Abstract
Energy is the main driver of modern national economies. However, energy systems are highly complex and obtaining energy-efficient and clean solutions at the lowest cost is becoming harder under these dynamic circumstances. An integrated decision-making tool is needed in these circumstances as a compass for decision makers. This study aimed to create such a model for Turkey, spanning the period 2005–2025. Firstly, energy supply commodities, sectors and sectoral demands, conversion and process technologies, consumption and demand technologies are determined for Turkey based on energy balance statistics published by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. This database is called the Reference Energy System, and included parameters characterizing each of the technologies and resources used to obtain the energy equilibrium, including fixed and variable costs, technology availability, performance and pollutant emissions. The model also allows user-defined variables. After developing alternative scenarios to achieve cost-effective technology selection and running each alternative of the base scenario one by one, model responses and scenario results are analyzed to provide technical recommendations. Therefore, a functional ‘energy–economy–ecology–engineering’ integrated model calculating final energy consumption from primary energy supply was developed with optimal solutions including both current energy technologies and candidates for near future utilization.
E. Sulukan, Ph.D., Department of Professional Sciences, Turkish Naval Academy, Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey; E-mail: esulukan@dho.edu.tr.
M. Sağlam, Institute of Pure and Applied Sciences, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Marmara University, Göztepe, Istanbul, Turkey; E-mail: fulbars@yahoo.com.
T.S. Uyar, Prof. Dr., Marmara University, Faculty of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering Department, 34722, Istanbul, Turkey; E-mail: tanayuyar@marmara.edu.tr.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agoris, D.; Tigas, K.; Giannakidis, G.; et al., 2004: “An Analysis of the Greek Energy System in View of the Kyoto Commitments”, in: Energy Policy, 32: 2019–2033.
Balash, P.; Nichols, C.; Victor, N., 2013: “Multi-regional Evaluation of the U.S. Electricity Sector Under Technology and Policy Uncertainties: Findings from MARKAL EPA9rUS Modelling”, in: Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 47: 89–119.
Chen, W.; Wu, Z.; He, J.; et al., 2007: “Carbon Emission Control Strategies for China: A Comparative Study with Partial and General Equilibrium Versions of the CHINA MARKAL Model”, in: Energy, 32: 59–72.
Chiodi, A.; Gargiulo, M.; Deane, J.P.; et al., 2013: “Modelling the Impacts of Challenging 2020 non-ETS GHG Emissions Reduction Targets on Ireland’s Energy System”, in: Energy Policy, 62: 1438–1452.
Contaldi, M.; Gracceva, F.; Tosato, G., 2007: “Evaluation of Green-Certificates Policies Using the MARKAL-MACRO-Italy Model”, in: Energy Policy, 35: 797–808.
Gerbelová, H.; Amorim, F.; Pina, A.; et al., 2014: “Potential of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Taxes as a Policy Measure Towards Low-Carbon Portuguese Electricity Sector by 2050”, in: Energy, 6: 113–119.
Jegarl, S.; Baek, J.; Jang, D.; et al., 2013: “Impact Assessment of CO2 Mitigation Options in Korea Using Energy System Analysis Model”, in: Energy Procedia, 1: 3747–3754.
Ko, F.K.; Huang, C.B.; Tseng, P.Y.; et al., 2010: “Long-Term CO2 Emissions Reduction Target and Scenarios of Power Sector in Taiwan”, in: Energy Policy, 38: 288–300.
Loulou, R.; Goldstein, G.; Noble, K., 2004: “Standard MARKAL User Manual, Volume-I”.
Mondal, A.H.; Islam, A.K.M., 2012: “Impacts of CO2 Emission Constraints on Penetration of Solar pv in the Bangladesh Power Sector”, in: Renewable Energy, 43: 418–422.
Sağlam, M.; Sulukan, E.; Uyar, T.S., 2013: “Deliberating Lower-Cost Emission Reduction Options”, in: IRENEC Proceedings, 370–375.
Salvia, M.; Pietrapertosa, F.; Cosmi, C.; et al., 2004: “Approaching the Kyoto Targets: A Case Study for Basilicata Region (Italy)”, in: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8: 73–90.
Sarica, K.; Tyner, W.E., 2013: “Alternative Policy Impacts on US GHG Emissions and Energy Security: A Hybrid Modelling Approach”, in: Energy Economics, 40: 40–50.
Strachan, N.; Balta-Ozkan, N.; Joffe, D.; et al., 2009: “Soft-linking Energy Systems and GIS Models to Investigate Spatial Hydrogen Infrastructure Development in a Low-Carbon UK Energy System”, in: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34: 642–657.
Sulukan, E.; Sağlam, M.; Uyar, T.S., 2010; “Determining Optimum Energy Strategies for Turkey by MARKAL Model”, in: Journal of Naval Science and Engineering, 6: 27–38.
Sulukan, E.; Sağlam, M.; Uyar, T.S., 2013: “A Native Energy Decision Model for Turkey”, in: IRENEC Proceedings, 360–369.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sulukan, E., Sağlam, M., Uyar, T.S. (2017). Energy–Economy–Ecology–Engineering (4E) Integrated Approach for GHG Inventories. In: Erşahin, S., Kapur, S., Akça, E., Namlı, A., Erdoğan, H. (eds) Carbon Management, Technologies, and Trends in Mediterranean Ecosystems. The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45035-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45035-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45034-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45035-3
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)