GREENHOUSE GASEOUS EMISSION CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS OF TURKEY M.Nilgün EGEMEN State Institute...

GREENHOUSE GASEOUS EMISSION CALCULATIONS AND

PROJECTIONS OF TURKEY

M.Nilgün EGEMEN

State Institute of StatisticsPrime MinistryRepublic of Turkey

Located at the junction of Europe and Asia, Turkey is an industrializing country with Land area of 779,000 km2

Population of 70,8 million to 81 million

from 2003 to 2020GDP: US$ 205 billion to 794

from 2000 to 2020

- 3000 US$ per capita income/2000


2002250

9129380000

8.8

43.1

125000

555

45

7339

428

Proven

3

1086

29

626

456

Probable

430028850

8

110

245

Possible

Solar (MW/year)

Geothermal (MW/year)

Nuclear

Natural Gas (bcm)

Crude Oil (Mt)

Hydro

Bituminous Shale (Mt)

Asphaltite (Mt)

Lignite (Mt)

Hard Coal (Mt)

Reserves

8.826.4

ElectricityHeat

450031100

ElectricityHeat

9129380000

Uranium (t)Thorium (t)

8.8

43.1

125000 34729

GWh/yearMW/year

1641

82

8075

1129

Total


Turkey Has Limited Domestic Resources


5886

125

191287

403

567

759

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

It is expected that our country’s electricity demand will grow approximately 8 % per year from 2000 onwards.

Electricity Demand


FUEL TYPE YEARS 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Total primary energy supply 52.07 61.62 81.25 128.74 176.93 Solid Fuels Hardcoal 6.15 5.91 9.98 15.60 33.28 Lignite 9.77 10.57 13.22 15.66 23.16 Asphaltit 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.04 Petroleum coke 0.27 0.74 1.17 - -

Oil Crude Oil1 22.69 27.89 32.30 40.87 48.23

Natural Gas 3.12 6.22 13.73 41.88 48.92 Other Nuclear - - - - 3.66 Renewable2 10.01 10.32 9.18 14.69 19.64 Trade -0.06 -0.06 - - -

Source: MENR 1 Non-energy use is excluded (petroleum products like paraffin. white sipirit. oil. bitumen). 2 Wood. biomass. hydraulic. geothermal. solar and wind are included.

Change in primary energy consumption and supply by fuel type (MTEP)

Energy consumption in Turkey


INDICATORS YEARS 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Total Primary Energy Supply (000 TEP)

52.070 61.620 81.251 128.740 176.930

Index (1990=100) 100.00 118.34 156.04 247.24 339.79 Primary Energy Supply Per Capita (TEP.capita-1)

0.92 1.02 1.20 1.84 2.39

Total Final Energy Consumption (000 TEP)

43.333 50.583 60.490 93.695 126.572

Index (1990=100) 100 116.73 139.59 216.22 292.09 Final Energy Consumption Per Capita (TEP.capita-1)

0.77 0.83 0.89 1.34 1.71

Starting date: 1997Period : 1970 – 2002 projections until 2030 for energy Coverage : National level Sectors : Energy (fuel combustion and fugitive emissions) Industrial processes Agricultural activities (manure management, enterik fermentation and burning of agricultural residues) Solid waste management (controlled ladfill)

EMISSION CALCULATIONS


SIS is the coordinator institution of Greenhouse Gaseous Emission Inventory Working Group formed under Climate Change Coordination Board. Members of this working group are:Ministry of Environment and ForestryMinistry of Energy and Natural ResourcesElectricity Generation CooperationRelated non-governmental organisations

Studies for the preperation of 1st National Communication has been going on, and it will be submitted to the Secretariat at the end of October 2004.

ROLE OF SIS


Emissions originated from fuel combustion by sectors (energy, industry, transportation and others) Coal mining Transportation of crude oil Industrial processes Agricultural activities (rice caltivation and burning of agricultural residues) Domestic livestock (enteric fermentation and manure management) Solid waste (controlled landfill)

EMISSIONS CALCULATED


EMISSIONS AND SECTORS-1

CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, NMVOC, CO, SO2Industrial Processes

Industrial Processes

CH4Transportation of crude oil

CH4Coal mining

CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, CO, SO2, NMVOCAmount of fuel consumed (energy, transportation, industry and other)

Energy

Greenhouse GaseousSectors


EMISSIONS AND SECTORS -2

CH4Solid waste (controlled landfill)

Waste

CH4, N2O, NOX, COBurning of agricultural residues

CH4Rice caltivation

CH4Enteric fermentation and manure management

Agricultural Activities

Greenhouse GasesousSectors


Fugitive emissions from oil and gas production, transportation and storage except crude oil transportaion Solvent useN2O emissions from fertilizer managemet

Emissions from agricultural soilEmissions from halocarbons (HFCs ve PFCs) and sulphur hexaflouride consumptionEmissions from treatment of wastewater and uncontrolled ladfill sitesEmissions from land use and land use change

EMISSIONS NOT CALCULATED


CO2 EMISSIONS (Gg)


0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Years

CO

2 E

mis

sion

s (G

g)

Energy Industrial Processes

CH4 EMISSIONS (Gg)


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Em

iss

ion

s (

Gg

)

Combustion of fuels Industrial processesFugitive Emissions Agricultural ActivitiesSolid Waste

SHARE OF CO2 EMISSIONS IN ENERGY (%)


1990

24%

21%

23%

32%

Energy Industry Transportation Other



2000

35%

32%

17%

16%




2010

40%

26%

18%

16%


CO2 EMISSION TREND IN ENERGY(Gg)


0

200000400000

600000800000

10000001200000

1400000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030


CH4 EMISSION TREND IN ENERGY (Gg)


0,00

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

300,00

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030


N2O EMISSION TREND IN ENERGY (Gg)


0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030


EMISSION PROJECTIONS FOR ENERGY


ENPEP (Energy and Power Evaluation Program)ENPEP (Energy and Power Evaluation Program)

•MAED was used by MENR to develop the energy demand projections;

•VALORAGUA was used by TEIAS to analyze the hydro power system in detail;

•WASP was used by TEIAS to determine the power sector expansion and estimate unit generation and fuel consumption

•levels; and

• BALANCE was used by

•MENR to perform the integrated overall energy sector analysis, calculate emission projections, and

•estimate the economic impacts.


BALANCEBALANCEBALANCE uses a non-linear, equilibrium approach to determine the energy supply and demand balance.

An energy network that is designed to trace the flow of energy from primary resource through to final energy and/or useful energy demand.

Demand is sensitive to prices of alternatives and supply price is sensitive to the quantity demanded. BALANCE seeks to find the intersection of supply and demand curves.

BALANCE simultaneously tries to find the intersection for all energy supply

forms and all energy uses that are included in the energy network. The equilibrium is reached when the model finds a set of prices and quantities that satisfy all relevant equations and inequalities.


The model employs a market share algorithmThe model employs a market share algorithm

The market share of a specific comodity is sensitive to the comodity’s price relative to the price of alternative commodities. Constraints, government policies, preferences and the ability of markets to respond to price signals over time also affect the market share of a commodity.

BALANCE simultaneously finds the intersection of supply and demand curves for all energy supply forms and all energy uses included in the energy network. Equilibrium is reached when the model finds a set of market clearing prices and quantities that satisfy all relevant equations and inequalities.

The model employs the Jacobi iterative technique to find the solution that is within a user-defined convergence tolerance.

Concurrently with the energy calculations, the model computes the environmental residual associated withgiven energy system configuration. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reported in a format that is compatible with the IPCC


Energy demand forecasting.Environmental issues associated with the coal/lignite mining and power generation sub-sectors.

Coal Use and Environmental TechnologiesManagement and Utilization of Solid Wastes from Coal-fired Power Plants in Turkey

Potential for co-generation in Turkey.Assessment of Transmission & Distribution loss reduction.Improved management of emissions from non-power sectors.Improvement of petroleum fuels quality.Special Study

Lanfill Gas Energy Sector Modelling

technical suport to MENR and TEAS to carry out various energy system analyses.to integrate information obtained in other EER tasksto provide Turkiey’s policy makers with an integrated system analysis of the various options

for addressing the various energy and environmental concerns

Energy and Environment Review in TurkeyEnergy and Environment Review in Turkey


A Reference Case was developed to A Reference Case was developed to compare alternative scenarioscompare alternative scenarios

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scenarios

technical efficiency scenario

clean coal technology scenario

nuclear scenario

co-generation scenario

renewable scenario

CO2 tax scenario

constrained gas sub-critical scenario

constrained gas super-critical scenario

DSM scenario

Local Pollution Scenarios

petroleum product quality scenario

EU standarts power-only scenario

EU standarts power+oil scenario


Macreeconomic/Energy Demand AssumptionsMAED results from December 2001 from MENRmain macroeconomic drivers from State Planning Organizationprice index for imported coal, crude oil and natural gas projections from WB

Structural, Policy and Pricing Assumptions for Reference CaseNo new domestic reserves of fossil fuels will be discoveredNo limits on the import of crude oil, natural gas or hard coalThe expansion of the electricity system is done on the basis of the

least cost over the whole system and over the whole planning period without constraints on gas supply,

No major changes in the country’s energy pricing policy,no new major energy conservation or renewable resource programs

Main Scenario Assumptions-1Main Scenario Assumptions-1


• Structural, Policy and Pricing Assumptions for Alternative Scenarios– Clean Coal Scenario: 6 new 250 MW circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC)

units into the power sector expansion.– Nuclear Power: Introduce 6 new 1000 MW nuclear units into the power sector

expansion starting in 2015.– Cogeneration: Initiate more aggressive cogeneration levels in 2005. The goal is

to have 20% of total electricity production coming from cogeneration by 2025.– Carbon Tax: Introducing a carbon tax of $4 per ton CO2 in 2004.– Renewables: Initiate more aggressive renewables program in 2005 aiming at

having 7% of total electricity production coming from mini-hydro and wind power.

– Constrained gas sub-critical: Limit on natural gas. Full utilizatio of the remaining domestic lignite resources at Elbistan (11 units with 500 MW each). In addition, a total of 25,900 MW of imported coal-fired generation (37 units with 700 MW each) are assumed to come an-line.

– Constrained gas super-critical: Same as sub-critical scenario, except all coal units are super-critical and have different cost and technical parameters.

Main Scenario Assumptions-Main Scenario Assumptions-22


• Environmental assumptions• All GHG emission factors for all sectors and technologies from IPCC (IPCC,

1996)

• Power sector emission factors for PM, NOx and SO2 from EUAS

• Transport sector emission factors from EER Task 5 report

• Ratioo of total PM to PM10 and PM2.5 from AP42

• Required modification have been done for alternative scenarios (e.g. sub-critical and super critical power plants will meet EU standarts)

• Others• Planning period: 1995-2025• Real discount rate: 10%• Referrance year for cost discounting: 2000• All cost data are expressed in constant 2000 U.S. dollars

Main Scenario Assumptions-Main Scenario Assumptions-33


Referance Case Energy and ElectricityReferance Case Energy and Electricity

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Production Import Consumption

Referance Case Production-Import-Consumption Balance

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Lignite Imp. H. CoalDiesel ImportsHydro-large Hydro-smallWind Dom. H. CoalF. Oil N. GasNuclear Hydro-smallSolar

Referance Case Electricity Generation by fuel


Referance Case COReferance Case CO22 Emissions Emissions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

SupplyAgricultureHouseholdTransportIndustryElectricity


Referance Case CHReferance Case CH44 Emissions Emissions

0

100

200

300

400

500

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Electricity Industry Transport

Household Agriculture Supply


Referance Case NReferance Case N22O EmissionsO Emissions

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

24000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Electricity Industry Transport

Household Agriculture Supply


Comparing Greenhouse Gas Emission Scenarios

Total Economic Net Energy Cumulative CO2 CO2 CO2 Cost Cumulative MTCE MTCE Cost

Cost Import Bill Emissions Reduction Effectiveness MTCE Emissions Reduction Effectiveness

109 US$2000 110 US$2000 (1000 tons) (1000 tons) ($/ton) (1000 tons) (1000 tons) ($/ton)

Reference Scenario 372.621 155.518 12,331,158 - 3,450,057 -12Technical Efficiency 372.602 155.470 12,283,253 -0.39 -0.41 3,437,654 -0.36 -1.57Clean Coal Technology 372.578 155.436 12328,841 -0.02 -18.9 3,494,353 1.28Nuclear 373.297 155.283 12,239,183 -0.75 7.3 3,424,960 -0.73 26.9Cogeneration 372.558 154.602 11,739,055 -4.80 -0.1 3,286,279 -4.75 -0.4Renewable 372.850 154.025 12,148,768 -1.48 1.3 3,400,306 -1.44 4.6Carbon Tax 377.621 156.562 12,219,537 -0.91 43.16 3,417,015 -0.96 145.81DSM 349.567 146.491 10,994,535 -10.84 -17.2 3,081,030 -10.70 -62.5

C. Gas Sub-Critical 375.773 153.300 13,373,636 8.45 n.a 3,739,435 8.39 n.aC. Gas Super-Critical 375.591 153.087 13,251,120 -0.99 -1.5 3,705,501 -0.98 -5.4

SCENARİOS

Comparing Reference Case with GHG Emission Scenarios


GHG Scenarios ResultsGHG Scenarios Results

DSM, cogeneration in industry and improved technical efficiency in the power sector are clearly essential ingredients of future climate change policies. The scope of more reliance on cogeneration in industry and improved technical efficiensy in the power sector is intrinsically restricted. With the reduction over 10% in the planning period, the environmental impact for DSM is the greatest in terms of projected emission reduction.



•Greater natural gas utilization is clearly preferable to coal and lignite. The constrained gas super-critical has lower cost and emission burden over the constrained gas sub-critical.•Nuclear power is not attractive for GHG abatement, even though the nert energy import bill drops.



•Renewables have a role to play in GHG reduction policy, but development of renewables will need to be selective. •A carbon tax will bring about some beneficial inter-fuel substitution, inducing consumer to less carbon intensive gas in preference to coal and lignite. However the result of these fuel shifts is an increase in economic cost of energy supply


Local Pollution Scenarios Scenarios ResultsLocal Pollution Scenarios Scenarios Results

•Improving petroleum product quality would cut sulphur emissions by more than 16% over the period 200-2025 at a cost of $252/tonne (discounted).

•The introduction of EU standarts and improvement of petroleum product quality would be cost effective options to reduce emissions of sulphur.EU standarts would result in sulphur emissions 36% lower than under the Reference Case over the period 2000-2025.

•DSM, cogeneration and improved technical efficiency can all contribute to local pollution control.

•The use of natural gas is preferable to coal and lignite, because emissions of PM, SO2, Nox and ash are all higher in the Constrained Gas Sub-critical and Super-critical Scenarios as well as the economic cost of energy supply, although at a lower net energy import bill.

•Although a carbon tax is normally regarded as an economic instrument for the control of GHG emissions, it would also yield as a by-product or ancillary benefit, useful reductions in local pollution.


•Under the Reference Case;

•Total Primary Energy Supply of 81.4 mtoe in 2000 is expected to be 332 mtoe by the year 2025.

•While domestic production doubles between 200 and 2025, overall energy imports are estimated to rise about six fold in the same period, bringing Turkey’s energy import dependency to 83% by 2025 compared with 62% in 2000.

•As the demand for gas increases rapidly, virtually all natural gas must be imported.

•Total CO2 emissions reaches 871 mtons/year with an average increase of 5,8 by at the end of the planning period. Induatry sector is the main driver of the emissions .

Conclusion-Conclusion-11


•Total Sos emissions has the lowest value in 2003 but, more than doubles by 2025 and reaches 3,85 mtons/year. Main source of this increase comes from using fuel oil and solid fuil in the industry sector.

•When each of GHG emission scenarios is applied individually, it does not have a major impact on CO2/GHG emissions. An effective national policy on climate change will have to rely on the aggressive application of a combination of options

•As with the design of policies for GHG mitigation, it is clear that no single policy option will have a major impact on all emissions causing local pollution. An effective policy for the reduction of local pollution will have to rely on the application of a mix of options.

Conclusion-2Conclusion-2


THANK YOU

FOR YOUR ATTENTION....

GREENHOUSE GASEOUS EMISSION CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS OF TURKEY M.Nilgün EGEMEN State Institute...

Documents

Transcript of GREENHOUSE GASEOUS EMISSION CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS OF TURKEY M.Nilgün EGEMEN State Institute...