Item Details
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:513Hits:19959902Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

In Basket
  Journal Article   Journal Article
 

ID150921
Title ProperIntegrated life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Turkey
LanguageENG
AuthorAzapagic, Adisa ;  Burcin Atilgan, Adisa Azapagic ;  Atilgan, Burcin
Summary / Abstract (Note)This paper presents for the first time an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of the electricity sector in Turkey, considering environmental, economic and social aspects. Twenty life cycle sustainability indicators (11 environmental, three economic and six social) are used to evaluate the current electricity options. Geothermal power is the best option for six environmental impacts but it has the highest capital costs. Small reservoir and run-of-river power has the lowest global warming potential while large reservoir is best for the depletion of elements and fossil resources, and acidification. It also has the lowest levelised costs, worker injuries and fatalities but provides the lowest life cycle employment opportunities. Gas power has the lowest capital costs but it provides the lowest direct employment and has the highest levelised costs and ozone layer depletion. Given these trade-offs, a multi-criteria decision analysis has been carried out to identify the most sustainable options assuming different stakeholder preferences. For all the preferences considered, hydropower is the most sustainable option for Turkey, followed by geothermal and wind electricity. This work demonstrates the importance for energy policy of an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment and how tensions between different aspects can be reconciled to identify win-win solutions.
`In' analytical NoteEnergy Policy Vol. 93, No.93; Jun 2016: p.168–186
Journal SourceEnergy Policy 2016-06 93, 93
Key WordsTurkey ;  Electricity Generation ;  Sustainability Assessment ;  Life Cycle Assessment ;  Social Assessment ;  Economic Costing