TURKEY'S HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIAL AND ENERGY POLICIES

Prof. Dr. İstemi ÜNSAL
İstanbul Technical University
Faculty of Civil Engineering

It is well known that the two main problems of the 21'st century are the recovery of fresh water needs and the recovery of the energy needs.

Both problems show the importance of the GEOENERGETIC situation of our country. In the following paragraphs our energy problem will be treated and discussed in order to search a logical and feasible solution to our energy problem.

On the other hand, the motto of the last 20 - 25 years is "Sustainable economic growth with efficient use of the resources, taking the environment into account also". But the recovery of energy needs plays the key role in the economic growth. The following speech of our Minister of Energy should be mentioned within this context:

• Our dependence on foreign countries is very extensive (Petro.Gaz, January, 2003, p. 8),
• and it continues to increase and to be worse (Turkish Energy Forum, 11. 12. 2002).
• Table 1 shows our probable, foreseen needs:

Table 1. Foreseen energy and power demands of Turkey

Year	Energy (TWh/year	2010 / 2002	Power (GW)	2020 / 2002
End of 2002	132	-	28	-
2010	265	2,01	52	1,86
2020	528	4,13	103,5	3,70

Table 2. Main conventional and unconventional electrical energy resources.

CONVENTIONAL RESOURCES		UNCONVENTIONAL RESOURCES
Unrenewables	Renewables	Unrenewables	Renewables
Fossile fuels Nuclear energy	Hydroelectric PP Pumped HEPP	Geothermal (1) Biomass (2)	Sun (3) Wind (3) Waves (3) Tidal power Hydrogen

(1). Renewable in case "Reinjection" technology" is used.
(2). In the application of "energy forestry" it should be placed in the renewables energy group.
(3). Their handicap is their synchronization problem and this problem arises from our shortage of knowledge on the stocking of huge quantities of energy.

Table 1 shows that our electrical energy production and power should be doubled utill 2010 and it should be four times higher than actual values of 2020. Although Tuekey is not rich enough in fossile fuels, it can be admitted that it is sufficiently rich considering the new, renewable energy resources. Table 2 summarizes the main conventional and unconventional energy resources:

In energy planning the following main topics should be considered:

• Technical possibilities,
• Production capabilities,
• Economic feasibility,
• Dependence on foreign countries.

In the following paragraphs these topics will be treated and attentions will be especially focused on the hydroelectric energy generation.

A. Technical Possibilities

The hydroelectric power potential of a river and finally of a country can be at four levels:

Gross	It depends on the foreseen development projects of the region. For Turkey one can admit that it is of the order of 433-442 TWh/year.
Technical	It corresponds to the technically available part of the gross potential. For example a permeable geological formation will promote a decrease in the available potential. It can slightly increase with developing technologic possibilities. For Turkey one can admit that it is of the order of 215 TWh/year.
Harnessable(Economic)	It corresponds to the economically advantageous part of the technical potential, compared with alternative energy resources. Nowadays a comparison is made between electrical energy production and natural gas. In 2003 DSİ (State Hydraulic Works) admits that it is of the order of 126,1 TWh/year. But it should be kept in mind that · Thermal and nuclear power plants can not be, and should not be thought as an alternative to HEPP's(Hydroelectric Power Plants) due to their operational handicaps. · The natural gas prices are a function of the world energy policy, world economic, political and social conjunctures and especially of the individual, specific conditions of the country and it is not a constant. This means that a power plant which seemed to be unfeasible some years ago, can be feasible under today's conditions. This can readily be seen from Table 3 and Figure 1 which shows the harnessable HE power potential growth of our country with time. Another point of interest, and which certainly influences the fossile fuel prices in the world is their lifetime, which can be compared to human lifetime, i.e. of the order of 50 to 100 years (for coal a little higher).
Harnessed	It corresponds to the harnessed part of the harnessable potential and at the beginning of 2003 it is only of the order of 44 TWh/year.

 

Table 3. Sağ 1960 47 Kirişci 1961 53 Doluca 1967 57 Noyan 1968 65 Dinçer 1975 72 Erke 1978 101 DSİ 1985 111 DSİ 2002 126

Figure 1. Variation of the harnessable hydroelectric potential (TWh/year) with time, using regional development forecasts (ÖZİŞ, 1991; p.36). Care should be given to the jump in the harnessable potential as a result of the fuel crisis of 1973 - 1974.

B. Operational Characteristics

I think that the main error made during the evaluation and interpretation of Turkey's hydroelectric growth is the comparison of them with resources of completely different operational properties, characteristics. This point seems to me be crucial and should be kept in mind while reading this text. Figure 2 shows schematically the power demand variation of a network during a day. It is obvious that this schematic variation will vary with seasons, with meteorological conditions etc... The following question arises from the interpretation of the figure: Which problem is most important: (a). The production of a certain amount of energy during the day or; (b). the competency to be able to find the necessary power during peak energy demand hours.

Figure 2. Schematic power demand variation of a network during a day.

In order to answer this question and to find a realistic solution to it, it is necessary to take into account the operational properties and flexibilities of the available conventional energy resources. These resources can be

• BASIC groups (Thermal PP's and Run-of-river HEPP's) and
• PEAK groups (Storage HEPP's and Pumping HEPP's).

Some important basic, operational properties and characteristics of these groups are summarized in Table 4:

Thermal

Their inertia is very long (hours); i.e. they can not accomodate in cases of unforeseen energy demands: .» They are suitable for foreseen power demand planning .» They should be planned as a BASIC electrical energy producer .» Standart values: 80-90 % of the year, i.e. 7000 - 8000 hours/yearŞ Unit prices of basic energy: OECD: 4 - 5 cents / kWh Turkey: 7,8 cents / kWh

Hydraulic

Their inertia is very short (some minutes) and they can rapidly compensate sudden power demands • Run-of-River: Since there is no storage possibility the energy of the running water should be utilized (In 1960's the discharge which existed during 60 - 70 % of the year was selected as a design discharge, while today the design discharges are very high, only of the order of 50 - 60 days per year (Figure 3). This trend increases the investment costs together with the production and will be treated again in subsequent paragraphs. » They should work as a basic group. On the other hand in Turkey the peak power demand occurs in general in December (rarely in October) which corresponds to high discharge season (November - End of April) of the run-of-river power plants, so that the energy produced at that time can also be evaluated as Peak power. • Storage HEPP's: Since the inertia of HEPP's is very short, they can cover the unforeseen energy demands, so that » Principally they should be planned only when the power of the basic producers begin to be insufficient; » They will produce Peak power,Ş Their energy is very precious (The energy of the pumping HEPP's more precious); » Standart: 25 - 30 % of the year, i.e. 2000 - 3000 hours / year; » Peak energy unit prices: Amsterdam energy market, first months of 2001: 24 - 60 cents / kWh (BAKIR, 2001).Ş They can work as a buffer for other renewable energies like wind, sun, wave etc.. » They provide water supply for communities; they protect lands from flooding; they are reservoirs for irrigation; they regulate the flow regime of the rivers.

In the above given table indicated properties, characteristics show that thermal power plants can not be an alternative to storage HEPP's, since their inertia is very long and since they can not accomplish the same job, so that the global trend is

• Basic energy production with thermal PP's and run-of-river HEPP's and,
• As their production begin to be insufficient, the use of storage HEPP's.

~ 1915 7 - 8 months/year ~ 1950 3 - 4 months/year ~ 1960 ~ 2 months/year Figure 3. Flow duration curve.

These explanations show why thermal PP's should work 7000 - 8000 hours/year (according to the feasibility reports of the thermal PP under construction in Ankara and which will begin to generate electricity this year, powered with natural gas will work 8200 hours in a year; 93.6 % of the year; approximately in 11 months of the year), while storage HEPP's works only 2500-3000 hours/year, but in our country they produce energy in a longer period. Table 5 and Figure 4 show the enrgy production periods of our thermal and hydraulic power plants.

Table 5.

	1970 - 1999 period	1990 - 1999 period
Thermal	4126 hours	4464 hours
Hydropower	3760 hours	3240 hours

Figure 4. Approximative yearly energy production hours (Yearly production/Installed power) of thermal and hydroelectric PP's in Turkey.

Table 5 readily shows that in Turkey the thermal PP's production periods are very short (approximately the half) compared with the world trend, while the production periods of our storage HEPPs are relatively long which decreases their capacities. Such an energy production planning can be a result of the economic conditions of our country and of our hydraulic richness; but it should also be pointed out that this capacity decrease in hydropower is a natural result of our energy production perspective. But unfortunately DPT (State Planning Organization) interpretes this decrease differently and finds the hydropower inefficient and believes that it is not firm enough.

In energy production planning, the world trends have also a role; but it is obvious that one should also take into account the individual, specific conditions of the country. Norway is an interesting example and while 99.5% of it's electrical energy production is hydraulic (Norway is the fourth natural gas exporters of the world (IEA, 2002), Table 6).

Table 6. Highest natural gas exporters of the world. Figures are in Gm3=Billion m3 (IEA,2002):

Russia	Canada	Algeria	Norway	Holland
188	108	62	51	49
Türkmenistan	Indonesia	Malaysia	Qatar	England
38	32	19	16	13

Similarly 87,3 % of the Brazilian; 59,2 % of the Canadian (it should be pointed out that this country is the second big natural gas exporter of the world); 54,1 % of the Swedish electrical energy production is hydraulic. Table 7 and Figures 5 and 6 show the ratio of the hydraulic production to the total gross production (DSİ, 2003) and it is seen that the mean of 26 years is 39,7 % (it should be remembered that the years 1999, 2000, 2001 and the first half of 2002 were extremely dry).

Table.7. Ratio of the hydroelectrical energy production,
to the total gross electrical energy production in Turkey (DSİ, 2003).

1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988	1989
41,7	43,0	45,7	48,8	51,1	53,4	41,5	43,9	35,2	29,9	42,0	60,3	34,5
1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
40,2	37,7	39,5	46,0	39,1	41,2	42,7	38,6	38,0	29,8	24,7	19,6	23,4

Figure 5. Ratio of the hydraulic production to the total gross energy production (DSİ, 2002)

Figure 6. Chronological variation of the ratios: (a) Hydraulic energy production / Total energy production
(World mean in 2001: 17,5 %); (b). Installed hydraulic power / Total installed power (DSİ, 2002).

Another interesting comparison will be the ratio's "Electricity production from natural gas / Total electrical energy production" of some countries (IEA, 2002; Table 8):

Table 8.

COUNTRY	Russia(1)	England(1)	Japan(2)	USA(2)	Germany(2)	Türkiye(2)
Production from natural gas (%)	42,2	39,5	22,1	15,7	9,3	46 ® 60 ® 80
Production (TWh)	370	147	239	630	53	36,8
World: 2677 TWh	13,8	5,5	8,9	23,5	2,0	1,4

(1). Natural gas exporter countries; (2). Natural gas importer countries.
Turkey is not included to the list given by IEA; but in order to show the erroneous natural gas use, the planning and applications, values belonging to Turkey are also included in the table (2001: % 36,8; 2002: % 46; Trends: 2010: % 60; 2020: % 80).

The use of coal in the electrical energy production will be given as a last example to show the importance of the use of national resources. In Peoples Republic of China, India, the United States of America and in Germany, electricity production from coal dominates (IEA, 2002; Table 9).

Table 9.

COUNTRY	Electricity productionfrom coal (TWh/year)	Total electircityproduction (TWh/year)	Ratio(%)
Peoples Rep. of China	1062	1356	78,3
India	420	542	77,5
Germany	299	567	52,7
USA	2110	4004	52,7

C. Feasibility

In order to an investment be feasible it is necessary that the sum "Investment costs + Operational costs" is feasible. Obviously investments for public profits can be excluded from this economic law. Railways are an example all over the world; rarely railway associations arrive to cover their expenditures, but they continue to work, generally with states subventions and researches continue in order to overcome this problem. Another factor influencing the feasibility arises or may arise when investors are not at the same time operators. In the case of YİD=BOT (Build, Operate and Transfer), Yİ = BO (Build, Operate) or Autoproducer investment models, the investor plans to profit with the accomplishment of the investment. But unfortunately in Turkey this is not always the case and the investor is the Government while the Operator is somebody else (Example: Bank of Provinces invests, but the Municipalities operate). This procedure may lead sometimes totally, sometimes partially to the negligence, to the oversight of the total cost concept, which leads to the omission of the research of the most feasible solution. This should also be done during the determination of our feasible hydroelectric potential and the following steps should be used:

(a). Feasibility of the investments;
(b). Feasibility of the operations;
(c). Total, overall feasibility. In the following paragraphs these subjects will be treated.

Table. 10 Investment and operation costs of different electrical energy resources
(DSİ, 2002; TEAŞ, 2002 and ancients)

Resource type	Operation and Maintenancecosts (cents / kWh)	Fuel costs(cents / kWh)	Total operationalcosts (cents / kWh)	Installed power,unit prices ($ / kW)
Natural gas	0,415	3,609	4,024	795
Lignite	1,495	1,839	3,334	1500
İmported coal	1,413	1,965	3,378	1325
Nuclear	0,780	1,000	1,780	2000
Hydroelectric	0,203	-	0,203	1200 – 1500

Table 10, summarizes the operation and maintenance costs (necessary payment in order to produce 1 kWh electrical energy) and unit prices of the installed power (TEAŞ, 2002; DSİ, 2002 and ancients).

Remarks and Interpretations

1. The mechanical and electrical equipment prices of the order of 200-700 $/kW is included to the installed power prices of hydroelectrical power plants. The above given price is a function of the turbine-generator unit, of the head and of the power (DSİ, 2003).
2. The unit price of the coal whose specific heat is 6000 kcal/kg (humidity % 8) is 50 $/ton. In order to produce an energy of 1 kWh, it is necessary to use 0.393 kgf imported coal or 19,650,000 $/TWh production (DSİ, 2003). Our electricity production in 2001 was 4.1 TWh, so that in 2001 we payed only for coal import 80,565 million dollars.
3. The specific heat of lignite is 100 kcal/kg and it costs 9 $/ton. In order to produce an energy of 1 kWh it is necessary to use 2,043 kgf lignite so that its unit price becomes 18.39 million dollars/TWh (DSİ, 2003). Our electricity production from lignite was 35.6 TWh in 2001, so that it costed to us 654,684 million dollars.
4. Natural gas powered combined cycle power plants consume 0.193 m3 natural gas per kWh energy production and 1000 m3 natural gas delivered to the plant costs 187 $ (DSİ, 2003). Our electricity production from natural gas in 2001 was 46.2 TWh, so that in 2001 we payed only for natural gas import 1,667.358 million dollars.
5. The figures of the table 10 show that the operational costs of the HEPPs is of the order of 1/20 relative to the CCPP's (combined cycle power plant) and of the order of 1/17 relative to lignite or imported coal powered plants. This shows that the contribution of the operational costs to the total costs are of negligible orders when compared to other resources.
6. The figures of Table 10 show on the other side that the installed power prices of HEPP's are approximately double of the CCPP's and its always hold as an argument against the investments to the HEPP's. But the following arguments will clearly show that this approach is not true and realistic:

(a). The economic lifetime of CCPP's is 25-30 years, i.e. the investment is made for this period, while the economic lifetime of storage HEPP's is of the order of 75 years (Keban: 70 years). This corresponds to the fill up with sediments of the dam reservoir till the intake structures. But some years ago, M. Kamuran İnan as an former Minister of Energy, declared at a seminar at the Technical University of İstanbul that the lifetime of Keban increased to 115 years. A similar observation was declared last year by M. Cüneyt Gerek, as he said that according to the site measurements, the sediment quantity behind Porsuk dam was only the half of the expected. This means that with the renewal of the electromechanical equipement with an investment of 200-500 $/kW (DSİ, 2003) the power plant will be renewed. This shows that instead of a unit like "$/kW", unit like "$/kW-.. year" will probably more meaningfull and will show that installed power costs of HEPPs are not as high as prounounced compared to other PP's (1500/795= 1.89 or 1200/795=1.51)..
(b). Another point mentioned as a handicap of HEPP's is their relatively long construction time. (P.S. The construction time of natural gas powered thermal PP's is admitted to be of the order 2-3 years). This relatively long period of construction is the result of the following arguments: (b1). Unfortunately our energy plannings are not done for sufficiently long periods; (b2). Bureaucratic formalities and the providence of the initial investment capital, fund; in this subject the private sector seems to be more efficient; examples: N. Nadi BAKIR remarks that the firm ERE needed 4 years in order to accomplish their preparation and formalities of Suçatı HEPP (7 Mw, 28 GWh/year; BOT model), but needed only 23 months for construction, for mounting and for the operational preparations of the power plant (ERE, technical report, May 2001); ŞENTORUN (2002) remarks that they constructed in 6 years the Birecik HEPP (672 MW, 2516 GWh/year; BOT model; project design, HEPP contruction , necessary roads, buildings, bridge, water supply systems constructions and legal expropriation problems, resolution of social problems included); YILDIRIM (2002) reports that Berke HEPP (510 MW, 1668 GWh/year; ÇEAŞ; highest concrete arch dam of Turkey and 16th in the world) was constructed in 6 years.
(c). HEPP's need the lowest foreign currency and this foreign currency need is not continuous. In the technical report of ERE (2001) the order of foreign currency percentage at power plant contructions is as follows

• Storage HEPPs: 30 %                              ==> 1500 x 0,30 = 450 $/kW
• Run-of-river HEPPs: 45 %                        ==> 1200 x 0,45 = 540 $/kW
• CCPPs powered with natural gas: 75 %     ==> 795 x 0,75  = 596 $/kW.

(PS. Although the installed power investment decrease till 800 $/kW in the case of small HEPPs, in the above given comparison, by DSİ (2003) given minimum investment cost of 1200 $/kW was used). The above given foreign currency needs become more meaningful if one takes into account the 95,7 % of our HEPPs are of storage type. This last comparison shows clearly that HEPP's are more feasible taking into account the economy of our country.

D. Dependence On Foreign Countries

It was already remarked that our country is relatively rich on renewable energy resources. In Table 11 (ÖZİŞ, 1991; DSİ, 2003; IEA, 2002) the different hydroelectric potentials of the OECD countries in 1983 are given. From its examination the following observations can readily be done:

Table 11. Different HE potentials of European countries whose gross potential is higher than 90 TWh/year and the used part of these potentials in 1983 (ÖZİŞ, 1991; DSİ, 2003; IEA, 2002).

Country	BTWh/ year	TTWh/ year	ETWh/ year	T / B(%)	E / B(%)	E / T(%)	D83TWh/ year	D83 / E(%)	D00 TWh/ year	D00 / E(%)
Norway	556	152	104,5	27,3	18,8	68,75	106,0	101,4	142	135,9
Türkiye	433	215	126,1	49,7	29,1	58,65	11,3	9,0	30,9	24,5
İtaly	341	77	64,1	22,6	18,8	83,25	44,0	68,6
France	314	82	64,5	26,1	20,5	78,66	70,0	108,5	72	111,6
Yugoslavy	226	66	47,5	29,2	21,0	71,97	22,2	46,8
Sweden	196	80	60,0	40,8	30,6	75,00	43,5	106,7	79	131,7
Austria	153	44	32,9	28,6	21,5	74,77	31,0	94,2
Switzerland	144	39	32,0	27,1	22,2	82,05	36,0	112,5
Spain	144	63	47,1	43,8	32,7	74,76	31,0	65,8
Iceland	140	35	30,0	25,0	21,4	85,71	?	?
W. Germany	95	521	15,5	22,1	16,3	73,81	19,0	122,6

B: Gross, T: Technical, E: Harnessable, D: Harnessed; "83": 1983 values: "00": 2000 values

• While Turkey valorized only 9 % of her harnessable HE potential in 1983, Norway, France, Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany valorized and utilized more than their harnessable HE potential 20 years ago.

• For the valorizations of the year 2000 "D2000 / T" one sees the following percentages:

• Norway: 142/152 = 93,42 %; Sweden: 79/82 = 98,75 %; France: 72/82 = 87,80 %"
which show that these countries valorized all their harnessable HE potential and they approached their technically possible limit. The same ratio is only 30,9/215 = 14,37 % for our country. These observations readily show that due to the energy demand, countries try to valorize their own HE potential to the maximum. Similar conclusions can be done using the flow duration curve (Figure 3) which was drawn using the data given in MOSONYI (1966) and which shows the chronological increase of the design discharges of run-of-river HEPP's. It is clearly seen that although an increase in the design discharge increases the investment, countries prefer to valorize their existing potential of the running water to the maximum (Figure 3).

• Table 11 also shows that although our HE potential is the second highest in Europe, we are the last in the ratio "Harnessed HE potential / Harnessable HE potential". This ratio was approximately 91,8 % in 1983 in Europe, while it was only 33,3 % at the end of 2001 in our country.

• The mean value of the ratio "Harnessable HE potential / Technical HE potential" in Europe is of the order of 77.0 %, while in Turkey it is only 58,6 and there is no reason which can explain this high discrepancy. This means that we have been too conservative while determining our economic, harnessable HE potential and it can be said that it may be highered to the order 77.0 / 58.6 = 1.31, so that our harnessable or economic HE potential would be 1.31 x 126.1 = 166 Twh/year. With this new HE potential level one readily sees that the valorized part of our harnessable HE potential is not 33,3 %, but only 44/166 = % 26,6. This rough discussion shows that "Our harnessable HE potential should be reevaluated and updated taking into account the world and Turkey's economic conjunctures".

• Indeed using different criteria, which seems to be more adequate to our country ERE (2001) evaluates a harnessable HE potential of the order of 192 TWh/year. On the other hand BAKIR (2001) indicates that DSİ does not take into account the small hydropower resources, while roughly an extra of 30-40 TWh/year can be expected from them.

ÜLTANIR (2001) remarks that DSİ does take into account the potentials lower than 5 MWs and according to his personal evaluation conducted in rural areas he evaluated 20 TWh/year with capacities of the order of 0,1-5 MWs. He adds that in an evaluation of EİEİ (Elektrik İşleri Etüd İdaresi=Electrical Works Study Administration), which was terminated in 1982, they founded that in 1515 cachtment area lower than 1000 km2, one can obtain small potentials of 0,1-10 MW (This is the highest potential adopted by IEA and UNIDO for small HE potential) and in total 33 TWh/year. COŞKUN (2002) indicates that the harnessable HE potential of Turkey should be higher than 163 TWh/year. These remarks show that our harnessable HE potential should be higher than the value 126,1 TWh/year adopted by DSİ should be reevaluated.

• On the other hand the potentials of streams or rivers, which have high discharges only in some seasons of the year, is also very important. DSİ accepts as a firm energy, the energy that can be obtained in 95 % of the year, i.e. 345 days/year. But energy shortage occurs generally in winter months. BAKIR (2001) indicates that in the last 30 years the highest monthly energy needs and highest peak power demand (only 1 time in October) occurred in December (It should also be remarked that due to the dense use of air-conditioning, an energy peak began to be observed in July and August). This observation shows that HEPPs which can produce energy only in winter months may also be feasible; this is also readily seen from the chronological design discharge increase in the last century (See Figure 3: "flow duration curve"). In France the power that can be continuously generated during peak hours of three winter months (namely December, January and February) of a dry year is admitted as "guaranteed power" (GINOCCHIO, 1959). Since an energy problem especially arises during peak demands, power that can be generated only in peak demand periods may also be assumed to some degree as a peak production. This holds also for rivers whose discharge is high only in winter months and these arguments show that: (a). powers that can be generated only in winters can be thought as "firm" and (b). a reevaluation of the "Firm energy" concept, taking into account Turkey's specific conditions and economic conjuncture is necessary.

Bureaucratic Approaches in Our Country

Unfortunately it is seen that the planned energy scenarios are natural gas based. But we have seen that due to their totally contradictory operational properties thermal PP's cannot be thought as an alternative to HEPP's. The following items are from the 8th 5-year Economic Development Programme (ERE, 2001):

• Item 1414:
"The 70 % efficiency of the hydraulic power plants is a problem"

• Item 1423:
"Between sector resources natural gas has a special place and importance. Taking into account the price, the efficiency and the environmental advantages it is aimed to increase the natural gas contribution in the use".

It is not possible to understand what is meant with the "Efficiency" concept and why HEPP's are inefficient, while natural gas powered thermal PP's are efficient. This subject was treated with detail in the paragraph "Operational properties and characteristics" and it will no more be dealed with here. But this burocratic approach arises another problem:

Since the inertia of thermal power plants is very high, they cannot contribute to the unforeseen power demand increases of the network and they cannot cover it. But they will still continue to produce power during the "dead hours" of the network. How this excess energy production will be utilised and consumed? In 2002 our basic energy production was 99.6 / 130.6 = 76.4. In developed countries this excess of production is utilized for pumping storage. But we have not still constructed pumping HEPP's.

The assumption that the natural gas is environmentally friendly is only sensorial and psycological; as seen from Table 12 the mean CO2 emission of the natural gas is 60.8 % of the emission of the coal; and the total CO2 equivalent emission is of the order of 92.5 % of that of coal.

Table 12. Comparison of the greenhouse gases emissions of different resources.

Resources	Coal	Fuel	Natural Gas	NG / C	F / C
Mean CO2 emission (kg / GJ)	85,5	69,4	52,0	% 60,8	% 81,2
Total CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emission (kg / GJ)	1,33	0,96	1,23	% 92,5	% 72,2

1 GJ = 278 kWh                     (TÜSİAD, 1998)

On the other hand it was shown in the above discussions that natural gas is not advantageous relative to the hydropower in the electricity production, since one should take into account the total cost (investment + operational), but not only the investment and that's why electricity production from natural gas is not preferred in the world. Indeed the natural gas consumption in the world is as follows (IEA, 2002, p. 6 and 25):

• In electrical energy production: 2677 TWh = 219 Mtep;
• As a primary energy resource: 21.1 % ==> 9963 x 0.211 = 2102 Mtep

so that only 219/2102 = 10.4 % of the consumed natural gas is used for electricity production, while in our country the contribution of the natural gas to electricity production is (DSİ, 2003)

• In 2000: 46.2 TWh / 124.9 TWh = 37.0 %;
• In 2001: 50.6 TWh / 123.4 TWh = 41.0 %;
• and in 2002 it would be 11 billion m3 / 16 billion m3 = 68,75 % (Table 13).

In Tables 13, 14 and 15 "The sectorial distribution of natural gas in Turkey", "The contribution of the natural gas to the total electrical energy in the world among the highest electrical energy consumer countries" and "The distribution in the world of the different energy resources between sectors" are given respectively.

Table 13.The sectorial distribution of natural gas in Turkey (million m3/year; Milliyet, 30.12.2002)

Electricity	Domestic	Industry	Agriculture	Total
10 994	3 341	1 571	121	16 027

Table 14. The contribution of the natural gas to the total electrical energy in the world among the highest electrical energy consumer countries (IEA, 2002).

COUNTRY	STWh	DG(TWh)	DG / STWh	Notice
Russia	876	370	% 42,2	Producer and exporter
England	372	147	% 39,5	Producer and exporter
Japan	1 082	239	% 22,1	Importer
USA	4 004	630	% 15,7	Producer, but needs also importation
Germany	567	53	% 9,3	Importer

PS. Although Norway is the 4th natural gaz exporter of the world (50,5 Gm3/year), its electrical energy is 99,5 % hydroelectrical.

Table 15. The distribution in the world of different energy resources between sectors (IEA, 2002, p.35)
(1 Mtep=12,2188 TWh; "Others" means "Agriculture, Domestic, Public etc..")

	Total(Mtep)	Industry	Transportation	Others
Electrical	1089	% 42,2	% 1,8	% 56,0
Gas	1115	% 44,0	% 4,8	% 41,0
Fuel	2950	% 20,1	% 57,7	% 22,2
Coal	546	% 75,3	% 1,1	% 23,6

From Table 15 it is seen that the world utilizes the electrical energy only of the order of 42.2 % for industry, while our industry utilizes 57.4 % electricity (TÜSİAD, 1998), which means that the productions of our industry is highly dependent on the electricity prices. On the other hand we have seen that the mean percentage of the natural gas utilized in the world for electricity production is 10.4 %, while in Turkey it is very high. The result is that our industryial products will be very expensive compared with other countries, i.e. they will have big difficulties in competition in export, which is very crucial for our country. In Table 16, the unit prices of electricity for industry, for domestic use and their ratio in 31 countries is given (IEA, 2002). From its evaluation the following conclusions can readily be made:

Table 16. Electrical energy prices furnished for domestic use and to the industry in 31 countries of the world and their ratios (IEA, 2002).

Ülke	Endüstri Elektriği (cent/kWh)	Ülke	Konut Elektriği (cent/kWh)	Ülke	Konut / Endüstri
Japan	14,26	Japan	21,44	Denmark	3,271
italy	9,30	Denmark	19,53	Sweden	3,000
Austria	9,21	Germany	16,66	Fransa	2,841
Türkiye	8,05	Netherlands	16,10	Netherlands	2,800
İndia	8,01	Spain	14,33	Belgium	2,774
Germany	7,90	italy	13,42	New Zealand	2,616
Switzerland	7,09	Belgium	13,23	Spain	2,568
Portugal	6,59	Austria	12,14	Güney Afrika	2,320
Denmark	5,97	Portugal	11,77	Norway	2,137
Netherlands	5,75	Switzerland	11,12	Germany	2,109
Australia	5,64	Sweden	10,26	İreland	2,071
Spain	5,58	Fransa	10,17	England	2,036
Korea	5,51	England	10,10	Finland	2,003
Hungary	5,21	Luxembourg	9,77	USA	1,991
England	4,96	İreland	9,57	Greece	1,798
Belgium	4,77	USA	8,50	Portugal	1,786
Poland	4,76	Türkiye	8,49	Poland	1,752
Mexico	4,75	Poland	8,34	Mexico	1,638
Czech Republic	4,68	Australia	8,01	Switzerland	1,568
İreland	4,62	Finland	7,89	Kanada	1,557
Slovak Republic	4,35	Mexico	7,78	Japan	1,504
Greece	4,31	Greece	7,75	Slovak Republic	1,444
USA	4,27	Norway	7,18	italy	1,443
Finland	3,94	Hungary	6,98	Australia	1,420
Kanada	3,86	Korea	6,68	Hungary	1,340
Fransa	3,58	Slovak Republic	6,28	Austria	1,318
Sweden	3,42	Czech Republic	6,11	Czech Republic	1,306
Norway	3,36	Kanada	6,01	Korea	1,212
New Zealand	2,16	New Zealand	5,65	Türkiye	1,055
Güney Afrika	1,72	Güney Afrika	3,99	İndia	0,422 ( ? )
Luxembourg	?	İndia	3,38	Luxembourg	?

• The ratio for India seems to be doubtful and should be thought that it is the result of the very specific conditions of this country;
• It is seen that the electricity prices for industry is relatively high in our country compared with other countries. Indeed with the exception of Turkey and India, one obtains as a mean value

Domestic / Industry = 1,987 0,114 = ( 1,873 2,101) = 2 (Approxiamately) ( ! )

The above given discussions readily show that energy planning should not be for short term ( 5 years), and should at least be for 8 - 10 years ( In a brochure distributed by SHELL, it is indicated that at 1970's they began to prepare their plan for 2050's ( ! )). Otherwise when it is remarked that some energy shortage will occur, quick but unfeasible solutions are adopted. But I think that The Ministery of Energy and DPT (State Planning Organisation) should also change their minds. Figures 7 and 8 show the approach of both Administrations in 1998 and it is readily seen that our energy policy will be based on importation instead of the use of our green, renewable energies. According to TÜSİAD (1998), the Ministery of Energy thinks that an importation of "500 billion dollars" will be spent only for energy importation till 2025.

 

Figure 7. Our electrical energy demand forecast for the period 2001-2006 and foreseen resources for its recovery (Türkiye Enerji yıllığı 2002, ESM Enerji).

Figure 8. Variation of our energy demand and of the energy import programme according to the planning of the Ministery of Energy (TÜSİAD, 1998).

I want to close with a speech of the new Minister of Energy Dr. Hilmi GÜLER (Petro.Gaz, January 2003, p. 8):

"In energy we depend 65 % on foreign countries. This dependence will be of the order of 80 % in 2020's".

"Our dependence on foreign for energy countries will be a problem of our security"

"11 billion m3 of the imported 16 billion naturalgas is used for electricity production and 22-23 % of the produced energy is lost in transmission lines. This is not a sound trend. Turkey has its own resources. We use only 35 % of our hydraulic potential. Every year we transfer an energy of 3-5 billion dollars to the seas. Unfortunately due to a wrong energy policy or due to its total inexistence we can't use our water resources.

"In our period we will give to the water the same value as fuel"

--------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

• BAKIR N. (2001), "Türkiye'nin Ekonomik Hidroelektrik Potansiyeli Ne Kadar?", Dünya Enerji Dergisi, December, volume: 12, an interview with Mr. Nadi Bakır.
• COŞKUN A. (2002), "Türkiye Enerji Forumu", December 11-13, Palace of Çırağan, the opening speech.
• DSİ (2002), Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, agenda of 2002.
• DSİ (2003), Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, agenda of 2003.
• ERE (2001), "Türkiye'nin Hidroelektrik Potansiyelinin Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi", Technical Report.
• EŞİYOK G. (2002), "Enerjide 2001 Yılının Kadını: Gül Eşiyok", Dünya-Enerji, January 2002, p. 34-35.
• GINOCCHIO R. (1959), "Aménagements Hydroélectriques", Eyrolles, Paris. p. 62.
• GÜLER H. (2002), "Türkiye Enerji Forumu", 11-13 Aralık, Palace of Çırağan, the opening speech.
• GÜLER H. (2003), "2002 Değerlendirmeleri - 2003 Beklentileri", PetroGaz Journal, p. 8.
• ILGAZ C. İTÜ deki "Hidroelektrik Tesisler" lecture readings.
• IEA (2001, 2002), International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics from the IEA.
• MOSONYİ E. (1966), "Wasserkraftwerke", Cilt II, s. 95. This book has also English version. Verlag des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure, Düsseldorf.
• KÖYMEN R. (2002), Panel: "Türkiyede Yeni ve Yenilenebilir Enerji Santralları", Dünya-Enerji, April.
• ÖZİŞ Ü. (1991), "Su Kuvveti Tesislerinin Planlama Esasları", University of Dokuz Eylül, published by the Faculty of Engineering - Architecture , vol: 197.
• SCHLEIERMACHER E. (1963), "Su Kuvvetleri Tesisleri, İnşaat ve Proje Esasları", published by Istanbul Technical University, vol:702.
• SCHNITTER H. (1966), "Wasserkraftanlagen" lecture readings, ETH.
• SHELL (2001), "Exploring the future: Energy needs, Choices and Possibilities; Scenarios to 2050", Shell International Limited.
• TÜRKİYE ENERJİ SEKTÖRÜ YILLIĞI (2002), "Enerji" Journal; Uzman Publishing, p. 32-33. ISSN 1301-1790.
• TÜSİAD (1998), "21. Yüzyıla Girerken Türkiye'nin Enerji Stratejisinin Değerlendirilmesi", Vol: TÜSİAD-T/98-12/239, December.
• ÜLTANIR M. Ö. (2001), "Türkiyenin Hidroelektrik Potansiyeli Ne Kadar?", Dünya-Enerji, December 2001. an interview with Mr. Nadi Bakır .
• ÜLTANIR M. Ö. (2002), "Boşa Akan Su: Suçatı HES", Dünya-Enerji, December p. 50-53.
• ÜNSAL İ. (1980), "Su Kuvvetleri", published by Elazığ State Academy of Engineering and Architecture, vol: 29. p. 22.
• ÜNSAL İ. (2002), "Temiz Enerji ve Ekonomik Yapılabilirlik", IV. Symposium on National Renewable Energy, İstanbul 16-18 October, Vol. I, p. 117. Published by The Water Foundation.
• YILDIRIM G. (2002), "Berke barajı açıldı", Dünya-Enerji, April, p. 49.