Page 115 of 303

116 Chapter 4 3. Results and discussion The results are given in Figure 18-Figure 24 and are discussed in the following sections, first for different electricity technologies, then for electricity in the base year (2010) and finally for electricity generation from 1990 to the present Environmental impacts of different electricity technologies The life cycle environmental impacts of different electricity generation options in Turkey are compared in Figure 18. The results show that coal is the worst performer for all the impact categories, except for the ODP which is lower than for gas power because of leakages of halon 1211 and halon 1301 used as fire suppressants and coolants in the life cycle of gas. Wind power has the highest impacts among the renewable options, with nine out of 11 impacts higher than for hydropower and geothermal power. This is due to the impacts from the extraction and processing of the construction materials. Wind power also has the second highest ADP elements, after hard coal. On the other hand, its GWP is 88% lower than for geothermal power and 11% smaller than for large-reservoir hydropower. The AP of geothermal electricity is lower than lignite power and higher than any other power options considered in this study: almost all of the impact is due to the hydrogen sulphide emissions from geothermal steam to air. Page 116 of 303

117 , , ,391 1, Chapter 4 Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal ADP elements x ADP fossil [MJ] AP [g SO2-eq.] EP x 0.01 [g 0.01 [mg Sbeq.] PO4-eq.] FAETP [g DCBeq.] GWP x 0.1 [kg CO2-eq.] HTP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP [kg DCB-eq.] ODP [μg R11- eq.] POCP x 0.1 [g C2H4-eq.] TETP [g DCBeq.] Figure 18: Environmental impacts for different electricity options in Turkey [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated. The values shown on top of each bar represent the total impact after the recycling credits for the plant construction materials have been taken into account. Some values have been rounded off and may not correspond exactly to those quoted in the text. ADP: Abiotic depletion of elements; ADP fossil: Abiotic depletion of fossil; AP: Acidification potential; EP: Eutrophication potential; FAETP: Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential; GWP: Global warming potential; HTP: Human toxicity potential; MAETP: Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential; ODP: Ozone layer depletion potential; POCP: Photochemical oxidants creation potential; TETP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential.] Page 117 of 303

118 Chapter Comparison of results with the literature As far as the authors are aware, there are no other LCA studies of electricity technologies in Turkey, except the previously mentioned studies (Atilgan and Azapagic, 2015; Atilgan and Azapagic, 2016). However, as discussed in the introduction, there are many studies of electricity technologies in other countries which are compared to the results from the current study in Figure 19 and Figure 20. As can be seen, a wide range of values has been reported in the literature across different impacts. This is primarily due to the different technological assumptions, such as capacities and efficiencies, pollution control measures, fuel origin, plant lifetimes and, in the case of hydropower and wind, local water and wind characteristics and plant design. Nevertheless, all the impacts estimated in this study for lignite and hard coal power are well within the ranges reported in the literature (Figure 19). For example, for lignite electricity the GWP falls between 866 and 1700 g CO 2 -eq./kwh, which compares well with the estimate in this study of 1062 g CO 2 -eq./kwh. For hard coal, the GWP in the literature ranges between 872 and 1628 g CO 2 -eq./kwh so that the value of 1126 g CO 2 -eq./kwh obtained in the current study is around the middle of the range. A good agreement of the results is also found for gas electricity. For instance, the GWP reported in the literature is between 383 and 996 g CO 2- eq./kwh and in this work it is estimated at 499 g CO 2- eq./kwh. There are only four LCA studies of reservoir hydropower plants so that comparison with the literature is limited. As shown in Figure 20, the results for the GWP, AP, EP, ODP, POCP and TETP are comparable to the lower values reported in the literature. For example, the GWP falls between 2.7 and 11.6 g CO 2 -eq./kwh in the literature, which compares well to this study s estimate of 6.9 g CO 2 -eq./kwh for reservoir hydropower. On the other hand, the results for the ADP elements and fossil, FAETP, HTP and MAETP are below the range of values in the literature. One of the reasons for this could be the very different size of large and small scale plants which are not distinguished in the literature. All the impacts estimated in this study for run-of-river hydropower and wind electricity are well within the ranges reported by other authors (Figure 20). For example, the GWP for run-of-river hydropower is between 0.3 and 5.2 g CO 2 -eq./kwh which compares well to the value of 4.1 g CO 2 -eq./kwh obtained in the current study. For onshore wind, the GWP Page 118 of 303

119 Chapter 4 ranges from 6.2 to 31 g CO 2 -eq./kwh and the estimate in the present work is 7.3 g CO 2 - eq./kwh. 2.4 Lignite - current study Hard coal - current study Gas - current study Lignite, hard coal and gas - literature ADP ADP fossil elements x 10 [MJ] x 0.1 [mg Sb-eq.] AP x 0.1 [kg SO2- eq.] EP x 0.1 [kg PO4- eq.] FAETP x 10 [kg DCB-eq.] GWP [kg CO2-eq.] HTP [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP x 10 [t DCBeq.] ODP x 0.1 [mg R11- eq.] POCP [g C2H4-eq.] TETP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq.] Figure 19: Comparison of the results from current study with literature for coal and gas power [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated. Literature data for lignite from Ecoinvent (2010), PE International (2013), Weisser (2007) and Pehnt and Henkel (2009); for hard coal from Ecoinvent (2010), PE International (2013) and Stamford and Azapagic (2012); for natural gas from Ecoinvent (2010), PE International (2013), Weisser (2007), Kannan et al. (2005), Santoyo-Castelazo et al. (2011) and Stamford and Azapagic (2012). All impacts estimated using the CML 2001 method. For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 18.] Page 119 of 303

120 Chapter Reservoir - current study Run-of-river - current study Reservoir and run-of-river - literature ADP elements [mg Sbeq.] ADP fossil AP x 0.01 [MJ] [kg SO2- eq.] EP [g PO4-eq.] FAETP [kg DCBeq.] GWP [kg CO2-eq.] HTP [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP [t DCB-eq.] ODP x 0.1 [mg R11- eq.] POCP [g C2H4-eq.] TETP x 0.01 [kg DCB-eq.] a) Reservoir and run-of-river hydropower 0.5 Wind - current study Wind - literature ADP ADP fossil elements [MJ] [mg Sbeq] AP [g SO2-eq] EP [g PO4-eq] FAETP x 0.1 [kg DCB-eq] GWP x 0.1 [kg CO2-eq] HTP [kg DCB-eq] MAETP [t DCB-eq] ODP x 0.01 [mg R11-eq] POCP x 0.1 [g C2H4-eq] TETP x 0.01 [kg DCB-eq] b) Onshore wind Figure 20: Comparison of the results from current study with literature for hydropower and wind power [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated. The current study results for the reservoir hydropower present the average value for large and small reservoir. Literature data for reservoir from: ESU (2012), Ecoinvent (2010), Arnøy (2013); for run-of-river from: Suwanit and Gheewala (2011), Schuller and Albrecht (2008), Arnøy and Modahl (2013), Pascale et al. (2011), Raadal et al. (2011), ESU (2012), Ecoinvent (2010); for onshore wind from Ecoinvent (2010), Martínez et al. (2009), Pereg and Hoz (2013), Garrett and Rønde (2013a), Palomo and Gaillardon (2014), Lahuerta and Saenz (2011). All impacts estimated using the CML 2001 method. For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 18.] Page 120 of 303

121 Chapter Environmental impacts of electricity generated in the base year Since the base year is used as a basis for the estimates of impacts in the other years, these results are discussed in more detail than for the rest of the period. Thus, the impacts for the base year are first presented for the functional unit of 1 kwh of electricity, followed by the total annual generation of electricity Impacts per kwh The impacts per kwh of electricity generated in 2010 are given in Figure 21. The results suggest that fossil fuels cause the majority of the impacts, with coal contributing 43-54% to the depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as the GWP; it also causes 84-99% of the toxicity related impacts. The exception is ozone layer depletion, 98% of which arises from gas power. These results are discussed for each impact in more detail below. Note that all the results incorporate the credits for material recycling after decommissioning of the plants. 60 Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal ADP elements [μg Sb-eq.] ADP fossil [MJ] AP x 0.1 [gep x 0.1 [g FAETP x SO2-eq.] PO4-eq.] 0.01 [kg DCB-eq.] GWP x 0.01 [kg CO2-eq.] HTP x 0.01 [kg DCB-eq.] MAETP x 100 [kg DCB-eq.] ODP [μg R11-eq.] POCPx 0.01 [g C2H4-eq.] TETP x 0.1 [g DCB-eq.] Figure 21: Environmental impacts per kwh of electricity for the base year (2010) [For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 18.] Page 121 of 303

122 Chapter Abiotic depletion potential The depletion of elements from electricity generation is estimated at 25.3 μg Sb-eq./kWh (Figure 21). Lignite, hard coal and natural gas power contribute 14%, 29% and 46% to the total, respectively. The high contribution of hard coal, despite its small share in the electricity mix (9.1%) is due to its long-range transport, which contributes 63% to the ADP of hard coal. By contrast, lignite is sourced domestically, so there are no impacts from transport. The remaining contributions are from hydropower (8%) and wind power (4%); the impact from geothermal power is negligible (0.1%). This impact is primarily due to the use of chromium, copper, molybdenum and nickel during the construction of the plants and fuel supply infrastructure. Coal and gas also account for the majority (99.9%) of fossil resource depletion, equivalent to 8 MJ/kWh (Figure 21) Acidification and eutrophication potential The AP of 2.8 g SO 2 -eq./kwh is mainly due to SO 2 (82%) and N 2 O (14%) emissions. The biggest contributor is the electricity from lignite (66%) because of the high sulphur content and a lack of desulphurisation systems at some of the plants. The second biggest contributor is hard coal power (20%). Lignite is also the main cause of the EP, estimated at 2.3 g PO 4 -eq./kwh, with the majority (87%) related to the emissions of phosphates during mining. As for the AP, the next biggest contributor is hard coal (9%) Ecotoxicity potential All ecotoxicity related impacts (freshwater, marine and terrestrial) are also caused mainly by lignite power. For the FAETP, equivalent to 0.39 kg DCB-eq./kWh, 91% is due to the emissions of nickel, beryllium, cobalt and vanadium during mining. In the case of the MAETP, estimated at 1.2 t DCB-eq./kWh, the emissions to water of beryllium (40%) and hydrogen fluoride to air (33%) are the main burdens contributing to this impact. Finally, lignite contributes 66% to the TETP of 0.1 g DCB-eq./kWh, mainly because of the emissions of mercury (~75%) Global warming potential The global warming potential for the electricity mix in Turkey is estimated at 523 g CO 2 - eq./kwh. Emissions of CO 2 account for 92% of the total, with CH 4 contributing 7% and N 2 O 1%. The main source of the GHG emissions is the combustion of coal and natural Page 122 of 303

123 Chapter 4 gas in power plants. The renewables contribute only 0.4% to the total GWP (see Figure 21) Human toxicity potential Like ecotoxicity, this impact is also mainly due to lignite mining (88%). The main burdens contributing to the HTP of 267 g DCB-eq./kWh include emissions of selenium (36%) and hydrogen fluoride (11%) Ozone layer depletion potential The ODP is estimated at 45 µg R11-eq./kWh. The single largest contributor (98%) is electricity from gas. As mentioned earlier, it is mainly due to leakages of halon 1211 and halon 1301 used as fire suppressants and coolants in the life cycle of gas Photochemical oxidants creation potential This impact is equal to 198 mg C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh with 41%, 15% and 43% arising from lignite, hard coal and gas power plants, respectively. The main contributing burdens include SO 2 (47%), non-methane volatile organic compounds (32%) and N 2 O (11%) Total annual impacts As can be seen from Figure 21, lignite and hard coal power contribute together more than 40% to most of the impacts in the base year, despite providing only a quarter of the total electricity generated. The exception is ozone layer depletion which is almost entirely (98%) from gas power, which generates 46.5% of electricity. The renewables, which supply around 27% of the demand, add % to the impacts, mainly related to hydropower because of its high share in the mix (24.5%). The total GWP is estimated at 111 Mt CO 2 -eq., 54% of which is due to coal and 46% to gas power. The estimated direct CO 2 emissions (emitted from the power plants as opposed to the life cycle emissions) are equal to 92 Mt CO 2 -eq. This is in good agreement with the total direct emissions of 99 Mt CO 2 -eq. from the whole Turkish electricity sector in 2010 (FutureCamp, 2011). The slight difference between the two estimates stems from different assumptions, including plant efficiencies and the amount of fuel used in different power plants. Page 123 of 303

124 Chapter ADP elements x 100 [kg Sb-eq.] ADP fossil x 100 [PJ] AP x 10 [kt SO2-eq.] EP x 10 [kt FAETP [Mt GWP [Mt PO4-eq.] DCB-eq.] CO2-eq.] HTP [Mt DCB-eq.] MAETP x 10 [Gt DCB-eq.] ODP x 100 [kg R11- eq.] POCP [kt C2H4-eq.] TETP x 10 [kt DCBeq.] Figure 22: Total annual environmental impacts for the base year (2010) [For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 18.] To put these results into context, they have been normalised to the annual impacts in the European Union comprising 28 countries (EU28). As indicated in Figure 23, the Turkish electricity sector contributes almost 5% to the depletion of fossil fuels and 2% to the GWP relative to these impacts in the EU28 countries. The contribution to the AP, EP and POCP is also significant, ranging from 3.5% for the former to 2.4% for the latter. The contribution of the ADP elements and ODP is small (0.1%). However, these results should be interpreted with care for at least two reasons: first, the base year for the EU28 impacts is 2000 (the latest available in the CML 2001 method) while the base year here is 2010; secondly, all impacts but the GWP for the EU28 are associated with high uncertainty and are likely underestimated, particularly the toxicity-related categories (Heijungs et al., 2004; Benini et al., 2014), which is the reason why they have not been considered in the normalised results. Page 124 of 303

125 Contribution to EU28 impacts (%) Chapter ADP elements ADP fossil AP EP GWP ODP POCP 0.1 Figure 23: Annual impacts from electricity generation in Turkey in the base year (2010) normalised to the annual EU28 impacts [EU28: the European Union with 28 countries. All data for the EU28 impacts are for the year 2000, latest available data in the CML 2001 method. For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 18.] 3.4. Environmental impacts from electricity generation from The total annual environmental impacts from the electricity mix in Turkey over the period have been calculated based on the impacts of different technologies presented in Section 3.1, their contribution to electricity generation in a particular year and the total electricity generation in that year. The results are summarised in Figure 24; for brevity, they only show the impacts for selective years in five-year intervals: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014 (data for 2015 were not available at the time of writing). Figure 24 also shows the generation mix for each of the years considered. In 1990, total generation was 57 TWh and in 2014 it reached 250 TWh, representing a four-fold increase over the period. During this time, the electricity mix has also changed. In the past, it was mainly based on lignite, gas and reservoir hydropower but, over time, the contribution of other sources grew. For example, the share of hard coal (mainly imported) increased from 0.6 TWh in 1990 to 36.7 TWh in Since 2005, there has also been an increase in the share of renewables, mainly run-of-river hydropower (to 5% in 2014) and onshore wind (to 3%). The reservoir hydropower generation was reduced by almost a half in 2000 compared to 1995 and by another half in 2014 compared to 2010 because of severe drought; the shortfall in electricity generation was made up by gas power. It can be noticed from Figure 24 that the annual impacts have been going up steadily over the period, increasing from two times (EP, HTP, FAETP and MAETP) to nine-fold (ODP). Page 125 of 303

126 Chapter 4 The GWP increased by five-fold, from 28.7 Mt CO 2 -eq. in 1990 to 143 Mt CO 2 -eq. in This is largely due to a growing electricity demand, although for some impacts the rate of increase is higher than the demand growth, including the GWP, because of the higher rate of growth of fossil-fuel electricity. The only exception to the trend are the reductions in the EP, FAETP, HTP and MAETP in 2005 on the previous period as a result of a decrease in the share of lignite power. The latter, together with hard coal and gas dominate all the impacts because of their dominance in the generation mix, with coal providing 26%-35% and gas 18%-48% of electricity across the years. The impact trends per kwh are less uniform than for the total annual impacts because they depend on the electricity mix only. On the other hand, the annual impacts also depend on the amount of electricity generated and increase proportionally to the demand. Although, in general, most impacts are higher for the fossil fuel options, some impacts are also high for the renewables (e.g. ADP for wind power; see Figure 18) so that their contribution to the total impacts from the electricity mix may be disproportionate to their share in the mix. The upward trend is found for four impacts: ADP elements and ODP, which are two times higher in 2014 than in 1990, and ADP fossil and GWP, which increased by 13% in the same period. The increase in the depletion of elements is due to the growth in renewable electricity generation because wind and hydropower have high resource requirements per kwh of electricity generated. The other three impacts increased because of the increasing share of fossil fuels; for example, the share of gas increased from 25% in 1990 to 50% in 2014, leading to the significant increase in the ODP. Some impacts were also affected by the low hydropower generation during the drought in 2000 and 2014, with the GWP, ADP fossil, ODP and POCP having the highest values per kwh in these two years. For example, the GWP in 2000 was 550 g CO 2 - eq./kwh, 13% higher than in In 2014, it was 570 g CO 2 -eq./kwh or 8% higher than in 2010, despite an overall 4% increase in the share of other renewables. However, the opposite trend is found for the remaining impacts, with the EP, FAETP, HTP and MAETP being two times lower, the TETP 40% and AP 34% smaller at the end of the period than in This is a result of the increase in natural gas and renewables in the mix. The only exception is the POCP which remained more or less unchanged over the period. This is because of the cancelling effects of the change over time of the share of coal and gas in the mix and the difference in their respective POCP: lignite and hard coal have times higher impact than gas but their contribution to power generation reduced by 20% from 1990 to 2014 while the contribution of gas doubled. Page 126 of 303

127 ADP fossil (EJ/year) ADP fossil (MJ/kWh) AP (kt SO 2 -eq./year) AP (g SO 2 -eq./kwh) TWh ADP elements (t Sb-eq./year) ADP elements (mg Sb-eq./kWh) Chapter Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal 9 Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh a) Electricity generation mix in Turkey b) ADP elements 2.5 Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh c) ADP fossil d) AP Page 127 of 303

128 GWP (Mt CO 2 -eq./year) GWP (g CO 2 -eq./kwh) HTP (Mt DCB-eq./year) HTP (g DCB-eq./kWh) EP (kt PO 4 -eq./year) EP (g PO 4 -eq./kwh) FAETP (Mt DCB-eq./year) FAETP (g DCB-eq./kWh) Chapter Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh e) EP f) FAETP 160 Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh g) GWP h) HTP Page 128 of 303

129 POCP (kt C 2 H 4 -eq./year) POCP (g C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh) TETP (kt DCB-eq./year) TETP (g DCB-eq./kWh) MAETP (Gt DCB-eq./year) MAETP (t DCB-eq./kWh) ODP (t R11-eq./year) ODP (mg R11-eq./kWh) Chapter Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh i) MAETP j) ODP Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal per kwh k) POCP l) TETP Figure 24: Environmental impacts of electricity in Turkey in the period for total annual generation and per kwh [For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 18.] Page 129 of 303

130 Chapter 4 4. Conclusions This study has estimated for the first time the life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation in Turkey for the period Eleven impacts have been considered for 516 power plants using lignite, hard coal, natural gas, hydro (large and small scale reservoir hydro and run-of-river), onshore wind and geothermal energy. The impacts have been estimated per kwh and for the total amount of electricity generated annually over the period. The results suggest that, in comparison to the other options, lignite power has the highest impacts for eight out of eleven categories. Gas power is the worst option for ozone layer depletion. Geothermal electricity scores the best for six impacts (eutrophication, ozone layer depletion and all the toxicity categories). Large-reservoir hydropower has the lowest depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as acidification. Run-of-river is the best option for the global warming potential. The annual impacts have been going up steadily over the period, increasing from two times (EP, HTP, FAETP and MAETP) to nine-fold (ODP); the GWP increased by a factor of five. This is due to meeting the growing demand by fossil fuels. The trends per unit of electricity generated are less uniform than for the annual impacts. The upward trend is found for four impacts only: ADP elements and ODP, which are two times higher in 2014 than in 1990, and ADP fossil and GWP, which increased by 13% in the same period. However, the opposite trend is found for the other impacts, with the EP, FAETP, HTP and MAETP being two times lower, the TETP 40% and AP 34% smaller at the end of the period than in The only exception is the POCP which remained more or less unchanged. As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, it is important that Turkey identified more sustainable pathways for future electricity supply. Being a developing country, it is likely that the demand will continue to grow. Therefore, the key question is how to decouple the expected demand growth with the environmental impacts. The results of this work show that reducing the share of coal in the electricity mix would lead to significant reductions in GHG emissions, as well as the other impacts such as acidification, eutrophication and all the toxicity categories. This could be achieved in the short term by expanding the natural gas capacity; however, both ozone layer depletion and energy dependency on other countries would increase. Given the great potential of renewable energies in Turkey, the Page 130 of 303

131 Chapter 4 expansion of renewables should be pursued more aggressively in the medium to long term. Among the renewable energy sources, hydro, onshore wind and geothermal power are well established in Turkey and have a large potential for development. However, increasing the proportion of onshore wind power in the electricity mix would increase depletion of elements while increasing the share of geothermal power would increase acidification. As the results show, hydropower options would lead to a reduction in the environmental impacts; however, that would be at the expense of some other impacts not included in this study, such as biodiversity and land use. Other renewables such as solar power could play a role in the future given that solar energy is abundant in Turkey. The country is also trying to introduce nuclear power which would help to reduce GHG emissions but it raises various other concerns, such as human health impacts from radiation, risk of accidents and long-term storage of nuclear waste. The findings from this work have provided an insight into the previously unknown environmental impacts of electricity generation in Turkey, helping to identify opportunities for future improvements. However, in addition to the environmental sustainability evaluated here, it is also important to understand various economic and social aspects to help the industry and policy makers in Turkey identify and implement the most sustainable electricity options for the future. This is the subject of a forthcoming paper by the authors. Page 131 of 303

132 Chapter 4 References Arnøy, S., Hydroelectricity from Trollheim power station. Environmental Product Declaration ISO OSLO: Østfoldforskning AS. Arnøy, S.and Modahl, I. S., Life cycle data for hydroelectric generation at Embretsfoss 4 (E4) power station: Background data for Life cycle assessment (LCA) and Environmental product declaration (EPD). EB Kraftproduksjon LCA Vasskraft. Ostfold Research. Aslanoglu, S. Y., Koksal, M.A, Elektrik uretimine bagli karbondioksit emisyonunun bolgesel olarak belirlenmesi ve uzun donem tahmini. Hava Kirliligi Arastirma Dergisi (HKAD), 1, Atilgan, B.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from fossil fuels in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, Atilgan, B.and Azapagic, A., Renewable electricity in Turkey: Life cycle environmental impacts. Renewable Energy, 89, Bauer, C.and Bolliger, R., Ecoinvent Report: Wasserkraft. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Benini, L., Mancini, L., Sala, S., Manfredi, S., Schau, E. M.and Pant, R., Normalisation method and data for environmental footprints. Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Coulson, J. M., Sinnott, R. K.and Richardson, J. F., Coulson & Richardson's Chemical Engineering. Oxford ; Boston: Butterworth Heinemann Ltd. Dones, R., Bauer, C., Bolliger, R., Burger, B., Faist Emmenegger, M., Frischknecht, R., Heck, T., Jungbluth, N., Röder, A.and Tuchschmid, M., Ecoinvent Report: Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other UCTE Countries. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. DSI, Turkey Water Report Ankara, Turkey: State Hydraulic Works (DSI) [Online]. Available from: Ecoinvent, Ecoinvent Database v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: St Gallen, Switzerland. EMRA, RE: Data on Energy Potential of Turkey. Ankara,Turkey: Republic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority [Personel communication, ]. ESU, ESU Database. ESU-services Ltd.: Öko-Institute e.v. EUAS, Annual Report Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Generation Company. Page 132 of 303

133 Chapter 4 Flury, K.and Frischknecht, R., Life Cycle Inventories of Hydroelectric Power Generation. ESU Database. Uster: Öko-Institute e.v. FutureCamp, Baseline Emission Calculations. Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), version 3. Ankara, Turkey. Garrett, P.and Rønde, K., 2013a. Life cycle assessment of electricity production from an onshore V MW wind plant. Denmark: Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Garrett, P.and Rønde, K., 2013b. Life cycle assessment of wind power: Comprehensive results from a state-of-the-art approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), Greening, B.and Azapagic, A., Environmental impacts of micro-wind turbines and their potential to contribute to UK climate change targets. Energy, 59, Guinée, J. B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R.and Koning, A., Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., Lightart, T.and Korenromp, R., Improvement of LCA characterisation factors and LCA practice for metals. Report No. TNO-report R2004/347, TNO environment, energy and process innovation, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research. IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. Paris: International Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency. ISO, 2006a. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. ISO, 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. Kannan, R., Leong, K. C., Osman, R., Ho, H. K.and Tso, C. P., Gas fired combined cycle plant in Singapore: Energy use, GWP and cost and Life cycle approach. Energy Conversion and Management, 46(13 14), Komurcu, M. I.and Akpinar, A., Importance of geothermal energy and its environmental effects in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 34(6), Kouloumpis, V., Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Decarbonising electricity supply: Is climate change mitigation going to be carried out at the expense of other environmental impacts? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1, Lahuerta, F.and Saenz, E., Life cycle assessment of the wind turbines installed in Spain until Europe's Premier Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition March 2011; Brussels, Belgium. Page 133 of 303

134 Chapter 4 Martínez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jiménez, E.and Blanco, J., Life-cycle assessment of a 2 MW rated power wind turbine: CML method. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(1), MENR, Mavi Kitap (Blue Book). Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. MMO, Turkiye'de Termik Santraller Oda Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Makina Muhendisleri Odasi. Öko Institute, Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems (GEMIS) v.4.8. Available from: Palomo, B.and Gaillardon, B., Life cycle assessment of a French wind plant. In: Europe s Premier Wind Energy Event, 2014 Barcelona, Spain. Pascale, A., Urmee, T.and Moore, A., Life cycle assessment of a community hydroelectric power system in rural Thailand. Renewable Energy, 36(11), PE International, GaBi version 6. Stuttgart, Echterdingen. Pehnt, M.and Henkel, J., Life cycle assessment of carbondioxide capture and storage from lignite power plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(1), Pereg, J. R. M.and Hoz, J. F., Life cycle assessment of 1 kwh generated by a Gamesa onshore windfarm G MW, Spain. Raadal, H. L., Gagnon, L., Modahl, I. S.and Hanssen, O. J., Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(7), Santoyo-Castelazo, E., Gujba, H.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mexico. Energy, 36(3), Schuller, O.and Albrecht, S., Setting up life cycle models for the environmental analysis of hydropower generation, considering technical and climatic boundary conditions. In: Life Cycle Assessment VIII, 2008 Seattle, USA. Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK. International Journal of Energy Research, 36(14), Suwanit, W.and Gheewala, S., Life cycle assessment of mini-hydropower plants in Thailand. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(9), TEIAS, Electricity Generation and Transmission Statistics of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation [Online]. Available from: Page 134 of 303

135 Chapter 4 TKI, Lignite Sector Report of Turkey Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, General Directorate of Turkish Coal Enterprises. TPAO, The Oil and Gas Sector Report of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Petroleum Corporation. van Oers, L., CML-IA Characterisation Factors. [November 2010]. Available from: WEC, Turkey Energy Balance Table ( ): World Energy Council Turkish National Committee [Online]. Available from: Weisser, D., A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy, 32(9), Page 135 of 303

136 Chapter 5 Chapter 5: An Integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation in Turkey This paper was submitted for publication. It is currently under review. This research consists of sustainability assessment of current electricity generation in Turkey, taking into account environmental, economic and social aspects. Table and figure numbers have been amended to fit into the structure of this thesis. Page 136 of 303

137 Chapter 5 An Integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Generation in Turkey Burcin Atilgan and Adisa Azapagic* School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK * Corresponding author, Tel: , adisa.azapagic@manchester.ac.uk Abstract This paper presents for the first time an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of the electricity sector in Turkey, considering environmental, economic and social aspects. Twenty life cycle sustainability indicators (11 environmental, three economic and six social) are used to evaluate the current electricity options. Geothermal power is the best option for six environmental impacts but it has the highest capital costs. Small reservoir and run-of-river power has the lowest global warming potential while large reservoir is best for the depletion of elements and fossil resources, and acidification. It also has the lowest levelised costs, worker injuries and fatalities but provides the lowest life cycle employment opportunities. Gas power has the lowest capital costs but it provides the lowest direct employment and has the highest levelised costs and ozone layer depletion. Given these trade-offs, a multi-criteria decision analysis has been carried out to identify the most sustainable options assuming different stakeholder preferences. For all the preferences considered, hydropower is the most sustainable option for Turkey, followed by geothermal and wind electricity. This work demonstrates the importance for energy policy of an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment and how tensions between different aspects can be reconciled to identify win-win solutions. Keywords: Electricity generation; Turkey; sustainability assessment; life cycle assessment; economic costing; social assessment Page 137 of 303

138 Chapter 5 1. Introduction Sustainable development is becoming increasingly important for many nations. The publication of Our Common Future (WCED, 1987), gave the most widely used definition of sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is now widely recognised and accepted that sustainable development involves balancing environmental, economic and social issues. Taking a life cycle approach to sustainable development ensures that sustainability aspects are taken into account over the whole life cycle of a product, process or activity (Perdan, 2011; UNEP/SETAC, 2011). The electricity sector is important for sustainable development of a region or a country as it affects various environmental, economic and social issues across the supply chain. As indicated in Table 15, these issues have been studied on a life cycle basis for different countries, including Australia, Germany, Mexico, Nigeria, Singapore and the UK. The studies varied with respect to the methodology used for the assessment as well as the electricity technologies and sustainability indicators considered. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been the most widely used methodology for evaluating the environmental sustainability. All of the studies considered environmental and economic issues and most assessed the social sustainability, except Kannan et al. (2007), Jeswani et al. (2011) and Gujba et al. (2010). Some studies also included technological issues such as efficiency, capacity factor, availability and operability (Evans et al., 2009; Stamford and Azapagic, 2012; Maxim, 2014). However, to date, there have been no sustainability studies of electricity generation in Turkey. Turkey is developing rapidly and its electricity consumption is growing fast. In 2010, the total installed capacity of 49,524 MW generated 211,208 GWh of electricity, four times more than in 1990 (TEIAS, 2012). Although the country s electricity mix includes hydropower, wind and geothermal power, coal and natural gas dominate, providing 73% of the total generation (EUAS, 2011). As a result of its growing electricity demand and a lack of domestic fossil fuels (apart from lignite), Turkey has become dependent on other countries with the share of imported power continuing to increase each year. The security of energy supply, especially of natural gas imports, is one of the most important energy strategy objectives in Turkey (MENR, 2009a). Moreover, the high share of fossil fuels in the national electricity mix, together with the increasing demand, has led to a steady Page 138 of 303

139 Chapter 5 increase in greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from the electricity sector. Being a party to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex I), Turkey is under pressure to reduce its emissions. On the other hand, the price of electricity is high owing to the import dependency: 14.8 US$ cent/kwh for industrial and 18.5 US$ cent/kwh for domestic consumers, around 20% and 10% above the OECD average, respectively (IEA, 2014). Additionally, there are serious issues related to the occupational safety in the Turkish electricity sector, with over 300 deaths in 2014 alone as a result of coal mine accidents (Acar et al., 2015). However, beyond these scant data, there is little information on the sustainability of the electricity sector in Turkey, particularly on a life cycle basis. Therefore, this paper sets out to evaluate the life cycle sustainability of the Turkish electricity sector by considering different technologies currently operational in Turkey and integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. As far as the authors are aware, this is a first study of its kind for Turkey, aiming to inform future energy policy. Page 139 of 303

140 Chapter 5 Table 15: Recent studies on life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity technologies in different countries Authors Scope Country Hirschberg et al. (2004) Sustainability of electricity supply technologies Germany Technologies considered Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar Sustainability issues (number) Economic (7): Financial requirements and resources Environmental (5): Climate change, emissions to air, waste, land use, severe accidents Social (6): Employment, proliferation, human health, local disturbances, risk aversion, critical waste confinement time May and Brennan (2006) Kannan et al. (2007) Genoud and Lesourd (2009) Evans et al. (2009) Sustainability assessment of electricity Life cycle energy, emissions and costs of power Characterization of sustainable development indicators for various power generation technologies Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies Australia Coal, natural gas Economic (5): Wealth generation, capital requirements Environmental (12): Climate change, resource depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity, ecotoxicity, solid wastes, particulates, water consumption Social (4): Employees, health and safety Singapore Coal, gas, oil, solar Economic (3): Total levelised costs Environmental (2): Climate change, energy use Not specified Not specified Coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal Economic (5): Efficiency, renewability, production capacity upon demand, possibility of growth, cost Environmental (10): CO 2, NO x, SO 2, VOCs, Cd, CH 4 emissions, particles, biochemical oxygen demand, radioactivity, noise pollution Social (6): Notion of public good, land area requirement, energy payback, employment, supply risk, use of local energy resources Techno-economic (3): Levelised costs, efficiency of energy conversion, availability, technical limitations Environmental (3): Climate change, water consumption, land use Social (8): Toxin release, noise, bird strike risk, visual amenity, effect on agriculture and seismic activity, odour, river damage Page 140 of 303

141 Chapter 5 Gujba et al. (2010) Sustainability assessment of energy systems Nigeria Coal, natural gas, oil, hydro, biomass, solar, wind Economic (3): Levelised costs, capital costs, total annualised costs Environmental (10): Climate change, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity, resource depletion Jeswani et al. (2011) Assessing options for electricity generation from biomass UK Coal, direct-fired biomass, gasified biomass Environmental (5): Climate change, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity Economic (2): Capital costs, total annualised costs Stamford and Azapagic (2012) Sustainability assessment of electricity UK Nuclear, coal, natural gas, offshore wind, solar Techno-economic (13): Operability, technological lock-in, immediacy, levelised costs, cost variability, financial incentives Environmental (11): Climate change, recyclability, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, land use Social (19): Provision of employment, human health impacts, large accident risk, local community impacts, human rights and corruption, energy security, nuclear proliferation, intergenerational equity Maxim (2014) Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies Not specified Coal, natural gas, piston engine, combined heat and power (CHP), fuel cell, hydro (large and small), wind (onshore and offshore), solar, geothermal, biomass, nuclear Techno-economic (4): Ability to respond to demand, efficiency, capacity factor, levelised costs Environmental (2): Land use, external costs (environmental) Social (4): External costs (human health), job creation, social acceptability, external supply risk Santoyo-Castelazo and Azapagic (2014) Sustainability assessment of electricity Mexico Nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, hydro, geothermal, wind Economic (3): Levelised costs, capital costs, total annualised costs Environmental (10): Climate change, ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human toxicity, resource depletion Social (4): Energy security, public acceptability, health and safety, intergenerational issues Page 141 of 303

142 Chapter 5 2. Methodology As outlined in Figure 25, the methodology for evaluating the sustainability applied in this work involves six steps: definition of the goal and scope of the assessment; identification of sustainability issues and related indicators; life cycle sustainability assessment of different electricity options, taking into account environmental, economic and social aspects; integration of these aspects using multi-criteria decision analysis; data quality assessment; and policy recommendations. These steps, together with the data and assumptions used in the study, are described in more detail in the following sections. Definition of the goal and scope Sustainability issues and indicators Sustainability assessment Environmental sustainability assessment Economic sustainability assessment Social sustainability assessment Multi-criteria decision analysis Data quality assessment Results and recommendations Figure 25: Methodology for assessing the sustainability of electricity generation 2.1. Goal and scope definition The goal of this study is to evaluate the life cycle sustainability of the Turkish electricity sector by considering environmental, economic and social impacts of different technologies currently present in the electricity mix. The findings will be used to identify the most sustainable electricity options for the country and make policy recommendations for improving the sustainability in the electricity sector. The unit of analysis (functional unit) is generation of 1 kwh of electricity in Turkey. The scope of the study is from cradle to grave, taking into account extraction, processing and transportation of raw materials and fuels (where relevant) as well as construction, Page 142 of 303

143 Chapter 5 operation and decommissioning of power plants (Figure 17). In total, there are 516 power plants in Turkey, all of which are considered. The focus is on electricity generation so that its transmission, distribution and use are outside the scope of the study. Extraction of primary resources Coal Plant construction Mining Cleaning & preparation Transport Plant operation Plant decommissioning Natural gas Plant construction Extraction Treatment & preparation Distribution Plant operation Hydropower, Wind and Geothermal Plant decommissioning Plant construction Plant operation Plant decommissioning Waste treatment and disposal Figure 26: The life cycle of the electricity options currently present in Turkey 2.2. Sustainability issues and indicators The sustainability issues and indicators relevant to the Turkish electricity sector have been identified through an extensive literature survey, taking into account government and industry reports and strategy documents (e.g. IAEA, 2005; MENR, 2009a; Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi, 2009; Onat and Bayar, 2010; Kaygusuz, 2011; Serencam and Serencam, 2013) as well as previous sustainability studies of electricity elsewhere (e.g. those listed in Table 15). The issues and related indicators are summarised in Table 1 with a brief overview given below; for further details on how the individual indicators have been calculated, see Chapter 1. As indicated in Table 1, the following environmental issues are considered: climate change, resource depletion and emissions to air, water and soil. Since LCA has been used in this work to assess the environmental sustainability, these issues have been translated into 11 environmental indicators typically considered in LCA and quantified Page 143 of 303

144 Chapter 5 using the CML 2001 impact assessment method, November 2010 update (Guinée et al., 2001; van Oers, 2010). The LCA has been carried out following the guidelines in the ISO and standards (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b). The software packages GEMIS 4.8 (Öko Institute, 2012) and GaBi v.6 (PE International, 2013) have been used to model the systems and estimate the impacts. Three economic indicators are estimated capital, annualised and levelised costs all related to the issue of electricity costs. The capital costs represent the total construction costs of a power plant, including land, planning, construction, commissioning and working capital costs (May and Brennan, 2006). Total annualised costs are related to the annual costs of operating the system while levelised or unit costs are the average costs over the lifetime of a plant expressed per unit of electricity generated (Rubin, 2013). Their estimation is detailed in Chapter 1, Section 4.5. Three social issues pertinent to the electricity sector in Turkey are evaluated: provision of employment, worker safety and energy security. For each issue, two relevant indicators have been formulated (Table 1) and estimated using a life cycle approach where relevant (see Section 4.5 in Chapter 1). Two types of employment are estimated: direct and total. The former refers to the number of jobs during the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of a power plant. The total employment is a sum of direct and indirect employment with the latter relating to the number of jobs in fuel extraction and processing as well as manufacturing of plant parts. The safety issues are quantified through the number of worker injuries and fatalities. The former takes into account the total number of injuries per unit of electricity generated over the lifetime of an electricity technology and the latter the number of fatalities in large accidents in the supply chain (Stamford and Azapagic, 2012). Finally, energy security is measured via two indicators: imported fossil fuel potentially avoided and diversity of fuel supply. The former estimates the amount of imported fossil fuels that are potentially avoided through the utilisation of technologies that do not rely on imported fossil fuels while the latter evaluates the national supply diversity based on the Simpson diversity index (Stamford and Azapagic, 2012). Page 144 of 303

145 Chapter Sustainability assessment: data and assumptions To evaluate the sustainability of individual electricity options as well as the overall electricity sector in Turkey, data have been collected from a variety of sources. The data rely largely on annual averages and thus do not account for variation which may occur on small time scales as a result of differences in fuel mix and operational parameters. The most complete data set was available for the year 2010 which is considered here as the base year. As mentioned in the introduction, the total installed capacity in that year was 49,524 MW which generated 211,208 GWh (TEIAS, 2012). There were 16 lignite, eight hard coal, 187 gas, 55 reservoir and 205 run-of-river hydropower, 39 wind and six geothermal power plants, all of which are considered in this study (see Table 3-Table 5, Table 13 and Appendix 2). The contribution of the liquid-fuel power plants to the total generation of electricity is small (1%) and for simplicity this has been substituted with the equivalent amount of electricity generated by the gas power plants. The data on the specific technologies for other renewables and waste have not been available. As their contribution to the total electricity generation is very small (0.2%), they have been substituted by small reservoir hydropower. Furthermore, the data on the specific technologies for multi-fuel plants have not been available either. Thus, the solid-liquid multi-fuel plants have been substituted by the data for lignite plants and the gas-liquid plants by gas plants. The assumptions and data sources for different electricity technologies for the environmental, economic and social indicators are discussed in the following sections Environmental data and assumptions The inventory data and the assumptions for the power plants are summarised in Table 14. The background life cycle inventory data have been sourced largely from Ecoinvent v2.2 (Dones et al., 2007) but have been adapted as far as possible to Turkey s conditions. Where the appropriate data were not available in Ecoinvent or were not detailed enough, other sources have been used, specifically for hydropower (Flury and Frischknecht, 2012), onshore wind (Kouloumpis et al., 2015) and geothermal (PE International, 2013). For the latter, only aggregated data for a 30 MW flash-steam plant have been available so that it has not been possible to adapt them to Turkish conditions. However, as flash-steam plants provide two thirds of electricity from geothermal sources in Turkey (Parlaktuna et al., 2013) and geothermal power contributes only 0.3% to electricity generation (Figure 2), this limitation is not deemed significant. Page 145 of 303

146 Chapter 5 The size and capacity of the hydropower plants and wind turbines in Ecoinvent differ from the plants in Turkey, so that it has been necessary to scale them up or down. The scaling approach introduced in Chapter 3 has been used to scale the environmental impacts for the hydropower and wind turbines. Further details on the environmental data and assumptions can be found in Chapter 2-Chapter Economic data and assumptions The cost data used in the analysis correspond to the year 2012 rather than 2010 because of better data availability; thus all costs are expressed in 2012 US$. However, the 2012 costs have been applied to the electricity mix in the base year so that the basis of analysis remains the same as for the other two sustainability aspects. The cost data given in Table 16 have been sourced from Turkey s electricity generation plan (TEIAS, 2013). Specific capital costs data were not available for different hydropower options; therefore, the costs of large and small reservoir and run-of-river hydropower plants have been assumed based on the data from government reports and academic literature (Lako et al., 2003; TEIAS, 2013; Schröder et al., 2013a; IRENA, 2012; Kucukali and Baris, 2009). Table 16: Costs of power plants in Turkey (TEIAS, 2013) a Power plant Type Capital costs (US$/kW) Fixed costs (US$/kW-year) Variable costs (US$ cents/kwh) Fuel costs (US$/t) b Lignite Hard coal Domestic Imported Natural gas c 750 Large d - reservoir Small d - reservoir Run-of-river d - Onshore wind Geothermal e a All values in 2012 US$. b Gas: US$/1000 Nm 3 (standard conditions: 1 atm and 15 o C). c Estimated based on two power plants due to lack of data. d US$/kW-year. e Source: Sener and Aksoy (2007). The assumed lifetimes of the power plants are given in Table 14. The discounting rate of 10% has been applied for the calculation of the annualised capital costs (TEIAS 2013). The assumed discount rate has been chosen as it is commonly applied in the context of Page 146 of 303

147 Chapter 5 electricity generation and therefore enables more valid comparison to existing studies (e.g. IEA/NEA, 2011; IEA/NEA, 2005; IEA et al., 2015) Social data and assumptions Direct and indirect employment for each technology has been estimated by using the employment factors for different life cycle stages, i.e. construction and installation, manufacturing of plant parts, operation and maintenance, fuel extraction and processing, and decommissioning. The employment factors for Turkey have been calculated based on the employment factors in the OECD countries (Rutovitz and Harris, 2012) and labour productivity in Turkey. The latter is estimated by dividing the Gross Domestic Production (GDP) by the total employment in each life cycle stage (Yilmaz, 2014) for details, see eqn. [17b] in Chapter 1. The estimated employment factors for Turkey are presented in Table 17. Owing to the lack of data, the employment in the decommissioning stage is assumed to be 20% of construction employment. For the lignite fuel cycle, regional employment factors have been calculated using the data from government and industrial reports as well as academic literature (Ersin, 2006; WEC, 2011). As most hard coal used in Turkey is imported from the USA, Russia and South Africa (Table 18), fuel cycle employment factors were calculated using the employment factors in these countries (Rutovitz and Harris, 2012). The worker injuries and fatalities have been estimated using the worker injury and fatality rates and the number of jobs in each life cycle stage. The data on injuries and fatalities for the life cycle stages occurring in Turkey have been sourced from the statistical yearbook of the Social Security Institution (SSI, 2013a). Owing to the lack of data, the same injury and fatality rates have also been used for the parts of the life cycle taking place elsewhere. Although this is a limitation of the study, this assumption is reasonable given that the majority of the fuels are imported from developing countries (see Table 18) where safety regulation and practices may be similar to those in Turkey. Page 147 of 303

148 Chapter 5 Table 17: Employment factors in different sectors in Turkey estimated in this study Power plant type Construction and installation (job-years/mw) Manufacturing (job-years/mw) Operation and maintenance (jobs/mw) Fuel extraction and processing (jobs/pj) Lignite Hard coal Natural gas Large reservoir a Small reservoir b Run-of-river c Onshore wind Geothermal a Owing to the lack of data, the large hydropower plant employment factors in OECD countries (Rutovitz and Harris, 2012) have been used directly for large reservoir hydropower plants in Turkey. b The employment factors for small reservoir hydropower plants in Turkey have been calculated based on the large hydropower plant employment factors of the OECD countries (Rutovitz and Harris, 2012) by using the average labour productivity in Turkey. c Owing to the lack of specific data for run-of-river hydropower plants, the average employment factors for the construction and operation stages have been assumed based on the environmental impact assessment reports for different sizes of the run-of-river plants in Turkey (Dokay, 2009; MGS, 2011; Doga, 2011; Topcuoglu, 2011; Cinar, 2011; EN-CEV, 2012; Nazka, 2014; Akya, 2014; Topcuoglu, 2008; Golder Associates, 2008; AK-TEL, 2009). The amount of imported fossil fuel that can potentially be avoided through the utilisation of technologies that do not rely on imported fossil fuels is based on the average efficiency of the hard coal and gas plants (for details see Table 14). The proportions of national fuel demand supplied domestically and imported in 2010 (see Table 18) have been used to calculate the diversity of the fuel supply mix. Table 18: Domestic and imported fuels in Turkey in 2010 a Natural gas (million m 3 ) Page 148 of 303 Hard coal (million tonnes) Lignite (million tonnes) Domestic Imported Russia b - Iran Azerbaijan Algeria Nigeria USA South Africa Other (spot market) Total 21, a Own calculations based on various sources. b This includes the amount of hard coal imported from Colombia but as there are no LCA data for the Colombian coal, the LCA impacts from the Russian coal have been used instead.

149 Chapter Multi-criteria decision analysis Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to integrate the three aspects of sustainability and help identify the most sustainable electricity options taking into account different preferences for the aspects. Multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) has been used for these purposes because it allows a simultaneous consideration of all three aspects of sustainability, allowing compensation among them, which is often needed in policy applications (Azapagic and Perdan, 2005b). In MAVT, the overall sustainability score for each alternative is estimated by using eqn. [22]; for the calculation method, see Chapter 1. The MCDA was first performed assuming equal importance of all the aspects and indicators. This was followed by assuming in turn a much higher preference for one aspect at a time to find out how the sustainability performance of different electricity options may change. Since elicitation of preferences by decision makers and stakeholders has been outside the scope of the study, potential preferences have been assumed as part of this work. To test the robustness of the MCDA results, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out to determine how the ranking of the technologies would change with different weighting of the sustainability aspects Data quality assessment Data quality assessment has been carried out to identify uncertainties and future improvement needs for the data. The data quality assessment methodology has been adapted from the one developed for the LCA software CCaLC (2011). The data quality of each indicator for each generation technology and electricity mix has been assessed using the methodology presented in Chapter Results and discussion This section first discusses the results of the environmental sustainability assessment, followed by the economic and social assessments. The latter parts of the paper discuss the findings of the integrated sustainability assessment through MCDA. Further details on the sustainability assessment results can be found in Appendix 4. Page 149 of 303

150 Chapter Environmental sustainability assessment The results of the environmental sustainability assessment are given in Figure 27 and Figure 28. The former shows the impacts of each type of electricity option and the latter the impacts of the Turkish electricity mix in the base year. They are discussed in turn in the next sections. Further details on the life cycle assessment results can be found in Chapter 2-Chapter Environmental sustainability of electricity technologies The results in Figure 27 suggest that geothermal power is the most sustainable option for six out of 11 impacts (eutrophication, ozone layer depletion and all the toxicity categories). Large reservoir hydropower has the lowest depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as acidification. Run-of-river is the best option for the global warming potential and small reservoir is the best for photochemical oxidants, precursors of summer smog. The worst option overall is lignite with eight impacts higher than for any other option. Hard coal power has the highest depletion of elements and the global warming potential while gas has the highest ozone layer depletion. These results are discussed in more detail below Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements and fossil) As shown in Figure 27, hard coal has the highest ADP elements (81 μg Sb-eq./kWh) followed by wind (67 μg Sb-eq./kWh). This impact is primarily due to the use of chromium, copper, molybdenum and nickel for construction of the plants and coal supply. Large reservoir hydropower is the best options for this indicator with a value of 3 μg Sb-eq./kWh. As expected, the depletion of fossil resources is highest for fossil-fuel power plants with 15.1 MJ/kWh for lignite, 13.5 MJ/kWh for hard coal and 8.8 MJ/kWh for gas. Fuel extraction is the single largest contributor to this impact. By comparison, the depletion of fossil resources for the renewable options is several orders of magnitude lower, ranging from 0.02 MJ/kWh for small-reservoir hydro and geothermal power to 0.1 MJ/kWh for wind electricity Acidification potential (AP) The lignite life cycle is the worst option for this indicator, with a value of 10.8 g SO 2 - eq./kwh. The AP for hard coal is around 1.8 times lower (6 g SO 2 -eq./kwh) than for lignite. The vast majority of this impact is due to the high sulphur content in lignite and a lack of desulphurisation at some coal power plants (see Chapter 2, Table 3). Large Page 150 of 303

151 Chapter 5 reservoir hydropower is best for this environmental impact, with a value of 3 mg SO 2 - eq./kwh Eutrophication potential (EP) This impact shows the same trend as the AP: lignite power is the worst option with 11.9 g PO 4 -eq./kwh, mainly owing to the emissions of phosphates to fresh water, primarily from mining. Estimated at 2.3 g PO 4 -eq./kwh, the impact from hard coal power is around five times lower than for lignite. By comparison, geothermal and large reservoir power have the EP of 1 and 1.2 mg PO 4 -eq./kwh, respectively Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) As can be seen in Figure 27, the ranking of the options for this environmental impact is the same as for the AP and EP. With the FAETP of 2.1 kg DCB-eq./kWh, lignite is the worst option, predominantly because of the emissions of metals to freshwater during mining, including nickel, beryllium, cobalt, vanadium, copper and barium. The value for hard coal power is estimated at 0.4 kg DCB-eq./kWh, around five times lower than for lignite. Both values are still several orders of magnitude higher than for gas and the renewables: for example, the impact from geothermal power is g CO 2 -eq. per kwh Global warming potential (GWP) Small reservoir and run-of-river hydropower options have the lowest GWP, estimated at 4.2 and 4.1 g CO 2 -eq./kwh, respectively. Wind power is also a relatively good option with GWP of 7.3 g CO 2 -eq./kwh. Large reservoir emits 8.3 g CO 2 -eq./kwh which is almost two times higher than for the other hydropower options owing to the emissions of CO 2 and CH 4 from the degradation of biomass submerged in the water. Geothermal power is estimated to generate 63 g CO 2 -eq./kwh which makes it the worst option among the renewables. However, hard coal is significantly worse than any other option, with an estimate of 1126 g CO 2 -eq./kwh, followed by lignite with 1062 g CO 2 -eq./kwh and gas with less than half of that (499 g CO 2 -eq./kwh). For all three fossil fuel options, the majority of the GWP is from fuel combustion. Hard coal has a higher GWP than lignite, despite the higher efficiency per unit of electricity generated (Table 14), because of the additional GHG emissions from long-range transport of hard coal. The recycling credits are also lower for the hard coal plants as they are more efficient and need a lower amount of construction material per unit of electricity generated. The same applies for the other impacts. Page 151 of 303

152 Chapter Human toxicity potential (HTP) Lignite is the worst option for this indicator, with a value of 1.4 kg DCB-eq./kWh. This is largely due to mining, particularly as a result of emissions of selenium, molybdenum, beryllium and barium. The next largest contributor is lignite combustion to generate electricity. The most sustainable option is geothermal power with an HTP of 1 g DCBeq./kWh Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) As shown in Figure 27, lignite is significantly worse than any other option considered, with the MAETP of 6.4 t DCB-eq./kWh, followed by hard coal with 1.4 t DCB-eq./kWh. The impact from the other options is several orders of magnitude lower, with geothermal power being the best option at 0.5 kg DCB-eq./kWh. The main reason for the high impact from the coal power technologies is the discharge of heavy metals to water during mining Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) With the ODP of 92 µg CFC-11-eq./kWh, power from natural gas is the least environmentally sustainable option. This is around 12 times the impact of hard coal and 48 times that of lignite. This is mainly due to the transport of fuels and, in particular, emissions of halons 1211 and 1301 used as fire suppressants in gas pipelines. The ODP from the renewables is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of gas (see Figure 27) Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) Geothermal and small reservoir hydropower are the most sustainable options with the POCP of 1.2 mg C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh. Lignite and hard coal have the highest estimated values: 0.48 and 0.33 g C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh, respectively. The large majority of this impact is due to the emissions of SO 2, NO x and CO from coal combustion Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) Lignite power is significantly worse than any other option, with an estimated TETP of 3.9 g DCB-eq./kWh, followed by hard coal with 1.9 g DCB-eq./kWh. Geothermal power is the best option with 1 mg DCB-eq./kWh, which is around two orders of magnitude lower than for wind power (0.68 g DCB-eq./kWh). Page 152 of 303

153 AP (g SO2-eq./kWh) ADP fossil (MJ/kWh) ADP elements (μg Sb-eq./kWh) Chapter 5 Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal a) ADP elements Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal b) ADP fossil Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal c) AP Page 153 of 303

154 GWP (kg CO2-eq./kWh) FAETP (kg DCB-eq./kWh) EP (g PO4-eq./kWh) Chapter 5 Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal d) EP 2.2 Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal e) FAETP Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal f) GWP Page 154 of 303

155 ODP (μg R11-eq./kWh) MAETP (t DCB-eq./kWh) HTP (kg DCB-eq./kWh) Chapter Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal g) HTP 7 Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal h) MAETP Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal i) ODP Page 155 of 303

156 TETP (g DCB-eq./kWh) POCP (g C2H4-eq./kWh) Chapter Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal j) POCP Construction Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal k) TETP Figure 27: Environmental sustainability of electricity technologies in Turkey [All impacts expressed per kwh of electricity generated. The values shown on top of each bar represent the total impact after the recycling credits for the plant construction materials have been taken into account. Extraction refers to fuel and includes fuel processing. Some values have been rounded off and may not correspond exactly to those quoted in the text. ADP: Abiotic depletion of elements; ADP fossil: Abiotic depletion of fossil; AP: Acidification potential; EP: Eutrophication potential; FAETP: Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential; GWP: Global warming potential; HTP: Human toxicity potential; MAETP: Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential; ODP: Ozone layer depletion potential; POCP: Photochemical oxidants creation potential; TETP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential.] Page 156 of 303

157 Chapter Environmental sustainability of the Turkish electricity mix The environmental impacts of the electricity mix have been estimated based on the impacts of each technology discussed in the previous sections and their contribution to the total electricity generated in the base year (see Figure 27). The results are summarised in Figure 28. For example, the total GWP is estimated at 523 g CO 2 -eq./kwh which translates to nearly 111 Mt CO 2 -eq. per year, 54% of which is due to coal and nearly 46% to gas power. Renewable energy options contribute only 0.4% to the total GWP. Like the GWP, fossil-fuel based power electricity generation is also responsible for the majority of other environmental impacts. As far as we are aware, no other authors have carried out an evaluation of the environmental sustainability of the Turkish electricity sector on a life cycle basis. Therefore, comparison of the results with other works is not possible. Instead, the environmental impacts estimated here are compared to those from electricity generation in some European countries, to provide context (Figure 28). The electricity mix in the UK, France, Germany and Sweden are considered as illustrative examples covering a range of electricity mixes, two of which share some similarities with the Turkish grid (Germany and UK) and others are quite different (France and Sweden). It can be observed from the figure that the impacts from the electricity mix in Germany are the highest for five out of 11 impact categories considered, including the GWP. This is mainly due to a high contribution from lignite and hard coal (~22% each). On the other hand, the AP, MAETP, ODP and POCP are the highest from electricity generation in Turkey. This is mainly due to the poor quality of lignite used in Turkey, lack of air pollution control systems at some of the plants as well as long-range transport of imported hard coal and gas. ADP elements from the electricity mix in the UK is the highest due the higher proportion of offshore wind power in the mix. Compared to France, the majority of the impacts (apart from ADP elements and fossil) for Turkey are higher because of the high contribution of nuclear power (75%) in France. The electricity mixes in the UK and Sweden have lower environmental impacts that in Turkey for 10 out of 11 impacts; the exception is the depletion of elements which is lower for Turkey because of the lowest share of wind power. Page 157 of 303

158 Chapter 5 70 Turkey UK France Germany Sweden ADP elements ADP fossil [μg Sb-eq.] [MJ] AP x 0.1 [g SO2-eq.] EP x 0.1 FAETP x 0.01GWP x 0.01 HTP x 0.01MAETP x 100 ODP POCP x 0.01 TETP x 0.1 [g PO4-eq.] [kg DCB-eq.] [kg CO2-eq.] [kg DCB-eq.] [kg DCB-eq.] [μg R11-eq.] [g C2H4-eq.] [g DCB-eq.] Figure 28: Environmental sustainability assessment of electricity in Turkey in comparison to electricity in some European countries [All impacts expressed per kwh. For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 27. LCA data for the other countries are from Ecoinvent (Dones et al., 2007) except for the UK which are from Stamford and Azapagic (2014).] 3.2. Economic sustainability assessment As mentioned previously, the economic analysis involves estimation of capital, total annualised and levelised costs. The results reveal that, overall, large reservoir hydropower has the lowest levelised costs and gas power by far the highest, despite its lowest capital costs. The coal power options are more expensive than hydropower and geothermal but cheaper than gas and wind power in terms of levelised costs. These results are discussed in more detail in the following sections for both individual technologies and the Turkish electricity mix Capital costs As indicated in Table 16, at 2500 US$/kW the capital costs are the highest for the geothermal plants (Sener and Aksoy, 2007), followed by the run-of-river (2300 US$/kW) and the wind (2000 US$/kW) power (TEIAS, 2013). Based on the data, the total capital costs for 49,524 MW of the installed capacity in 2010 have been estimated here at US$69.3 billion. The majority of this is due to the hydropower (41%), coal (32%) and gas Page 158 of 303

159 Costs Chapter 5 (23%) plants (Figure 29). Although the latter have the lowest capital costs, their contribution to the total costs is still significant because of the high contribution to the electricity mix (46.5%, see Table 13). 18 Total capital cost (billion US$) Total annualised costs (billion US$/yr) Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir 0.9 Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Figure 29: Estimated capital and total annualised costs from different power technologies in Turkey (billion US$) [Total capital costs for the installed capacity in 2010: 69.3 billion US$. Total annualised costs: 25.9 billion US$. Billion = 10 9.] Total annualised costs The key variables used to calculate the total annualised costs are capital, fixed, variable and fuel costs (see Section 4.5 in Chapter 1). The total annualised costs are estimated at US$25.9 billion/year. Fuel costs account for 64% of the total, followed by the capital costs (28%). The rest is attributable to the variable (5%) and fixed costs (3%). Figure 29 also shows the annualised costs for different types of power plant. Gas and coal together contribute 87% of the total annualised costs (62% for gas, 16% for lignite and 9% for hard coal); this is largely because of the high fuel costs. The contribution of different cost components to the total costs varies by technology (Figure 30). For renewable technologies that have no fuel costs, such as wind power, the total annualised cost is mainly due to the capital (79%) and variable costs (16%). By contrast, for gas electricity, fuels contribute 88% to the total cost, while the capital and fixed costs represent only 11% and 1% of total, respectively. Page 159 of 303

160 Chapter 5 100% Annualised capital Annual fixed Annual variable Fuel 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Figure 30: Contribution of different costs to the total annualised costs for different electricity technologies Levelised costs The estimated levelised costs per unit of electricity generated are given in Figure 31 for different types of plant. The results suggest that electricity from large reservoir hydroplants is the cheapest (48 US$/MWh), followed by geothermal (61 US$/MWh) and small reservoir (63 US$/MWh). Onshore wind is the most expensive option (126 US$/MWh) among the renewable electricity technologies considered in this study. However, the most expensive option overall is electricity from natural gas, estimated here at 161 US$/MWh. This is because of the high fuel costs (see the previous section). The costs of the two coal-based options are close to each other, estimated at around 115 US$/MWh. The levelised costs of the electricity technologies are estimated using a set discount rate (10%). Choosing a different rate could affect the levelised costs of the different technologies as well as the cost break down of each technology. Taking into account the levelised costs for each technology and their contribution to the mix in the base year gives the unit cost of electricity mix of 123 US$/MWh. For context, the commercial and industrial prices of electricity in Turkey are 185 and 148 US$/MWh, respectively (IEA, 2014). As far as the authors are aware, this is the first time the levelised costs have been reported for Turkey; hence, it is not possible to compare these findings with previous Page 160 of 303

161 Levelised cost (US$/MWh) Chapter 5 estimates. However, a recent report (IEA et al., 2015) provides estimates for wind (84 US$/MWh), geothermal (121 US$/MWh) and large reservoir hydropower (54 US$/MWh) in Turkey. While the latter agrees well with the costs estimated here, the results for the other two options differ, with the costs of wind power being 50% higher and that of geothermal twice as low here. This is due to the different methodologies, assumed capital costs, size of the plants and capacity factors used in the two studies. It is also not possible to compare the results obtained here with the same example countries considered in the environmental assessment. Although some estimates exist for some of the technologies contributing to electricity generation in these countries, to our knowledge, the levelised costs for their electricity mixes are not available. The exception is the UK for which the costs are estimated at 121 US$/MWh, following a similar methodology as here (Stamford and Azapagic, 2014). This is quite close to the estimate for Turkey because of the similar contribution from fossil fuels to the electricity mix in these two countries. However, the values for levelised costs are available for some other countries and, as an example, we compare Turkey to two other developing countries: Mexico and Nigeria. Their electricity costs are reported at 106 US$/MWh and 111 US$/MWh, respectively, also using the same methodology as in the current work (Gujba et al., 2010; Santoyo Castelazo, 2012). The difference in the costs is mainly due to the differing electricity mixes and plant technologies in these countries. Note that all the costs discussed in this section refer to the value of US$ in Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Turkey UK Mexico Nigeria Figure 31: Levelised costs of electricity in Turkey in comparison to some other countries Page 161 of 303

162 Chapter Social sustainability assessment The social sustainability assessment has been evaluated on the basis of six indicators discussed below. In summary, run-of-river hydropower provides the highest life cycle employment of the eight options considered but has high worker injuries and largeaccident fatalities. However, the latter two are the highest for lignite and hard coal, with the majority of these related to fuel mining. Large reservoir hydropower provides the lowest life cycle employment in the supply chain but it is the best option in terms of worker injuries and fatalities. Being fuel free, renewable options score highly for the energy security indicators. As for the other sustainability aspects, this is the first time a social sustainability assessment has been attempted for the Turkish electricity sector so that the results cannot be compared to previous studies. Instead, we compare the results to a similar study in the UK which applied the same methodology (Stamford and Azapagic, 2014). Comparison with other studies is not meaningful owing to different methodologies Direct employment As explained in Section 2.1, direct employment comprises jobs provided during the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of a power plant. The results in Figure 32 suggest that run-of river hydropower provides the highest direct employment, equivalent to 459 jobs-years/twh. The next best option is onshore wind with 256 jobsyears/twh, followed by small reservoir hydropower at 202 jobs-years/twh. For this indicator, gas power is the least sustainable, providing only 56 jobs-years/twh. The reason that some of the renewable power options have such high direct employment per unit of electricity is because of their low capacity factors. Overall, electricity generation in Turkey provided 24,632 direct jobs in 2010 or 117 jobsyears per TWh. The majority of the direct employment is from lignite (25%), natural gas (23%) and run-of-river hydropower (14%) in Turkey. By comparison, the equivalent value for the UK electricity is 52 jobs-years/twh, 35% of which from coal, 25% from gas and 23% from nuclear power (Stamford and Azapagic, 2014). The difference between the direct employment values for Turkey and the UK is mainly due to the differences in labour productivity which is around 1.5 times higher in the UK than in Turkey (OECD, 2015). Page 162 of 303

163 Employment (jobs-years/twh) Chapter Total employment (direct and indirect) In addition to the direct, total employment also considers indirect jobs provided by other activities in the life cycle, such as fuel extraction and processing and manufacturing of power plant parts. Like direct employment, run-of-river hydropower also has the highest total employment (512 jobs-years/twh), followed closely by lignite (509 jobs-years/twh); see Figure 32. Large reservoir hydropower provides the lowest life cycle employment (99 jobs-years/twh); this is due to its relatively high capacity factor and lower labour requirements per unit of electrical output. In total, the Turkish electricity sector provided 56,979 jobs in 2010, equivalent to 270 jobs-years per TWh. Again for context, the total number of jobs associated with electricity generation in the UK has been estimated at 123 jobs-years/twh (Stamford and Azapagic, 2014). Like direct employment, this value is lower than in Turkey because of the higher labour productivity in the UK. 600 Construction and installation Operation and maintenance Decommissioning Manufacturing Fuel extraction and processing Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Turkey UK Figure 32: Direct and total employment provided by different electricity options and the Turkish electricity mix [Direct employment: construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning. Indirect employment: manufacturing and fuel extraction and processing.] Page 163 of 303

164 Injuries/TWh Fatalities/TWh Chapter Worker injuries For every TWh of electricity generated in Turkey, 68 injuries are caused in the lignite life cycle; hard coal is only slightly better with 50 injuries/twh (Figure 33). Around 94% of these occur in mining. Wind power also has a high injury rate (10.4 injuries/twh), mainly because of the relatively high employment provision; around 80% of the injuries occur during maintenance. The best option is large reservoir hydropower with 0.7 injuries/twh. A total of 3700 worker injuries are estimated to occur annually in the Turkish electricity sector; this equates to 17 injuries/twh. The equivalent rate in the UK is nine times lower (Stamford and Azapagic, 2014), reflecting much more stringent occupational health and safety standards Large accident risk The lignite and hard coal power have the highest life cycle fatality rate of the power options considered here, causing an estimated 0.25 and 0.18 fatalities per TWh of electricity generated, respectively. Around 82% of these occur in mining. An estimated fatalities per TWh electricity generated are caused in the wind power life cycle. Runof-river also has relatively high fatality rates (0.04 fatalities/twh). The reason for this is the higher employment provision per unit electricity than for the other options. Large reservoir hydropower is the best option with 0.01 fatalities/twh Injuries Fatalities Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Turkey UK 0 Figure 33: Worker injuries and large-accident fatalities for different electricity technologies and the overall electricity mix Page 164 of 303

165 Chapter 5 On average, 14 fatalities occur every year in large accidents in the electricity sector in Turkey, particularly in the mining sector, compared to 3 fatalities in the UK (Stamford and Azapagic, 2014). This is again due to lax health and safety regulations in Turkey but also because the mining activity in the UK is low Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided The amount of imported fossil fuel potentially avoided relates to the amount of imported hard coal and gas that would have to be combusted to provide an equivalent amount of electricity from technologies that do not rely on imported fossil fuels, i.e. lignite, renewable and nuclear power plants. It is estimated that the current fleet avoids 72 tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per GWh or around 15.2 Mtoe per year. This is equivalent roughly to electricity generated by 85 coal or 150 gas power stations. By comparison, 50.6 toe/gwh or 19 Mtoe/year of fossil fuel are avoided in the UK (Stamford and Azapagic, 2014). The differences are mainly due to the differing electricity mixes and power plant efficiencies in the two countries Diversity of fuel supply mix The diversity of the Turkish fuel supply has been calculated using Simpson s Diversity Index (see Section 4.5 in Chapter 1). The score for gas supply is estimated at 0.56 and for hard coal at Therefore, the diversity of fuel supply is low as a result of high reliance on imports from Russia, which in 2010 supplied 58% of hard coal and 46% of gas used in Turkey. The total diversity index for the Turkish electricity mix is equal to This is lower than 0.82 estimated for the UK (Stamford and Azapagic, 2014) mainly because of the high reliance of Turkey on imports from Russia Multi-criteria decision analysis As discussed in the previous sections, different electricity options have differing advantages and disadvantages so that identifying the most sustainable among them is not easy. Therefore, MCDA has been used to aid that process using Web-HIPRE V1.22 software and the MAVT method (Mustajoki and Hämäläinen, 2000). The MCDA decision tree can be found in the Appendix 5. First an equal importance for all the sustainability aspects has been assumed, assigning the same weighting to each (w i =0.33), followed by assuming in turn a much higher (five times) importance of environmental, economic and social aspects to test the robustness of Page 165 of 303

166 Chapter 5 the outcomes. Given the different number of indicators for each sustainability aspect and to avoid bias, the weights for the indicators have been assigned as follows: 11 environmental indicators: w i =1/11=0.09; 3 economic indicators: w i =1/3=0.33; and 6 social indicators: w i =1/6= The MCDA results are discussed in the following section. Note that the option with the highest total score is considered most sustainable Equal preferences for the sustainability criteria The sustainability scores for each option estimated using eqn. [22] are displayed in Figure 34; further details can be found in the Appendix 5, Figure 60 and Figure 61. As indicated in the figures, hydropower is most sustainable with each hydro technology scoring around Wind and geothermal follow closely with All the renewables perform similarly well on the environmental sustainability but there is a greater difference between them for the other two aspects. From the economic perspective, large reservoir is the best option and wind the worst. However, the opposite is true for the social sustainability. Lignite is the least sustainable technology overall, scoring only 0.42, largely owing to a poor environmental performance. However, it scores most highly for the social sustainability among the fossil options (0.18), followed by gas power (0.12). On the other hand, gas is the least sustainable economically but the most sustainable environmentally among the fossil-fuel technologies. A sensitivity analysis suggests that the weight on the environmental aspect would have to change (from 0.33 to 0.24) to incur a change in the technology ranking (Appendix 5, Figure 61a). In that case, hard coal electricity would become the worst option, after gas and lignite. The ranking of the renewable options would remain the same. For the economic aspect, the rank order of the fossil fuel options would change if the weighting on this aspect changed from the current 0.33 to In that case, gas power would be the worst option, after lignite and hard coal. Moreover, the ranking of hydropower options would change, with large reservoir hydropower becoming the best option, followed by small reservoir and run-of-river hydropower (see Figure 61b). Page 166 of 303

167 Sustainability score Chapter 5 A similar increase in the weighting for the social aspect would be needed (from 0.33 to 0.57) for the rankings of the options to change (Appendix 5, Figure 61c), in which case wind power would be the third preferred option, after run-of-river and small reservoir hydropower. The ranking of fossil fuel options would also change and hard coal would become the least favourable option. 0.9 Environmental Economic Social Lignite Hard coal Gas Large resorvoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Figure 34: Ranking of the electricity options with equal weights on the environmental, economic and social aspects Different preferences for the sustainability criteria To find out how the ranking of the options might change with different preferences for the sustainability aspects, it has been assumed in turn that each aspect is more important than the other two. For these purposes, an extreme (arbitrary) importance of five times (w i =0.71) has been considered. The weights for the sustainability indicators remain the same as before. The results are presented in Figure 35. If the environmental aspect is considered the most important (Figure 35a), hydropower technologies are still the most sustainable options, each scoring around The next best option is geothermal power (0.85), followed by wind electricity (0.84). Lignite power is the worst option with a score of The sensitivity analysis suggests that the ranking of the renewables is robust over the whole range of the weighting (0-1) and only changes for the fossil-fuel options at w i =0.14, in which case lignite becomes the best and gas the worst option (see Figure 62 in Appendix 5). Page 167 of 303

168 Sustainability score Chapter 5 Assuming that the economic aspect is five time more important than the other two (Figure 35b), large reservoir hydropower emerges as the most sustainable option (0.82). Small reservoir hydropower is ranked second best (0.78), followed by geothermal (0.69), run-ofriver (0.68) and wind power (0.63). Gas power is the least sustainable scoring 0.4, largely because of its high levelised costs. The ranking of the options would change if the weighting on the economic aspect changed from the current 0.71 to 0.47 (Appendix 5, Figure 63). In which case, lignite becomes the least favourable option. When the social aspect is the priority, run-of-river hydropower is a clear winner, scoring 0.91 (Figure 35c). This is mainly due to its good social performance, compared to the other technologies. Wind power is ranked second with a score of 0.81, followed by small reservoir (0.79), geothermal (0.76) and large reservoir hydropower (0.75). Hard coal power is now the least sustainable alternative, scoring only 0.32, followed by gas (0.42) and lignite (0.49). The sensitivity analysis suggests that this ranking would change if the importance of the social aspect dropped significantly, from 0.71 to 0.31 (see Figure 64). In which case, large reservoir hydropower would become the best and lignite the worst alternative. 1.0 Environmental Economic Social Lignite Hard coal Gas Large resorvoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal a) The environmental aspect five times more important than the economic and social Page 168 of 303

169 Sustainability score Sustainability score Chapter Envrionmental Economic Social Lignite Hard coal Gas Large resorvoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal b) The economic aspect five times more important than the environmental and social 1.0 Environmental Economic Social Lignite Hard coal Gas Large resorvoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal c) The social aspect five times more important than the environmental and economic Figure 35: Ranking of the electricity options with different preferences for the sustainability aspects Page 169 of 303

170 Chapter Summary of the MCDA outcomes As discussed in the previous sections, the ranking of the electricity options varies with the weights of importance placed on the sustainability aspects. To summarise the results and help identify the most sustainable option(s), a simple ranking has been used with the most sustainable technology assigned a score of 1, the next best a 2, etc., up to 8 which denotes the least sustainable option. As indicated, in Table 19, hydropower technologies are the most sustainable if all the aspects are considered equally important as well as when the highest priority is given to the environment. Large reservoir remains the best option if the economic aspect is most important but falls to the fifth place if the social impacts are prioritised, in which case runof-river is ranked first. Geothermal power appears to be slightly better than wind for most cases, except for the high preference for the social criteria, in which case wind is the second best option overall, after run-of-river. The fossil-fuel options are the least sustainable, with gas being the best and lignite the worst, if all the aspects are considered equally important as well as if the priority is given to the environment. However, gas becomes the least sustainable option if the economic sustainability is considered most important. When the social aspect is prioritised, hard coal is the worst option. Table 19: Sustainability ranking of the electricity options with different weights on the environmental, economic and social aspects Technology Equal weights Five times more important at a time Environmental Economic Social Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir 1= 1= 1 5 Small reservoir 1= 1= 2 3 Run-of-river 1= 1= 4 1 Wind Geothermal Page 170 of 303

171 Chapter Data quality assessment Data quality has been assessed for each electricity generation technology considered in this study and for the current electricity mix using the methodology presented in Chapter 1. The estimated overall data quality scores for the technologies are in the range between 202 for geothermal and 254 for lignite. The overall data quality score for the electricity mix is 232. Thus, the data quality for the technologies and the electricity mix can be considered High (where a range of would indicate high quality). More detail on the data quality assessment for each technology and the electricity mix is provided in Appendix 6. Further improvements to the data quality could be made through the use of a more regionally-specific and recent data, as well as more complete economic and social data. 4. Conclusions and policy recommendations As a developing country, it is important for Turkey to evaluate the sustainability of its energy sector to help identify and implement the most sustainable options for the future. In an attempt to contribute towards this goal, this paper presents for the first time an integrated sustainability assessment of the electricity sector in Turkey, considering all the power plants and electricity technologies currently operating in the country. Taking a life cycle approach, each technology has been assessed on 20 sustainability indicators (11 environmental, three economic and six social). These results have been used to evaluate the overall sustainability of the whole electricity sector. The findings at the sectoral level indicate that fossil-fuel options are responsible for the majority (88%-99.9%) of the environmental impacts associated with electricity generation in Turkey. The results from the economic assessment suggest that the total capital costs are US$69.3 billion, with hydropower contributing the majority (43%), followed by coal (31%) and gas (22%) power plants. The annualised costs are estimated at US$25.9 billion/year and levelised costs at 123 US$/MWh. The evaluation of social sustainability indicates that the electricity sector provides around 57,000 jobs. Around 3700 worker injuries and 15 fatalities are estimated to occur in the supply chain annually. The energy security is low because of a reliance on imported fuels, with the diversity of fuel supply index equal to On the other hand, the high contribution of hydropower and lignite in the electricity mix helps to avoid the use of 15 Mtoe of imported fossil fuels per year, equivalent to electricity generated by 85 coal or 150 gas power stations. Page 171 of 303

172 Chapter 5 Comparing the specific technologies, lignite power is the least environmentally sustainable for eight out of 11 environmental impacts. It has the highest fossil fuel depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog and all the toxicity-related impacts. As a domestic source, lignite scores highly for the energy security. Hard coal power has the highest abiotic depletion of elements and global warming potential. Gas power is the worst option for ozone layer depletion, life cycle employment and levelised costs; however, it has the lowest capital costs. Large reservoir hydropower is the most sustainable in terms of depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as acidification, and is the second best for a further six environmental indicators. Moreover, it has the lowest levelised costs and worker injuries and fatalities. Environmentally, small reservoir hydropower has relatively low impacts and is comparable with large reservoir hydropower. However, both large and small reservoir hydropower options provide lower total employment than lignite, hard coal, run-of-river, wind and geothermal power. Run-of-river hydropower is the most sustainable option for the global warming potential and provides the highest employment but it has high capital costs. Wind power is significantly cheaper than gas per unit of electricity generated, although still higher than the other options considered here. Geothermal power has six environmental impacts lower than any other option. It only performs badly for acidification because of air emissions of hydrogen sulphide. Geothermal power is also the best option for the total annualised costs, but has the highest capital costs. Being fuel free, all renewable options score highly for the energy security indicators. Given these trade-offs, the choice of the most sustainable options will depend on stakeholder views on the importance of each sustainability aspect. Therefore multi-criteria decision analysis has been carried out to determine which technologies are sustainable for electricity generation in Turkey. The results reveal that, for all the preferences considered, hydropower emerges as the most sustainable followed by geothermal and wind electricity. Fossil fuel power is the least sustainable. Therefore, the results of this study show clearly that reducing the share of fossil fuels in the electricity mix would not only reduce significantly the environmental impacts, but also the costs, injuries and fatalities from electricity generation in Turkey, while also improving energy security. For example, the global warming potential of fossil-fuels electricity is around 270 times higher than for renewable electricity, despite the fossil-based plants generating only 2.7 times more electricity. Gas and coal electricity together contribute 87% of the annualised costs and coal has the highest life cycle worker injuries and fatalities. Page 172 of 303

173 Chapter 5 Based on the results from this this work, the following policy recommendations can be made to improve the sustainability of the electricity sector in Turkey: The current energy policy in Turkey is mainly driven by the need to improve energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To avoid solving one issue at the expense of another, the government is encouraged to consider wider environmental, economic and social impacts when planning a sustainability strategy for the electricity sector. This will help to make more sustainable decisions for the future. The government should adopt a life cycle approach in decision and policy making. This will help to identify hot spots and opportunities for reducing the environmental, economic and social impacts across the whole supply chain. The results of this study quantify for the first time the significant improvements in the sustainability of the electricity sector in Turkey that would be achieved if the share of fossil power in the electricity mix was reduced. Therefore, future policies should be oriented towards reducing the contribution of fossil fuels to electricity generation. Turkey has a significant potential for a variety of renewable energy resources, including solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy and hydropower. A greater penetration of renewable electricity sources into the grid as an alternative to fossil fuels is important for Turkey to reduce the dependence on imported fuels, improve the security of supply and reduce the environmental impacts from the electricity sector. Therefore, the government should encourage and possibly incentivise increasing the share of renewables in the electricity mix as well as diversifying the portfolio of options to include offshore wind and solar power. However, renewable power options should be chosen with care. For example, increasing the proportion of wind power in the electricity mix would increase depletion of elements while a higher share of geothermal power would increase acidification. As mentioned earlier, these trade-offs should be considered carefully to avoid solving one problem at the expense of another. Hydropower is well established in Turkey and has a large potential for further deployment. Many hydropower plants are currently under construction or in the planning stage. While this option has been found the most sustainable in this work, there are social issues that must be addressed, such as public acceptability of large reservoir power plants and how they could affect water supply in the Page 173 of 303

174 Chapter 5 neighbouring countries. The government should consider these and other social aspects judiciously before making plans for further development of hydropower in Turkey. This work has focused on the current electricity mix in Turkey and, by definition, has considered a limited number of technologies. For a future sustainable development of the electricity sector, further research is needed to evaluate the life cycle sustainability of other options that could be deployed in the country in the medium to long terms, including solar, bioenergy and nuclear power. This is the subject of a forthcoming paper by the authors. Page 174 of 303

175 Chapter 5 References Acar, S., Kitson, L.and Bridle, R., Subsidies to coal and renewable energy in Turkey. The International Institute for Sustainable Development. AK-TEL, Ikiler HES Proje Tanitim Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Anadolu Elektrik Uretim. Akya, Gelen Regulatoru ve HES Nihai Cevresel Etki Degerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Ulusal Elektrik Uretim. Azapagic, A.and Perdan, S., An integrated sustainability decision-support framework Part II: Problem analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 12(2), CCaLC, CCaLC manual. University of Manchester, Sustainable Industrial Systems: Manchester. Chatzimouratidis, A. I.and Pilavachi, P. A., Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy, 37(3), Cinar, Balikli I-II-III Regulatorleri ve HES Projesi Nihai Cevresel Etki Degerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Assu Elektrik Uretim. Coulson, J. M., Sinnott, R. K.and Richardson, J. F., Coulson & Richardson's Chemical Engineering. Oxford ; Boston: Butterworth Heinemann Ltd. Doga, Onur Regulatoru ve HES Projesi Nihai Cevresel Etki Degerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Temmuz Elektrik Uretim. Dokay, Yamanlı II Hidroelektrik Santralı ve Malzeme Ocakları Projesi Cevresel Etki Degerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: ENERJISA. EN-CEV, Orta Regulatoru ve HES Projesi Nihai Cevresel Etki Degerlendirme Raporu. Ankara: Balsu Elektrik Uretim. Ersin, M., Turkiye de Linyit Komurlerinin Enerji Kaynagi Olarak Onemi. Master Thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Cografya Anabilim Dali, Istanbul Universitesi. EUAS, Annual Report. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Generation Company. Evans, A., Strezov, V.and Evans, T. J., Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(5), Flury, K.and Frischknecht, R., Life Cycle Inventories of Hydroelectric Power Generation. ESU Database. Uster: Öko-Institute e.v. Page 175 of 303

176 Chapter 5 Genoud, S.and Lesourd, J.B., Characterization of sustainable development indicators for various power generation technologies. International Journal of Green Energy, 6(3), Golder Associates, Cambasi Regulatoru, ve Hidroelektrik Santrali Projesi Proje Tanitim Dosyasi. Ankara, Turkey: ENERJISA. Greening, B.and Azapagic, A., Environmental impacts of micro-wind turbines and their potential to contribute to UK climate change targets. Energy, 59, Guinée, J. B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R.and Koning, A., Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gujba, H., Mulugetta, Y.and Azapagic, A., Environmental and economic appraisal of power generation capacity expansion plan in Nigeria. Energy Policy, 38(10), Hirschberg, S., Dones, R., Heck, T., Burgherr, P., Schenler, W.and Bauer, C., Sustainability of electricity supply technologies under German conditions: A comparative evaluation. Comprehensive Assessment of Energy Systems. Switzerland: Paul Scherrer Institut. IAEA, Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. IEA, Electricity Information Paris: International Energy Agency. IEA, NEA and OECD, Projected costs of generating electricity. Paris: International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and Organisation for Economic and Cooperation and Development IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. Paris: International Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency. IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. Paris: International Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency. IRENA, Hydropower. Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series. Germany: International Renewable Energy Agency. ISO, 2006a. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. ISO, 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. Page 176 of 303

177 Chapter 5 Jeswani, H. K., Gujba, H.and Azapagic, A., Assessing options for electricity generation from biomass on a life cycle basis: Environmental and economic evaluation. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2(1), Kannan, R., Leong, K. C., Osman, R.and Ho, H. K., Life cycle energy, emissions and cost inventory of power generation technologies in Singapore. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(4), Kaygusuz, K., The paradigm of sustainability in Turkey's energy sector. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 6(1), Kouloumpis, V., Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Decarbonising electricity supply: Is climate change mitigation going to be carried out at the expense of other environmental impacts? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1, Kucukali, S.and Baris, K., Assessment of small hydropower (SHP) development in Turkey: Laws, regulations and EU policy perspective. Energy Policy, 37(10), Lako, P., Eder, H., Noord, M. d.and Reisinger, H., Hydropower Development with a Focus on Asia and Western Europe. Overview in the framework of VLEEM 2. The Netherlands: ECN and Verbundplan. Maxim, A., Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy, 65(0), May, J. R.and Brennan, D. J., Sustainability assessment of Australian electricity generation. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 84(2), MENR, Electricity Energy Market and Supply Security Strategy. Ankara, Turkey: The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. MGS, Samatlar Regulatoru, HES ve Malzeme Ocagi Projesi Nihai Cevresel Etki Degerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: RAK Elektrik Uretim. Mustajoki, J.and Hämäläinen, R. P., Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR, 38(3), Nazka, Cakirlar HES Kapasite Artisi Proje Tanitim Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Anadolu Elektrik Uretim. OECD, OECD.Stat, (database). Available from: Onat, N.and Bayar, H., The sustainability indicators of power production systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), Parlaktuna, M., Mertoglu, O., Simsek, S., Paksoy, H.and Basarir, N., Geothermal Country Update Report of Turkey ( ) European Geothermal Congress Pisa, Italy. Page 177 of 303

178 Chapter 5 PE International, GaBi version 6. Stuttgart, Echterdingen. Perdan, S., The concept of sustainable development and its practical implications. Chapter 1. In: Sustainable Development in Practice (Azapagic, A. and Perdan, S. eds.). Chichester John Wiley & Sons. Rubin, E. S., G. Booras, J. Davison, C. Ekstrom, M. Matuszewski, S. McCoy and C. Short, Toward a Common Method of Cost Estimation for CO 2 Capture and Storage at Fossil Fuel Power Plants. A White Paper. Global CCS Institute. Rutovitz, J.and Harris, S., Calculating Global Energy Sector Jobs: 2012 Methodology. Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS. Santoyo-Castelazo, E.and Azapagic, A., Sustainability assessment of energy systems: Integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80(0), Santoyo Castelazo, E., Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Options for Mexico: Current Situation and Future Scenarios. PhD, The University of Manchester. Schröder, A., Kunz, F., Meiss, J., Mendelevitch, R.and Hirschhausen, C. v., Current and Prospective Costs of Electricity Generation until Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW). Sener, A. C.and Aksoy, N., Yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklari maliyet analizi ve surdurulebilir YEK uygulamalari. Jeotermal Enerji Semineri. Diyarbakir/Turkey. Serencam, H.and Serencam, U., Toward a sustainable energy future in Turkey: An environmental perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27(0), SSI, Statistical Yearbook. Ankara, Turkey: Republic of Turkey Social Security Institution [Online]. Available from: Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK. International Journal of Energy Research, 36(14), Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity scenarios to Energy for Sustainable Development, 23, TEIAS, Electricity Generation and Transmission Statistics of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation [Online]. Available from: TEIAS, Turkiye Elektrik Enerjisi Uretim Planlama Calismasi ( ). Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation, Research Planning and Coordination Department. Page 178 of 303

179 Chapter 5 Topcuoglu, Pasalar Regulatoru, HES ve Malzeme Ocagi Projesi Nihai Cevresel Etki Degerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: RAK Elektrik Uretim. Topcuoglu, Taslikaya Regulatoru ve HES Projesi Nihai Cevresel Etki Degerlendirme Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Eyner Elektrik Uretim. UNEP/SETAC, Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making a Informed Choices on Products. Paris: UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. van Oers, L., CML-IA Characterisation Factors. [November 2010]. Available from: WCED, The Report of World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press: The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. WEC, Turkiye Enerji Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: World Energy Council, Turkish National Committee. Yilmaz, S. A., Yesil Isler ve Turkiye'de Yenilenebilir Enerji Alandaki Potansiyeli. Sosyal Sektorler ve Koordinasyon Genel Mudurlugu. Ankara, Turkey: Sosyal Sektorler ve Koordinasyon Genel Mudurlugu, Kalkinma Bakanligi. Page 179 of 303

180 Chapter 6 Chapter 6: Energy Challenges for Turkey: Identifying Sustainable Options for Future Electricity Generation up to 2050 This paper was submitted for publication. It is currently under review. This research consists of environmental, economic and social sustainability of future electricity scenarios for Turkey for the year Table and figure numbers have been amended to fit into the structure of this thesis. Page 180 of 303

181 Chapter 6 Energy Challenges for Turkey: Identifying Sustainable Options for Future Electricity Generation up to 2050 Burcin Atilgan and Adisa Azapagic* School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK * Corresponding author, Tel: , adisa.azapagic@manchester.ac.uk Abstract This paper presents for the first time a life cycle environmental, economic and social sustainability assessment of future electricity scenarios for Turkey up to In total, 14 scenarios have been developed with differing electricity mixes and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets. The scenarios comprise fossil-fuel technologies with and without carbon capture and storage, nuclear power and a variety of renewables available in Turkey. The assessment is carried out for 19 sustainability indicators, using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to help identify the most sustainable scenarios. The findings suggest that, per unit of electricity generated, all the environmental impacts would be lower in the future than today across all the scenarios. The only exception is depletion of elements which would increase by 2-18 times. However, because of the significant increase in the electricity demand, the annual impacts increase significantly for six out of 11 impacts, including the global warming potential (GWP). The fossil fuel based scenarios are the least environmentally sustainable for seven out of 11 impacts; including the global warming potential (GWP) which would increase up to four times on today s impact. Opting for renewable-intensive pathways would halve the current GWP and reduce the use of fossil fuels by three times; however, the depletion of elements would increase 70-fold and investment costs 10-fold. The unit costs of electricity are expected to be lower than today in all the scenarios as well as the number of worker injuries and fatalities; the employment would also be greater. MCDA shows that renewable and nuclear intensive scenarios outperform those that are dominated by fossil fuels, except for the very high preference for the economic criteria, in which case they are the best option. However, their poor environmental and social performances makes them least sustainable overall. The renewable-nuclear intensive scenarios are the most sustainable options with respect to most of the environmental, economic and social impacts considered. The results of this work show clearly that reducing the share of fossil fuels in the electricity mix would not Page 181 of 303

182 Chapter 6 only reduce significantly the environmental impacts, but also the costs, injuries and fatalities, while also improving energy security. Therefore, future policies should be oriented towards reducing the contribution of fossil-fuel technologies and increasing the penetration of low-carbon options. Keywords: Electricity generation; scenario analysis; sustainability assessment; life cycle assessment; Turkey Page 182 of 303

183 Chapter 6 1. Introduction Turkey is a fast developing country with the second highest growth rate in natural gas and electricity demand after China (IBP, 2015). As it lacks domestic gas sources, and gas provides almost half of the electricity demand (TEIAS, 2012), the country has become increasingly dependent on imports, particularly from Russia (TPAO, 2011). Given the unstable geo-political situation, improving security of energy supply is one of the main objectives of the Turkish energy policy which aims to reduce the dependency on natural gas by up to 30% by 2023 (MENR, 2009a). Diversifying gas supplies, both in terms of countries and transit routes, is also an important goal for the country (MENR, 2009b; MENR, 2009a). Furthermore, to meet the growing energy demand and reduce gas import dependency, Turkey also aims to expand coal power capacity by utilising domestic coal through clean coal technologies (MENR, 2009b). There are significant domestic reserves of coal, with lignite being much more abundant than hard coal (TKI, 2012). However, most of the Turkish lignite is of poor quality with a low calorific value and high sulphur and ash content. In contrast to gas and coal, the contribution from oil power plants has been declining over the years and today almost no oil power plants remain in Turkey as most have been converted to natural gas combined cycle power plants (MMO, 2010). As a results, gas and coal supply 72.5% of the electricity demand (TEIAS, 2012). On the other hand, Turkey has abundant renewable energy resources. Despite this, renewable electricity accounted for 26.4% of the total electricity generation in 2010, mainly from hydropower (24.5%) (MENR, 2012). In an attempt to reduce the dependence on fuel imports and maximise the use of the domestic energy potential, the government has set a target for 30% of electricity to be provided from renewable resources by 2023 (MENR, 2009a). In addition to hydropower, the options being currently considered for wider deployment include wind, geothermal and solar power. The target for 2023 is to exploit fully the technically (216 TWh/year) and economically (140 TWh/year) viable hydropower potential (DSI, 2010); to increase the wind installed capacity to 20 GW out of 48 GW estimated total potential (EMRA, 2014); to utilise the full geothermal power potential of 600 MW; and to promote electricity generation from solar energy (MENR, 2009a). With around seven hours of sunshine per day, the solar power potential is estimated at 380 TWh per year (EMRA, 2014). However, at present, the contribution of solar electricity is almost non-existent, with only a few photovoltaic installations connected to the grid, due to problems related to the financial support and regulatory system (Toklu, 2013; YEGM, 2013). Furthermore, despite a significant biomass potential of 117 million tonnes per year, Page 183 of 303

184 Chapter 6 equivalent to 1.3 TWh/year (EMRA, 2014), currently there is no target for increasing the capacity of biomass plants. Turkey has no nuclear power, in spite of trying to introduce it since the 1970s. All previous attempts have invariably failed owing to various financial, environmental and regulatory issues (Lorenz and Kidd, 2010). Nevertheless, the current target is to have 5% of nuclear electricity by 2020 and to increase it further in the long term (MENR, 2009a). In 2010, the government signed a cooperation agreement with Russia and, as a result, the construction of the first nuclear plant is about to start in the south of Turkey, on the Mediterranean coast. The plant will have four pressurised water reactors (PWR) with a total capacity of 4.8 GW and, according to current plans, it will be operational by 2022 (Akkuyu NGS, 2011). A further agreement was signed in 2013 with Japan to build and operate a 4.48 GW plant, also with four PWR reactors. The plant will be situated on the Black Sea coast (MENR, 2014a). The high share of imported fuels is not only a security of supply threat but it also creates a huge economic burden for the country. As a result, electricity prices are high: 148 US$/MWh for industrial and 185 US$/MWh for domestic consumers, 10%-20% above the OECD average (IEA, 2014). Furthermore, there are serious issues related to the occupational safety in the electricity sector, with over 300 deaths in two major coal mine accidents in 2014 alone (Acar et al., 2015). The high contribution of fossil fuels in the electricity mix, together with the increasing demand, has led to a steady increase in GHG emissions. Since Turkey is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex I) and an associate member of the European Union (EU), it is under pressure to reduce its emissions. Therefore, it is important to identify sustainable technologies suitable for the country to reduce the climate change and other impacts from a future electricity sector. Several studies have considered future electricity demand for Turkey, including MENR (2014b), Hamzaçebi (2007), Kankal et al. (2011), Hotunluoglu and Karakaya (2011), Çunkaş and Taşkiran (2011) and Yumurtaci and Asmaz (2004). However, no studies have considered the sustainability of the future electricity sector considering environmental, economic and social aspects. The only study that we are aware of is the environmental sustainability assessment of potential future scenarios up to 2050 (Greenpeace and EREC, 2008; Özer et al., 2013; MENR, 2006) which focused only on direct GHG emissions, i.e. from the operation of fossil fuel power plants. This paper goes beyond any Page 184 of 303

185 Chapter 6 of the previous studies to carry out a sustainability assessment of a range of different scenarios up to 2050, integrating environmental, economic and social aspects and taking a life cycle approach. Eleven environmental, three economic and five social indicators are considered for these purposes using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to help identify the most sustainable pathways for future electricity generation in Turkey. As far as the authors are aware, this is the first study of its kind for this country. The following sections detail the methodology and data used in this research, including the description of the scenarios and the electricity technologies. The results are presented and discussed in Section 3 and the conclusions are drawn in Section 4. Further details on the assumptions and results can be found in Appendix 7-Appendix Methodology The methodology applied for assessing the sustainability of future electricity generation in Turkey shown in Figure 36 involves the following steps: identification of sustainability issues and indicators; selection and specification of electricity technologies; definition of future scenarios to 2050 assuming different targets for reducing GHG emissions; life cycle sustainability assessment of scenarios taking into account environmental, economic and social aspects; integration of these aspects using multi-criteria decision analysis; data quality assessment and identification of most sustainable scenarios and policy recommendations. These stages are described in turn in the sections that follow. Page 185 of 303

186 Chapter 6 Identification of sustainability issues and indicators Selection and specification of electricity technologies Definition of future scenarios Sustainability assessment Life cycle environmental impacts Life cycle costs Life cycle social impacts Multi-criteria decision analysis Data quality assessment Identification of sustainable scenarios and policy recommendations Figure 36: Methodology for assessing the sustainability of future electricity scenarios 2.1. Sustainability issues and indicators The sustainability issues and the related indicators relevant to Turkey s electricity sector are summarised in Table 20. The environmental issues considered here are resource depletion, climate change and environmental pollution. These have been quantified through the environmental indicators typically considered in life cycle assessment (LCA). The key economic issue for Turkey is the cost of electricity which has been assessed through the capital, total annualised and levelised costs. Finally, the social sustainability indicators have been selected based on the social issues identified as a priority in Turkey: employment provision, health and safety and security of energy supply. Each indicator assesses a particular issue on a life cycle basis, from cradle to grave. The indicators are described in more detail in Chapter 1, also showing how they are calculated. Page 186 of 303

187 Chapter 6 Table 20: Indicators used for assessing the sustainability of electricity scenarios Sustainability aspects Sustainability issues Sustainability indicators Units Environmental Resource Abiotic resource depletion kg Sb eq./kwh depletion potential (elements) Abiotic resource depletion MJ/kWh potential (fossil fuels) Climate change Global warming potential kg CO 2 eq./kwh Emissions to Acidification potential kg SO 2 eq./kwh air, water and Eutrophication potential kg PO 4 eq./kwh soil Fresh water aquatic kg DCB a eq./kwh ecotoxicity potential Human toxicity potential kg DCB a eq./kwh Marine aquatic ecotoxicity kg DCB a eq./kwh potential Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq./kwh potential Photochemical oxidants kg C 2 H 4 eq./kwh creation potential Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg DCB a eq./kwh potential Economic Costs Capital costs US$ Total annualised costs US$/year Levelised costs US$/kWh Social Provision of Direct employment jobs-years/twh employment Total employment jobs-years/twh (direct + indirect) Worker safety Injuries no. of injuries/twh Fatalities due to large no. of fatalities/twh accidents Energy security Imported fossil fuels koe b /kwh potentially avoided a DCB: dichlorobenzene. b koe: kilogram oil equivalent Electricity technologies The following sources of electricity are considered, all on a life cycle basis (Figure 37): coal and gas, both with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear, solar photovoltaics (PV), onshore and offshore wind, biomass, hydro and geothermal power. As the focus is on electricity generation, its transmission, distribution and use are outside the scope of the study. The specific technologies for each electricity source are listed in Table 21, together with their capacity factors and lifetimes. They are either available currently or represent the most promising options for future electricity generation in Turkey. For most technologies, Page 187 of 303

188 Chapter 6 future technological improvements have been taken into account, based on the projections by various sources (e.g. Frankl et al., 2006; Bauer et al., 2008; Gärtner, 2008; Kouloumpis et al., 2015). For some technologies, both optimistic and pessimistic cases have been considered, to reflect the uncertainty in their future development. The former assume considerable technological developments and better geographical conditions leading to best outcomes, while the pessimistic case assumes the worst outcomes. The optimistic case is denoted as min and the pessimistic as max, referring to their best (minimum) and worst (maximum) sustainability performance. The technical data and assumptions for the future technologies are summarised in Table 22. Further assumptions for each future technology are discussed below. Coal with and without CCS Mining and processing Coal supply Transport and storage Coal plant* Carbon capture and storage Gas with and without CCS Extraction and processing Gas supply Transport and distribution Gas plant* Carbon capture and storage Biomass Agriculture / forest Biomass supply Transport and storage Biomass plant* Nuclear Mining and milling Fuel enrichment Fuel fabrication Nuclear plant* Hydropower Hydropower Hydropower plant * Electricity Wind Wind power Wind turbine* Geothermal Geothermal power Geothermal plant * Solar photovoltaics (PV) Solar PV Solar plant* Figure 37: The life cycles of electricity technologies considered in this study [*Comprises plant construction, operation and decommissioning. The dashed line indicates an optional step.] Page 188 of 303

189 Chapter Fossil fuels and nuclear power Coal (lignite and hard coal) and gas are currently the main sources of electricity in Turkey, generating 72.5%, and they are likely to play a major role in the future electricity mix (TEIAS, 2013). As given in Table 22, a mix of pulverised coal (PC) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants is considered for lignite and hard coal and combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) is assumed for natural gas power plants. The reason for choosing these technologies is that the majority of the plants are currently PC and CCGT and it is expected that they will continue to play an important role in a future electricity supply, together with IGCC plants (TEIAS, 2013). Since Turkey has no CCS programme at present, a mix of post-combustion and oxy-fuel CCS technologies likely to be implemented in the future (NEEDS, 2010) is assumed for coal plants and postcombustion CCS for gas installations. More efficient fossil fuel technologies and emission control systems have been assumed for the future fossil fuel plants, anticipating technological and legislative improvements. PWRs are assumed for future nuclear plants as they are currently the only option considered in Turkey (MENR, 2014a). For further data on technology specifications, see Table 22. Table 21: Capacity factors and lifetimes of future electricity technologies Technology Capacity factor (%) Lifetime (year) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Solar Biomass Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore a Wind offshore a Geothermal a 40 years for fixed and 20 years for moving parts. Page 189 of 303

190 Chapter 6 Table 22: Assumptions for future electricity generation technologies Technology Contribution to the technology mix (%) Assumed characteristics in 2050 Data sources Lignite PC (min) MW, 54% efficiency Bauer et al. (2008) PC (max) MW, 50% efficiency - - IGCC (min) MW, 52.5% efficiency - - IGCC (max) MW, 51.5% efficiency - - Lignite CCS PC (min) MW, oxy-fuel combustion, carbon sequestration 200 km away in an 800 m deep - aquifer PC (max) MW, post combustion, carbon sequestration 400 km away in an 2500 m deep - depleted gas field IGCC (min) MW, oxy-fuel combustion, carbon sequestration 200 km away in an 800 m deep - aquifer IGCC (max) MW, post combustion, carbon sequestration 400 km away in an 2500 m deep - - depleted gas field Hard coal PC (min) MW, 54% efficiency - - PC (max) MW, 50% efficiency - - IGCC (min) MW, 54.5% efficiency - - IGCC (max) MW, 53.5% efficiency - - Hard coal CCS PC (min) MW, oxy-fuel combustion, carbon sequestration 200 km away in an 800 m deep aquifer PC (max) MW, post combustion, carbon sequestration 400 km away in an 2500 m deep - depleted gas field IGCC (min) MW, oxy-fuel combustion, carbon sequestration 200 km away in an 800 m deep - aquifer IGCC (max) MW, post combustion, carbon sequestration 400 km away in an 2500 m deep - depleted gas field Gas CCGT (min) MW, 65% efficiency - - CCGT (max) MW, 62% efficiency Page 190 of 303

191 Chapter 6 Gas CCS CCGT (min) MW, post combustion, carbon sequestration 400 km away in an 2500 m deep - depleted gas field, assumes low impacts CCGT (max) MW, post combustion, carbon sequestration 400 km away in an 2500 m deep - depleted gas field, assumes high impacts Nuclear PWR MW, centrifuge fuel enrichment, the average burnup 53 GWd/kg heavy metal Dones et al. (2007) Reservoir hydropower Large MW, same technology as currently Bauer and Bolliger (2007) Small MW, same technology as currently Flury and Frischknecht (2012) Run-of-river hydropower Run-of-river MW, same technology as currently - - Onshore wind Onshore 2 MW 60 2 MW turbines, 30% capacity factor Kouloumpis et al. (2015) Onshore 3 MW 40 3 MW turbines, 30% capacity factor - - Offshore wind Offshore 5 MW (min) 35 5 MW turbines, 50% capacity factor - - Offshore 5 MW (max) 35 5 MW turbines, 40% capacity factor - - Offshore 10 MW (min) MW turbines, 50% capacity factor - - Offshore 10 MW (max) MW turbines, 40% capacity factor - - Biomass Wheat straw 60 6 MW, cogeneration plant, electric conversion efficiency 20%, heat 65%. Gärtner (2008) Miscanthus MW, cogeneration plant, direct combustion, 100% miscanthus, plant efficiency 45% Jungbluth et al. (2007) Wood residues MW, cogeneration plant, direct combustion, 100% wood residues, plant efficiency 45% Jungbluth et al. (2007) Geothermal Geothermal MW, flash-steam plant, same technology as currently Dones et al. (2007) Solar photovoltaics (PV) PV roof (min) 30 1 kw, tilted roof insulation, average annual solar radiation: 1800 kwh/m 2 Frankl et al. (2006) PV roof (max) 30 1 kw, tilted roof insulation, average annual solar radiation: 900 kwh/m PV ground (min) MW, ground-mounted, average annual solar radiation: 1800 kwh/m PV ground (max) MW, ground-mounted, average annual solar radiation: 900 kwh/m Page 191 of 303

192 Chapter Renewables As mentioned earlier, hydropower currently provides 24.5% of electricity in Turkey and will continue to play an important role into a foreseeable future. It is a mature technology with long lifetimes, particularly for reservoir and run-of-river plants (Table 21), so that future technological changes will be modest. For these reasons, it is assumed that in the future hydropower will have the same characteristics as today. Future development of wind power is assumed to be mainly onshore with a capacity of individual turbines from 2-3 MW. However, as the country plans to exploit its offshore wind potential in the future, offshore wind is also considered, assuming larger turbines, ranging 5-10 MW. Wheat straw, miscanthus and wood are assumed as the main biomass feedstocks, co-generating electricity and heat in combined heat and power (CHP) plants. Owing to the lack of data for future development of geothermal plants, it is assumed that flash-steam plants used currently will continue to be used in the future with no change in the design. A combination of small scale PV and large scale ground mounted plants is considered for future solar technologies (Table 22) Scenarios Four main scenarios are considered, each with two to four sub-scenarios (Table 23). In total, 14 scenarios have been defined, including business as usual (BAU) and scenarios with different GHG reduction targets. For comparison, the sustainability of the current electricity grid is also considered with 2010 taken as a base year, because of data availability. The assumed electricity mixes for the scenarios are shown in Figure 38, along with the current mix. For a more detailed description of the sub-scenarios, see Appendix 7. Electricity generation is assumed to increase on average by 3.55% per annum to To make them comparable, energy demand is assumed to be 852 TWh in 2050 across all the scenarios (MENR, 2014b). This represents a four-fold increase on current generation of 211 TWh. A brief description of each scenario is provided below; the detailed assumptions for the sub-scenarios can be found in Appendix 7. In the BAU scenarios, fossil fuel power generation would continue dominating the electricity mix in 2050 without any additional energy and climate change policies. These scenarios also assume that no CCS is present in the future electricity mix. Direct GHG Page 192 of 303

193 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Chapter 6 emissions (emitted during the operation of power plants) are up to five times higher than in Scenarios A, B and C are driven by different targets for direct GHG emissions. In A-1 to A- 4, limited action takes place to mitigate climate change and emissions double relative to the levels in 2000, growing by around 1.1% annually. Scenarios B-1 to B-4 assume that the GHG emissions from the electricity sector are equal to 2000 levels by Here, low carbon technologies gain importance to limit the increase in direct emissions to around 0.7% per year. For C-1 to C-4, the emissions are equal to 1990 levels, decreasing by 2.7% year on year up to As these scenarios are more constrained than B, low carbon technologies have a leading role in electricity generation. 100% Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 38: Current electricity mix (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 193 of 303

194 Chapter 6 Table 23: Overview of the current electricity mix and scenarios in 2050 Scenario Direct emissions a (Mt CO 2 -eq./year) Assumptions Current (2010) 99 b Current electricity mix. Coal and gas contribute 46.5% and 26.1%, respectively, to the total generation of 211 TWh. The next largest contribution is from hydropower (24.5%). Onshore wind contributes 1.4% and geothermal 0.3%. BAU The scenario was originally developed by Greenpeace and EREC (2008). There are no GHG emission targets and GHG emissions are five times greater than in A mix of fossil fuel (83.9%) and renewable (16.1%) technologies is assumed. CCS and nuclear plants are not considered. BAU Follows the current energy trends, policies and planned projects. There are no GHG emission targets and the emissions are four times higher than in Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies (69.5%), renewables (21.5%) and nuclear power (9%). The use of CCS is not considered. A GHG emissions are double the equivalent emissions in 2000 by 2050; limited action to reduce emissions. There is a strong support for fossil technologies. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (46%) and with CCS (29%), and renewable (25%) options. Nuclear power is not considered. A-2 GHG emissions are double the equivalent emissions in 2000 by 2050; limited action is taken to reduce the emissions. There is a strong support for fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (41%) and with CCS (19%), renewables (25%) and nuclear (15%). A-3 GHG emissions are double the equivalent emissions in 2000 by 2050; limited action is taken to reduce the emissions. There is a strong support for renewable and nuclear electricity. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (39%), renewables (36%) and nuclear power (25%). The use of CCS is not considered. A-4 GHG emissions are double the equivalent emissions in 2000 by 2050; limited action is taken to reduce emissions. There is a concentration of investment in renewable technologies. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (39%), renewables (56%) and nuclear (5%). The use of CCS is not considered. Page 194 of 303

195 Chapter 6 B-1 75 GHG emissions are equal to 2000 levels by There is a strong support for fossil fuel technologies. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (22%) and with CCS (53%), and renewables (25%). Nuclear energy is not considered. B-2 GHG emissions are equal to 2000 levels by There is a strong support for fossil fuel and nuclear electricity. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (23%) and with CCS (37%), renewables (25%) and nuclear (15%). B-3 GHG emissions are equal to 2000 levels by There is a strong support for renewable and nuclear power. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (21%) and with CCS (5%), renewables (44%) and nuclear (30%). B-4 GHG emissions are equal to 2000 levels by There is a concentration of investment in renewable technologies. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (21%) and with CCS (5%), renewables (69%) and nuclear (5%). C-1 33 GHG emissions are equal to 1990 levels by There is a strong support for fossil fuel technologies. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (5%) and with CCS (60%), and renewables (35%). Nuclear plants are not considered. C-2 GHG emissions are equal to 1990 levels by There is a strong support for fossil fuel and nuclear electricity. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (8%) and with CCS (42%), renewables (35%) and nuclear (15%). C-3 GHG emissions are equal to 1990 levels by There is a strong support for renewable and nuclear electricity. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (11%) and with CCS (5%), renewables (49%) and nuclear (35%). C-4 GHG emissions are equal to 1990 levels by There is a concentration of investment in renewable technologies. Assumes a mix of fossil fuel technologies without CCS (11%) and with CCS (5%), renewables (79%) and nuclear (5%). a Direct emission refer to emissions from operation of power plants, as opposed to life cycle emissions which span the whole life cycle of electricity generation. b Source: FutureCamp (2011). For comparison, direct emissions in 1990 were 33 Mt CO 2 -eq./year and in Mt CO 2 -eq./year (TUIK, 2013). Page 195 of 303

196 Chapter Sustainability assessment The scenarios are assessed on environmental, economic and social sustainability using the indicators summarised in Table 20 and detailed in Chapter 1. The environmental sustainability assessment has been carried out using LCA, in accordance with the guidelines in the ISO and standards (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b). The software package GaBi v.6 (PE International, 2013) has been used to model the systems and estimate the environmental impacts following the CML 2001 methodology, November 2010 update (Guinée et al., 2001; van Oers, 2010). All 11 impacts included in CML 2001 are considered (see Table 20). The inventory data discussed in Section 2.2 have been collected from a variety of sources and adapted as far as possible to Turkey s conditions (see Chapter 2-Chapter 5). There are no other LCA studies of future electricity technologies in Turkey for the year 2050, so the assumptions are based on European conditions assuming that by then Turkey will be part of the EU and achieve a technological alignment with the rest of Europe. The background life cycle inventory data have been sourced mainly from NEEDS (2010) and Ecoinvent (2010), which are also based on European conditions. As indicated in Table 20, three indicators are considered in the economic assessment: capital, total annualised and levelised costs (for estimations, see Chapter 1). Data for the costs of future electricity technologies in Turkey are not available. Therefore, future cost projections for the technologies in Europe have been assumed based on the information in Bauer et al. (2008), Gärtner (2008), Fürsch et al. (2011), Schröder et al. (2013a), Greenpeace and EREC (2012) and Sensfuß and Pfluger (2014). The cost assumptions for different technologies and fuels can be found in Appendix 8. Note that future fuel costs are the main source of uncertainty for two reasons: first, the data are available for a limited number of technologies (see Appendix 8, Figure 65d) and secondly, the current fuel prices are specific to Turkey while the future fuel costs have been sourced mainly from European data. In an attempt to reduce the uncertainty, wherever possible and available, a range of cost values for each option has been considered. For the estimation of annualised capital costs, the discounting rate of 10% has been applied (TEIAS, 2013). All costs are expressed in 2012 US$ in order to make the results for the future scenarios comparable with the current situation. The social sustainability assessment is based on the following five indicators (Table 20): direct employment, total employment (direct and indirect), injuries, large accident fatalities and imported fossil fuels potentially avoided. Their definitions can be found in Chapter 1 Page 196 of 303

197 Chapter 6 and the assumptions for the social sustainability assessment in Appendix 9. To estimate the provision of employment in the life cycle of each technology, the employment factors have been calculated based on the relationship between employment factors in the OECD countries (Rutovitz and Harris, 2012) and the labour productivity (Yilmaz, 2014); for details, see eqn. [17b] in Chapter 1. The employment factors have been adjusted by taking into account a decline factor for each technology to reflect a reduction in the employment per unit of electricity with improvements in technology efficiencies (Rutovitz and Harris, 2012). As the decline factors are not available beyond 2030, the 2030 data have been used for For the fossil fuel technologies with carbon capture and storage (CCS), the employment factors are assumed to be 30% higher than for the conventional fossil fuel systems (the same assumption as for the costs) because of the higher number of components and material requirements but also because of the efficiency penalty and the related effects in the fuel supply chain. Worker injuries and large accident fatalities for each technology are calculated using the worker injury and fatality rates and the number of jobs in each life cycle stage. Changes in the injury and fatality rates over time have been estimated using an annual average rate of decline of 4% until 2050, based on the historical trends from 1996 to 2013 (SSI, 2013b). Data are not available for the injury and fatality rates for biomass, nuclear, offshore wind and solar power so that they have been estimated in proportion to the employment rates. Given Turkey s current dependence on imported fossil fuels (see the Introduction), avoiding fossil fuel imports is important for the national energy security. Therefore, the indicator imported fossil fuels potentially avoided is used to reflect this issue. The amount of imported fossil fuel avoided is estimated taking into account the contribution to the total generation of electricity options which are not using imported fossil fuels, i.e. lignite (as it is a domestic source), renewables and nuclear. For the estimations, see Chapter Multi-criteria decision analysis Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to integrate the three dimensions of sustainability and help identify the most sustainable scenario(s), taking into account different preferences for the aspects. In this work, the MCDA analysis has been carried out using the multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) as incorporated in the Web-HIPRE V1.22 software, (Mustajoki and Hämäläinen, 2000); for the calculation method, see Chapter 1. Page 197 of 303

198 Chapter 6 The MCDA was first performed assuming an equal importance of all the environmental, economic and social aspects and indicators. This was followed by assuming in turn a high preference for each sustainability aspect to find out how the results may change if the environmental, economic and social aspects have different importance. Since elicitation of preferences by decision makers and stakeholders has been outside the scope of the study, potential preferences have been assumed as part of this work. To test the MCDA results, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out to find out if the ranking of the scenarios changes with different weighting of the aspects Data quality assessment Data quality assessment has been carried out to identify uncertainties and future improvement needs for the data. The data quality assessment methodology has been adapted from the one developed for the LCA software CCaLC (2011). The data quality of each indicator for each future technology and scenario has been assessed using the methodology presented in Chapter Results and discussion This section presents the results of the sustainability assessment comparing the current electricity mix and future scenarios on different sustainability aspects. Details for the environmental, economic and social sustainability assessment for the current situation can be found in Chapter 2-Chapter 5. The results are discussed in turn for the environmental, economic and social indicators in the sections below. Further details can be found in Appendix 8-Appendix Environmental sustainability assessment The results of environmental sustainability assessment are displayed in Figure 39-Figure 49 and are discussed for each impact below Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) Figure 39 reveals that in all the scenarios the depletion of elements would increase by 2050 compared to the present day. The best options are the BAU scenarios, with an estimated impact of µg SB-eq. per kwh; however, this is still almost double the current impact (Figure 39a). Annually, this difference is even higher, exceeding seven times for BAU and 71 times for C-4 (Figure 39b). This is largely due to a four times higher electricity demand than today but also because of the high contribution of renewables in Page 198 of 303

199 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C ADP elemens(t Sb-eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C ADP elements (µg Sb-eq./kWh) Chapter 6 the case of C-4. For the same reason, the other renewable-intensive scenarios (A-4 and B-4) also have high depletion of elements, mainly because of the high contribution from solar power (for the impact from the individual technologies, see Figure 67a in Appendix 10) a) ADP elements per kwh 400 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) ADP elements per year Figure 39: Abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 199 of 303

200 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C ADP fossil (PJ/year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C ADP fossil (MJ/kWh) Chapter Abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) All the scenarios show a decrease in the ADP fossil per kwh electricity by 2050 (Figure 40a). This is mainly due to the efficiency improvements for the future fossil fuel plants. However, the increase in electricity demand means that the annual depletion of fossil resources is higher for all the scenarios than at present, except for C-3 and C-4 (Figure 40b). This is because these scenarios have low penetration of fossil fuel technologies (see Figure 38). The worst options are scenarios BAU-1 and A-1, with around 3 times higher impact than from the current electricity grid a) ADP fossil per kwh 6000 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar b) ADP fossil per year Figure 40: Abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 200 of 303

201 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 AP (kt SO 2 -eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C AP (g SO 2 -eq./kwh) 2.82 Chapter Acidification potential (AP) As shown in Figure 41, all the scenarios have a much lower AP than today s grid, both per kwh and for the electricity generated per year. The A-1 scenario has the highest impact because of the high contribution of fossil fuel options which have the highest AP among the technologies considered (see Figure 67c). However, this is still 4.5 times lower per kwh and 10% lower per annum than from the existing grid. The best option is C-3 with a 57% lower impact than at present (Figure 41b) because of the high penetration of nuclear power which has a low AP. The worst scenario is A-1 mainly because of the conventional gas and coal CCS; however, its impact is still 10% lower than at present a) AP per kwh 700 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) AP per year Figure 41: Acidification potential (AP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 201 of 303

202 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C EP (kt PO 4 -eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C EP (g PO 4 -eq./kwh) Chapter Eutrophication potential (EP) The BAU scenarios have the highest EP and, although it is two times lower per kwh than currently, when the electricity demand is taken into account the annual impact doubles on the present value (Figure 42). All other scenarios have a lower annual impact than the current electricity mix, with the best option (C-3) having 12 times lower EP. All other C scenarios as well as B-1 and B-2 also perform well for this impact. This is due to a low or no contribution from coal which is by far the worst source of power for this category among the options considered (Figure 67d) a) EP per kwh Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) EP per year Figure 42: Eutrophication potential (EP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 202 of 303

203 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C FAETP (Mt DCB-eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C FAETP (kg DCB-eq./kWh) Chapter Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) Replacing the current mix with any of those considered in the future scenarios would lead to a reduction in the FAETP per unit of electricity generated, but for some scenarios the annual impact would be higher, in particular for BAU for which it doubles by 2050 on today s value (Figure 43a). This is largely due to a high proportion of coal which has a much higher FAETP than the other power options (Figure 67e). On the other hand, for the best cases, B-1 and C-1, the annual impact is up to 24 times lower than currently. All other C scenarios also result in significant FAETP savings as they have a small contribution of fossil fuel electricity (without CCS) a) FAETP per kwh Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) FAETP per year Figure 43: Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 203 of 303

204 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C GWP (Mt CO 2 -eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C GWP (kg CO 2 -eq./kwh) Chapter Global warming potential (GWP) As indicated in Figure 44a, the current GWP per kwh of electricity would be reduced in all the scenarios, including the BAU. This is due to the fossil fuel technologies becoming more efficient in the future as well as the use of CCS; for the GWP of the technologies, see Figure 67f in Appendix 10. However, when the annual electricity demand is taken into account, most scenarios have a higher GWP than today (Figure 44b). BAU-1 is the worst option, with nearly four times greater impact than at present. This is due to the high contribution of coal and gas to the electricity mix. The best scenarios are C-3 and C-4, generating about a half of today s GHG emissions a) GWP per kwh Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) GWP per year Figure 44: Global warming potential (GWP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 204 of 303

205 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 18 HTP (Mt DCB-eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C HTP (kg DCB-eq./kWh) Chapter Human toxicity potential (HTP) All scenarios have a lower HTP per unit of electricity than currently, with the reductions ranging between two (BAU-1) and 14 times (C-4). The highest values are found for BAU (Figure 45a) because of the emissions of heavy metals from coal power plants. However, the annual impact is higher for the BAU and A scenarios than from the current grid owing to the extensive use of conventional coal plants and the increase in electricity demand. Scenario C-4 is the best option with around three times lower HTP than at present. All other B and C scenarios as well as A-1 also have a lower impact than today a) HTP per kwh 120 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) HTP per year Figure 45: Human toxicity potential (HTP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 205 of 303

206 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C MAETP (Gt DCB-eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C MAETP (kg DCB-eq./kWh) Chapter Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) As for the FAETP, all future scenarios would lead to a reduction in the MAETP per kwh of electricity (Figure 46a). The BAU scenarios again have the highest impacts, largely because of the contribution from coal power (Figure 46b). A similar trend applies for the annual impact, except for the BAU scenarios which have around 50% higher MAETP than the current electricity mix. The best scenario is C-4 with 12 times lower impact than currently because it does not involve any conventional coal power a) MAETP per kwh 450 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) MAETP per year Figure 46: Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 206 of 303

207 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 ODP (t R11-eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 ODP (µg R11-eq./kWh) Chapter Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) Although the ODP is lower per kwh for all the scenarios, the annual impact is several times higher than today for all the options considered (Figure 47). The exceptions to this are C-3 and C-4 which would reduce the ODP by 16% relative to the current situation. In the worst case (A-1), the annual impact would be three times higher. This is due to the high contribution to the electricity mix from conventional gas, which in turn is due the leakage of halons used as fire suppressants in gas pipelines. Therefore, the other scenarios with a high contribution from gas power also have a high ODP (Figure 47b) a) ODP per kwh 30 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) ODP per year Figure 47: Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 207 of 303

208 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 POCP (kt C 2 H 4 -eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 POCP (g C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh) Chapter Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) Like the ODP, all the scenarios show a decrease in this impact per unit of electricity but an increase on an annual basis compared to the present POCP value (Figure 48). The worst scenarios are BAU-1 and A-1 and the best C-3. This is due to the contribution of fossil fuels to the generation mix which is higher in the former and low in the latter a) POCP per kwh 90 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) POCP per year Figure 48: Photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 208 of 303

209 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 TETP (kt DCB-eq./year) BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 TETP (g DCB-eq./kWh) Chapter Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) Per kwh of electricity generated, the TETP is lower for all the scenarios than for the current grid, including BAU (Figure 49a). However, the opposite trend is found for the annual impact, with all the scenarios being worse than the current situation. The worst option is BAU-1, with 3.5 times higher impact than today. Even the best scenario (C-4) still has nearly two times higher TETP. The high electricity demand is the main reason for this increase in the annual impact a) TETP per kwh Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar b) TETP per year Figure 49: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 209 of 303

210 Chapter Summary Overall, the scenarios C-3 and C-4 have the lowest environmental impacts on an annual basis, with the former being the best option for five impacts, including the GWP, and C-4 for four. However, the latter is the worst option for the depletion of abiotic elements for which BAU-1 is the most sustainable. On the other hand, this scenario is the least sustainable for seven other impacts, including the GWP Economic sustainability assessment This section presents the capital, total annualised and levelised costs of the scenarios in comparison to the present costs. For each, minimum, central and maximum values have been estimated as shown in Figure 50-Figure 52. Note that the discussion below is based on the central estimates. For the costs of different electricity technologies, see Appendix Capital costs As indicated in Figure 50a, the total capital costs for all the scenarios are estimated to be up to 11 times higher than presently. The BAU scenarios are the least expensive, with the central estimates of US$ billion. This is mainly due to the lowest required installed capacity and the high contribution of conventional coal and gas power plants which are less expensive compared to the other options (see Figure 65 in Appendix 8). Among the other scenarios, the next best options are A-1, B-1 and C-1 (US$ billion), also because of the high contribution of fossil fuels in the electricity mix. In contrast, the scenarios with a high contribution from renewables (A-4, B-4 and C-4) are the most expensive, requiring a total capital investment of up to US$760 billion. The main contributors to the costs in these scenarios are hydropower and solar power (Figure 50b). Page 210 of 303

211 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Total capital cost (billion US$/year) Chapter a) Total capital costs 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar b) Contribution to capital costs Figure 50: Total capital costs for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) [Costs expressed in US$2012. a) The bars represent central estimates and the error bars cost ranges. b)the contribution to the costs is based on the central estimates which correspond to the contribution of each electricity option to the technology mix in Table 22.] Annualised costs The key variables used to calculate the total annualised costs are capital, fixed, variable and fuel costs (see Chapter 1). As indicated in Figure 65b-d, the future technologies tend to have higher fixed and lower variable costs than currently; however, the fuel prices decrease. Page 211 of 303

212 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Total annualised cost (billion US$/year) Chapter a) Total annualised costs 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar b) Contribution to total annualised costs Figure 51: Total annualised costs for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) [a) The bars represent central estimates and the error bars cost ranges.] The results in Figure 51a suggest that the total annualised costs for all the scenarios will increase by 4-5 times relative to the present. Scenarios with a high contribution from renewables (A-4, B-4 and C-4) are more expensive, ranging from US$ billion/year. This is due to the higher annualised capital cost which contributes 70% to the total. The scenarios with a high penetration of fossil fuels (A-1, B-1 and C-1) are also expensive, costing from US$103 to 112 billion/year. For these, the annualised capital and Page 212 of 303

213 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Levelised cost (US$/MWh) Chapter 6 fuel costs contribute around 50% and 30% of the total annualised costs, respectively. On the other hand, the BAU scenarios have the lowest total annualised costs (around US$87 billion/year). Here, the annualised capital costs account for 47% of the total, followed by fuel (39%) costs. The annualised costs for the other scenarios range between US$ billion/year Levelised costs The results in Figure 52 indicate the ranking of the future scenarios per unit cost of electricity is the same as for the total annualised costs. Overall, they range from US$71-174/MWh across all the scenarios, averaging at US$122.5/MWh, which compares well with the current levelised cost of electricity of US$123/MWh. However, for the central estimates, the levelised cost is lower for most scenarios than today. The best options are the BAU scenarios at around 102 US$/MWh in the central case, around 20% cheaper than today. The most expensive options are those with a high penetration of renewables (A-4, B-4 and C-4) and fossil fuels (A-1, B-1 and C-1), averaging between 121 and 133 US$/MWh, respectively. Nevertheless, the most expensive scenario (C-4) is still only 10% more expensive than currently Figure 52: Levelised costs for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) [a) The bars represent central estimates and the error bar cost ranges.] Page 213 of 303

214 Chapter Summary From an economic point of view, BAU-1 is overall a clear best and C-4 the worst option. However, they all have much higher capital and total annualised costs than the current electricity mix. On the other hand, the range of levelised costs estimated for the scenarios compares well with the present cost of electricity Social sustainability assessment Five indicators have been considered to assess the social sustainability of the scenarios as discussed below. The results for each technology that have been used to assess the social sustainability of the scenarios can be found in Appendix Direct employment The direct employment, which includes jobs provided in Turkey during the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of power plants, increases in all the scenarios from 117 jobs-years/twh (24,600 jobs/year) in 2010 to between 129 and 230 jobs-years/twh (109, ,000 jobs/year) in 2050 (Figure 53a). The lowest employment opportunities exist in BAU-1 which relies heavily on conventional coal and gas power, which in turn are highly mechanised. On the other hand, scenario C-4, with the highest penetration of renewables, provides the highest number of direct jobs, with the highest contribution from run-of river hydropower (Figure 53a) which provides 538 jobsyears/twh, followed by biomass at 407 and solar with 254 jobs-years/twh. By comparison, gas provides only 45 jobs-years/twh (see Figure 66a in Appendix 9). For immature renewable technologies, such as geothermal, offshore wind and solar PV, the employment factor decline rate is higher than for the others so that their employment rates are lower Total employment Similar to direct employment, all the scenarios show an increase in the total employment, which in addition to the direct, includes employment in fuel extraction and processing as well as in the manufacturing of plant components. As indicated in Figure 53b, the best option for this indicator is C-4 with 337 jobs-years/twh (287,000 jobs/year) because of the high contribution of renewables in the electricity mix. The lowest job provision is in A- 3, with 276 jobs-years/twh (or 235,000 jobs/year) owing to the high contribution of nuclear power to the electricity mix; however, the total annual employment is still around four times higher than today. Page 214 of 303

215 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Total employment (jobs-years/twh) 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Direct employment (jobs-years/twh) Chapter Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar a) Direct employment 350 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar b) Total employment Figure 53: Employment for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Worker injuries Under the assumptions made here, the number of worker injuries is expected to decrease in all the scenarios, reaching around 2 injuries/twh (1835 per year) in the best case (C- 3), compared to around 17 today (Figure 54a). Even for the worst option (BAU-1), the injury rate would still be reduced by 70%. As expected, the highest rate of injuries is found for coal power which largely occurs in mining (Figure 66c). Page 215 of 303

216 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Fatalities-years/TWh 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Injuries-years/TWh Chapter Large accident fatalities A similar trend to worker injuries is found for large accident fatalities which decrease significantly in 2050 compared to today (Figure 54b). C-3 is also the best option for this indicator, causing fatalities per TWh (11 per year). By comparison, the worst scenario (BAU-1) has fatalities per TWh (or 29 per year), half the current number. Like the worker injuries, coal power has the highest life cycle fatality rate, again because of mining. Geothermal, offshore wind and reservoir hydropower are the best technologies for this social impact (Figure 66d). 18 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar a) Injuries 0.07 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar b) Fatalities Figure 54: Total injuries and fatalities for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Page 216 of 303

217 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Fossil fuel avoided (toe/gwh) Chapter Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided This indicator evaluates national energy security related to the imports of fossil fuels potentially avoided through the utilisation of technologies that do not rely on imported fossil fuels. It applies only to the operation of power plants rather than the whole life cycle as was the case for the other indicators (see Chapter 1). The current fleet is estimated to avoid 72 tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per GWh or around 15 Mtoe/year. By comparison, the best scenarios (C-3 and C-4) would save 145 toe/gwh or 123 Mtoe/year (Figure 55). In the worst case (BAU-1), only 52 toe/gwh (44 Mtoe/year) would be avoided because of the high contribution of fossil fuel options Figure 55: Avoidance of fossil fuels potentially imported for the current situation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Summary Overall, C-3 and C-4 could be considered the best scenarios for the social sustainability, with the former ranked top for the employment and the latter for worker safety; they also share first place for energy security as measured by the avoidance of imported fossil fuels. The worst option across all the social criteria is BAU-1, except for the total employment for which A-3 is the least sustainable. Page 217 of 303

218 Chapter Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) As discussed in the previous sections, different scenarios have different advantages and disadvantages so identifying the most sustainable among them is not easy. Therefore, MCDA has been used to help analyse the results and choose the best options. The MCDA decision tree can be found in Figure 68 in Appendix 12. The MCDA has first been performed assuming an equal importance of all three sustainability aspects (environmental, economic and social) and assigning the same weighting to each (w i =0.33). To test the robustness of the results, in a subsequent analysis it has been assumed in turn that each aspect has a much higher importance, chosen arbitrarily to be five times. However, it is assumed in all the analyses that the sustainability indicators have an equal importance within their respective sustainability aspect, assigning them the following weights w i (for the definition of weighs, see eqn. [22] in Chapter 1): 11 environmental indicators: w i =1/11=0.09; three economic indicators: w i =1/3=0.33; and five social indicators: w i =1/5=0.2. The MCDA results are discussed below. Note that the option with the highest total score is considered most sustainable. Further details on the MCDA results and the sensitivity analyses can be found in Appendix Equal preferences for the sustainability aspects Figure 56 presents the sustainability scores for the equal weighting on all the sustainability aspects. As indicated, all the scenarios are more sustainable than electricity at present. C- 3 is ranked best with a total score of 0.69, followed by B-3 and C-4 with 0.66 and 0.65, respectively. By comparison, the current electricity mix scores only Although C-4 is the third best overall, it is the worst option in terms of economic sustainability; however, it has the best score for the social aspect, nearly three times higher than the worst scenario for the social sustainability (BAU-1). B-1 is the least sustainable, scoring only 0.47, but still twice as high as today s electricity mix. A-1 and C-1 follow closely with Even though BAU-1 is the worst option for the environmental and social aspects, it has the best economic performance among the scenarios. Page 218 of 303

219 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Sustainability score Chapter 6 The sensitivity analysis suggests that the weight on the environmental aspect would have to change significantly, from the current 0.33 to 0.73, to incur a change in the scenario ranking (see Figure 70a in Appendix 12). In that case, BAU-1 would become the worst option, after BAU-2 and B-1. Moreover, the rank of C-4 and B-3 would reverse and C-4 would become the second best option. For the economic aspect, the ranking order of the scenarios would change if the weighting on this aspect almost doubled, from 0.33 to 0.60 (Figure 70b). In that case, the BAU-1 scenario would become the best option overall, scoring 0.70 while C-1 would be the least sustainable, with only A sensitivity analysis for the social aspect shows that the current weight of 0.33 would have to increase to 0.80 for the rankings to change (Figure 70c) in which case BAU-1 would be the worst scenario, after A-1 and B-1, and C-4 would the best, followed by B-4 and C Environmental Economic Social Figure 56: Ranking of the electricity options with equal weights on the environmental, economic and social aspects Page 219 of 303

220 Chapter Different preferences for the sustainability aspects As mentioned earlier, to find out if and how the choice of the best option would change with different preferences for the sustainability aspects, it has been assumed in turn that each aspect is five times more important than the other two. For these purposes, each aspect is assigned in turn a weight of 0.71 and each of the remaining two As indicated in Figure 57a, if the environmental aspect is considered most important, all the scenarios are still several times better than the current electricity mix; even the worst scenario (BAU-1) has a sustainability score four times higher. This is mainly because the impacts would be lower in the future than today per unit of electricity generated (except for the depletion of elements). Among the scenarios, C-3 is the most attractive (scoring 0.83), followed by B-3 and C-4 with 0.79 owing to their renewable-intensive electricity mix. Although the remaining C scenarios have the same GHG emissions, they rank lower (C-2 is the 5 th and C-1 the 9 th ) because of their worse performance on the other criteria. BAU-1 is least sustainable, scoring only 0.55, followed by BAU-2 with However, these two scenarios perform better for the economic aspect than any other scenarios. The ranking of the scenarios would change if the weighting on the environmental aspect reduced from the current 0.71 to 0.57 (see Figure 71 in Appendix 12). In that case, B-3 would be the second and C-4 the third preferred and B-1 the least sustainable scenario. When the economic aspect is a priority, BAU-1 and BAU-2 are clear winners, scoring 0.75 and 0.71, respectively (Figure 57b). However, they perform poorly for the other two aspects. The scenario C-4 and C-1 are the least sustainable, scoring 0.31, lower than the current electricity mix which scored B-2, B-2, B-4 and C-2 are also worse than the present mix. The sensitivity analysis suggests that this ranking would change if the importance of the economic aspect was lowered from 0.71 to 0.41 (Figure 72) in which case C-3 would be the best and B-1 the worst scenario. In case the social aspect is five times more important than the other two (Figure 57c), C-4 would emerge as the most sustainable scenario with a score of B-4 is ranked second best (0.77), followed by C-3 (0.75). BAU-1 and B-1 are the worst options (scoring 0.45 and 0.46, respectively). However, they are all still more than four times better than today s electricity generation. The sensitivity analysis suggests that the ranking of the Page 220 of 303

221 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Sustainability score 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Sustainability score Chapter 6 scenarios would change at w i =0.4, with the C-3 scenario becoming the best and B-1 the worst option (Figure 73). 0.9 Environmental Economic Social a) The environmental aspect five times more important than the economic and social 0.8 Environmental Economic Social b) The economic aspect five times more important than the environmental and social Page 221 of 303

222 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Sustainability score Chapter Environmental Economic Social c) The social aspect five times more important than the environmental and economic Figure 57: Ranking of the scenarios with different preferences for the sustainability aspects Summary The results discussed above are summarised in Table 24 to help guide the identification of the most sustainable option(s). Simple ranking has been used for these purposes, with the most sustainable scenario assigned a score of 1, the next best a 2 and so on, up to 15 which represents the least sustainable option. As indicated in Table 24, the C-3 scenario is the most sustainable option if all the aspects are considered equally important as well as when the highest priority is given to the environment. C-4 scenario is ranked best if the social impacts are the most important. However, C-4 becomes the least sustainable scenario (together with C-1) if the economic aspect is prioritised, in which case BAU-1 is ranked first. BAU and the other fossil fuel intensive scenarios (A-1, B-1 and C-1) are least sustainable after the current mix, except for a very high importance given to the economic criteria. Overall, renewable or renewable-nuclear intensive scenarios are more sustainable than the other options considered here. However, the main drawback of these scenarios is their high costs. Generally, fossil and nuclear intensive scenarios are the middle ranking options. The fossil fuel based scenarios are the least sustainable across the wide range of Page 222 of 303

223 Chapter 6 preferences for the sustainability aspects considered in this work. The exception to this is if the economic sustainability is considered the most important, in which case renewableintensive scenarios are the least sustainable overall. Nevertheless, all the scenarios are more sustainable than electricity at present; the only exception is if the economic aspect is given priority, in which case it becomes a middle ranking option. Table 24: Sustainability ranking of the scenarios with different weights on the environmental, economic and social aspects Scenario Equal weights Aspect five times more important at a time Environmental Economic Social BAU BAU A = 7 12 A A A B = B B-3 2 2= 4 4 B C = 8 C C C-4 3 2= 14= Data quality assessment Data quality has been assessed for each future technology and scenario using the methodology presented in Chapter 1. The overall data quality scores for the future technologies considered in this study range from 155 for nuclear to for 198 for onshore wind; conventional gas and hard coal. The data quality for future technologies has been estimated as Medium (where a range of would indicate Medium quality) or High (where a range of would indicate High quality). The estimated overall data quality scores for the scenarios range from 164 for the C-1 scenario to 195 for BAU-1. The data quality for scenarios has been estimated as Medium. More detail on the data quality assessment for each future technology and scenario is provided in Appendix 13. The overall data quality could be improved through the use of more complete and country-specific data. Page 223 of 303

224 Chapter 6 4. Conclusions and policy recommendations This paper has addressed the environmental, economic and social sustainability of potential electricity scenarios for Turkey to help identify the most sustainable pathways for future developments of the electricity sector. In total, 14 electricity scenarios have been developed considering different technologies, electricity mixes and GHG emission targets up to Each scenario has been assessed using 19 sustainability indicators, considering the whole life cycle of electricity generation, from extraction, processing and transport of fuels and raw materials, to plant construction, operation and decommissioning. The findings suggest that, per unit of electricity generated, all the environmental impacts would be lower in the future than today across all the scenarios. The only exception is depletion of elements which would increase by 2-18 times, depending on the scenario. However, because of the expected significant increase in electricity demand, the annual impacts increase significantly for six categories across all the scenarios: depletion of elements, fossil fuels and the ozone layer, global warming potential, photochemical oxidants and terrestrial ecotoxicity. The other impacts are also higher for some of the scenarios, mostly those dominated by fossil fuels. The only impact that would be reduced in all the scenarios on today s value is acidification. Regarding the specific scenarios, BAU are the least environmentally sustainable for seven out of 11 impacts. This includes the GWP which would increase up to four times on the current annual impact. On the other hand, choosing the best option instead (C-3) would halve the current GHG emissions from electricity. Generally, the scenarios with a higher contribution of renewables and nuclear power (A-3, A-4, B-3, B-4, C-3 and C-4) have lower annual impacts. However, the main drawback of the renewables-intensive scenarios is that they have the highest depletion of elements which in the worst case (C-4) would require around 70 times more resources annually than at present. Regarding the economic sustainability, a huge investment will be needed to meet future electricity demand. The BAU-1 scenario is the most attractive option in terms of capital costs, requiring a total investment of US$388 billion. In contrast, the most expensive option, C-4, would cost US$760 billion; a 10-fold increase on today s costs. This is mainly because of the high contribution of renewable technologies (79%), which have higher capital costs than the fossil fuel options dominating in BAU-1. The BAU scenarios also have the lowest total annualised costs (US$86-88 billion/year) and C-4 the highest (US$114 billion/year); the latter are four-fold greater than at present. The levelised costs Page 224 of 303

225 Chapter 6 of electricity follow a similar trend although the difference between the current and projected future costs is not as dramatic as for the capital and annualised costs. For the most expensive C-4 scenario, the cost of electricity would be 10% higher than presently while for the best BAU-1 option, the electricity would be 18% cheaper. However, these estimates should be interpreted with care because of the uncertainties associated with cost estimates over long timescales and also because of a general lack of cost data for Turkey. With respect to the social indicators, the direct and total employment increase in all the scenarios, with the latter being up to five times higher than the current level of employment in the electricity sector. Overall, the best option is C-4 in terms of job creation because of the high contribution from renewables which provide more jobs per unit of electricity than the fossil and nuclear options. The worst scenario from this perspective is A-3 (renewable-nuclear intensive) with a total of around 235,000 jobs in 2050, but still four times higher than at present. Injury and fatality rates are expected to decrease in the future. However, the annual worker injuries and large accident fatalities differ between the scenarios. The best option (C-3) would lead to around 1840 injuries and 11 fatalities per year. The BAU-1 scenario is the least sustainable for worker safety, with around 8625 injuries and nearly 30 fatalities per year; this is due to its heavy reliance on coal power. Energy security is clearly better in scenarios with a high penetration of renewable energy. By 2050, the C-3 and C-4 scenarios would avoid the imports of 145 toe/gwh, twice as much as at present. Only BAU-1 avoids less fossil fuel (52 toe/gwh) than today s electricity mix because it has the highest proportion of fossil fuels. Multi-criteria decision analysis suggests that renewable and nuclear intensive scenarios outperform those that are dominated by fossil fuels, except for the very high preference for the economic criteria, in which case they are the best option. However, their poor environmental and social performances makes them least sustainable overall. Using the fossil fuel and nuclear power together leads to a better sustainability performance which is the case for the A-2, B-2 and C-2 scenarios. The renewable-nuclear intensive scenarios (A-3, B-3 and C-3) are the most sustainable options with respect to most of the environmental, economic and social impacts considered in this paper. Renewableintensive scenarios (A-4, B-4 and C-4) perform very well for the environmental and social categories, but poorly for the economic categories. In all cases future scenarios can be considered more sustainable than today s electricity, except for a high preference for the economic criteria, in which case it becomes a middle ranking option. Page 225 of 303

226 Chapter 6 Therefore, as these results suggest, some trade-offs will be needed between the sustainability aspects to identify the most sustainable pathways for a future development of the electricity sector in Turkey. Ultimately, the outcomes will depend on the importance that government and other stakeholders place on different sustainability criteria. Notwithstanding this, the following policy recommendations can be made on the basis of this work: The government should adopt a life cycle approach in decision and policy making to help identify hot spots and opportunities for reducing environmental, economic and social impacts of future electricity generation along the whole supply chain. The government should consider wider environmental, economic and social aspects rather than focusing solely on costs, energy security and climate change before deciding which electricity technologies to promote for the future. A more detailed assessment of resource potential should be carried out for all energy sources available in Turkey. As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Turkey should set reduction targets for GHG emissions to help mitigate climate change. Turkey s energy strategy covers the period only up to A longer time frame should be considered to help plan future development of the electricity sector up to The results of this work shows clearly that reducing the share of fossil fuels in the electricity mix would not only reduce significantly the environmental impacts, but also the costs, injuries and fatalities from electricity generation, while also improving energy security. Therefore, future policies should be oriented towards reducing the contribution of fossil-fuel technologies and increasing the penetration of low-carbon options. The technical and economic feasibility of carbon capture, transport and storage in Turkey should be assessed. Increasing the proportion of renewable power in the electricity mix would significantly increase the depletion of elements. This impact could be minimised through appropriate policies that encourage recycling, use of non-scarce and renewable materials as well as dematerialisation. The government should strengthen the financial support mechanisms and incentives to help renewable power become more competitive with fossil-fuels, Page 226 of 303

227 Chapter 6 particularly for technologies with high capital costs, such as geothermal, solar PV and hydropower. The use of nuclear power should be assessed considering further issues not included in this study, such as human health impacts from radiation, risks of accidents, earthquake-prone characteristics of the country and long-term storage of nuclear waste. These and other issues should be considered judiciously before making plans for further development of nuclear power in Turkey. The government should support research into improvements of electricity technologies as well as better legislation to limit environmental impacts in particular. Technological improvements are necessary but on their own will not be sufficient, so they must be coupled with reducing the electricity demand, including through energy efficiency measures. Reducing the demand should be encouraged through appropriate policies and education programmes, engaging both electricity generators and the public. Page 227 of 303

228 Chapter 6 References Acar, S., Kitson, L.and Bridle, R., Subsidies to coal and renewable energy in Turkey. The International Institute for Sustainable Development. Akkuyu NGS, Akkuyu nuclear power plant environmental impact assessment. Ankara, Turkey: Akkuyu NGS A.S. Bauer, C.and Bolliger, R., Ecoinvent Report: Wasserkraft. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Bauer, C., Heck, T., Dones, R., Mayer-Spohn, O.and Blesl, M., Final report on technical data, costs, and life cycle inventories of advanced fossil power generation systems, NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability). CCaLC, CCaLC manual. University of Manchester, Sustainable Industrial Systems: Manchester. Çunkaş, M.and Taşkiran, U., Turkey's electricity consumption forecasting using genetic programming. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 6(4), Dones, R., Bauer, C., Bolliger, R., Burger, B., Faist Emmenegger, M., Frischknecht, R., Heck, T., Jungbluth, N., Röder, A.and Tuchschmid, M., Ecoinvent Report: Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other UCTE Countries. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. DSI, Turkey Water Report Ankara, Turkey: State Hydraulic Works (DSI) [Online]. Available from: Ecoinvent, Ecoinvent Database v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: St Gallen, Switzerland. EMRA, RE: Data on Energy Potential of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Republic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority [Personel communication, ]. Flury, K.and Frischknecht, R., Life Cycle Inventories of Hydroelectric Power Generation. ESU Database. Uster: Öko-Institute e.v. Frankl, P., Menichetti, E., Raugei, M., Lombardelli, S.and Prennushi, G., Final report on technical data, costs and life cycle inventories of PV applications, NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability). Fürsch, M., Hagspiel, S., Jägemann, C., Nagl, S., Lindenberger, P. D. D., Glotzbach, L., Tröster, D. E.and Ackermann, D. T., Roadmap 2050: Cost-efficient RES-E Page 228 of 303

229 Chapter 6 penetration and the role of grid extensions. Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne, Germany. FutureCamp, Baseline Emission Calculations. Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), version 3. Ankara, Turkey. Gärtner, S., Final report on technical data, costs and life cycle inventories of biomass CHP plants, NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability). Greenpeace and EREC, Global Energy [R]Evolution: A Sustainable Turkey Energy Outlook. Greenpeace International, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC). Greenpeace and EREC, Global Energy [R]Evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook. Greenpeace International, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC). Guinée, J. B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R.and Koning, A., Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hamzaçebi, C., Forecasting of Turkey's net electricity energy consumption on sectoral bases. Energy Policy, 35(3), Hotunluoglu, H.and Karakaya, E., Forecasting Turkey s energy demand using artificial neural networks: Three scenario applications. Ege Academic Review, 11, IBP, Turkey Investment and Business Guide, Volume 1: Strategic and Practical Information: International Business Publications, USA. IEA, Electricity Information Paris: International Energy Agency. ISO, 2006a. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. ISO, 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. Jungbluth, N., Dinkel, F., Doka, G., Chudacoff, M., Dauriat, A., Gnansounou, E., M. Spielmann, Sutter, J., Kljun, N., Keller, M.and Schleiss, K., Life Cycle Inventories of Bioenergy: Ecoinvent Report No. 17. Dübendorf, Switzerland,: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Kankal, M., Akpınar, A., Kömürcü, M. İ.and Özşahin, T. Ş., Modeling and forecasting of Turkey s energy consumption using socio-economic and demographic variables. Applied Energy, 88(5), Page 229 of 303

230 Chapter 6 Kouloumpis, V., Stamford, L.and Azapagic, A., Decarbonising electricity supply: Is climate change mitigation going to be carried out at the expense of other environmental impacts? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1, Lorenz, T.and Kidd, J., Turkey and multilateral nuclear approaches in the Middle East. The Nonproliferation Review, 17(3), MENR, Enerji Sektorunde Sera Gazi Azaltimi Calisma Grubu Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanligi, Enerji Isleri Genel Mudurlugu. MENR, 2009a. Electricity Energy Market and Supply Security Strategy. Ankara, Turkey: The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. MENR, 2009b. The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources Strategic Plan ( ). Ankara, Turkey: The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. MENR, Mavi Kitap (Blue Book). Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. MENR, 2014a. Nuclear power plants in Turkey. Available from: MENR, 2014b. Turkey 3.0 LEAP Model: Minsitry of Energy and Natural Resources [Online]. Available from: MMO, Turkiye'de Termik Santraller Oda Raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Makina Muhendisleri Odasi. Mustajoki, J.and Hämäläinen, R. P., Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR, 38(3), NEEDS, New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS). Life Cycle Inventroy Database: The European reference life cycle inventory database of future electricity supply systems. Available from: Özer, B., Görgün, E.and İncecik, S., The scenario analysis on CO 2 emission mitigation potential in the Turkish electricity sector: Energy, 49(0), PE International, GaBi version 6. Stuttgart, Echterdingen. Rutovitz, J.and Harris, S., Calculating Global Energy Sector Jobs: 2012 Methodology. Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS. Schröder, A., Kunz, F., Meiss, J., Mendelevitch, R.and Hirschhausen, C. v., Current and Prospective Costs of Electricity Generation until Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW). Page 230 of 303

231 Chapter 6 Sensfuß, F.and Pfluger, B., Optimized pathways towards ambitious climate protection in the European electricity system (EU Long-term scenarios 2050 II). Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Germany. SSI, Statistics Ankara, Turkey: Republic of Turkey Social Security Institution [Online]. Available from: TEIAS, Electricity Generation and Transmission Statistics of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation [Online]. Available from: TEIAS, Turkiye Elektrik Enerjisi Uretim Planlama Calismasi ( ). Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation, Research Planning and Coordination Department. TKI, Lignite Sector Report of Turkey Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, General Directorate of Turkish Coal Enterprises. Toklu, E., Overview of potential and utilization of renewable energy sources in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 50(0), TPAO, The Oil and Gas Sector Report of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Petroleum Corporation. TUIK, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistical Institute. van Oers, L., CML-IA Characterisation Factors. [November 2010]. Available from: YEGM, Renewable Energy Sources: General Directorate of Electrical Power Resources Survey and Development Administration [Online]. Available from: Yilmaz, S. A., Yesil Isler ve Turkiye'de Yenilenebilir Enerji Alandaki Potansiyeli. Sosyal Sektorler ve Koordinasyon Genel Mudurlugu. Ankara, Turkey: Sosyal Sektorler ve Koordinasyon Genel Mudurlugu, Kalkinma Bakanligi. Yumurtaci, Z.and Asmaz, E., Electric energy demand of Turkey for the year Energy Sources, 26(12), Page 231 of 303

232 Chapter 7 Chapter 7: Conclusions, Recommendations and Future Work The work presented in this dissertation has assessed the environmental, economic and social sustainability of electricity generation in Turkey to contribute toward an improved understanding of the overall sustainability impacts of the current electricity sector and of possible future scenarios. The methodology, presented in Chapter 1, involves the environmental, economic and social sustainability assessment, scenario analysis, multicriteria decision analysis and data quality assessment. The sustainability issues for the electricity generation used in this research include climate change, emissions to air, water and soil, resource depletion, costs, energy security, provision of employment, health and safety. The assessment of environmental sustainability has been carried out using life cycle assessment; capital, annualised and levelised costs have been used for the economic sustainability and various social indicators along the life cycle of the technologies have been estimated for the social assessment. Multi-criteria decision analysis has been carried out to integrate the three dimensions of sustainability for current electricity generation and future scenarios as well as to help with decision-making. Data quality of the different electricity technologies and future scenarios has been considered in this research to identify uncertainties and further improvements in the data. As far as the author is aware, this is the first study of its kind. The results of the research have been presented in five papers (Chapter 2-6). The first (Chapter 2) and the second papers (Chapter 3) have estimated and compared the life cycle environmental impacts of current fossil fuel (lignite, hard coal and natural gas) and renewable (large and small scale reservoir hydropower, run-of-river hydropower, onshore wind and geothermal) electricity generation technologies in Turkey, respectively. A life cycle approach has been applied. The system boundaries of each option have been drawn from cradle to grave, comprising extraction, processing and transportation of the raw materials and fuels (where relevant), electricity generation as well as plant construction and decommissioning. Each technology has been assessed using eleven environmental indicators. The impacts have been estimated for per kwh of electricity and then for the total annual generation of electricity separately from fossil fuel and renewable plants in Page 232 of 303

233 Chapter 7 The following chapter (Chapter 4) contains the third paper which has presented the environmental impacts of electricity in Turkey on a life cycle basis over the last 25 years, covering the period from 1990 to 2014, to provide an insight into the past trends and current environmental impacts of electricity generation. All 516 power plants currently operational in Turkey have been assessed: lignite, hard coal, natural gas, hydro (large and small scale reservoir hydro and run-of-river), onshore wind and geothermal. Eleven environmental impacts have been estimated for per kwh electricity and for the total amount of electricity generated annually over the period. In the next paper (Chapter 5), the sustainability of the Turkish electricity sector has been evaluated by considering environmental, economic and social impacts of different technologies currently present in the electricity mix to help the industry and policy makers identify and implement the most sustainable options for electricity supply. In total, 20 sustainability indicators, addressing 11 environmental, three economic and six social indicators have been used to assess the sustainability of individual electricity options as well as the overall electricity sector in Turkey. Multi-criteria decision analysis has been used to integrate the different aspects of sustainability and identify most sustainable electricity options for Turkey. Data quality has been assessed for each technology to identify uncertainties and improvement needs for the data. Consequently, a number of recommendations has been made in order to contribute towards a better understanding of the overall sustainability impacts of the current electricity generation. The last paper (Chapter 6) has addressed the integrated sustainability assessment of future electricity scenarios in Turkey up to 2050 taking a life cycle approach. In total, 14 scenarios have been assessed on 19 sustainability indicators, estimating life cycle environmental impacts, costs and social impacts. For comparison, the sustainability of the current electricity grid is also considered with 2010 taken as a base year. The scenarios comprise fossil-fuel technologies with and without carbon capture and storage, nuclear power and a variety of renewables. Multi-criteria decision analysis has been used to integrate the different aspects of sustainability and identify the most sustainable scenarios for a future electricity supply in Turkey. Data quality assessment has been carried out for each technology and scenario considered in this research. As a result, a series of recommendations have been made to the energy industry policy makers for a more sustainable development of the electricity sector in the future. Page 233 of 303

234 Chapter 7 The objectives of this research as stated in Chapter 1 have been achieved in that: Environmental, economic and social sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Turkey at present time have been carried out; Future scenarios have been developed considering 14 potential electricity mixes for Turkey by 2050, evaluated through environmental, economic and social assessment and compared the present day electricity generation; The most sustainable technologies and scenarios for electricity generation have been identified through a multi-criteria decision analysis considering different environmental, economic and social aspects; and A series of recommendations for sustainable improvements of the electricity sector in Turkey were made based on improvement opportunities identified in the sustainability assessment of current and future electricity generation. The main findings and conclusions from this research are summarised below. This is followed by recommendations for policy and industry and suggestions for future work. 1. Conclusions A number of conclusions can be drawn from the results of this research as detailed in the next sections, first with reference to the current electricity generation and then for future scenarios Sustainability assessment of current electricity generation in Turkey Environmental aspects Lignite power is the least sustainable option for eight out of eleven environmental impacts. It has the highest impacts for the depletion of fossil fuel, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog and all the toxicity categories. Hard coal power has the highest depletion of elements and global warming potential. Gas power performs worst for ozone layer depletion due to the leakages of halon 1211 and halon 1301 used as fire suppressants and coolants in gas pipelines. Compared to other technologies in this study, geothermal power is the best option according to six of the eleven environmental impacts (eutrophication, ozone layer Page 234 of 303

235 Chapter 7 depletion and all the toxicity categories). However, acidification of geothermal power is lower than lignite power and higher than any other power options considered in this study: almost all of the impact is due to the hydrogen sulphide emissions from geothermal steam to air. Run-of-river hydropower has the lowest global warming potential at 4.1 g CO 2 - eq./kwh, almost all of the impact (99%) is from plant construction. This compares to 1126 g for hard coal, 1062 g for lignite and 499 g for gas power. For other renewable options this impact is estimated at 63 g for geothermal, 8.3 g for large reservoir, 7.3 g for onshore wind and 4.2 g for small reservoir hydropower. Large reservoir hydropower has the lowest depletion of elements and fossil resources as well as acidification. Small reservoir hydropower is environmentally the most sustainable option in terms of summer smog. Onshore wind has the highest impacts among the renewable options considered, with nine out of 11 environmental impacts higher than for geothermal and hydropower options. This is due to the impacts from the extraction and processing of the construction materials. It also has the second highest depletion of elements, after hard coal power. For fossil fuel electricity generation, the impacts are caused mainly during the operation of power plants and transportation of fuels. Construction and decommissioning of the plants have negligible impacts. However, construction of the plants is the largest contributor to the environmental impacts from renewable electricity generation. Recycling of materials after decommissioning reduces the impacts by up to 40%. Coal power contributes more than 40% to most of the total annual environmental impacts in 2010, despite providing only a quarter of the total electricity. The exception is ozone layer depletion which is almost entirely (98%) from gas power, which generates 46.5% of electricity. The renewables, which supply around 27% of the demand, add % to the impacts, mainly related to hydropower options because of their high share in the mix (24.5%). Around 111 Mt CO 2 -eq. are generated annually from 211 TWh of electricity generated in Turkey. The main source of the greenhouse gas emissions is from the combustion in fossil-fuelled plants, contributing 99% to the total annual global warming potential. Page 235 of 303

236 Chapter 7 The total annual environmental impacts from electricity generation for the period have been going up steadily increasing from two times (eutrophication, human, fresh water and marine toxicity) to nine-fold (ozone depletion). The global warming potential increased from 28.7 Mt CO 2 -eq. in 1990 to 143 Mt CO 2 -eq. in 2014 due to meeting the growing demand by fossil fuels. The environmental impact trends per kwh of electricity generated over the period are less uniform than for the total annual environmental impacts. The upward trend is found for four impacts: ozone depletion and depletion of elements, which are two times higher in 2014 than in 1990, and global warming and depletion of fossil, which increased by 13% in the same period. However, the opposite trend is found for the other impacts, with the eutrophication, human, fresh water and marine toxicity being two times lower, the terrestrial toxicity 40% and acidification 34% smaller at the end of the period than in The only exception is the photochemical smog which remained more or less unchanged Economic aspects The capital costs are highest for the geothermal plants (2500 US$/kW) among the technologies considered, followed by run-of-river (2300 US$/kW) and wind (2000 US$/kW) power plants. Total capital costs for 49.5 GW of the installed capacity in Turkey are estimated at US$69.3 billion. The majority of the costs are from hydropower (41%), coal (32%) and gas (23%) plants. While the gas power has the lowest capital costs (800 US$/kW) compared to other options considered in this study, it has the significant contribution to the total capital costs mainly due to its high share in the electricity mix. At a discounting rate of 10%, the total annualised costs are estimated at US$25.9 billion per year. Gas and coal power together contribute 87% of the total (62% for gas, 16% for lignite and 9% for hard coal); this is largely due to the high fuel costs. Fuel costs together account for 64% of the total annualised costs, followed by the capital costs (28%). The rest is attributable to the variable (5%) and fixed costs (3%). Electricity from large reservoir hydropower plants is the cheapest (48 US$/MWh), followed by geothermal (61 US$/MWh) and small reservoir (63 US$/MWh) power plants. Page 236 of 303

237 Chapter 7 Compared to other renewable electricity technologies in this study, onshore wind is the most expensive option (126 US$/MWh). The unit cost of electricity from lignite and hard coal power options are similar to one another, estimated at around 115 US$/MWh. The most expensive option overall is electricity from natural gas (161 US$/MWh) due to high fuel costs. The unit costs for the Turkish electricity sector, based on 211 TWh generated in 2010, are estimated at 123 US$/MWh Social aspects Run-of river hydropower provides the highest direct employment with 459 jobsyears/twh, followed by onshore wind (256 jobs-years/twh), small reservoir hydropower (202 jobs-years/twh) and geothermal (182 jobs-years/twh) power. The direct employment provision is lowest with gas power with 56 jobs-years/twh among the technologies considered in this study. Electricity generation in Turkey provides nearly 25,000 direct jobs (or 117 jobsyears/twh). The majority of the direct employment is from lignite (25%), natural gas (23%) and run-of-river hydropower (14%) in Turkey. Similar to direct employment, run-of-river hydropower also has the highest total employment with 512 jobs-years/twh, followed closely by lignite power with 509 jobs-years/twh. Large reservoir hydropower provides the lowest life cycle employment (99 jobsyears/twh) among the eight electricity options considered in this study. In total, the Turkish electricity sector provided around 57,000 jobs in 2010, equivalent to 270 jobs-years per TWh. Coal power options have the worst results for life cycle injury (68 for lignite and 50 injuries per TWh for hard coal) and fatality rates (0.25 for lignite and 0.18 fatalities per TWh for hard coal). Wind power also has the potential to cause a high number of worker injuries (10.4 injuries/twh) and large accident fatalities (0.064 fatalities/twh) mainly because of the relatively high employment provision. Page 237 of 303

238 Chapter 7 Total of 3700 worker injuries (or 17 injuries/twh) and 14 fatalities (or 0.07 fatalities/twh) are estimated to occur in the electricity sector annually in Turkey. The domestic and renewable electricity options in the current fleet avoid 72 tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per GWh or around 15.2 Mtoe of imported fossil fuel in Turkey. The diversity of fuel supply score for natural gas and hard coal supplies are estimated at 0.56 and 0.57, respectively. A score of 1 representing a diverse fully supply and a score of 0 representing an overly dependent on a country. The total diversity index for the Turkish electricity mix is equal to The diversity of fuel supply is low as a result of high reliance of Turkey on imports from Russia Multi-criteria decision analysis Different electricity options have differing advantages and disadvantages. MCDA has been used to identify the most sustainable options for the country and the following conclusions apply: Assuming equal importance of all environmental, economic and social aspects and applying MCDA indicates that hydropower is most sustainable with each hydropower technology scoring around Wind and geothermal follow closely with Lignite power is the least sustainable technology overall (scoring 0.42), after hard coal and gas power. Assuming that the environmental aspect is the most important aspect, the hydropower technologies are still most sustainable, each scoring around Lignite power again is the worst option (scoring 0.27) for electricity generation in Turkey. When assuming priority on economic aspect, large reservoir power emerges as the most sustainable option, scoring Small reservoir hydropower is ranked second best (0.78), followed by geothermal (0.69) and run-of-river (0.68). Gas power is now the least sustainable alternative scoring 0.4, largely because of its high levelised costs. If the social aspect is considered most important, run-of-river hydropower is a winner with the score of Wind power is ranked the second best technology (0.8). Hard coal power is the least sustainable option, scoring only Page 238 of 303

239 Chapter Sustainability assessment of future electricity scenarios for Turkey Environmental aspects The current environmental impacts per unit of electricity generated would be reduced in the future across all the scenarios. The only exception to this is depletion of elements which would increase by 2-18 times, depending on the scenario. The business-as-usual scenario, BAU-1, is the least sustainable for seven out of 11 environmental impacts, except for the depletion of elements and fossil resources, acidification and ozone layer depletion. On the other hand, it is the best option for the depletion of abiotic elements The most renewable-intensive scenarios (A-4, B-4 and C-4) have high depletion of elements potentials, mainly due to the high contribution from solar power. The depletion of fossil fuel resources is the highest in A-2 and B-2 (fossil fuelnuclear intensive) scenarios which nearly 3.5 times higher impact than from the current electricity grid. The A-1 (fossil fuel intensive) scenario also has the highest acidification potential because of the conventional gas and coal CCS; however, its impact is still 4.5 times lower per kwh. Moreover, it is the worst scenario for ozone depletion. This is due to the high contribution to the electricity mix of conventional gas, which in turn is due the emissions of halons 1211 and 1301 used as fire suppressants in gas pipelines. Overall, the scenarios C-3 and C-4 (nuclear and renewable intensive) have the lowest environmental impacts. C-3 scenario is the best option for five impacts (acidification, eutrophication, global warming, ozone depletion and photochemical oxidants creation) and C-4 scenario for four (depletion of fossil, human toxicity marine and terrestrial ecotoxicity). The B-1 and C-1 (fossil fuel intensive) scenarios have the lowest fresh water ecotoxicity. Replacing the current mix with these scenarios would lead to reductions from the current 0.39 to kg DCB-eq./kWh for this impact. The current GWP per unit of electricity generated would be reduced in all the scenarios, including the BAU scenarios due to the fossil fuel technologies becoming more efficient in the future as well as the use of CCS. Page 239 of 303

240 Chapter 7 The annual impacts increase significantly for six categories across all the scenarios: depletion of elements, fossil fuels and the ozone layer, global warming potential, photochemical oxidants and terrestrial ecotoxicity. This is because of a four times higher electricity demand than today. The other impacts are also higher for some of the scenarios, mostly those dominated by fossil fuels. The only impact that would be reduced in all the future electricity scenarios on today s total annual value is acidification. The worst option (A-1) is still 10% lower per annum than from the existing grid. Generally, the scenarios with a higher contribution of renewables and nuclear power (A-3, A-4, B-3, B-4, C-3 and C-4) have lower environmental impacts. However, the main drawback of the renewables-intensive scenarios is that they have the highest depletion of elements which in the worst case (C-4) would require around 71 times more resources annually than at present. The annual global warming ranges from 53 Mt CO 2 -eq. in the case of scenario C- 3, to 438 Mt CO 2 -eq. in the case of scenario BAU-1 scenario Economic aspects The total capital costs are up to 11 times higher relative to the present in all scenarios. The scenarios with a high contribution from renewables (A-4, B-4 and C-4) are the most expensive options, requiring a total capital investment of up to US$760 billion. This is mainly because of the high contribution of renewable technologies, which have higher capital costs compared to fossil fuel options. The BAU scenarios are the cheapest scenarios in terms of total capital costs (US$388 and 443 billion) due to the lowest required installed capacities and the high contribution of conventional coal and gas power plants. The total annualised costs will increase relative to the present in all scenarios. The scenarios with a high contribution from renewables (A-4, B-4 and C-4) are more expensive options, ranging from US$103 to 112 billion per year. Annualised capital costs and fuel costs account 81% to the total annualised costs for these scenarios. BAU scenarios have the lowest total annualised costs (US$86 to 88 billion/year). Annualised capital costs account for 47% to the total annualised costs, followed by fuel costs (39%), fixed costs (10%) and variable costs (4%) for these scenarios. The ranking of the future scenarios per unit cost of electricity is the same as for the total annualised costs. The highest levelised costs are for renewable (A-4, B-4 and Page 240 of 303

241 Chapter 7 C-4) and fossil fuel (A-1, B-1 and C-1) intensive scenarios, averaging between 121 and 133 US$/MWh, respectively. The most expensive scenario (C-4) by 2050 is 10% more expensive than the levelised costs of the current electricity mix (123 US$/MWh). The lowest levelised costs are for the BAU scenarios (101 and 103 US$/MWh), around 20% cheaper than currently Social aspects All scenarios show an increase in direct employment by 2050 from 117 jobsyears/twh (24,600 jobs) in 2010 to a range of 129 and 230 jobs-years/twh (109, ,000 jobs/year) in The worst scenario is BAU-1 which relies heavily on conventional coal and gas power. The most renewable intensive scenario (C-4) creates the most direct jobs. Similar to direct employment, total employment increases in all scenarios. The worst scenario from this perspective is the A-3 scenario with 276 jobs-years/twh or 235,000 jobs/year owing to the high contribution of nuclear power to the electricity mix. The best option appears to be scenario C-4 (337 jobs-years/twh or 287,000 jobs/year) because of the high contribution from renewables to electricity mix. The number of worker injuries decreases in 2050 compared to today, reaching 2 injuries/twh (or 1835 per year) in the best case (C-3), compared to around 17 today. Even for the worst option (BAU-1), the injury rate would still be reduced by 70%. A similar trend to worker injuries is found for large accident fatalities. The number of fatalities is expected to decrease in all the scenarios. C-3 is also the best option, causing fatalities per TWh (11 per year). By comparison, the BAU-1 scenario is the least sustainable for this indicator with fatalities per TWh (or 29 per year), half the current number. Energy security is better in scenarios with a high penetration of renewable and nuclear energy. By 2050, the C-3 and C-4 scenarios would avoid the imports of 145 toe/gwh (123 Mtoe/year). In the worst case (BAU-1), 52 toe/gwh or 44 Mtoe/year would be avoided because of the high contribution of fossil fuel options. Page 241 of 303

242 Chapter Multi-criteria decision analysis MCDA has been used to identify the most sustainable scenarios for the future electricity generation in Turkey and the following conclusions apply: All the scenarios are more sustainable than electricity at present; the only exception is when the economic aspect is considered most important, in which case it becomes a middle ranking option. Assuming equal importance of all environmental, economic and social aspects and applying MCDA indicates that the most renewable and nuclear intensive scenario (C-3) is the most preferred option with a total score of 0.67, followed by B-3 and C- 4. B-1 is the least sustainable, scoring only By comparison, the current electricity mix scores only When the environmental aspect is considered most important, all the scenarios are still better than the current electricity mix. C-3 and C-4 scenarios are the most attractive (scoring 0.8 and 0.79, respectively) owing to their renewable-intensive electricity mix. BAU scenarios are the least sustainable. However, these two scenarios perform better for the economic aspect than any other scenarios. If the economic aspect is a priority, the BAU scenarios are clear winners. However, they perform poorly for the other two aspects. The scenario C-4 and C-1 are the least sustainable, scoring 0.31, lower than the current electricity mix which scores Assuming that the social aspect is the most important aspect, C-4 scenario is the most sustainable scenario with a score of 0.84 and B-4 is ranked second best (0.77). BAU-1 and B-1 are the worst options (scoring 0.45 and 0.46, respectively). However, they are all still more than four times better than today s electricity generation. Page 242 of 303

243 Chapter 7 2. Policy and industry recommendations A number of recommendations can be made to improve the sustainability of the electricity generation in Turkey based on the results in this research; these are listed below. The current energy policy in Turkey is mainly driven by the need to improve energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To avoid solving one issue at the expense of another, the government is encouraged to consider wider environmental, economic and social impacts rather than focusing solely on costs, energy security and climate change when planning a sustainability strategy for the electricity sector. This will help to make more sustainable decisions for the future. The government should adopt a life cycle approach in decision and policy making to help identify hot spots and opportunities for reducing the environmental, economic and social impacts across the whole supply chain. A more detailed assessment of resource potential should be carried out for all energy sources available in Turkey. As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Turkey should set reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions to help mitigate climate change. Turkey s energy strategy covers the period only up to A longer time frame should be considered to help plan future development of the electricity sector up to The results of this work shows clearly that reducing the share of fossil fuels in the electricity mix would not only reduce significantly the environmental impacts, but also the costs, injuries and fatalities from electricity generation, while also improving energy security. Therefore, energy policies should be oriented towards reducing the contribution of fossil-fuel technologies and increasing the penetration of low-carbon options. The technical and economic feasibility of carbon capture, transport and storage in Turkey should be assessed. Turkey has a significant potential for a variety of renewable energy resources, including solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy and hydropower. A greater penetration of renewable electricity sources into the grid as an alternative to fossil fuels is important for Turkey to reduce the dependence on imported fuels, improve the security of supply and reduce the environmental impacts from the electricity Page 243 of 303

244 Chapter 7 sector. Therefore, the government should encourage and possibly incentivise increasing the share of renewables in the electricity mix as well as diversifying the portfolio of options to include offshore wind and solar power. However, renewable power options should be chosen with care. For example, increasing the proportion of geothermal power would increase acidification. As mentioned earlier, these trade-offs should be considered carefully to avoid solving one problem at the expense of another. Increasing the proportion of renewable power in the electricity mix would significantly increase the depletion of elements. This impact could be minimised through appropriate policies that encourage recycling, use of non-scarce and renewable materials as well as dematerialisation. Hydropower is well established in Turkey and has a large potential for further deployment. Many hydropower plants are currently under construction or in the planning stage. While this option has been found the most sustainable in this work, there are social issues that must be addressed, such as public acceptability of large reservoir power plants and how they could affect water supply in the neighbouring countries. The government should consider these and other social aspects judiciously before making plans for further development of hydropower in Turkey. The use of nuclear power should be assessed considering further issues not included in this study, such as human health impacts from radiation, risks of accidents, earthquake-prone characteristics of the country and long-term storage of nuclear waste. These and other issues should be considered judiciously before making plans for further development of nuclear power in Turkey. The government should support research into improvements of electricity technologies as well as better legislation to limit environmental impacts in particular. Technological improvements are necessary but on their own will not be sufficient, so they must be coupled with reducing the electricity demand, including through energy efficiency measures. Reducing the demand should be encouraged through appropriate policies and education programmes, engaging both electricity generators and the public. Page 244 of 303

245 Chapter 7 3. Recommendations for future work The following areas of research are recommended for further work: Consideration of further sustainability issues, such as biodiversity, land use, nuclear waste management and long-term storage of CO 2. Detailed life cycle assessment of geothermal power plants in Turkey. Further research into specific data for the technologies and costs of future electricity in Turkey. Research into the cost and employment related to the decommissioning of power plants. Stakeholder survey to identify their preferences for different sustainability criteria. 4. Concluding remarks This research has integrated environmental, economic and social sustainability assessment indicators for assessing the sustainability of different current and future electricity generation options for Turkey. The results suggest that trade-offs are needed, as each technology and scenario is better for some sustainability indicators but worse for others. It is hoped that the research outcomes from this work will help the industry and policy makers in Turkey and abroad to identify and implement the most sustainable energy options for electricity supply. Page 245 of 303

246 Appendices Appendix 1: Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology LCA is a tool used to assess the environmental performance of processes, products or services through their life cycle: from the extraction and processing of raw materials, production, use, maintenance, reuse, recycling and final disposal, with transportation and distribution also involved (Azapagic, 2010). The LCA methodology is standardised by the International Organization for Standardization, most commonly known as ISO, under the ISO and standards (ISO, 2006b; ISO, 2006a). As indicated in Figure 58, LCA comprises four phases: goal and scope definition; inventory analysis; impact assessment; and interpretation (ISO, 2006a). These phases are detailed below. Life cycle assessment framework Goal and scope definition Direct applications: Inventory analysis Interpretation Product development and improvement Strategic planning Public policy making Marketing Other Impact assessment Figure 58: LCA methodology and applications (ISO, 2006a) Page 246 of 303

247 Goal and scope definition The goal and scope definition phase outlines the purpose, system boundaries and functional unit of the study. The first step in this phase involves identifying the aim of the study to state the reason for carrying it out as well as the intended audience. The definition of the scope includes the description of the system boundaries, allocation methods and data requirements as well as the study limitations and assumptions (Baumann and Tillman, 2004a). The system boundaries can be defined as cradle to gate from the raw material extraction to the factory gate or cradle to grave includes all stages in the life cycle until it reaches the end of its service life (Azapagic, 2010). The functional unit is also defined in the goal and scope phase; it represents the quantified function provided by the product system(s) under study, for use as a reference basis in an LCA. It sets the scale for comparison (Guinée et al., 2001). Inventory analysis The life cycle inventory analysis (LCIA) involves a detailed definition of the system, data collection and validation, allocation for multifunctional processes and calculation procedures. All the input and output flows within the system boundaries are quantified in this step (Azapagic, 2010). Generally, a flow diagram is developed to map inputs and outputs. The inputs include raw materials, energy and water used in the system, while the outputs include emissions to air, releases to water, solid waste and products. Data collection is one of the most time consuming part in LCA studies (Baumann and Tillman, 2004a). Impact assessment Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) refers to the third phase of the LCA study and it converts the quantified environmental burdens to related potential environmental impact categories (Azapagic, 2010). LCIA phase consists in four main stages: classification, characterisation, normalisation and valuation, where the latter two stages are optional according to the ISO standards (ISO, 2006a). Classification stage refers the assignment of the results to their respective impact categories. Usually, environmental loads can be linked to more than one impact. For example, NO x contributes to acidification as well as to eutrophication (Baumann and Tillman, 2004a). Page 247 of 303

248 In the characterisation stage, the environmental impacts are calculated using the characterisation factor of a reference substance (Azapagic, 2010). For example, all the acidifying emissions such as SO 2, NO x and NH 3 are multiply by their characterisation factors and then added up, resulting in a sum demonstrating the acidification impact (Baumann and Tillman, 2004a). In the normalisation stage, the characterised result for each impact category is represented relative to a reference system, e.g. a given period of time or geographical location. The aim of this is to understand the relative significance and magnitude of the potential impacts caused by the system under study (Guinée et al., 2001). Weighting, also known as valuation, is the final step, which is defined as the qualitative or quantitative procedure where the relative importance of an environmental impact is weighted against all other (Baumann and Tillman, 2004a). In this stage, for each impact, a weighting factor is assigned depending on their relative importance to demonstrate their significance (Azapagic, 2010). In general, impact assessments methods are classified into two groups: problem-oriented (midpoint) and damage-oriented (endpoint) approaches. Problem-oriented approach translates the environmental burdens into environmental impact categories that have the potential to cause. Damage-oriented approach, on the other hand, models the end-point damage caused by environmental interventions to pre-selected areas of protection such as natural sources and human health (Azapagic, 2010). The CML impact assessment method (Guinée et al., 2001) is an example of the problem-oriented approach for calculating the environmental impacts, while the Eco-indicator (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2001) is based on the damage-oriented approach. Interpretation The last phase of the LCA consists of the interpretation of the results. In this phase, the results are combined and the main contributors to the impacts are identified. With respect to goal and scope of the study, the conclusions and recommendations are developed. This step can include further assessment such as sensitivity analysis (Baumann and Tillman, 2004a). Page 248 of 303

249 References Azapagic, A., Assessing environmental sustainability: Life cycle thinking and life cycle assessment. In: Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists. Second ed (Azapagic, A. and Perdan, S. eds.). Chichester, UK. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Baumann, H.and Tillman, A.-M., The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA : An Orientation in Life Cycle Assessment Methodology and Application. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB. Goedkoop, M.and Spriensma, R., The Eco-indicator 99: A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment - Methodology Report. Amersfoort. Guinée, J. B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R.and Koning, A., Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISO, 2006a. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. International Organisation for Standardisation. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. ISO, 2006b. Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization. Page 249 of 303

250 Appendix 2: Renewable power plants in Turkey Table 25: Reservoir hydropower plants in Turkey in 2010 Power Plants Location Installed capacity (MW) Generation in 2010 (GWh) 1. Ataturk Sanliurfa Karkamis Gaziantep Karakaya Diyarbakir Dicle Diyarbakir Kralkizi Diyarbakir Batman Diyarbakir Keban Elazig Ozluce Elazig Altinkaya Samsun Derbent Samsun Obruk Corum Hasan Ugurlu Samsun Suat Ugurlu Samsun Gokcekaya Eskisehir Yenice Ankara Sariyar H.P. Ankara Gezende Icel Aslantas Osmaniye Hirfanli Kirsehir Kesikkopru Ankara Kapulukaya Kirikkale Menzelet K.Maras Kilickaya Sivas Camligoze Sivas Demirkopru Manisa Adiguzel Denizli Kemer Aydin Almus Tokat Kokluce Tokat Kurtun Gumushane Torul Gumushane Catalan Adana Borcka Artvin Muratli Artvin Karacaoren Burdur Kockopru Van Hosap Van Seyhan Adana Kadincik 1 Mersin Kadincik 2 Mersin Sir Kahramanmaras Berke Osmaniye Manavgat Antalya Karacaoren 2 Burdur Page 250 of 303

251 45. Birecik Sanliurfa Yamula Kayseri Uzuncayir Tunceli Oymapinar Antalya Total 12,732 44,106 (13,067 a ) (44,468 b ) a The total installed capacity in 2010 was 13,067 MW. The difference from the capacity shown in the table is due to a lack of specific data for some of the plants. However, total actual installed capacity has been used to estimate the impacts from reservoir hydropower plants. b The total generation in 2010 was 44,468 GWh. The difference from the generation shown in the table is due to a lack of specific data for some of the plants. However, total actual electricity generation has been used to estimate the impacts from reservoir hydropower plants. Table 26: Run-of-river hydropower plants in Turkey in 2010 Power plant Installed capacity (MW) Generation in 2010 (GWh) Power plant Installed capacity (MW) Generation in 2010 (GWh) 1. Cag-Cag Firtina Sumer Dogankent Filyos Yalnizca Goksu Erenkoy Turkerler Kadincik Hamzali Turkon Kadincik HGM Keklicek Kepez Selimoglu Kovada Yukari Mahnahoz Sanliurfa IC-EN Calkisla Sizir Ictas Yukari Mercan Girlevik Kabaca Kisik Molu Tortum Kale Yuregidir Kalen I - II Aksu Caykoy Kaletepe Kayen AYEN Camlica Karadeniz Uzundere Berdan Karasu Fethiye Karel Pamukova Gaziler KAR-EN Aralik Girlevi Mercan Kulp IV Gonen Lamas III Hasanlar Maras Firnis Sucati Murgul Tohma Medik Ozgur Tahta Akcay Oztay Gunayse Akim Pamuk Toroslar Akkoy PETA Mursal II Akua Resadiye Alp Tinaztepe Resadiye Anadolu Cakirlar Resadiye Asa Kale Saritepe Bayburt Sarmasik Bereket Dalaman Sarmasik Page 251 of 303

252 33. Bereket Feslek Selen Kepezkaya Bereket Gokyar Su Cayoren Bereket Koyulhisar ISKUR Suleymanli Bereket Mentas Tektug Erkenek Beytek Tektug Andirin EnerjiSA Birkapili Tektug Kalealti Bahcelik Molu Tektug Kargilik Cansu Tektug Keban Deres Berkman Enova Tum Pinar Oskan Enova YPM Susehri Ceykar YAPISAN Hacilar Cakit YAPISAN Karica Caldere Yavuz Masat Cenay Yesilbas Degirmenustu Zorlu Cildir Dim Zorlu Ikizdere Elestas Yaylabel Zorlu Mercan Dodurga Elta Tasova Yeniderekoy 51. EnerjiSA Sahmallar TEMSA Gozede EnerjiSA Kizilduz Tocak I Yurt Erenler BME Egemen Enersis I-II Erikli Akocak Others Esen 2 Goltas Total Table 27: Wind power plants in Turkey in 2010 Name Location Installed capacity (MW) Turbine power (MW) Number of turbines Generation in 2010 (GWh) 1. Mersin Mut Mersin Ayyildiz Balikesir Sarikaya Tekirdag / Cataltepe Balikesir Kuyucak Manisa / Camseki Canakkale / Cesme Izmir Keltepe Balikesir Intepe Canakkale ARES Izmir Bandirma 3 Balikesir Akbuk Aydin Samli Balikesir Senbuk Hatay Belen Hatay Aliaga Izmir Soma Manisa Bandirma 3 Balikesir Boreas Edirne Page 252 of 303

253 20. Bozcaada Canakkale Dares Datca Mugla / Sebenoba Hatay Karakurt Manisa Sayalar Manisa Burgaz Canakkale / Sares Canakkale Yuntdag Izmir Kores 2 Izmir Kemerburgaz Istanbul Mazi 1 Izmir / Mazi 3 Izmir Gokcedag Osmaniye Turguttepe Aydin Catalca Istanbul Sunjut Istanbul Tepe Istanbul Duzova Izmir Bandirma 3 Balikesir / Ziyaret Hatay Total (2916 a ) a The total generation in 2010 was GWh. The difference from the generation shown in the table is due to a lack of specific data for some of the plants. However, total actual electricity generation has been used to estimate the impacts from wind plants. Table 28: Geothermal power plants in Turkey in 2010 Name Place Installed capacity (MW) Generation in 2010 (GWh) Temperature ( o C) 1. Kizildere Denizli Tuzla Canakkale Dora 2 Aydin Germencik (Gurmat) Aydin Kizildere Bereketli Denizli Dora 1 (Salavatli) Aydin Total Page 253 of 303

254 Appendix 3: Total annual environmental impacts over the period Table 29: Annual abiotic depletion potential (ADP elements) over the period kg Sb-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 3 Table 30: Annual abiotic depletion potential (ADP fossil) over the period MJ Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Table 31: Annual acidification potential (AP) over the period kg SO 2-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 8 Page 254 of 303

255 Table 32: Annual eutrophication potential (EP) over the period kg PO 4-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 8 Table 33: Annual freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) over the period kg DCB-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Table 34: Annual global warming potential (GWP) over the period kg CO 2-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Page 255 of 303

256 Table 35: Annual human toxicity potential (HTP) over the period kg DCB-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Table 36: Annual marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) over the period kg DCB-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Table 37: Annual ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) over the period kg R11-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 4 Page 256 of 303

257 Table 38: Annual photochemical oxidants creation potential (POCP) over the period kg C 2H 4-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 7 Table 39: Annual terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) over the period kg DCB-eq. Lignite Hard coal Gas Reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal TOTAL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 8 Page 257 of 303

258 Appendix 4: Summary of the sustainability assessment results (2010) Table 40: Sustainability assessment per kwh of electricity generated (2010) Sustainability indicators Units Lignite Hard coal Gas Large reservoir Small reservoir Wind Run-ofriver Geothermal Electricity mix Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) μg Sb eq./kwh Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) MJ/kWh Global warming potential g CO 2 eq./kwh Acidification potential mg SO 2 eq./kwh 10, Eutrophication potential mg PO 4 eq./kwh 11, Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential g DCB a eq./kwh Human toxicity potential g DCB a eq./kwh Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential kg DCB a eq./kwh Ozone layer depletion potential μg CFC-11 eq./kwh Page 258 of 303

259 Photochemical oxidants creation potential mg C 2 H 4 eq./kwh Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential g DCB a eq./kwh Capital costs US$/kW Total annualised costs billion US$/year Levelised costs US$/kWh Direct employment jobs-years/twh Total employment (direct + indirect) jobs-years/twh Injuries No. of injuries/twh Fatalities due to large accidents No. of fatalities/twh Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided koe b /kwh Diversity of fuel supply mix Score (0-1) c a DCB: dichlorobenzene. b koe: kilogram oil equivalent. c A score of 1 represents a diverse fuel supply and a score of 0 indicates an over-reliance on one exporter. Page 259 of 303

260 Table 41: Sustainability assessment of electricity generated annually (2010) Sustainability indicators Units Electricity mix (2010) Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) kg Sb eq./year 5.3 Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) EJ/year 1.7 Global warming potential Mt CO 2 eq./year Acidification potential Mt SO 2 eq./year 0.6 Eutrophication potential Mt PO 4 eq./year 0.5 Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential Mt DCB a eq./year 82.3 Human toxicity potential Mt DCB a eq./year 56.5 Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential Gt DCB a eq./year Ozone layer depletion potential t CFC-11 eq./year 9.5 Photochemical oxidants creation potential kt C 2 H 4 eq./year 41.8 Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential kt DCB a eq./year Capital costs billion US$ 69.3 Total annualised costs billion US$/year 25.9 Levelised costs US$/kWh 0.12 Direct employment No. of jobs/year 25,000 Total employment (direct + indirect) No. of jobs/year 57,000 Injuries No. of injuries/year 3700 Fatalities due to large accidents No. of fatalities/year 15 Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Mtoe b /year 15.2 Diversity of fuel supply mix Score (0-1) c 0.75 a DCB: dichlorobenzene. b Mtoe: million tonnes oil equivalent. c A score of 1 represents a diverse fuel supply and a score of 0 indicates an over-reliance on one exporter. Page 260 of 303

261 Appendix 5: Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and sensitivity analysis results for different electricity options in Turkey Figure 59: MCDA decision tree showing the three sustainability aspects (left), 20 indicators (middle) and eight electricity options (right) Page 261 of 303

262 Sustainability score 0.9 ADP ADP fossil AP EP FAETP GWP HTP MAETP ODP POCP TETP Capital costs Total annualised Levelised Direct employment Total employment Injuries Fatalities Imported fossil fuel avoided Diversity of fuel supply Lignite Hard coal Gas Large resorvoir Small reservoir Run-of-river Wind Geothermal Figure 60: MCDA results with equal weights on the sustainability aspects showing the contribution of different indicators to the total score for each electricity option [ADP: Abiotic depletion of elements; ADP fossil: Abiotic depletion of fossil; AP: Acidification potential; EP: Eutrophication potential; FAETP: Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential; GWP: Global warming potential; HTP: Human toxicity potential; MAETP: Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential; ODP: Ozone layer depletion potential; POCP: Photochemical oxidants creation potential; TETP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential.] a) Sensitivity analysis for the environmental aspect [The vertical line at 0.33 represents the weight placed on the environmental aspect. The vertical line at (0.24) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the environment aspect to incur a change in the technology ranking.] Page 262 of 303

263 b) Sensitivity analysis for the economic aspect [The vertical line at 0.33 represents the weight placed on the economic aspect. The vertical line at (0.51) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the economic aspect to incur a change in the technology ranking.] c) Sensitivity analysis for the social aspect [The vertical line at 0.33 represents the weight placed on the social aspect. The vertical line at (0.57) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the social aspect to incur a change in the technology ranking.] Figure 61: Sensitivity analysis for different electricity options in Turkey with the equal weights on sustainability aspects Page 263 of 303

264 Figure 62: Sensitivity analysis for different electricity options in Turkey with the environmental aspect five times more important than the economic and social, displayed for the environmental aspect [The vertical line at 0.71 represents the weight placed on the environmental aspect. The vertical line at (0.14) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the environment aspect to incur a change in the technology ranking.] Figure 63: Sensitivity analysis for different electricity options in Turkey with the economic aspect five times more important than the environmental and social, displayed for the economic aspect [The vertical line at 0.71 represents the weight placed on the economic aspect. The vertical line at (0.47) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the economic aspect to incur a change in the technology ranking.] Page 264 of 303

265 Figure 64: Sensitivity analysis for different electricity options in Turkey with the social aspect five times more important than the environmental and economic, displayed for the social aspect [The vertical line at 0.71 represents the weight placed on the social aspect. The vertical line at (0.31) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the social aspect to incur a change in the technology ranking.] Page 265 of 303

266 Appendix 6: Data quality summary for different electricity options Table 42: Data quality assessment for lignite power Indicator Contribution % Quality score Age Geography Source Completeness Reliability, consistency Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) 11 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Acidification potential 15 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Eutrophication potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Global warming potential 15 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Human toxicity potential 14 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential 14 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Ozone layer depletion potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Photochemical oxidants creation potential 15 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Page 266 of 303

267 Decommissioning Recycling Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential 14 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total capital costs Total annualised costs 13 Capital Fixed Variable Fuel Levelised costs 13 Direct employment 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Total employment (direct + indirect) 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Manufacture Fuel supply Injuries 10 Mining Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Fatalities 10 Mining Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Table 43: Data quality assessment for hard coal power Indicator Contribution % Quality score Age Geography Source Completeness Page 267 of 303 Reliability, consistency Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) 12 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) 12 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Acidification potential 14 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Eutrophication potential 12 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential 12 Construction

268 Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Global warming potential 14 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Human toxicity potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Ozone layer depletion potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Photochemical oxidants creation potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total capital costs Total annualised costs 13 Capital Fixed Variable Fuel Levelised costs 13 Direct employment 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Total employment (direct + indirect) 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Manufacture Fuel supply Injuries 10 Mining Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Fatalities 10 Mining Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Page 268 of 303

269 Table 44: Data quality assessment for natural gas power Indicator Contribution % Quality score Age Geography Source Completeness Reliability, consistency Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) 11 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) 12 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Acidification potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Eutrophication potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential 12 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Global warming potential Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Human toxicity potential 11 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential 12 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Ozone layer depletion potential 13 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Photochemical oxidants creation potential 12 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential 12 Page 269 of 303

270 Construction Mining/Extraction Transport Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total capital costs Total annualised costs 13 Capital Fixed Variable Fuel Levelised costs 13 Direct employment 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Total employment (direct + indirect) 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Manufacture Fuel supply Injuries 10 Mining Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Fatalities 10 Mining Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Table 45: Data quality assessment for large reservoir hydropower Indicator Contribution % Quality score Age Geography Source Completeness Reliability, consistency Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Acidification potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Eutrophication potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Global warming potential 13 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Page 270 of 303

271 Human toxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Ozone layer depletion potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Photochemical oxidants creation potential 12 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total capital costs Total annualised costs 9 Capital Fixed Variable Levelised costs 9 Direct employment 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Total employment (direct + indirect) 9 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Manufacture Injuries 9 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Fatalities 10 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Table 46: Data quality assessment for small reservoir hydropower Indicator Contribution % Quality score Age Geography Source Completeness Page 271 of 303 Reliability, consistency Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Acidification potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling

272 Eutrophication potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Global warming potential 13 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Human toxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Ozone layer depletion potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Photochemical oxidants creation potential 12 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total capital costs Total annualised costs 9 Capital Fixed Variable Levelised costs 9 Direct employment 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Total employment (direct + indirect) 9 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Manufacture Injuries 9 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Fatalities 10 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Page 272 of 303

273 Table 47: Data quality assessment for run-of-river hydropower Indicator Contribution % Quality score Age Geography Source Completeness Reliability, consistency Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Acidification potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Eutrophication potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Global warming potential 13 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Human toxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Ozone layer depletion potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Photochemical oxidants creation potential 12 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Total capital costs Total annualised costs 9 Capital Fixed Variable Levelised costs 9 Direct employment 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Total employment (direct + indirect) 9 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Manufacture Page 273 of 303

274 Injuries 9 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Fatalities 10 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Table 48: Data quality assessment for wind power Indicator Contribution % Quality score Age Geography Source Completeness Reliability, consistency Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Acidification potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Eutrophication potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Global warming potential 13 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Human toxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Ozone layer depletion potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Photochemical oxidants creation potential 12 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential 10 Construction Operation Decommissioning Recycling Page 274 of 303

275 Total capital costs Total annualised costs 9 Capital Fixed Variable Levelised costs 9 Direct employment 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Total employment (direct + indirect) 9 2 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Manufacture Injuries 9 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Fatalities 10 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Table 49: Data quality assessment for geothermal power Indicator Contribution % Quality score Age Geography Source Completeness Reliability, consistency Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) Acidification potential Eutrophication potential Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential Global warming potential Human toxicity potential Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential Ozone layer depletion potential Photochemical oxidants creation potential Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential Total capital costs Total annualised costs 10 Capital Fixed Variable Levelised costs 9 Direct employment 10 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Total employment (direct + indirect) 9 2 Construction/Installation Operation-maintenance Decommissioning Manufacture Injuries 9 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Fatalities 10 Operation Construction Manufacturing Decommissioning Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Page 275 of 303

276 Table 50: Data quality scores for the sustainability assessment of current electricity technologies and mix Indicator Lignite Hard Large Small Run-ofriver mix Electricity Gas Wind Geothermal coal reservoir reservoir Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) Acidification potential Eutrophication potential Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential Global warming potential Human toxicity potential Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential Ozone layer depletion potential Photochemical oxidants creation potential Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential Total capital costs Total annualised costs Levelised costs Direct employment Total employment (direct + indirect) Injuries Fatalities Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided Diversity of fuel supply mix Data quality score Data quality High High High High High High High High High Page 276 of 303

277 Appendix 7: Assumptions for the current electricity mix and future scenarios BAU sub-scenarios BAU-1 scenario is based on the reference scenario developed by Greenpeace and EREC (2008). Their original scenario has been adapted by applying the same assumptions (such as electricity demand) as for the other scenarios considered here to make it comparable. In this sub-scenario, direct GHG emissions grow by around 3.4% annually to The contribution from fossil fuel plants (without CCS) is assumed at 69.5% of the total electricity generation (Table 51). Hydropower is the most important renewable option, with a contribution of 10.2% by There is no nuclear power development. As shown in Table 52, the installed capacity of BAU-1 scenario is GW, the lowest compared to all other scenarios. This is mainly because of the higher contribution from coal and gas power and their higher capacity factors relative to renewable plants. The BAU-2 scenario is based on Turkey s current electricity mix, policies and planned projects for electricity generation. Direct GHG emissions from electricity generation grow by around 2.6% annually by As shown in Table 51, fossil fuel based electricity dominates in this scenario with gas, hard coal and lignite providing 83.9% of the total electricity demand in 2050; 51.4% of electricity is provided by coal and 32.5% by gas. It is assumed that around 12.7 GW of nuclear power capacity has been installed by 2050 (Table 52), providing 9% of electricity. Hydropower and wind power are the most important renewable sources, contributing 12% and 8% to the total production, respectively. A-C sub-scenarios For A-1, B-1 and C-1 scenarios, it has been assumed that there is strong support from the government for fossil fuel energy systems so that fossil fuel power options (lignite, hard coal and gas power with and without CCS) remain the most important source for electricity generation in The contribution from fossil fuel technologies (with and without CCS) in scenario A-1 and B-1 is assumed to be 75% of the total. In scenario C-1, the contribution from fossil fuel electricity decreases to 65%. The role of CCS is crucial owing to the GHG emission target, contributing 29% in A-1 scenario, 53% in B-1 scenario and 60% in C-1 scenario. There is no nuclear power in these scenarios. The renewables contribute 25% of total electricity generation in scenarios A-1 and B-1 and 35% of the total in scenario C-1. Page 277 of 303

278 The A-2, B-2 and C-2 scenarios assume that future electricity is generated by both fossil fuel power (with and without CCS) and nuclear. The latter contributes 15% to the total electricity generation, with installed capacity of 42.6 MW. In A-2 and B-2, the contribution from fossil fuel technologies (without and with CCS) is 60%, followed by renewables with 25%, mainly from hydropower (15%). The only difference in B-2 is the increase in the contribution from fossil fuel technologies with CCS. The contribution of fossil fuel technologies in scenario C-2 decreases to 50%; the renewable sources contribute 35%, mainly from hydropower (15%) and onshore wind (10%), followed by solar PV (5%), biomass (4%) and geothermal (1%). A-3, B-3 and C-3 are dominated by nuclear power and a range of renewables. The contribution from nuclear is 25%, 30% and 35% of the total, respectively. Renewable power provides from 36% in A-3 to 49% in C-3. Specifically, hydropower contributes 20% of the total electricity generation, followed by onshore wind (up to 13%), biomass (up to 8%) and solar PV (up to 7%). The contribution from the fossil sources ranges from 16% in scenario C-3 to 39% in scenario A-3. Renewable options are assumed to dominate in scenarios A-4, B-4 and C-4. There is strong support from the government for renewable power systems, including solar, offshore wind and biomass. Renewable energy options account for 56%, 69% and 79% of total electricity generation, respectively, with hydropower generating 25% of the total. Fossil fuel options (with and without CCS) also make a contribution to the electricity mix, ranging from 16% for C-4 to 39% for A-4. Gas power plays more important role than lignite and hard coal power owing to its lower GHG emissions. Fossil fuel technologies with CCS contribute only 5% of the total in scenario B-4 and C-4. Nuclear power contributes 5% in all of these sub-scenarios. As shown in Table 52, the installed capacity in C-4 scenario is GW, the highest of all, because of the higher contribution from renewable plants and their lower capacity factors compared to fossil fuel plants. Reference Greenpeace and EREC, Global Energy [R]Evolution: A Sustainable Turkey Energy Outlook. Greenpeace International, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC). Page 278 of 303

279 Table 51: Current technology mix (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Technology 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Electricity mix (%) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Natural Gas 47.5 a Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river 3.5 b Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar Total Fossil CCS Renewables Nuclear Total a The output from liquid fuel has been substituted with gas power. b The output from other renewables and waste has been substituted with reservoir hydropower. Page 279 of 303

280 Table 52: Current installed capacity (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Technology 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Capacity (GW) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar Total (49.5 a ) 2 a The total installed capacity was 49.5 GW. The difference from the installed capacity shown in the table is due to multi-fuel, liquid fuel and other renewablewaste plants not included in the table. However, the total actual installed capacity has been used. Page 280 of 303

281 Table 53: Current electricity generation (2010) and future scenarios (2050) Technology 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Generation (TWh) Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Nuclear Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar PV Total (211.2 a ) a The total generation was TWh. The difference from the generation shown in the table is due to liquid fuel and other renewable-waste plants not included in the table. However, the total actual electricity generation has been used. Page 281 of 303

282 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard Coal Hard Coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar Fixed costs (US$2012/kW) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard Coal Hard Coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar Capital costs (US$2012/kW) Appendix 8: Economic sustainability of electricity technologies 14,000 Current situation Year 2050 Year 2050 (min-max) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 a) Capital costs 250 Current situation Year 2050 Year 2050 (min-max) b) Fixed costs Page 282 of 303

283 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard Coal Hard Coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Biomass Fuel costs (US$2012/MWh) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard Coal Hard Coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Biomass Variable costs (US$2012/MWh) 45 Current situation Year 2050 Year 2050 (min-max) c) Variable costs 800 Current situation Year 2050 Year 2050 (min-max) d) Fuel costs Figure 65: Costs of current (2010) and future electricity technologies (2050) [The current (2010) average costs of hard coal and reservoir hydropower were shown. Central estimates (Year 2050) are calculated based on the contribution of each technology to the technology mix presented in Table 2. Literature data: Bauer et al. (2008); Gärtner (2008); Fürsch et al. (2011); Schröder et al. (2013b); Greenpeace and EREC (2012); Sensfuß and Pfluger (2014).] Page 283 of 303

284 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar Total employment (jobs-years/twh) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar Direct employment (jobs-years/twh) Appendix 9: Social sustainability of technologies 600 Current situation Year a) Direct employment 700 Current situation Year b) Total employment Page 284 of 303

285 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard Coal Hard Coal CCS Natural Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar Fatalities/TWh Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard Coal Hard Coal CCS Natural Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Wind onshore Wind offshore Biomass Geothermal Solar Injuries/TWh Current situation Year c) Worker injuries 0.30 Current situation Year d) Fatalities due to large accidents Figure 66: Social sustainability of current (2010) and future electricity technologies (2050) [Owing to the lack of data, the employment in the decommissioning stage is assumed to be 20% of construction employment.] Page 285 of 303

286 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar ADP fossil (MJ/kWh) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar ADP elements (µg Sb-eq./kWh) Appendix 10: Environmental impacts of current and future electricity technologies, per kwh generated electricity Current situation Year a) ADP elements Current situation Year b) ADP fossil Page 286 of 303

287 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar EP (g PO 4 -eq./kwh) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar AP (g SO 2 -eq./kwh) Current situation Year c) AP Current situation Year d) EP Page 287 of 303

288 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar GWP (g CO 2 -eq./kwh) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar FAETP (g DCB-eq./kWh) Current situation Year e) FAETP Current situation Year f) GWP Page 288 of 303

289 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar MAETP (kg DCB-eq./kWh) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar HTP (g DCB-eq./kWh) Current situation Year g) HTP Current situation Year h) MAETP Page 289 of 303

290 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar POCP (mg C 2 H 4 -eq./kwh) Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar ODP (µg R11-eq./kWh) Current situation Year i) ODP Current situation Year j) POCP Page 290 of 303

291 Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCS Hard coal Hard coal CCS Gas Gas CCS Reservoir Run-of-river Onshore wind Offshore wind Biomass Geothermal Solar TETP (g DCB-eq./kWh) Current situation Year k) TETP Figure 67: Environmental indicators for current situation (2010) and future electricity technologies (2050) [Owing to the lack of data for future hydropower and geothermal power technologies, their impacts are assumed to be same as today.] Page 291 of 303

292 Appendix 11: Summary of the sustainability assessment results for scenarios Table 54: Sustainability assessment of current electricity (2010) and future scenarios (2050), per kwh of electricity generated Sustainability indicators Units Current BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) μg Sb eq./kwh Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) MJ/kWh Global warming potential Acidification potential Eutrophication potential Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential Human toxicity potential Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential Ozone layer depletion potential Photochemical oxidants creation potential g CO 2 eq./kwh mg SO 2 eq./kwh mg PO 4 eq./kwh g DCB a eq./kwh g DCB a eq./kwh kg DCB a eq./kwh μg CFC-11 eq./kwh mg C 2H 4 eq./kwh Page 292 of 303

293 Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential mg DCB a eq./kwh Total capital costs b billion US$ Total annualised costs b billion US$/year Levelised costs b US$/MWh Direct employment Total employment (direct + indirect) Injuries Fatalities due to large accidents jobsyears/twh jobsyears/twh No. of injuries/twh No. of fatalities/twh Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided a DCB: dichlorobenzene. b Central estimate c koe: kilogram oil equivalent. koe c /kwh Page 293 of 303

294 Table 55: Sustainability assessment of current electricity (2010) and future scenarios (2050), for annual generation of electricity Sustainability indicators Units Current BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Abiotic resource depletion potential (elements) kg Sb eq./year Abiotic resource depletion potential (fossil fuels) EJ/year Global warming potential Acidification potential Eutrophication potential Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential Human toxicity potential Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential Ozone layer depletion potential Mt CO 2 eq./year Mt SO 2 eq./year Mt PO 4 eq./year Mt DCB a eq./year Mt DCB a eq./year Gt DCB a eq./year t CFC-11 eq./year Page 294 of 303

295 Photochemical oxidants creation potential Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential Total capital costs b Total annualised costs b kt C 2H 4 eq./year kt DCB a eq./year billion US$ billion US$/year Levelised costs b US$/MWh Direct employment No. of jobs/year 25, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Total employment (direct + indirect) No. of jobs/year 57, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Injuries Fatalities due to large accidents Imported fossil fuel potentially avoided No. of injuries/ year No. of fatalities/ year Mtoe c / year a DCB: dichlorobenzene. b Central estimate c Mtoe: million tonnes oil equivalent Page 295 of 303

296 Appendix 12: Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and sensitivity analysis results for scenarios Figure 68: MCDA decision tree showing the three sustainability aspects (left), 19 indicators (middle), current situation (2010) and 14 future scenarios (right) Page 296 of 303

297 2010 BAU-1 BAU-2 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 Sustainability score 0.8 ADP ADP fossil AP EP FAETP GWP HTP MAETP ODP POCP TETP Capital costs Total annualised costs Levelised costs Direct employment Total employment Injuries Fatalities Imported fossil fuel avoided Figure 69: MCDA results with equal weights on the sustainability aspects showing the contribution of different indicators to the total score for each scenario [For impacts nomenclature, see Figure 60.] a) Sensitivity analysis for the environmental aspect [The vertical line at 0.33 represents the weight placed on the aspects. The vertical line at (0.73) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the environment aspect to incur a change in the scenario ranking.] Page 297 of 303

298 b) Sensitivity analysis for the economic aspect [The vertical line at 0.33 represents the weight placed on the aspects. The vertical line at (0.60) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the economic aspect to incur a change in the scenario ranking.] c) Sensitivity analysis for the social aspect [The vertical line at 0.33 represents the weight placed on the aspects. The vertical line at (0.80) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the social aspect to incur a change in the scenario ranking.] Figure 70: Sensitivity analysis for scenarios with the equal weights on sustainability aspects [The vertical line at 0.33 represents the weight placed on the aspects.] Page 298 of 303

299 Figure 71: Sensitivity analysis for scenarios with the environmental aspect five times more important than the economic and social, displayed for the environmental aspect. [The vertical line at 0.71 represents the weight placed on the environmental aspect. The vertical line at (0.57) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the environment aspect to incur a change in the scenario ranking.] Figure 72: Sensitivity analysis for scenarios with the economic aspect five times more important than the environmental and social, displayed for the economic aspect. [The vertical line at 0.71 represents the weight placed on the economic aspect. The vertical line at (0.41) represents the weight that would need to be placed on the economic aspect to incur a change in the scenario ranking.] Page 299 of 303