KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi :A-Uygulamalı Bilimler ve Mühendislik / 2017 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 1

STAKEHOLDER OPINION-BASED COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN TURKEY WITH SELECTED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Fehmi Görkem ÜÇTUĞ
Sayfa
178–198
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It was concluded that the prospective addition of nuclear energy, solar energy, and clean coal technologies into Turkey's electricity mix shall reduce the overall environmental impact of electricity generation in Turkey significantly.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation in Turkey were compared to those of Denmark, France, and Poland.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:OpenLCATM software and European Life Cycle Database were used, CML2001 method was employed.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It was concluded that the prospective addition of nuclear energy, solar energy, and clean coal technologies into Turkey's electricity mix shall reduce the overall environmental impact of electricity generation in Turkey significantly.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

The life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation in Turkey were compared to those of Denmark, France, and Poland. The reason for selecting these particular countries for benchmarking was the fact that electricity generation in these countries is dominated mostly by a single source, that is wind, nuclear, and coal, respectively. OpenLCATM software and European Life Cycle Database were used, CML2001 method was employed. The life cycle analysis approach was from cradle to grave. The environmental impact criteria which were studied were acidification, global warming potential, depletion of abiotic resources - elements, depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuels, eutrophication, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, human toxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, photochemical oxidation, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. In addition to comparing the four countries in terms of these individual impacts, the overall environmental impact scores for all countries were calculated, once with equal weights for all impacts and once with weights which were determined by acquiring the stakeholder opinions via an online questionnaire. In both cases, Poland turned out to have the highest environmental impact due to the high share coal in the electricity mix, and Turkey came second after Poland. Equal-weightanalysis returned Denmark as the country with the cleanest electricity generation infrastructure whereas stakeholder-weightanalysis results showed that it was France who had the lowest environmental impact. This result was attributed to the high weight of global warming potential and France's nuclear-energy-based electricity generation system has a very low global warming potential when compared to other three countries. It was concluded that the prospective addition of nuclear energy, solar energy, and clean coal technologies into Turkey's electricity mix shall reduce the overall environmental impact of electricity generation in Turkey significantly.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÜÇTUĞ, F. G. (2022). STAKEHOLDER OPINION-BASED COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN TURKEY WITH SELECTED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi :A-Uygulamalı Bilimler ve Mühendislik, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 1, 178–198. https://ajindex.com/articles/438293

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Santoyo-Castelazo E, Gujba H and Azapagic A. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mexico, Energy, no. 36, pp. 1488-1499, 2011
  2. Herbert AS, Azzaro-Pantela C and Le Boulch D. A typology for world electricity mix: Application for inventories in Consequential LCA (CLCA), Sust Prod Consump, vol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.09.002, no. Article in press, 2016
  3. Hopwood D. The world waits for COP to deliver, Renew. Energy Focus, no. 16, pp. 5-6, 2015
  4. Framework convention on climate change. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 11 December 2015, United Nations, Paris, 2016
  5. Santoyo-Castelazo E and Azapagic A. Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects, J Clean Prod, no. 80, pp. 119-138, 2014
  6. Brizmohun R, Ramjeawon T and Azapagic A. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mauritius, J Clean Prod, no. 106, pp. 565-575, 2015
  7. Stamford L and Azapagic A. Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity scenarios to 2070, Energy Sustain Dev, no. 23, pp. 194-211, 2014
  8. May J and Brennan D. Sustainability assessment of Australian electricity generation, Process Saf Environ, no. 84, pp. 131-142, 2006
  9. Kannan R, Leong K, Osman R and Ho H. Life cycle energy, emissions and cost inventory of power generation technologies in Singapore, Renew Sust Energ Rev, no. 11, pp. 702-715, 2007
  10. Gujba H, Mulugetta Y and Azapagic A. Environmental and economic appraisal of power generation capacity expansion plan in Nigeria, Energ Policy, no. 38, pp. 5636-5652, 2010
  11. Atilgan B and Azapagic A. Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from fossil fuels, J Clean Prod, no. 106, pp. 555-564, 2015
  12. Atilgan B and Azapagic A. Renewable electricity in Turkey: Life cycle environmental impacts, Renew Energ, no. 89, pp. 649-657, 2016
  13. Atilgan B and Azapagic A. An integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Turkey, Energ Policy, no. 93, pp. 168-186, 2016
  14. J. Guinee, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni, P, Buonamici R E T and Rydberg T. "Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future," Environ Sci Technol, no. 45, pp. 90-96, 2011
  15. Owens J. Life cycle assessment: Constraints on moving from inventory to impact assessment, J Ind Ecol, no. 1, pp. 37-49, 1997
  16. International Standard ISO 14040: Environmental management--life cycle assess