Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /enconman

Sustainable energy, environmental and agricultural policies in Turkey

Kamil Kaygusuz *

Department of Chemistry, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 May 2009Accepted 8 December 2009Available online 4 January 2010

Keywords:Energy utilizationRenewable energySustainable developmentTurkey

0196-8904/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.enconman.2009.12.012

* Tel.: +90 462 3772591; fax: +90 462 3253195.E-mail address: kamilk@ktu.edu.tr

a b s t r a c t

Turkey’s demand for energy and electricity is increasing rapidly and heavily dependent on expensiveimported energy resources that place a big burden on the economy and air pollution is becoming a greatenvironmental concern in the country. As would be expected, the rapid expansion of energy productionand consumption has brought with it a wide range of environmental issues at the local, regional and glo-bal levels. With respect to global environmental issues, Turkey’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions havegrown along with its energy-consumption. States have played a leading role in protecting the environ-ment by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). In this regard, renewable energy resourcesappear to be the one of the most efficient and effective solutions for clean and sustainable energy devel-opment in Turkey. Turkey’s geographical location has several advantages for extensive use of most ofthese renewable energy sources.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The relationships between energy supply and use, economicactivity, human development and the environment are extremelycomplex. Increased energy use is both a cause and an effect of eco-nomic growth and development. Energy is essential to most eco-nomic activities. Industrialized economies rely on commercialenergy to transport goods and people, to heat homes and offices,to power engines and appliances, and to run shops and factories.The prosperity generated by economic development stimulates,in turn, demand for more and better-quality energy services, espe-cially in the early stages of economic development. But the produc-tion, transportation and use of energy can have major adverseeffects on the environment and on the health and well-being ofcurrent and future generations [1–4].

Today, energy use is the largest source of air pollution and of thegreenhouse gases (GHGs) that threaten to change global climate(Table 1). These environmental problems arise principally fromthe combustion of fossil fuels, which provides the bulk of theworld’s energy needs. Air pollution occurs through the noxiousgases and pollutants including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides(NOx), particulates, methane (CH4) and volatile organic compounds(VOCs) emitted either through fuel combustion or in leakages fromdelivery systems [5]. The use of fossil fuels is the leading cause ofurban smog, particulate matter air pollution and acid rain. Localand regional air pollution is a major human health problem, espe-cially in the developing world, and also affects the health of naturalsystems and biodiversity worldwide. Indoor air pollution, caused

ll rights reserved.

largely by inefficient and poorly ventilated stoves burning tradi-tional fuels or coal, is a leading cause of health problems in manydeveloping countries. Producing and transporting oil can pollutethe sea, freshwater supplies and the soil through accidental leaksor poor management. Combustion of fossil fuels is also the pre-dominant source of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide(CO2), while coal mining and natural gas distribution are an impor-tant source of methane [1–6].

Alternatives to fossil energy use include renewable and nuclearenergy; however, these energy forms are not problem-free either.Renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric and wind energy,are cleaner, but can also carry limited environmental risks of theirown. For example, large-scale hydroelectric dams can be a signifi-cant source of CH4 emissions when they cause deforestation and al-ter natural river flow, with a range of cascading ecological impacts.Wind energy causes noise pollution and alters the landscape. Nu-clear power production gives rise to radioactive waste and wastemanagement problems, raises the risk of accidental contaminationas well as a range of national security issues. Beyond economic andtechnical questions, switching to non-fossil energy sources thus in-volves trade-offs and consideration of a range of environmental andsecurity consequences, issues that can only be resolved when tak-ing local contexts and preferences into account [4].

2. Global energy-consumption

2.1. Primary energy-consumption

Barring a radical change in government policies, major techno-logical breakthroughs, an unexpected change in oil prices or

Table 1Environmental impact of the energy sector. Source: Refs. [5,6].

1980 2005 2030

Total GHG emissions (GtCO2 eq) 32.9 46.9 64.1CO2 emissions from energy (GtCO2)

Industry and othera 7.6 9.0 12.5Power generation 6.2 11.0 18.0Residential 2.0 2.3 2.8Transport 3.5 6.1 9.6Total 19.3 28.4 43.0

CO2 emissions from energy (t CO2/per capita) 4.3 4.4 5.2CO2 concentration (ppm) 339 383 465Nitrogen oxides emission (Mt) 30.5 29.6 29.4Sulfur oxides emission (Mt)b 80.5 64.4 67.3

a The term ‘‘other” includes energy-related emissions of CO2 from services,bunkers, energy transformation, losses and leakages.

b The total sulfur dioxide emissions considers both industry related and energy-related emissions.

1076 K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084

disruption to global economic expansion, the world’s energy needsare set to continue to grow steadily over the coming decades. Glo-bal primary energy-consumption in the OECD Environmental Out-look Baseline [7] is projected to increase from 460 exajoules (EJ) in2005 to 710 EJ in 2030 and 865 EJ in 2050, which represents anaverage annual increase of 1.8% in 2005–2030 and 1% in 2030–2050 (Table 2). Energy use has grown by 1.7% per year since1980. Fossil fuels continue to dominate the primary fuel mix. Oil,gas and coal account for 86% of the projected increase in total en-ergy use between 2005 and 2030. The combined share of fossilfuels in total primary energy use remains essentially constant from2005 to 2030, hovering at about 85%, and then drops to 80% in2050 [7]. Fig. 1 shows world primary energy-consumption by fueltype [1].

Oil remains the single largest fuel in the global primary energymix throughout the projection period, with consumption growing

Table 2World primary energy-consumption in the baseline (EJ). Source: Ref. [7].

1980 2005 2030 2050

Coal 75.5 129.0 198.1 224.2Oil 132.4 168.1 239.0 287.8Natural gas 55.3 98.1 174.9 221.4Modern biofuels 0.5 2.2 16.4 39.1Traditional biofuels 33.5 44.4 52.8 50.7Nuclear 2.5 9.3 12.9 12.1Solar/wind 0.1 0.6 4.9 12.6Hydropower 6.0 10.5 15.1 17.6Total world 305.8 462.3 714.2 865.4

Fig. 1. World primary energy-consumption by fuel type.

by 42% between 2005 and 2030. Its share nonetheless stays flatat 33%. The bulk of the increase in oil use is projected to come fromthe transport sector. Natural gas sees the biggest increase in pri-mary consumption in volume terms in 2005–2030, ahead of coaland oil. The share of natural gas in primary energy is projectedto grow to 24% by 2030. Nevertheless there is a large projected in-crease in the volume of coal use over the coming decades anddrives up GHG emissions. Demand for coal is driven mainly bythe power generation sector, especially in China and India. Coal’sshare of world primary energy-consumption remains stable at28% in 2005 and 2030. Nuclear power is projected to grow muchmore slowly than in the past, based on current policies, such thatits share in primary consumption falls. The combined share ofhydropower and traditional biomass is projected to increaseslightly. In aggregate, modern renewables that includes geother-mal, wind, solar, wave and tidal energy and biofuels are expectedto grow faster than any other energy source, their contribution toglobal primary energy rising from nearly 1% in 2005 to 3% in2030. Modern biofuels account for most of this increase [1,4,7].

Over three-quarters of the increase in world primary energy-consumption through to 2030 is projected to come from non-OECDcountries, where the economy and population will be expandingfaster. As a result, the share of OECD countries in total primary en-ergy-consumption looks likely to drop, from 50% in 2005 to 42% in2030, and to 37% by 2050. Developing Asia sees the fastest rates ofgrowth in energy-consumption, increasing by almost 94% between2005 and 2030. Energy intensity, measured as total primary energyuse per dollar of gross domestic product, is projected to decline inall regions. On average, it is projected to fall by 1% per year world-wide between 2005 and 2030, quickening to 1.1% between 2030and 2050. Globally, per capita energy-consumption looks likelyto grow by 0.8% per year on average to 2030 and, as global econo-mies become more fully developed, to increase by 0.5% per year be-tween 2030 and 2050 [1,3,7].

2.2. Power generation and other energy uses

Use of primary energy to generate power is projected to con-tinue to grow steadily in every region in the Baseline, driven bystrong final demand for electricity. Globally, electricity consump-tion is projected to grow by 4% per year between 2005 and 2030,down from 5.1% between 1980 and 2005. Non-OECD countries ac-count for 64% of the increase. There is considerable variation acrossregions in the fuel mix [7].

Worldwide, coal accounts for well over half of the total increasein fuel inputs to generation, its share in total generation remains55% in 2005 and in 2030. Coal-fired power stations are the mostcompetitive generation option for large-scale power generationin the majority of regions, especially developing Asia. In fact, powergeneration accounts for the bulk of the projected increase in over-all coal demand in both the developing world and the OECD coun-tries [1–3].

The share of oil, nuclear and hydro-energy in the primary en-ergy mix for power generation is likely to decrease between2005 and 2030 [1,2]. The share of natural gas is expected to in-crease from 21% in 2005 to 27% in 2030 and that of coal from46% to 55%. The share of modern biofuels looks likely to increasefrom 1% to 4%. As a result of higher prices, the use of oil in powerstations is projected to decline in every region, its share of gener-ation worldwide plunging from 7% in 2005 to 1% in 2030. The shareof nuclear power drops from 6% in 2005 to 5% in 2030. The declineis expected to accelerate over the projection period, on theassumption that few new reactors are built and several existingreactors are retired. However, nuclear power production could turnout to be a lot higher if governments change their policies to facil-

0

20

40

60

80

100

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Years

Mto

e

Coal and LigniteOilGasCom. Renewable & WastesNuclearHydropowerGeothermalSolar/Wind/OtherTotal production

Fig. 2. Turkey’s primary energy production during 2000–2030.

300

400

500

600

toe

Coal and LigniteOilGasCom. Renewable & WastesNuclearHydropowerGeothermalSolar/Wind/Other

K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084 1077

itate investment in nuclear plants and extend the lifetimes of exist-ing plants [7].

The relative importance of hydropower is set to diminish. Muchof the industrialized countries’ low-cost hydropower resourceshave already been exploited and growing environmental concernsin developing countries will discourage further large-scale projectsthere. World hydropower production looks likely to grow slowly to2030, but its share in global electricity generation will drop, from7% to 6%. Power generation using modern renewable technologiesis currently limited, but is projected to grow rapidly in the Base-line. According to the model, the share of such renewables in totalgeneration jumps from 1% in 2005 to 6% in 2030. In absolute terms,the increase is much bigger in the OECD countries, because manyof them have adopted strong policy incentives [2,3].

Under Baseline conditions, an important environmental factoris the conversion efficiency of power generation in fossil-fired facil-ities. This efficiency can vary widely within and between technol-ogy types, and will determine the level of local pollutants, as wellas the carbon-intensity, of power production. Demonstrated andemerging clean coal technologies offer significant improvementsover conventional coal technologies [2]. For example, super-criticalor ultra-super-critical pulverized fuel technologies are more effi-cient than conventional (sub-critical) units and produce signifi-cantly less CO2, SO2 and NOx per unit of power generated. Coalgasification technologies promise even greater efficiencies in thefuture [7].

0

100

200

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Years

M Total primary energy consumption

Fig. 3. Turkey’s primary energy-consumption forecast 2000–2030.

Table 3Developments for energy production and consumption in Turkey. Source: Refs.[12,14].

2000 2002 2004 2006

Primary energy production (Ttoe) 27,621 24,884 24,170 28,210Primary energy-consumption

(Ttoe)81,193 78,322 87,778 98,350

Consumption per capita (KOE) 1204 1131 1234 1377Electricity installed capacity

(MW)27,264 31,846 36,824 40,565

Thermal (MW) 16,070 19,586 24,160 27,420Hydraulic (MW) 11,194 12,260 12,664 13,062Electricity production (GWh) 124,922 129,400 150,698 174,657Thermal (GWh) 94,011 95,668 104,556 131,929Hydraulic (GWh) 30,912 33,732 46,142 44,371Electricity import (GWh) 3786 3588 464 573Electricity export (GWh) 413 435 1144 2236Total Consumption (GWh) 128,295 132,553 150,018 174,637Consumption per capita (kWh) 1903 1914 2109 2391

3. Energy and environmental situation in Turkey

3.1. Present energy situation

Turkey is an energy importing country; 70% of the energyrequirement has been supplied by imports. Oil has the biggestshare in total primary energy-consumption [8–11]. Due to thediversification efforts of energy sources, use of natural gas thatwas newly introduced into Turkish economy, has been growingrapidly [12]. Turkey has large reserves of coal, particularly of lig-nite. The estimated total possible lignite reserves are 30 billiontons [12,13]. Turkey, with its young population and growingenergy demand per person, its fast growing urbanization, and itseconomic development, has been one of the fast growing powermarkets of the world for the last two decades (Figs. 2 and 3). It isexpected that the demand for electric energy in Turkey will be300 billion kWh by the year 2010 and 580 billion kWh by the year2020. Turkey’s electric energy demand is growing about 6–8%yearly due to fast economic growing [12–14].

In 2006, primary energy production and consumption hasreached 28.2 and 98.3 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) respec-tively (Table 3). The most significant developments in productionare observed in hydropower, geothermal, solar energy and coalproduction. Turkey’s use of hydropower, geothermal and solarthermal energy has increased since 1990. However, the total shareof renewable energy sources in total primary energy supply (TPES)has declined, owing to the declining use of non-commercial bio-mass and the growing role of natural gas in the system. Turkeyhas recently announced that it will reopen its nuclear program inorder to respond to the growing electricity demand while avoidingincreasing dependence on energy imports [10–12].

Along with the economic growth and population increase,significant increases were observed both in primary energy andelectricity consumption during the 8th Plan period [13]. Consump-tion of primary energy reached 98.3 Mtoe as of the end of 2006with an annual average increase of 2.8% while electricity consump-tion reached 169.4 billion kWh with an annual average increase of4.6% during this period. These increases are more evident in the

period following 2003, since the impact of the 2001 economic cri-sis was alleviated, and the economy stabilized. During this term,primary energy and electricity utilization grew at an annual aver-age rate of 5.5% and 6.4%, respectively [14].

The TPES in Turkey grew by 3.2% per year between 1990 and2006 [11]. Hard coal and lignite is the dominant fuel, accountingfor 27.1% of TPES in 2006. Oil (34.8%) and gas (27.2%) also contrib-uted significantly. Renewable energy, mostly biomass, waste andhydropower, accounted for 10.9%. Hydropower represented 3.8%

Table 4Renewable energy supply in Turkey. Source: Refs. [11,12].

Renewable energy sources 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Primary energy supplyHydropower (ktoe) 2656 4067 4903 7060 9419Geothermal, solar and wind

(ktoe)978 1683 2896 4242 6397

Biomass and waste (ktoe) 6457 5325 4416 4001 3925Renewable energy

production (ktoe)10,091 11,074 12,215 15,303 19,741

Share of total domesticproduction (%)

38 48 33 29 30

Share of TPES (%) 12 12 10 9 9

GenerationHydropower (GWh) 30,879 47,287 57,009 82,095 109,524Geothermal, solar and wind

(GWh)109 490 5274 7020 8766

Renewable energygeneration (GWh)

30,988 47,777 62,283 89,115 118,290

Share of total generation (%) 25 29 26 25 25

Total final consumptionGeothermal, solar and wind

(ktoe)910 1385 2145 3341 5346

Biomass and waste (ktoe) 6457 5325 4416 4001 3925Renewable total

consumption (ktoe)7367 6710 6561 7342 9271

Share of total finalconsumption (%)

12 10 7 6 6

1078 K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084

of TPES in 2006. Biomass, primarily fuel wood consumed by house-holds, represented almost 5.9% [10,12]. The economic downturn inTurkey in 2000–2005 caused TPES to decline by 6.0%. But energydemand is expected to more than double by 2010, according toTurkish government sources [10,12,13]. On the other hand, gas ac-counted for 43.8% of total electricity generation in 2005, coal26.58% and oil at about 5%. Hydropower (as renewable) is the mainindigenous source for electricity production and represented 20–30% of total generation from 1970 to 2005. Hydropower declinedsignificantly relative to 2000 due to lower electricity demand andto take-or-pay contracts in the natural gas market [12–15].

3.2. Future energy policies

Main aim of the energy policies is to meet the energy needs ofincreasing population and growing economy in a continuous, qual-ified and secure manner through primarily private sector invest-ments in a competitive and transparent free market environment.In this context, it is the main target to supply the required energytimely, uninterrupted and at minimum costs while making energysupply planning [14].

In 2010, both primary energy and electricity production and con-sumption would grow in parallel with the targeted economicgrowth. Thus, total primary energy-consumption is forecasted to in-crease by around 3.4% to reach 112.28 Mtoe and per capita primaryenergy-consumption by 3.6% to reach 1637 kg of oil equivalent.

Primary energy production, 28 Mtoe in 2006, is forecasted torise to 32.9 Mtoe by growing 3.6% in 2010. This production levelcorresponds to 70.7% import dependency in meeting the primaryenergy demand in 2010. On the other hand, the increase in the pri-mary energy demand would lead to an increase in the consump-tion of all energy sources although it would be met largelythrough a rise in the use of natural gas and petroleum products.Electricity consumption, which is expected to be 171.5 TWh in2006, with a growth rate of 6.9% would rise to 196.5 TWh in2010. Thus, per capita electricity consumption would increasefrom 2348 kWh in 2006 to 2813 kWh in 2010 [13–15].

Privatization process for the power generation assets and distri-bution companies would continue as per Electric Energy Sector Re-form and Privatization Strategy Paper with an aim for contributingto formation of a competitive market and minimum-cost electric-ity system rather than revenue generation alone [15]. Due not tobe incurred new and extra burdens by the public sector, privatiza-tions should be done carefully. Privatizations would be realized un-der such a rationale that private entrepreneurship is encouraged totake place in the electricity sector also after the privatizations [10].Along with privatization, a system which is more efficient andeffective and operates completely as per market rules is aimedat. In this scope, it is expected that a significant decrease in the dis-tribution loss/theft rate which is highly above the world averages,an increase in the billing rate and an improvement in collectionwould be achieved [12–14].

In the framework of the liberalization, while public institutionsoperating in the electricity sector have been restructured, naturalgas distribution in the cities has been carried out by the privatesector. With the enactment of the Oil Market Law No. 5015 foroil products and with the Law No. 5307 on Amending the LiquefiedPetroleum Gas (LPG) Market Law and with the Electricity MarketLaw for LPG, it is provided that EMRA will perform the necessaryregulating, directing, monitoring and supervising activities in orderto ensure LPG market activities to be carried out in a transparent,equitable, and stable manner [14].

A suitable environment will be established, with legislative reg-ulations if necessary, in order for the private sector to fill the gapthat will arise as a result of the withdrawal of the state from thesector, in a timely manner and to expedite the start of the new pro-

duction investments in line with supply and demand projections[11]. Thus, emphasis will be given to privatization of the existingfacilities in order to prevent the burden of new investments onthe state. The state will be adequately equipped in a way to closelymonitor the supply security within the framework of its regulatoryand supervisory role and to take measures [12].

3.3. Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy supply in Turkey is dominated by hydro-power and biomass, but environmental and scarcity-of-supplyconcerns have led to a decline in biomass use, mainly for residen-tial heating. Total renewable energy supply declined from 1990 to2005, due to a decrease in biomass supply. As a result, the compo-sition of renewable energy supply has changed and wind power isbeginning to claim market share. As a contributor of air pollutionand deforestation, the share of biomass in the renewable energyshare is expected to decrease with the expansion of other renew-able energy sources. Table 4 shows renewable energy supply andprojections for future in Turkey, respectively [9–12].

Turkey is to be the recipient of a US$ 202 million renewable en-ergy loan provided by the World Bank to be disbursed as loans viafinancial intermediaries to interested investors in building renew-able energy sourced electricity generation [11]. These loans are ex-pected to finance 30–40% of associated capital costs. The aim of theRenewable Energy Program is to increase privately-owned andoperated power generation from renewables sources within a mar-ket-based framework, which is being implemented in accordancewith the Electricity Market Law and the Electricity Sector ReformStrategy [15]. This program will assist the Directorate of the Min-istry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR) in the preparationof a renewable energy law, as well as to define the requiredchanges and modifications related to legislation such as the Elec-tricity Market Law to better accommodate greater private sectorinvolvement [10,12].

The total gross hydropower potential and total energy produc-tion capacity of country are nearly 50 GW and 112 TWh/year. Atpresent, only about 35% of the total hydroelectric power potentialis in operation [16]. The national development plan aims to harvest

K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084 1079

all of the hydroelectric potential by 2010. The contribution of smallhydroelectric plants to total electricity generation is 5–10% [17].On the other hand, among the renewable energy sources, biomassis important because its share of total energy-consumption is stillhigh in Turkey [18]. Since 1980, the contribution of the biomass re-sources in the total energy-consumption dropped from 20% to 10%in 2006 [18]. Biomass in the forms of fuelwood and animal wastesis the main fuel for heating and cooking in many urban and ruralareas. The total recoverable bioenergy potential is estimated tobe about 35.4 Mtoe in 2005 [18].

On the other hand, using vegetable oils as fuel alternatives haseconomic, environmental, and energy benefits for Turkey. Vegeta-ble oils have heat contents approximately 90% of that of diesel fuel.A major obstacle deterring their use in the direct-injection engineis their inherent high viscosities, which are nearly ten times that ofdiesel fuel. The overall evaluation of the results indicated thatthese oils and biodiesel can be proposed as possible candidatesfor fuel [8,9]. Organic wastes are of vital importance for the soil,but in Turkey most of these organic wastes are used as fuel throughdirect combustion. Animal wastes are mixed with straw to increasethe calorific value, and are then dried for use. This is the principalfuel of many villages in rural region of Turkey, especially in moun-tainous regions [10–12].

Turkey is located on the Alpine–Himalayan orogenic belt andthe Miocene or younger grabens are developed as the result of thisorogeny. Turkey is surrounded by seas on three sides: the Black Seato the north, the Marmara Sea and Aegean Sea to the west and theMediterranean Sea to the south. Preliminary data show that theMarmara and Aegean regions of Turkey are rich in geo-thermal en-ergy, which can be used for electricity production. Turkey is acountry with significant potential in geo-thermal energy. Resourceassessments have been made many times by the General Director-ate of Mineral Research and Exploitation (MTA). Turkey has a placeamong the world’s first seven countries with respect to the abun-dance of its geothermal resources [18–21].

Widespread volcanism, fumarole hydrothermal alterations, andthe existence of more than 1000 hot and mineral water springs upto 100 and 140 �C in geothermal fields with a temperature range of40–232 �C have been discovered in Turkey [20]. In spite of geo-thermal energy being a relatively new energy source for Turkey,when compared with other energy sources, it is utilized for variouspurposes, such as for electricity production, space heating andtouristic installations. About 87.5% of the total geothermal poten-tial is appropriate for thermal use [18]. A recent estimate of thegeothermal potential of Turkey gives the total potential resourcesfor direct use in excess of 31,500 MWt. These figures for the poten-tial cover both known and unknown resources. It is estimated thatthe identified geothermal resources will be 200 MWe for electricitygeneration and 3293 MWt for direct use [19].

Geo-thermal energy in Turkey can be utilized in various forms,such as electricity generation, direct use, space heating, heatpumps, greenhouse heating and industrial usage. Currently in Tur-key, hydropower and biomass are mostly in use, and geothermal isin the third place. Geothermal electricity generation has a minorrole in Turkey’s electricity capacity, as low as 0.10%, but the projec-tions foresee an improvement to 0.32% by the year 2020. Opposingelectricity generation, geothermal heat capacity is improvingfaster.

In 2006, the geo-thermal energy use of Turkey amounted toabout 120 GWh/year of electricity and 6900 GWh/year for directuse [19]. Most of the development in direct use has been in districtheating, which now serves 103,000 residences (827 MWt and7713 TJ/year), and in individual space heating (74 MWt and817 TJ/year) [19]. A total of 800,000 m2 of greenhouse is heatedby geothermal fluids (192 MWt and 3633 TJ/year). Geothermalheated pools used for bathing and swimming account for a capac-

ity of 402 MWt and utilize 12,677 TJ/year. About 120,000 tons of li-quid carbon dioxide and dry ice are produced annually at theKızıldere power plant. By the year 2010 Turkey aims at having500 MWe dedicated to electricity generation and 3500 MWt forspace heating. Heat pumps are not being used at present, becauseof the high cost of electricity production [18–21].

It is clear that the present use of geo-thermal energy is a verysmall fraction of the identified geothermal potential. Turkey couldmake use of just 4% of its geothermal source potential so far. WhenTurkey uses all of the total geothermal potential it can meet 12.7%of the total energy needs from geo-thermal energy [21]. So, Turkeyshould accelerate the use of geo-thermal energy for both electricitygeneration and direct use in the near future.

Turkey lies in a sunny belt between 36� and 42�N latitudes. Theyearly average solar radiation is 3.6 kWh/m2-day and the totalyearly radiation period is approximately 2640 h, which is sufficientto provide adequate energy for solar thermal applications. In spiteof this high potential, solar energy is not now widely used, exceptfor flat-plate solar collectors. They are only used for domestic hotwater production, mostly in the sunny coastal regions. In 2006,about total 7.8 million m2 solar collectors were produced and itis predicted that total solar energy production is about 0.390 Mtoein 2005 [12,21].

Wind energy has had a slow start in Turkey. However, as thecountry is preparing to join the European Union and consideringratifying the Kyoto Protocol (as an Annex I country), there are earlyindications of promising future developments. Turkey has a largerenewable energy potential. A Wind Atlas of Turkey by the TurkishEnergy Market Regulatory Agency (EMRA/EPDK) in May 2002 indi-cates that the regions with the highest potential for wind speeds atheights of 50 m are the Aegean, Marmara, and Eastern Mediterra-nean Regions of Turkey, as well as some mountainous regions ofcentral Anatolia [22].

Turkey installed 97 MW of new wind energy capacity in 2007,thereby nearly trebling its market to reach a total of 146 MW,mostly located in the North-West of the country. A further 12 li-censed projects with a capacity of over 600 MW have signed con-struction agreements and are expected to be finalised by the endof 2009, while an additional 29 projects totaling 982 MW are re-ported to have been granted licenses [22].

In 2006, EMRA stopped accepting applications for new windpower projects without explanation. This trend was reversed bya call for wind and solar projects in the autumn of 2007. As a result,EMRA received applications for 751 projects for a capacity of78,151 MW, including 3791 MW offshore, from over 380 compa-nies. This number greatly exceeded all previous estimates. It hasto be pointed out, however, that many of these applications com-pete for the same sites. Nearly half of the applications were for pro-jects of under 50 MW. In addition to local companies includingSayres Elektrik, Akyelres Elektrik, Guneyres Elektrik and UzayEnerji, major international players such as BP and Westwind havesubmitted applications. EMRA is expected to offer licenses for up to10,000 MW of wind energy, while saying that 30,000 MW wouldbe feasible. However, experts have cautioned that only a smallshare of this capacity would be able to be connected to the powergrid without major investments in upgrading the country’s trans-mission infrastructure [12].

3.4. Air pollution

Since the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997, at the Third Confer-ence of the Parties to the United Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change (UNFCC), international attention is growing towarda consensus in favor of reducing carbon emission to mitigate cli-mate change. Therefore, since this protocol will enter into forcein 2008, national carbon emissions in signatory countries (OECD

1080 K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084

and others) will be significantly constrained to the level that wouldprevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate sys-tem [23].

As a member of OECD, Turkey delayed his ratification of theKyoto protocol until recently. Negotiations between the Turkishgovernment and the international authorities are continuing. IfTurkey decides to join with the other Annex B – OECD countriesin ratifying the protocol, it should develop incentives to stabilizeits emissions. On the other hand, one of most leading option forachieving emission reduction cost-effectively is a cap-and-tradeapproach. The use of emissions trading could then have a role toplay in minimizing the economy-wide costs of that constraint. In-deed, tradable permits represent a lower cost method to increasethe cost-efficiency of stabilizing global emissions. As a case inpoint, the basic elements of a baseline-credit scheme are to imposea ceiling on global emission, to allocate this constrained emissionsprofile among participants, and to allow trade [23].

The leading options for achieving cost-efficiency in carbonemission reductions address the design issue of how to implementan emission cap-and-trade system in Turkey. We therefore exam-ine the design of alternatives permits trading programs to addresscarbon emission related energy-consumption. In this context, trad-able emission permits would entitle holders to emit up to a spec-ified level of carbon emissions. By issuing a fixed number ofallowances less than business-as-usual current emissions, Turkeycould reduce its national CO2 emissions to meet internationallytargets [10,11].

In a carbon cap-and-trade program, regulated entities wouldhave to surrender allowances to their CO2 emissions (Table 5).Entities able to reduce their emissions below the level of the allow-ances could sell the excess. Similarly, a regulated entity unable tocover its emissions with its allowances could purchase additionalallowances on an open market. Therefore, a key issue in the designof a domestic emissions trading on carbon in Turkey is to identifythe appropriate incidence of regulation, and emissions allowances.A Turkish carbon emission cap-and-trade system could then bebased on either an upstream approach or downstream approach[24].

3.4.1. Climate changeTurkey is a rapidly growing country whose income level is mov-

ing towards that of the rest of the OECD area. This catch-up process

Table 5Key sources for CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for Turkey in 2006. Source: Ref.[5].

IPCC source category CO2 emissions(Mt of CO2)

Levelassessment(%)

Cumulativetotal (%)

Production electricity andheat-coal/peat

42.32 12.6 12.6

Manufacturingindustries-coal/peat

42.30 12.6 25.1

Road-oil 36.60 10.9 36.0Production electricity and

heat-gas27.28 8.1 44.1

Residential-gas 14.45 4.3 48.4Manufacturing

industries-oil12.35 3.7 52.0

Residential-coal/peat 10.10 3.0 55.0Non-specified other

sectors-oil9.69 2.9 57.9

Manufacturingindustries-gas

8.01 2.4 60.3

Non-specified othersectors-gas

6.51 1.9 62.2

Other transport-oil 5.36 1.6 63.8Total CO2 from fuel

combustion239.74 71.1 71.1

has been associated with a rapid growth of greenhouse gas emis-sions. Nonetheless, carbon emissions from any country contributeequally to the pressure on the global climate. Consequently, themajor issue facing policy makers is how to contribute to reducingthe burden on global resources at a low cost and without jeopar-dizing the rapid growth of the economy [10,11,24].

Economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustionjumped 65% in the 1990s (Table 6). Although Turkey has beengrowing more rapidly than the rest of the OECD area, the principalreason for the relatively rapid growth in emissions has been thevery different evolution in the greenhouse gas intensity of theeconomy generated both by an increase in the use of energy perunit of output and an increase in GHG emissions per unit of energysupplied from renewable sources such as wood, animal waste,hydroelectricity and geo-thermal energy. However, despite themore rapid growth of economy-wide greenhouse gas intensity,by 2000 carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP were similarto the average in the OECD area [25–27].

The Turkish government is now in the process of developing astrategy to reduce the growth of greenhouse gases. This strategywill be elaborated in the context of Turkey’s adhesion to the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Tur-key passed the national legislation to ratify the convention in Jan-uary 2004 and adhesion will take effect in May. Followingadhesion, Turkey will have the obligation to implement measuresand polices to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions but will not berequired to meet a specific greenhouse gas emission target. Turkeywill submit its first national communication to the UNFCCC by theend of 2004, including the measures that it proposes to take to lim-it emissions. This document will draw on existing policies as out-lined in the 8th Five Year Development Plan that contained anumber of proposals to limit the growth of emissions [13].

Turkey shares a number of features with some other OECDcountries that suggests it would be possible to considerably mod-erate the growth of greenhouse gases with little or even no cost.The proportion of energy derived from carbon-intensive coal andlignite is one of the highest in the OECD area, reflecting ample re-serves of lignite, while a completely liberalized market in naturalgas has not existed [11]. Most greenhouse gas emissions in Turkeycome from electricity generation sector that has been a largelystate-owned industry operating under non-commercial criteria.Subsidies have been growing following a government decision toexpand the industry in the late 1990s after a period of cutbacksin employment and output. The import of natural gas has beencontrolled by another state-owned enterprise that makes all con-tracts for the import of gas [10–12].

The privatization of the electricity companies will also result innew pricing policies. At present, demand for electricity is boostedby a high level of what is called ‘‘non-technical” system losses. Inpractice, this phrase refers both to electricity that is consumedthrough illegal connections to the network and non-payment ofbills. Overall, a significant proportion of electricity is provided

Table 6Greenhouse gas emissions by gas in Turkey (million tons CO2 eq). Source: Refs. [5,14].

Years CO2 CH4 N2O F gases Total

1990 139.6 29.2 1.3 0.0 170.11992 152.9 36.7 4.0 0.0 193.61994 159.1 39.2 2.2 0.0 200.51996 190.7 45.0 6.1 0.4 242.11998 202.7 47.7 5.6 0.7 256.62000 223.8 49.3 5.8 1.1 280.02002 216.4 46.9 5.4 1.9 270.62004 241.9 46.3 5.5 2.9 296.62005 256.3 49.4 3.4 3.2 312.4

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Inde

x 1

990-

-92=

100

Total water use (million m3)

Irrigated water use (million m3)

Agriculture area (1000 ha)

Agriculture production volume (1)

Fig. 5. Trends in key agri-environmental indicators.

K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084 1081

without charge. The new distribution companies will need to in-vest in new metering systems to ensure that these practices end.The problem may be difficult to settle, in that the new distributioncompanies have different profiles of losses, with illegal consump-tion rising to 50% in some areas. Enforcing normal contract disci-pline, though, would further add to the de-coupling of carbonemissions form GDP growth. In addition, both the overall price ofelectricity may have to rise to reduce the losses of the electricityindustry and domestic and industrial tariffs will have to be re-bal-anced. At present, the government is considering what measures inthe social area are necessary to complement electricity price liber-alization. It would seem appropriate to separate pricing from socialsupport. The electricity price can then be used to achieve an effi-cient distribution of resources and the social instruments can thenbe used to achieve equity goals [24].

A new renewable energy policy is being developed by the gov-ernment. The principal focus will be the development of renewablesources of electricity production. The regulations governing thenew transmission company require it to give absolute priority torenewable energy in the priority system for the connection of thegeneration facilities to the grid. In addition, retail licensees are ob-liged to purchase all renewable energy output but only when theprice offered by the renewable energy supplier is at or below thepublic wholesale price of electricity and when an alternative sup-ply of renewable electricity is not available at a lower price. Sucha policy limits the extent of the subsidies to the renewable produc-tion to the costs of providing backup capacity for what is, often, anintermittent supply of electricity [10–14].

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Inde

x199

0--9

2=10

0

Gross nitrogen balance (tonnes)

Gross phosphorus balance (tonnes)

On-farm energy consumption (tonnes, oil equivalent)

Pesticide use (tonnes active ingredients) (1)

Fig. 6. Trends in key agri-environmental indicators.

4. Agricultural sector trends and policy context in Turkey

4.1. Introduction

Agriculture remains the major sector for employment in Turkey,but the sector’s role in the economy is declining. Primary agricul-ture’s share in employment decreased from 47% in 1990 to 34%in 2004, but the contribution to GDP is smaller declining over thesame period from 17% to 11% as shown in Fig. 4. The agriculturallabor force, about half of which are women who mainly work asunpaid family labor, experience a high incidence of poverty, pooreducation, and low provision of public services, although this situ-ation is beginning to improve [25–27].

Agricultural production has grown rapidly since 1990, amongthe highest rates of growth across OECD countries. Agriculture isbecoming more intensive as the expansion in production and useof purchased variable inputs has grown more rapidly since 1990than the 1% increase in area cultivated from 1990–1992 to 2002–2004 (Fig. 5). The volume of agricultural production rose by 16%between 1990 and 2004, with crop production increasing by 19%

Share of primary agricu

11

6

5

n.a.

0 10 20 30

Employment (3)

GDP (3)

Greenhouse gas emissions

Ammonia emissions (2)

Energy consumption

Water use (1)

Land area

Fig. 4. National agri-environmental and eco

and livestock 11% [28]. Over the same period the use of purchasedfarm inputs also increased for inorganic nitrogen fertilizers by 11%,by 60% for pesticides, 59% for direct on-farm energy-consumption,and by 65% for water use, although the use of inorganic phosphatefertilizers declined by 15% (Figs. 5 and 6). Arable farming domi-nates the agricultural sector, accounting for about 75% of outputvalue, with the value share of fruit and vegetables over 40% [27].

Despite the growth in agricultural production subsistence andsemi-subsistence farming is significant. The structure of farming

lture in national total:

34

78

53

40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

nomic profile in Turkey (2002–2004).

1082 K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084

largely remains small, family owned, highly fragmented, lackingcapital, and using only basic technologies [26,27]. Rapid populationgrowth, together with the prevailing inheritance laws have led tofarm fragmentation so that agricultural activities are predomi-nantly of a low intensity, low productivity, subsistence-incometype [26]. About 85% of farms (2003) are smaller than 9 hectares,although the remaining 15% of farms of over 10 hectares cultivatealmost 60% of the total agricultural land area [26,29]. As a conse-quence of changes in farm structures agricultural productivitygrowth is well below that for other sectors in the economy [26,27].

Support to agriculture has been highly variable since the mid-1980s but has remained below the OECD average. Support to farm-ers increased from an average of 16% of farm receipts in 1986–1988 to 25% in 2002–2004 compared to the OECD average of 30%[26,29,30]. Traditionally support to farmers was provided throughmarket price support and input subsidies, which are the forms ofsupport that most encourage production intensity and pressureon the environment. The Agricultural Reform Implementation Pro-ject (ARIP) over 2001–2005, however, led to the reduction of theseforms of support and their replacement with Direct Income Sup-port (DIS) payments not linked to commodity production [27–30]. Although about 80% of support to farmers was still providedthrough output-linked support in 2002–2004, the share of inputsubsidies declined from 30% to 2%, while DIS payments repre-sented 18% of support to farmers [30]. The share of total supportto agriculture in the GDP rose from 3.5% (1988) to a high of nearly7% by 1999, but subsequently fell to around 4% by 2006 [26,31].

Following a period of macroeconomic instability over the 1990sthe government embarked on a path of disinflation requiring areduction in government expenditure, including agriculture[26,32]. This led to the introduction of ARIP in 2001, and later itsextension, in time and scope, for the period 2006 [10,31,32]. From1990 up to the introduction of ARIP support was provided for pur-chased farm inputs, including fertilizers, pesticides, irrigationwater and energy, with a view to improving productivity [26,32].However, subsidies on purchased fertilizers and pesticides werelargely abolished under the ARIP from 2001, although some infra-structure subsidies remain with the objective of improving farmproduction capacity, such as soil conservation, drainage, field lev-elling, and land consolidation [30–32]. The reduction in the fertil-izer subsidy began in 1997, resulting in the lowering of the unitsubsidy from 45% of the total price in 1997 to 15% by 2001 [29].Support for use of diesel fuel is provided as budgetary expenditurerather than a tax concession, of US$ 18 per hectare [31]. For someagricultural producers support is given to lower energy costs atrates ranging from 20% to 50% of the cost of electricity providedto other consumers, while support is also provided to cover irriga-tion electricity costs [31–34].

The development of agri-environmental policies has been lim-ited since 1990, although recently more policy initiatives havebeen undertaken. As part of the amended (2005) ARIP, the Environ-mentally Based Agricultural Land Protection (EBALP) program aimsto protect environmentally fragile areas subject to severe erosionEBALP is initially implemented in four pilot provinces covering5000 hectares with annual transition payments of US$ 500–900per hectare [31]. Measures under EBALP include taking land outof production and adoption of environmentally beneficial prac-tices, such as contour tillage, pasture rehabilitation, and reducedflow irrigation [31]. The National Regulation on Organic Agricul-ture (1994) defines the standards, definitions, certification and reg-ulations covering organic farming, developed in harmony with theEU regulations [35–38].

The costs of irrigation systems are being transferred from thegovernment to local water user associations. With the progressivetransfer of the operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation net-works from the government General Directorate of State Hydraulic

Works (DSI) and the now abolished General Directorate of RuralServices (GDRS) to self financing local water user associations,farmers are supporting a higher share of the costs of maintainingirrigation systems [26,39]. The DSI is mainly responsible for thedevelopment and maintenance of large irrigation infrastructure,while the now abolished GDRS largely developed small scale on-farm irrigation works [39]. Farmers partially cover O&M costs ofirrigation water through annual crop and area based charges[27,31]. While collection rates of water charges in publicly oper-ated schemes are low and never exceed 54%, those in farmer oper-ated schemes are almost 90% [30].

Some regional development projects have significant implica-tions for agriculture and the environment. Many of these projectsare financed by international development agencies and donors,as national funding is limited [27]. The World Bank supportedSouth-Eastern Anatolian Project (GAP) is the largest regional devel-opment project in Turkey covering 10% of the total land at an esti-mated cost of 35 billion US$. GAP involves, among other objectives,to expand agricultural production in the region through building22 dams and providing irrigation infrastructure for 1.7 millionhectares of land by 2015 [39–41]. In the jointly EU and World Bankfunded Anatolian Watershed Rehabilitation Project (AWRP), withfunding of 50 million UD$ over 2000–2010, the aim is to restoredegraded soils to increase farm and forestry production [27].

4.2. Environmental performance of agriculture in Turkey

Overall agricultural pressure on the environment has risen since1990, but the intensity of the farming system in terms of the use ofpurchased variable inputs, despite their rapid growth, is consider-ably lower than many other OECD countries [27,32]. However,with the reduction in cattle, sheep and goat numbers relative toan increase in permanent pasture over the same period, this haseased pressure on land susceptible to erosion, but in some areasovergrazing remains a problem. The key environmental concernsrelate to: soil degradation, especially from erosion; overexploita-tion of water resources; water pollution, including salinisationfrom poor irrigation management practices; and adverse impactsof farming on biodiversity [27].

Degradation of agricultural soils is a major and widespreadenvironmental problem. One of the most acute forms of soil degra-dation is erosion, with 73% of total agricultural land and 68% ofprime farmland prone to risk of erosion, mainly water erosion(71%) but also wind erosion (2%) [27,41]. Elevated rates of erosionhave been induced, in particular, by: natural conditions, especiallythe climate and steep topography; unsuitable tillage and irrigationmanagement practices; as well as overgrazing and stubble burningin some regions [27]. The eastern part of the country is less proneto erosion as pasture is dominant, however, overgrazing and otherinappropriate pasture management practices have left about 60%of rangelands prone to erosion, especially in the Aegean and Mar-mara regions [27,32].

There have been substantial reductions in agricultural nutrientsurpluses, with a steady decline in both nitrogen (N) and phospho-rus (P) surpluses (in tons) between 1990–1992 and 2002–2004,leaving aside occasional annual fluctuations (Fig. 5). This largelyreflects the reduction in livestock numbers except for poultry,which has more than offset fluctuations in inorganic fertilizer useand the large rise in crop production [42]. On the other hand,trends in inorganic fertilizer use have fluctuated considerably since1990 and influenced the overall development in nutrient surpluses.As agricultural support levels rose over the period 1992–1999, fer-tilizer use also increased. During the policy reform period of 2000–2004, however, when support for fertilizers was lowered, use fellsubstantially by around 25–30%, but recovered over 2003 and2004 although remained below the peak of the late 1990s

K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084 1083

[26,27,32]. The application of inorganic fertilizers also appears tobe below plant requirements, with an estimate for 2000 indicatingthat national nitrogen fertilizer use was 65% below soil require-ments and 45% below requirements for phosphorus [27,32].

The growth in pesticide use has been among the most rapidacross OECD countries, over the period 1993–2002 (Fig. 5). Thegrowth in pesticide use has been closely linked to the increase incrop production, in particular, horticultural production in the irri-gated areas of the Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean regions[32]. As with fertilizers, the trend in pesticide use grew rapidlyfrom 1990 to 1997 declined over the policy reform period buthas subsequently recovered [26,27]. To a limited extent the growthin organic farming has restricted the growth in pesticide use. Butdespite the rapid increase in organic farming since 1990 its sharein total agricultural land area was the lowest in the OECD at under0.5% in 2005, compared to the OECD average of nearly 3% [35–38].Organic farming is largely geared toward export markets, mainlyhorticultural crops, but also cotton [43,44].

The overall intensity of pesticide use is low by comparison withother Mediterranean OECD countries, but there are concerns overadverse impacts on human health and the environment in somelocalities [27,45]. A study of the Adana region estimated thatnearly 13% of farmers reported ill-effects from pesticide use, whileaerial spraying has raised concerns with pesticide drift [45–47]. Itis unclear the extent to which integrated pesticide managementpractices are being used by farmers. Some pesticides prohibitedsince the 1980s have also been detected, but below toxic levelsfor human health, although of some concern for their adverse im-pacts on aquatic ecosystems [48].

Agricultural water use grew by 65% between 1990 and 2003,among the highest rate of growth across OECD countries, and com-pares to the growth in water use for the economy as a whole ofnearly 30% (Fig. 6). As a result agriculture accounted for nearly80% of water use by 2002. Much of the growth in water use is be-cause of a 5% increase in the area irrigated from 1990–1992 to2001–2003, with 9% of farmland under irrigation by 2001–2003(Fig. 5). By 2005 nearly 5 million hectares were being irrigated,while over 8 million hectares are irrigable and up to 26 millionhectares of land is suitable for irrigation which is about 60% ofthe total agricultural land area [26,27]. Most irrigation water isdelivered by gravity flow and only 5% by pumping [49]. Largerfarms tend to be irrigated from dams and reservoirs mainly subsi-dized by the government, with 1% of farmers using 15% of the irri-gated land [26].

With the rise in demand for water by the agricultural sectorthere is growing competition for water resources with other usersand increasing environmental concerns. Much of the water for irri-gation is derived from reservoirs, but around 35% is pumped fromgroundwater [32]. Some major irrigation projects have also beenundertaken with little consideration of environmental manage-ment or impacts, with the loss of valuable ecosystems and increas-ing problems of salinity and agro-chemical run-off becomingwidespread [49–51]. So, the GAP project is increasing the supplyof domestically produced hydroelectricity and has brought socio-economic welfare gains to villagers [50,51].

Direct on-farm energy-consumption rose by nearly 60% from1992 to 2004, contributing to agricultural GHG emissions (Fig. 6)[52]. The growth in on-farm energy-consumption was more rapidthan for the national economy, 44% over the same period. Muchof the rise in on-farm energy-consumption is explained by theexpansion in use and size of machinery, as a substitute for laborover the past 15 years, and greater demand for energy from pump-ing irrigation water [53]. The share of on-farm energy-consump-tion from animal manure declined relative to an increase in useof diesel and electricity since 1990, part of a longer term trend[52,54]. A study of cotton production, however, has shown that en-

ergy efficiency could be improved [52,54]. Projections indicate thatagricultural energy-consumption will continue to grow by nearly5% annually between 2005 and 2020 [10,27].

Renewable energy production from agricultural biomass feed-stocks has been declining, from around 7% of total primary energysupply in 1990 to less than 5% by 2000 [34,55,56]. This is largelyexplained by the replacement of non-commercial fuel sources bycommercial non-renewable energy sources, such as electricityand other fuels, with this trend projected to continue up to 2020[55]. By the late 1990s almost 60% of livestock manure was burnedfor heating. Numerous studies indicate, however, that there is con-siderable physical capacity to expand the use of agricultural bio-mass for renewable energy production, especially for heat andelectricity generation and biogas, drawing on agricultural wastes,such as cereal straw and livestock waste [56–60]. There are nopower plants in operation using biomass, and only two facilitiesproducing biogas with a combined capacity of 5 MW [55].

5. Conclusions

It is expected that the demand for electric energy in Turkey willbe 300 billion kWh by the year 2010 and 580 billion kWh by theyear 2020. Turkey is heavily dependent on expensive imported en-ergy resources that place a big burden on the economy and air pol-lution is becoming a great environmental concern in the country.In this regard, renewable energy resources appear to be the oneof the most efficient and effective solutions for clean and sustain-able energy development in Turkey.

Energy access for all will require making available basic andaffordable energy services using a range of energy resources andinnovative conversion technologies while minimizing GHG emis-sions, adverse effects on human health, and other local and regio-nal environmental impacts in the country. To accomplish thiswould require governments, the global energy industry and societyas a whole to collaborate on an unprecedented scale. The methodused to achieve optimum integration of energy sustainability withmore efficient energy systems should be made. Wide range of en-ergy sources and carriers that provide energy services as a sustain-able manner need to offer long-term security of supply, beaffordable and have minimal impact on the environment.

Renewable energy supply in Turkey is dominated by hydro-power and biomass, but environmental and scarcity-of-supplyconcerns have led to a decline in biomass use, mainly for residen-tial heating. As a contributor of air pollution and deforestation, theshare of biomass in the renewable energy share is expected to de-crease with the expansion of other renewable energy sources suchas solar and wind. On the whole, Turkey has substantial reserves ofrenewable energy sources, including approximately 1% of the totalworld hydropower potential. There is also significant potential forwind power development. Turkey’s geothermal potential ranksseventh worldwide, but only a small portion is considered to beeconomically feasible.

References

[1] IEA, International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2007, OECD/IEA, Paris,2007.

[2] IEA, International Energy Agency. Energy technology perspectives 2006:scenarios and strategies to 2050, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2006.

[3] IEA, International Energy Agency. Energy policies of IEA countries: 2006review, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2006.

[4] IEA, International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2008, OECD, Paris,2008.

[5] IEA International Energy Agency. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, 2008ed. OECD/IEA, Paris, <www.iea.org>; 2008 [accessed 05.01.09].

[6] Ellis J, Tirpak D. Linking GHG emission trading systems and markets, OECD/IEAInformation paper, <www.oecd.org/env/cc/aixg>; 2006.

[7] OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECDenvironmental outlook to 2030, OECD, Paris, 2008.

1084 K. Kaygusuz / Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010) 1075–1084

[8] Bilgen S, Keles� S, Kaygusuz A, Sarı A, Kaygusuz K. Global warming andrenewable energy sources for sustainable development: a case study in Turkey.Renew Sust Energy Rev 2008;12:372–96.

[9] Kaygusuz K. Energy use and air pollution issues in Turkey. Clean2007;35:539–47.

[10] Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MEF). In: Apak G, Ubay B, editors. Firstnational communication of Turkey on climate change, Ankara, Turkey; 2007. p.60–150.

[11] International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy policies of IEA countries: Turkey2005 Review, OECD/IEA, Paris, 2005.

[12] Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR). Energy Statistics in Turkey,<http://www.enerji.gov.tr>; [accessed 26.05.07].

[13] DPT, State planning organization. Eighth five-year development plan 2001–2005, Ankara, Turkey; 2001.

[14] DPT, State Planning Organization. Ninth development plan 2007–2013,Ankara, Turkey; 2006.

[15] TEIAS, Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation, annual report, Turkey;2005.

[16] DSI, State Water Works. Hydropower potential in Turkey, Ankara, Turkey;2006.

[17] Ocak M, Ocak Z, Bilgen S, Keles� S, Kaygusuz K. Energy utilization,environmental pollution and renewable energy sources in Turkey. EnergyConvers Manage 2004;45:845–64.

[18] Akpınar A, Kömürcu MI, Kankal M, Ozölçer IH, Kaygusuz K. Energy situationand renewables in Turkey and environmental effects of energy use. RenewSust Energy Rev 2008;12:2013–39.

[19] Geothermal energy in Turkey, <www.jeotermaldernegi.org.tr>; [access25.12.08].

[20] Kaygusuz K, Kaygusuz A. Geothermal energy in Turkey: the sustainable future.Renew Sust Energy Rev 2004;8:545–63.

[21] Kaygusuz K, Sarı A. Renewable energy potential and utilization in Turkey.Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:459–78.

[22] EIE, Electrical Power Resources Survey and Development Administration.Potential of Turkish wind and solar power, <www.eie.gov.tr>; 2009 [accessed06.01.09].

[23] Kaygusuz K. Energy policy and climate change in Turkey. Energy ConversManage 2003;44:1671–88.

[24] Greenhouse gas mitigation in energy sector for Turkey, working group report,MENR Ankara, Turkey, <www.iklim.cevreorman.gov.tr>; 2005 [accessed11.11.08].

[25] DPT, state planning organization. National rural development strategy,Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry, DPT, Ankara, Turkey, <http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/>; 2006.

[26] OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECDeconomic surveys – Turkey, Paris, France, <www.oecd.org>; 2006 [accessed09.12.07].

[27] OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Environmental performance of agriculture in OECD countries since 1990,<www.oecd.org>.

[28] Sayan S, Demir N. Structural change in agriculture and water requirements inTurkey. Res Middle East Econ 2003;5:289–315.

[29] Cakmak EH. Structural change and market opening in agriculture: Turkeytowards EU accession, economic research center working papers in economics04/10, September, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey; 2004.

[30] OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Agriculturalpolicies in OECD countries: monitoring and evaluation, Paris, France,<www.oecd.org>; 2005.

[31] OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Agriculturalpolicies in OECD countries: monitoring and evaluation, Paris, France,<www.oecd.org>; 2007.

[32] World Bank. Turkey: a review of the impact of the reform of agricultural sectorsubsidization, Europe and Central Asia region, environmentally and sociallysustainable development unit, Washington, DC; 2004.

[33] OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Environmental performance reviews – Turkey, Paris, France; 1999.

[34] Sayin C, Mencet MN, Ozkan B. Assessing of energy policies based on Turkishagriculture: current status and some implications. Energy Policy2005;33:2361–73.

[35] Özkan M. Organic agriculture and national legislation in Turkey. In: OECD,organic agriculture: sustainability, markets and policies, Paris, France;2003.

[36] Yazgan M, Tanik A. Ecological agriculture and food production in Turkey. In:Filho WL, editor. Ecological agricultural rural development in central & easternEuropean countries, NATO Science Series, Series V(44): Science & TechnologyPolicy, IOS Press; 2004.

[37] Sayan Y, Polat M. Development of organic animal production in Turkey. In:Hovi M, Zastawny J, Patel S, editors. Sustaining animal health and food safetyin organic farming proceedings of the 3rd workshop, September, Poland,<www.safonetwork.org>; 2005.

[38] Kenanoglu Z, Karahan O. Policy implementation for organic agriculture inTurkey. Brit Food J 2002;104:300–18.

[39] Çakmak B, Beyribey M, Kodal S. Irrigation water pricing in water userassociations in Turkey. Water Res Develop 2004;20:113–24.

[40] Ozdogan M, Woodcock CE, Salvucci GD, Demir H. Changes in summer irrigatedcrop area and water use in Southeastern Turkey from 1993 to 2002:implications for current and future water resources. Water Resour Manage2006;20:467–88.

[41] UNCCD, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Turkey’snational report on the implementation processes of the convention, UNCCD,5th session of committee for the review of the implementation of theconvention, October, Buenos Aires, Argentina, UNCCD, <www.unccd.int/>;2006 [accessed 03.09.07].

[42] Kilic S, Evrendilek F, Senol S, Celik I. Developing a suitability index for landuses and agricultural land covers: a case study in Turkey. Environ Monit Assess2005;102:323–35.

[43] Atis E. Economic impacts on cotton production due to land degradation in theGediz Delta, Turkey. Land Use Policy 2006;23:181–6.

[44] Çetin S, Karaca A, Haktanir K, Yıldız H. Global attention to Turkey due todesertification. Environ Monit Assess 2007;128:489–93.

[45] Budak F, Budak D. Farm level analysis of pesticide use in cotton production inEast Mediterranean region of Turkey. J Environ Biol 2006;27:299–303.

[46] Tanrivermis� H. Agricultural land use change and sustainable use of landresources in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. J Arid Environ2003;546:553–64.

[47] Ergonen AT, Salacin S, Ozdemir MH. Pesticide use among greenhouse workersin Turkey. J Clin Foren Med 2005;12:205–8.

[48] Barlas N, Çok I, Akbulut N. The contamination levels of organochlorinepesticides in water and sediment samples in Uluabat Lake, Turkey. EnvironMonit Assess 2006;118:383–91.

[49] Ersoy Y, Çakmak B. Participatory irrigation management in Turkey. Water ResDevelop 2004;20:219–28.

[50] Kaygusuz K. Energy and water potential of the southeastern Anatolia project(GAP). Energy Sources 1999;21:913–22.

[51] Unver O, Gupta RK. Water pricing: issues and options in Turkey. Water ResDevelop 2003;19:311–30.

[52] Hatirli SA, Ozkan B, Fert C. An econometric analysis of energy input–output inTurkish agriculture. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2004;9:608–23.

[53] Karkacier O, Goktolga ZG, Cicek A. A regression analysis of the effect of energyuse in agriculture. Energy Policy 2006;34:3796–800.

[54] Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. An analysis of energy use and input costs forcotton production in Turkey. Renew Energy 2005;30:145–55.

[55] Kaygusuz K, Türker MF. Review of biomass energy in Turkey. Energy Sources2002;24:383–401.

[56] Kaygusuz K. Sustainable development of hydropower and biomass energy inTurkey. Energy Convers Manage 2002;43:1099–120.

[57] Kaygusuz K, Keles� S. Use of biomass as a traditional strategy to a sustainableand clean energy system. Energy Sources Part A 2009;31:86–97.

[58] Goncagül T. Farm animal diversity in Turkey. In: OECD agriculture andbiodiversity: developing indicators for policy analysis, OECD, Paris,<www.oecd.org>.

[59] Taner F, Ardic I, Halisdemir B, Pehlivan E. Biomass use and potential in Turkey.In: OECD, biomass and agriculture: sustainability, markets and policies, Paris,France, <www.oecd.org/>; 2004 [accessed 10.09.07].

[60] Tan A. Agricultural plant diversity in Turkey. In: OECD, agriculture andbiodiversity: developing indicators for policy analysis, Paris, France,<www.oecd.org>; 2003.