انرژی هسته ای در بازارهای انرژی آزاد: یک مطالعه موردی از ترکیه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|15186||2007||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Energy Policy, Volume 35, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages 3061–3073
For many decades, like many developed countries, Turkey has controlled her electricity sector as a state-owned monopoly. However, faced with rapid electricity demand growth, Turkey started to consider nuclear option. The present paper aims at evaluating both the present status of nuclear power in general and its implications for Turkish energy market in particular. After examining existing nuclear power technology and providing a brief overview of nuclear power economics; it focuses on the repercussions of nuclear power for Turkish energy market. The paper concludes that, in the short run, it may be considered to keep nuclear power within Turkish energy mix because it is an important carbon-free source of power that can potentially make a significant contribution to both Turkey's future electricity supply and efforts to strengthen Turkey's security of supply. However, in the long term, nuclear power should be retained in Turkey only if it has a lower cost than competing technologies.
The Republic of Turkey (thereafter Turkey) is located between Europe1 and Asia, bordering the Mediterranean, Aegean and Black Seas. Turkish economy, the world's 16th largest economy, is a dynamic and emerging one (Ozturk et al., 2005). In 2004, Gross National Product (GNP) was realized as 269 billion USD, which corresponds to 3750 USD per capita. In 2004, annual GDP growth rate was 8.9%. Population of Turkey is about 71.7 million and the population growth rate is 1.4% (World Bank, 2006). The economy has undergone a significant shift away from agriculture towards the industrial and especially the services sector in the last three decades, although 29% of the active population is still employed in agriculture (Turkstat, 2006). The net effect of all these factors is that Turkey's energy demand has grown rapidly almost every year and is expected to continue growing. With an average final electricity consumption growth rate of 8.3% per annum over the 1973–2002 period, Turkey is among the fastest growing energy markets in the world2 (IEA, 2004, p. II.624). The government expects demand growth to accelerate in the coming decades with an average annual growth rate between 6.3% and 8.4% (see Table 1).3 In short, it is obvious that electricity consumption in Turkey is growing very rapidly. To cope with the expected increase in electricity consumption, there exist some options, among which one of the most controversial is nuclear. Stimulated by the urgency of the Second World War, nuclear science progressed rapidly from the discovery of the neutron by Sir James Chadwick in 1932. The first controlled chain reaction took place in 1943, the first atomic weapon was developed in 1945, and in 1951 electricity is produced using nuclear energy for the first time. Following its first application for generating electricity in the USA, nuclear energy began to be applied to the production of electricity in the UK (1953), Russia (1954), France (1956), and Germany (1961); that is, five countries within the first decade. Ten more countries began nuclear-based generation in the 1960s followed by another ten in the 1970s. The oil crisis of the early 1970s provoked a surge in nuclear power plant (NPP) orders and construction. Later that decade, the world economic slowdown combined with the declining price of fossil fuels curtailed the growth of nuclear energy demand. As this took effect, two accidents, at Three Mile Island in the USA (1979) and at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union (1986), raised serious questions in the public mind about nuclear safety. The overall effect was a significant slowing of nuclear energy's growth in the 1990s. Nevertheless, some countries continued to push ahead strongly with reactor construction, thus contributing to small increases in nuclear electricity production (OECD, 2003). Today, there are 441 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, with an additional 35 under construction. Nuclear power provides about 17% of the world's electricity (Duffy, 2004). To put it shortly, the 50-year history of commercial nuclear power has been punctuated by dramatic policy changes. The first 20 years, marked by limited public participation, tight government control, and promises of clean, abundant energy, were followed by a period of intense social and political conflict over the technology's environmental and safety implications. Nuclear policy in the USA and most European nations shifted from all-out support to a more ambivalent posture, which led to a dramatic slowdown in the construction of new plants. For many decades, like many developed countries, Turkey has controlled her electricity sector as a state-owned monopoly. However, faced with rapid electricity demand growth, Turkey started to consider nuclear option.4 The present paper aims at evaluating both the present status of nuclear power in general (including existing nuclear technology, nuclear power economics and current status of nuclear power in the world) and its implications for Turkish energy market in particular. Section 2 provides a brief overview of nuclear power economics. Section 3 not only sets out the development and current context of nuclear power in the world but also focuses on its repercussions for the open energy markets. Section 4 considers both the historical background and current status of nuclear power in Turkey. Energy policymakers and others whose main interest is in nuclear-related policy matters may wish to concentrate on the final part.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Having reviewed the technical and economic aspects of nuclear power both in the world and in Turkey, let me list some policy guidelines for energy policymakers or for anyone with an interest in nuclear-related policy matters. First of all, all necessary steps should be taken to create a platform in which everyone with a nuclear interest may express his/her ideas with a view to reaching a consensus. That is, nuclear power-development process should not rely upon purely administrative decisions, taken without public debate. Otherwise, its destiny may turn out to be that of general energy market reform process in Turkey,22 which is “uncertainty” and “deadlock”. Second, so far, Turkey has deeply experienced the tragic effects of public investments or private investments with treasury guarantees in energy sector. Therefore, the planned NPPs should be owned and operated by private investors without treasury guarantees23. Also, private ownership of NPPs (with 5000 MW installed capacity) will contribute to the development of competitive electricity market by increasing the share of IPPs in installed capacity from 2.1% to 13.8%. On the other hand, if the planned NPPs are operated by state-owned EUAS, the share of government in installed capacity will increase to 60%, meaning effectively the end of energy market liberalization process in Turkey. Third, Turkey should create a sound legal framework for the use of nuclear power. She should clarify the role of nuclear power in the future in terms of economic competitiveness. Fourth, Turkish policymakers should aim at ensuring that the full, unsubsidized costs of all forms of power generation (including nuclear) are borne by generators. To the extent possible, policymakers should make sure that the full costs and benefits of environmental protection are reflected through all stages of fuel production, power generation and waste disposal, ideally through market-pricing mechanisms. On the other hand, they should recognize the various effects of externalities (environmental considerations, security of supply and so on) from power generation and aim to establish procedures that would facilitate their appropriate inclusion in decision-making mechanisms. Particular attention should be devoted to evaluation of the potential energy security and environmental characteristics of nuclear power. If the market mechanism fails to include the value of positive externalities in the price signals, the government may consider providing financial support to nuclear industry. However, the support should not affect price structure and be only in the form of direct cash refunds on clearly defined bases per kWh produced, in line with estimated value of externalities. Fifth, a fully independent nuclear energy regulator should be created to provide licences, approve suitable sites and technologies for NPPs, inspect all technical issues related to NPPs, and update nuclear legislation in these aspects. In this context, TAEK may be restructured by dividing it into two bodies, one which will continue nuclear energy R&D and another which will form an independent nuclear energy regulator. In terms of economic regulation, the EMRA should be responsible for the economic regulation of NPPs. The quality of the persons in the position of regulators (that is, the members of the Energy Market Regulatory Board and nuclear energy regulatory board) and their staff is a critical issue as it is important for the credibility of EMRA and nuclear energy regulator that not only the members of their board but also their staff are highly qualified, which requires strict merit selection and performance management. Also, it is better to keep in mind that maintaining a stable regulatory and political environment is the key to success in nuclear regulation. Sixth, competitive markets require clear definition and quantification of all liabilities associated with nuclear power. Therefore, responsibilities for nuclear waste management and disposal, including funding, should be clearly defined from the outset of launching a nuclear power project. Two funds, namely “radioactive waste fund” and “decommissioning fund”, need to be created for waste disposal and the eventual decommissioning of the NPPs, and both of them should be managed by private parties that are expert in fund management business, not by bureaucrats. Seventh, decisions about new NPPs are likely to be strongly influenced by public opinion and political will. The lack of public acceptance undermines future possibilities for NPPs. Improving the public's technical understanding of nuclear risks and enhancing their ability to weigh them against other risks is the key to improving public support for nuclear power. However, portraying the possible environmental or health effects of accidents as “zero” or as known with certainty to be negligible is not convincing and erodes credibility. It should be kept in mind that openness is an essential ingredient to foster public trust in nuclear power. Therefore, Turkey should eliminate its “culture of secrecy”. Public confidence also requires trust in the involved institutions, both in the regulator and the regulated. This, in turn, also requires transparency and pro-active communication. Eight, given current situation24, it seems that Turkey will continue to be a “technology taker” for the foreseeable future. Therefore, R&D efforts need to focus on the acquisition and adaptation of the best available technology to suit the particular Turkish circumstances. Finally, Turkey should separate civilian nuclear power production from military issues to the maximum extent possible and strengthen safeguards to prevent misuse of civilian nuclear materials, especially in the form of the production of military materials. In conclusion, despite its maturity, widespread usage and steady progress, compared with other energy sources, nuclear energy has a level of public concern that makes it unique among energy sources. Many factors contribute to this, including its military origins and potential to be applied to weapons purposes, technical complexity, the long-term implications of nuclear waste, its complicated safety, legal and insurance requirements, the consequences associated with potential accidents, the health effects of exposure to radiation and the large-scale investments required for its exploitation. Understanding these issues is vital for any evaluation of nuclear power. I believe the nuclear option should be retained, precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power that can potentially make a significant contribution not only to future electricity supply but also to efforts to strengthen Turkey's security of supply. However, no single technology has a clear economic advantage in all countries and specific circumstances within Turkey will determine the most economic choices. Therefore, in the long run, nuclear power should be retained in Turkey only if it has a lower cost than competing technologies. This is especially critical as electricity market in Turkey becomes progressively less subject to economic regulation.