ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

An Analytical Network Process (ANP) evaluation of alternative fuels

for electricity generation in Turkey
- iğdem Könea, Tayfun Bükeb,
Aylin C
a
Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Muğla University, 48000 Muğla, Turkey
b
Department of Physics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Muğla University, 48000 Muğla, Turkey
Available online 27 June 2007

Abstract

In this paper, we present an Analytical Network Process (ANP) model to determine the best fuel mix for electricity generation in
Turkey from a sustainable development perspective. The proposed model is implemented in two alternative scenarios. These scenarios
are structured along the lines of classification between weak and strong sustainability, and therefore reflect two basic dimensions of
sustainability of energy production—environmental protection and sustainable supply of energy resources. The results of the study
indicate the gap between goals of sustainable development and energy policies of Turkey in terms of energy security and environmental
degradation. Under all alternative scenarios of our model, the highest value alternative is hydropower—domestic, renewable source—
while the Turkish electricity sector mainly relies on imported natural gas. The share of nuclear energy is in the range of 8.12–10.21% in
our model results, although nuclear energy is not available yet. The calculated percentages of renewable fuels (biomass, geothermal,
wind, solar) are 35.7% and 28.9% for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively, while the total percentage of these fuels is 0.18% of the
installed capacity of Turkey. The results of our model suggest that the share of renewable fuels in installed capacity should be increased
to achieve sustainable development.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Analytical Network Process; Electricity generation; Sustainable development

1. Introduction gated into every dimension of the development process

Since the 1970s, rising concern for global environmental
degradation have led to wide acceptance of sustainable
development concept. Following its initial popularization,
the concept of the sustainability has appeared in a wide
range of forms in recent literature. Although different
authors have given it a variety of meanings, sustainable
development is best defined as meeting the needs of the
present generation without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs (World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED),
1987). In this context, sustainability is used to characterize
the desired balance between economic growth and envir-
onmental preservation (Todaro and Smith, 2006).
Although the initial emphasis was on environmental
sustainability, sustainable development can be disaggre-
Corresponding author. Tel.:+90 252 211 1593; fax: +90 252 223 8656.
E-mail address: tbuke@mu.edu.tr (T. Büke).
owing to its multifaceted nature. Energy is one of the main
factors that must be considered in the discussions of
sustainable development. The concept of sustainability
usually deals with the supply side of energy systems, while
some authors give more emphasis on energy consumption
(Ediger et al., 2007).
Sustainability of energy production has two basic
dimensions—environmental protection and sustainable
supply of energy resources that, in the long term, is
reliable, adequate and affordable. Therefore, the overall
objectives of energy-related policies should ensure suffi-
cient, reliable and affordable energy supplies to support
economic and social development, while protecting the
environment. For that reason, decision-makers must often
make choices between current and future conflicting goals
of sustainable development—such as environmental de-
gradation and energy security.
When choosing energy fuels, it is essential to take into
account economic, social and environmental consequences.

0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
- . Köne, T. Büke / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228
A.C
In the past, environmental impacts of energy resources
were ignored or not foreseen, while energy policies focused
on adequate supply of energy to assure high rates of
economic growth. Today, besides the economic issues,
particular importance is assigned to environmental factors
associated with the choice of energy sources.
The design of policies for addressing environmental
damages from fuel use at the local, regional and global
levels is a critical challenge for developing countries. The
experience of industrial countries may not be fully
applicable because those countries essentially addressed
the impacts of fossil fuels in sequence (Lvovsky et al.,
2000). By contrast, developing countries today face the
need to control emissions at a time when global impacts
can no longer be ignored. Thus, governments of developing
countries are urged to reconsider their energy mix.
Turkey, like other developing countries, also faces
significant energy and environment policy challenges.
Turkey’s energy production and consumption figures have
grown rapidly along with its fast-growing economy in
recent years. As a developing economy, Turkey has not yet
achieved stability in its energy utilization and gaseous
emissions either as a ratio to its GDP or at a per capita
level (Telli et al., 2006). Per capita consumption of
electricity rose from 995 to 1591 KWh with an increase of
60% during the period 1993–2003 (TURKSTAT, 2005).
Although Turkey currently has the lowest CO2 emissions
from fuel combustion per capita among the OECD
countries, its emissions are increasing at a fast rate. For
instance, between 1993 and 2003, total CO2 emissions
increased by 42.2% and reached 202.9 million tonnes
(OECD, 2005).
Turkey has not been established as an official target for
emission reductions, and has not been a participant in the
Kyoto Protocol. Although Turkey is not yet a member of
the European Union, as a part of accession negotiations
with the EU, it will likely be under significant pressure to
introduce emission targets and environmental abatement
policies. Given tightening environmental regulations,
determination of the fuel mix for Turkey needs further
analyses.
The objective of this study is to determine the optimum
fuel mix—the best fuel combination—in electricity genera-
tion in Turkey, according to the criteria of sustainable
development. To solve this complex decision-making
problem, an Analytical Network Process (ANP) model is
proposed. ANP has a systematic approach to set priorities
and trade-offs among goals and criteria, and also can
measure all tangible and intangible criteria in the model.
Here, we used statistical data, when data exist. Moreover,
we include experts’ evaluations, since judgmental variables
play a role in the decision-making process. The flexible
characteristic of ANP provides a structure to combine
quantitative and qualitative variables.
The rest of the study is organized as follows. Section 2
introduces the key electricity generation and environmental
indicators of Turkey. Section 3 describes the general
5221
structure of ANP, while Section 4 deals with building the
proposed ANP model. In Section 4, components of the
model and relationships among them are given in detail.
Then, the analysis is performed by Super Decisions
software. Finally, Section 5 gathers the main conclusions
derived from this paper.
2. Key electricity generation and environmental indicators of
Turkey
As is common to relatively fast-growing economies,
Turkey now confronts the challenge of balancing energy
utilization and its environmental impacts. Because of
increased industrialization and increased consumption
demand, Turkish energy intensities are projected to rise.
The general equilibrium of energy use and supply
indicators shows that Turkey is dependent on import
resources very heavily. In 2004, roughly 77% of the total
energy supply was met by imports, and the rest was
domestically produced (Telli et al., 2006).
The rise in energy intensities has clearly exposed the
country’s rapid reliance on electricity production. Gross electri-
city generation was almost doubled from 73 808 GWh in
1993 to 140 580 GWh in 2003 (TURKSTAT, 2005).
Electricity generation and consumption figures of Turkey
between the years 2003 and 2005 are given in Table 1.
Although Turkey’s electricity consumption increased from
141 151 GWh in 2003 to 161 300 GWh in 2005, per capita
electricity consumption is still low compared with the
average of OECD countries (OECD, 2005). These data
indicate that Turkey has not yet stabilized its electricity
demand, and that pressures of an emerging economy will
continue to be felt.
Turkey is not in a very fortunate situation with regard to
energy sources. Furthermore, when the energy usage types
are examined from a historical perspective, it is seen that
Turkey could not exactly set the model of sustainable
development on a strong basis. Turkey’s total electricity
production was 23 275 GWh in 1980. The distribution of
the produced electricity energy according to primary
energy sources was as follows: hard coal 3.9%, lignite
21.7%, petroleum 25.1% and hydraulic 48% (Yılmaz and
Uslu, 2007). Since the 1980s, a significant change has taken
place in terms of fuel mix. Imported natural gas joined the
primary energy sources in 1985, and its share in the
electricity production began to increase rapidly.
Table 1
Electricity generation and consumption in Turkey (GWh) (SPO, 2005,
2006)
Data 2003 2004 2005
Production 140 580 150 698 162 500
Imports 1158 464 590
Exports 587 1144 1790
Consumption 141 151 150 018 161 300
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
5222 - . Köne, T. Büke / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228
A.C

Table 2 context, it is required to strengthen environmental efforts

Installed capacity in Turkey (MW) (TETC/RPCD, 2005, 2006; SPO, 2005, although current emissions and discharges per capita
2006)
remain low compared with the OECD per capita averages.
Fuel type 2003 2004 2005 Turkey displays mid-score in its emissions coefficients in
comparison to the OECD averages. By 2003, with per
Natural gas 11 975 13 252 14 199 capita CO2 emissions of 2.87 tonnes, Turkey lies signifi-
Hydropower 12 578 12 645 12 906
cantly below the OECD average of 11.08 tonnes (OECD,
Coal 8239 8296 9117
Oil 2733 2569 2527 2005). According to data, the significant share of CO2
Biomass 28 28 28 emissions originate from electricity production. By 2020,
Geothermal 15 15 23 the share of electricity production is expected to reach
Wind 19 19 20 around a third of the total (Telli et al., 2006).
Nuclear n-a n-a n-a
Total 35 587 36 824 38 820 3. The general structure of ANP
n-a: not applicable.
The ANP was first introduced by Saaty to provide a
framework for dealing with decision-making problems.
Table 3 Since the introduction, it has been applied to a large variety
Electricity generation in Turkey (GWh) (SPO, 2005, 2006) of decision-making and forecasting problems.
Fuel type 2003 2004 2005
The ANP is a general form of the well-known decision
theory, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Similar to the
Natural gas 63 536 62 242 72 700 AHP, the ANP is based on deriving ratio-scale measure-
Hydropower 35 329 46 084 40 800 ment to be used to allocate resources according to their
Coal 32 253 34 447 40 700
ratio-scale priorities. Whereas AHP models assume a
Oil 9196 7670 8000
Biomass 116 104 150 unidirectional hierarchical relationship among decision
Geothermal 89 93 90 levels, ANP does not require this strictly hierarchical
Wind 61 58 60 structure and allows for more complex inter-relationships
Total 140 580 150 698 162 500 among the decision levels. ANP generalizes the pairwise
comparison process, so that decision models can be built as
complex networks of decision objectives, criteria, stake-
Today, electricity generation in Turkey is based on holders, alternatives, scenarios and other environmental
hydropower and fossil fuels. Tables 2 and 3 show the factors that all influence one another’s priorities. The key
development of installed capacity and electricity genera- concept of the ANP is that influence does not necessarily
tion, respectively, by fuel type between 2003 and 2005. have to flow only downwards, as is the case with the
Over the mentioned period, the installed capacity of power hierarchy in the AHP. Influence can flow between any two
plants reached 38 820 MW, while total electricity genera- factors in the network causing non-linear results of
tion was 162 500 GWh. priorities of alternative choices.
Tables 2 and 3 also reflect the increasing reliance on The ANP can be described as a system of N components
natural gas in the power sector. The share of natural gas (which may be part of a cluster of components) that form a
power plants in installed capacity has increased steadily network, where every component (Cn) can interact with or
during the period and stood at about 37% in 2005. Like- have an influence on itself or some or all of the other
wise, natural gas had the largest share in gross electricity components of the system. The network, N, equals {Ca, Cb,
output and accounted for 44.74% in 2005. It was followed Cc,y, Cn} and {{Ca, Ca},{Ca, Cb},{Ca, Cc},y,{Cn, Cn}}
by hydropower at 25.11% and coal—combination of represents the set of pairwise linkage within or between
lignite and hard coal—at 25.05%. As the electricity components of the network. This multicriteria decision-
production based on indigenous resources, such as lignite making model derives priorities or weights for each of the
and hydraulic, was diminishing, natural gas began to ‘‘n’’ criteria or components, Cn, of the model based on their
replace them. The share of non-hydro renewables has been judged relative importance to the overall goal. The
increasing, but was still negligible in 2005 (see Table 3). derivation of the ANP priority weights, which use pairwise
In recent years, Turkey has experienced increasing assessment based on statistical or judgmental relevance, is
environmental pressures, on account of rapid growth in quite different from more traditional methods (Niemira
energy and industry. Turkey is not yet a member of the and Saaty, 2004).
European Union, but has formally been accepted as an The ANP framework is based on the following basic
applicant to join the EU. In preparation for EU accession, definitions and axioms:
Turkey will be expected to revise its existing environmental
policies and regulations according to the goals and funda- (a) A priority or weight, which is an absolute number,
mental principles of the EU’s Fifth Environmental Action belongs to the closed interval [0, 1] and is a measure of
Program, ‘‘Towards Sustainable Development’’. In this relative dominance.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
- . Köne, T. Büke / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228
A.C 5223

(b) A reciprocal condition exists that posits that the subcolumns with its own priority element, which must be
ratio comparison between components is possible such normalized and synthesized to account for the overall
that an evaluation of the pairwise couplet (CA, CB) components’ influence by column. The final priority
equals 1/(CB, CA). weights—which account for element interactions—are
(c) Homogeneity exists, which is the motivation for the 1–9 derived by multiplying the supermatrix by itself until the
evaluation scale, wherein the upper limit 9 is due to the columns stabilize, which occurs when the supermatrix
requirement of homogeneity to maintain the stability of entries become identical across each row or cycle in blocks,
the eigenvector to perturbation from consistency, and in which case one uses this as the limiting matrix. The final
also due to the requirement that only a small number priority weights are extracted from this limiting matrix.
of elements that are of close importance should be
compared (an eigenvector with a small number of
components considered). 4. Building the ANP fuel selection model
(d) A dependence condition is assumed that the system can
be decomposed into component parts. Both the scale Here, we attempt to apply the ANP to the Turkish
and the number of elements compared can be extended electricity sector. Our objective is to demonstrate that an
indefinitely. This is done by creating clusters with a ANP model structure can be used to determine the best fuel
small number of homogeneous elements in each, using mix in the electricity production of Turkey. The control
a pivot element from one cluster to the next (the largest hierarchy, in our model, is diagrammed in Fig. 1.
in one as the smallest in the other), applying the scale At the top of the control hierarchy, there exists the goal
1–9 to compare the elements in each, dividing by the of the problem. The goal is to determine the best strategic
priority of the pivot in the second cluster, and decision—namely, the best fuel mix in the electricity
multiplying the resulting priorities by the priority of production of Turkey. The top-level network is connected
the pivot in the first cluster and then combining the two to benefits, opportunities, costs and risks (BCOR) subnet-
clusters. works. BCOR subnetworks have equal importance in the
goal. These subnetworks consist of a network of interac-
The ANP incorporates component dependence and tions among the clusters of the alternatives and the criteria
feedback by using a supermatrix approach. A supermatrix, as presented in Figs. 2–5.
W, is a complete system matrix of components, {Ca, Cb, Two types of connections between nodes contained in
Cc,y, Cn}, and their linkages or system weights, Wij, where clusters in each subnetwork are represented in figures, as
Ci ¼ {ei1, ei2, y, ein} denotes the subcomponent elements one-way and two-way dependences. If there is one-way
of the criterion component ‘‘i’’. ANP allows interaction dependence between the two clusters, it is represented with
and feedback within clusters, Ci, which is known as inner
dependence, and between clusters, which is known as outer
dependence. The general matrix form of the ANP interac-
Best Fuel Mix
tion is given as follows:
Ca Cb  Cn
2 3
Ca W aa ; W ab  W an Benefits Costs Opportunities Risks
6 7 Subnetwork Subnetwork Subnetwork Subnetwork
Cb 6 W ba ; W bb  W bn 7
6 7
W ¼ .. 6 .. .. .. .. 7. (1)
. 6. . . . 7
6 7 Fig. 1. The network of the proposed ANP model.
.. 6. .. .. .. 7
. 6 .. . . . 7
4 5
Cn W na ; W nb  W nn

If there is no linkage between, say, components Cb

and Cc, then Wbc would be 0. However, if there is some Benefits Alternatives
relationship, then the entry would be nonzero, suggesting Criteria
1. Natural Gas
an outer dependence. An inner dependence would exist if Benefits
Subnetwork 1. Environment 2. Hydropower
there is a linkage within the components of a cluster, {ei1, 2. Technology 3. Coal
ei2, y, ein}. 3. Energy security 4. Oil
5. Nuclear
The supermatrix represents the impact of all model
6. Biomass
elements relative to the complete element set. The actual 7. Geothermal
elements that make up the columns (Wij) of the super- 8. Wind
matrix are the eigenvector solutions within the components 9. Solar
(such that each column sums to one). However, each
column of the supermatrix itself may include several Fig. 2. Benefits subnetwork.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
5224 - . Köne, T. Büke / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228
A.C

4.1. Subnetwork elements for control criteria

Cost Alternatives
Criteria Our ANP model’s determinants are directly specified
1. Natural Gas
Costs 2. Hydropower using quantitative and qualitative variables. There are four
Subnetwork 1. Total cost 3. Coal quantitative subnetwork elements (environment, total cost,
4. Oil energy security and health hazards), while the last element
5. Nuclear
6. Biomass (technology) is expressed in a qualitative way. Quantitative
7. Geothermal subnetwork elements and data related to them are as
8. Wind follows.
9. Solar

4.1.1. Environment
Fig. 3. Costs subnetwork. During the last 20 years, half of all increases in energy-
related CO2 emissions were from electricity generation
(Rashad and Hammad, 2000). In fact, no power source is
entirely impact-free. All energy sources require energy and
Opportunity Alternatives give rise to some degree of pollution from manufacture of
Criteria the technology. The environmental impacts can depend
1. Natural Gas
Opportunities 1. Environment 2. Hydropower greatly on how energy is produced and used, the fuel mix,
Subnetwork 2. Technology 3. Coal the structure of the energy systems and related energy
3. Energy security 4. Oil regulatory actions and pricing structures.
5. Nuclear
In the case of organic fuel, the largest emissions occur
6. Biomass
7. Geothermal during their burning in the power plants. In developing
8. Wind countries the emissions are very high, and even in
9. Solar developed countries the emissions from already built power
plants are much higher than the limits for new power
Fig. 4. Opportunities subnetwork. plants.
Effective management of available resources and mini-
mization of environmental impact due to consumption of
these resources are essential. That is where life-cycle
assessment is important. The main purpose of life-cycle
Risk Alternatives assessment is to identify the environmental impacts of
Criteria goods and services during their whole life cycle. Therefore,
1. Natural Gas
Risks 1. Environment 2. Hydropower life-cycle assessment can be applied to assess the impact of
Subnetwork 2. Energy security 3. Coal electricity generation on the environment.
3. Health hazards 4. Oil Measured gaseous pollutants emissions for various fuel
5. Nuclear
6. Biomass
types such as CO2, CH4, NOx and SO2 are presented in
7. Geothermal Table 4. The figures shown in Table 4 are based on the life-
8. Wind cycle assessment technique, and indicate gaseous emissions
9. Solar emitted during the whole process.
The smallest environmental loads are due to hydro-
Fig. 5. Risks subnetwork. power, wind, geothermal and nuclear power plants. Among
organic fuels, ecologically the most advantageous one is

directed arrows. The two-way dependences are represented

by bi-directed arrows. The arrow over the cluster of control Table 4
criteria represents a feedback within this cluster. Main gaseous pollutants (g/kWh) (TAEA, 2000; Strupczewski, 2001;
EURELECTRIC, 2003)
The benefits subnetwork includes environment, technol-
ogy and energy security; the costs subnetwork includes Fuel type CO2 CH4 NOx SO2
total cost; the opportunities subnetwork includes environ-
ment, technology and energy security; finally, the risks Natural gas 386 1.076 0.351 0.125
Hydropower 32 0.135 0.056 0.055
subnetwork includes three elements—environment, energy Coal 838 4.716 0.696 0.351
security and health hazards as control clusters (see Oil 760 4.216 0.622 0.314
Figs. 2–5). Every subnetwork contains a cluster with nine Nuclear 17 – 0.047 0.072
fuel types, namely natural gas, hydropower, coal, oil, Biomass, wood burning only – – 0.350 0.087
nuclear, biomass, geothermal, wind and solar alternatives, Geothermal 21 0.059 – –
Wind 38 0.169 0.055 0.071
in it. These different energy resources are selected based on Solar (PV cells) 319 0.883 0.408 0.494
their either present or potential availability.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
- . Köne, T. Büke / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228
A.C 5225

natural gas, although it is behind nuclear power and
hydropower, while coal and oil burning is still the source of
significant environmental pollution. During the operation
of power plants with renewable energy sources such as
photovoltaic (PV) cells, wind or hydropower plants, there
are no emissions and the environmental loads are small.
The main environmental burdens for renewable energies
are due to the balance of life cycle—namely, due to the
material and equipment production and power plant
construction. In order to build a PV power plant, enor-
mous amounts of raw materials are needed; therefore, at
construction stage, they cause much higher pollution of
environment (Strupczewski, 2001).
4.1.2. Total cost
High generating costs are often a serious barrier for
competition between alternative energy sources. A recent
research carried out by the OECD/NEA group (2005)
confirms that electricity generation, which contains invest-
ment, operation and maintenance and fuel cost, varies
from power to power for each fuel type. However, the
optimal scale for electricity generation is at a plant power
of about 700 MW (Künneke, 1999).
Therefore, data given by the OECD/NEA group for
different powers are converted total costs of the electricity
generation at 700 MW plant power. To this aim, curve
fittings are carried out by using the least-squares method.
Table 5 presents the results of calculations.
4.1.3. Energy security
Addressing energy security is one of the major objectives
in the sustainable development criteria of many countries.
Secure energy supplies are essential to maintaining
economic activity and to providing reliable energy services
to the society. Interruptions of energy supply can cause
serious financial and economic losses. To support the goals
of sustainable development, energy must be available at all
times, in sufficient quantities and at affordable prices
(IAEA, 2005).
Diversity, efficiency and flexibility within the energy
sector are basic conditions for longer-term energy security:
the fuels used within and across sectors and the sources of
those fuels should be as diverse as practicable. Non-fossil
fuels, particularly nuclear and hydropower, can make a
substantial contribution to the energy supply diversity.
Turkey has diversified oil import sources. Crude oil was
imported from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Russia,
Syria, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan
and Italy in 2003. Attempts have been made to diversify
natural gas imports, but the share from Russia was 61% in
2003 because many of the recent contracts with other
suppliers have not become active owing to oversupply
concerns. Coal, principally hard coal, is imported from
diversified sources while domestic production, particularly
of lignite, makes a significant contribution to total coal
supply (OECD/IEA, 2005). Primary energy resource
imports of Turkey by fuel type are given Table 6.
4.1.4. Health hazards
In order to have a full picture of risks due to electricity
production, energy sources should be compared according
to the health hazards they cause. The relative hazards to
human health due to various power sources can be
compared using the concept of expected years-of-life lost
(YLL) (Strupczewski, 2001).
The results of such a comparison in terms of expected
YLL due to low-level emissions in the full fuel cycle are
presented in Table 7. Under normal operational condi-
tions, hydroelectricity, wind energy and nuclear power are
the best for human health, coal is connected with much
higher risks, while natural gas and PV systems have
intermediate positions.
It should be kept in mind that the main contribution to
health hazards in the case of wind and nuclear power is due
to the assumption that the electricity needed for power
Table 6
Primary energy resource imports of Turkey (thousand tones) (OECD/
IEA, 2006)
Fuel type 2003 2004 2005
Natural gasa 14 806 15 581 19 123
Oil 24 095 23 918 23 389
a
(million m3) unit converted to (thousand tones) by using the natural
gas density ¼ 0.717 kg/m3.

Table 5
Generation costs calculated at 5% discount rate ($/MWh) (OECD/NEA, Table 7
2005) Loss of expected life due to electricity production (Strupczewski, 2003)

Fuel type Total cost Fuel type YLL/TWh

Natural gas 38.2 Natural gas 46.1

Hydropower/dam 35.5 Hydropower 9.2
Coal/lignite 30.9 Coal 165.5
Oil 58.2 Oil 165.5
Nuclear 26.0 Nuclear 11.9
Waste incineration 21.6 Biomass 45
Geothermal 25.4 Geothermal 34.4
Wind onshore 41.8 Wind 9.5
Solar thermal parabolic 125.8 Solar 74
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
5226 - . Köne, T. Büke / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228
A.C

plant construction is obtained from the country power Table 9

system and involves emissions corresponding to the Pairwise comparison matrix for Environmental element in benefit
subnetwork
average level of emissions in the system. In the case of
wind this assumption is necessary, because wind power Fuel type Nat Hyd Coal Oil Nuc Bio Geo Wind Solar
plants cannot assure continuous electricity production,
necessary for industry. Nat 1 1/3 3 3 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1
Hyd 3 1 5 5 3 1 1 1 3
Under the assumption that coal and oil have similar
Coal 1/3 1/5 1 1 1/3 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/3
health effects, the YLL/TWh value of coal is used for oil in Oil 1/3 1/5 1 1 1/3 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/3
the calculations since oil data are not available. Similarly, Nuc 1 1/3 3 3 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1
the average value of hydropower, wind, solar and biomass Bio 3 1 5 5 3 1 1 1 3
is used for geothermal. Geo 3 1 5 5 3 1 1 1 3
Wind 3 1 5 5 3 1 1 1 3
Solar 1 1/3 3 3 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1
4.2. Analysis

Once the characteristics of the model have been specified,

judgments on the relative importance of those various
factors in the model must be provided. The fundamental
scale for pairwise comparison is given in Table 8. The
process to solve the proposed ANP model is as follows.
By taking into account the 1–9 Saaty scale, Tables 4–7
are used to construct the pairwise comparison matrix of the
alternatives for environment, total cost, energy security
and health hazards elements of all subnetworks. It is
assumed that the CO2, CH4, NOx and SO2 values which are
given in Table 4 have equal importance in environment
scaling. Besides, a nuclear alternative is attributed 20 times
higher value than its table value in pairwise comparisons
since nuclear fuels have radiological pollution besides the
conventional pollution (Martin and Lee, 2003). Pairwise
comparisons of the alternatives for the technology element
in benefits and opportunities subnetworks are performed
through questionnaires in order to take the judgments of
experts. To illustrate the process, pairwise comparisons of
the alternatives for the environment element of the benefits
subnetwork are shown in Table 9.
Pairwise comparisons are used to establish the element
relationships within each cluster; the eigenvalue of the
observable pairwise comparison matrix from the system of
homogeneous linear equations provides the element
weights at this level, which will be used in the supermatrix.
The weighted supermatrix for the benefits subnetwork is
given in Table 10.
Table 8
Numerical ratings associated with pairwise comparison
Intensity of Definition
importance
1 Equally important
3 Moderately important
5 Strongly important
7 Very strongly important
9 Extremely important
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values
Reciprocals of If activity i has one of the above nonzero numbers
above assigned to it when compared with activity j, then j
has the reciprocal value when compared with i.
Finally, the limit matrix is derived by multiplying the
weighted supermatrix of model variables by itself, until the
system’s row values converge to the same value for each
column of the matrix. The limiting matrix provides the
relative importance weights for BOCR subnetworks in the
model. All alternatives in BOCR subnetworks are com-
bined to the top-level network according to the reciprocal
additive formula.
This formula uses un-inverted values for the alternative
values coming up from subnets under benefits and
opportunities and inverted values for those coming up
from costs and risks subnets. The inverted values are
‘‘flipped’’ so that the most costly alternative, for example,
now has the lowest priority. This is accomplished by taking
the inverse of each alternative’s priority. If the priority is
a1, for example, its inverse is 1/a1. Sum these inverses for all
alternatives, and divide each inverse by the sum. Then re-
normalize. This will completely flip the priorities the other
way around, and they will maintain their proportionate
values. Weights for BOCR and the final relative impor-
tance values of the alternatives computed based on the
reciprocal additive formula are given in Table 11.
Super Decisions software v.1.6 was used for the analysis.
All the pairwise comparison matrices were inputted into
this program. The Super Decisions software calculates
inconsistency ratio for every pairwise comparison matrix.
In order for a comparison matrix to be consistent, the
inconsistency ratio must be less than 0.10 (Saaty, 1999,
2001). Since the inconsistency ratios of all pairwise
comparison matrices obtained here were less than 0.10,
all our pairwise comparison matrices were accepted as
consistent.
The model implemented alternative scenarios to contrast
different perspectives of sustainable development. Scenario
1 gives priority to the environmental impacts of fuels
(strong sustainability) while Scenario 2 displays a weak
sustainability approach by giving priority to energy
security. Environmental impact of the resource is more
important than energy security—this is the underlying
assumption of Scenario 1. On the other hand, Scenario 2 is
based on the assumption that the usage of indigenous
resources is as important as environmental impact of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
- . Köne, T. Büke / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228
A.C 5227

Table 10
Weighted supermatrix for benefits subnetwork

Goal 1 Env 2 Tec 3 Ener 1 Nat 2 Hyd 3 Coal 4 Oil 5 Nuc 6 Bio 7 Geo 8 Wind 9 Solar

Goal 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1 Env 0.3333 0.0000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4286 0.5396 0.2098 0.3275 0.5499 0.5816 0.6098 0.4600 0.4126
2 Tec 0.3333 0.1200 0.0000 0.1000 0.1429 0.1634 0.2403 0.2599 0.2403 0.1095 0.1655 0.2211 0.2599
3 Ener 0.3333 0.2800 0.2000 0.0000 0.4286 0.2970 0.5499 0.4126 0.2098 0.3090 0.2247 0.3189 0.3275
1 Nat 0.0000 0.0418 0.1163 0.1579 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2 Hyd 0.0000 0.1095 0.1163 0.1579 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
3 Coal 0.0000 0.0182 0.1163 0.1579 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4 Oil 0.0000 0.0182 0.0380 0.0274 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
5 Nuc 0.0000 0.0418 0.1163 0.0274 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
6 Bio 0.0000 0.1095 0.0105 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
7 Geo 0.000 0.1095 0.0105 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
8 Wind 0.0000 0.1095 0.0380 0.0274 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
9 Solar 0.0000 0.0418 0.0380 0.0274 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Table 11 Table 12
BOCR weights and final relative importance of the alternatives for Fuel shares in installed capacity of Turkey (%)
scenario 1
Fuel type 2005 Scenario 1 strong Scenario 2 weak
Alternatives Benefits Costs Opportunities Risks Additive sustainability sustainability
formula
Natural gas 36.57 14.50 13.76
Natural gas 0.0878 0.0373 0.0878 0.0510 0.1449 Hydropower 33.25 21.14 22.39
Hydropower 0.1066 0.0373 0.1066 0.0116 0.2114 Coal 23.49 13.88 21.74
Coal 0.0812 0.0373 0.0812 0.0471 0.1388 Oil 6.51 4.61 4.10
Oil 0.0232 0.1025 0.0232 0.0871 0.0461 Nuclear – 10.21 9.16
Nuclear 0.0515 0.0373 0.0515 0.0629 0.1021 Biomass 0.07 11.27 8.65
Biomass 0.0356 0.0215 0.0356 0.0489 0.1127
Geothermal 0.06 11.27 8.28
Geothermal 0.0356 0.0215 0.0356 0.0489 0.1127
Wind 0.05 7.68 7.25
Wind 0.0486 0.1025 0.0486 0.0656 0.0768
Solar – 5.44 4.67
Solar 0.0298 0.1025 0.0298 0.0768 0.0544

that it will reopen its nuclear program in order to respond

fuel. The calculated results for the scenarios and also the
fuel shares of Turkey’s installed capacity for the year 2005
are given in Table 12.
Fossil fuels had 66.57% share in the installed capacity of
Turkey, while renewable fuels stood at 33.43% in 2005.
Under all alternative scenarios of our model, the highest
value alternative is hydropower, while oil has the lowest
(see Table 12). Consequently, hydropower is determined as
the best alternative for electricity generation from the
sustainable development perspective.
Calculated shares of natural gas, hydropower and oil are
not differentiated between two scenarios. By contrast, the
percentage of coal in Scenario 2 is 56% higher than in
Scenario 1. This is an acceptable result since coal is a
domestic source. Given that the main concern of Scenario 2
is energy security, the share of coal is significantly higher
than it is in the first scenario. On the other hand, the share
of natural gas in Scenario 2 decreases compared with
Scenario 1. Natural gas has major benefits to the
environment. However, this has come at the expense of
increased dependence on imports for energy supplies.
The share of nuclear energy is in the range of
8.12–10.21% in our model results. Although nuclear
energy is not available yet, Turkey has recently announced
to the growing electricity demand, while avoiding increas-
ing dependence on energy imports.
Currently, renewable fuels, except hydraulic, have only
minor shares in the installed capacity. Contrary to the
present situation, non-hydro renewables have around 30%
share in our model for both scenarios.
5. Conclusions
Following its very wide acceptance, the concept of
sustainable development has come to play a predominant
place in energy policy. In this context, the important
aspects are security of supply, economic viability, social
acceptability and environmental protection. Decision-
makers must often make choices between current and
future conflicting goals of sustainable development—such
as environmental degradation and energy security. While
choosing energy fuels, it is essential to take into account
economic, social and environmental consequences.
In this paper, we presented a multiple criteria decision-
making model to determine the best fuel mix for electricity
generation in Turkey, according to the different perspec-
tives on sustainable development by means of the
Analytical Network Process.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
5228 - . Köne, T. Büke / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5220–5228
A.C
The results of the study indicate the gap between the
goals of sustainable development and energy policies of
Turkey. Sustainable energy can be developed by laying
more emphasis on domestic resources in the energy mix. In
recent years, Turkey has begun to ignore the importance of
energy usage based mainly on domestic sources. By the
2020s, 76.5% of Turkey’s energy consumption will have to
be met by imports (Yılmaz and Uslu, 2007). The reliance
on import resources—particularly on natural gas—to such
an extent threatens the essentials of the sustainable
development model seriously.
The generation mix can be diversified through non-fossil
fuels, particularly nuclear and hydropower. In this context,
construction plans of nuclear power plants should be
realized as soon as possible. The Turkish power industry is
required to systematically increase the share of energy
taken from renewable sources like biomass, geothermal,
wind and solar in the total electricity generation.
Finally, the model developed in this paper gives decision
makers a tool to use in making strategic decisions on
matters related to energy policy. The proposed model
provides quantitative results that can help improve the
decision-making process.
References
Ediger, V.S- ., Hos-gör, E., Sürmeli, A.N., Tatlıdil, H., 2007. Fossil fuel
sustainability index: an application of resource management. Energy
Policy 35 (5), 2969–2977.
EURELECTRIC, 2003. Efficiency in Electricity Generation. Union of the
Electricity Industry-EURELECTRIC, Brussels.
IAEA, 2005. Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines
and Methodologies. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
Künneke, R.W., 1999. Electricity networks: how ‘‘natural’’ is the
monopoly? Utilities Policy 8 (2), 99–108.
Lvovsky, K., Hughes, G., Maddison, D., Ostro, B., Pearce, D., 2000.
Environmental Costs of Fossil Fuels: A Rapid Assessment Method
with Application to Six Cities. The World Bank Environment
Department, Pollution Management Series, Paper No. 78.
Martin, J.E., Lee, C., 2003. Principles of Radiological Health and Safety.
Wiley-Interscience, New Jersey.
Niemira, M.P., Saaty, T.L., 2004. An Analytical Network Process model
for financial-crisis forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting 20
(4), 573–587.
OECD, 2005. OECD in Figures: Statistics on the Member Countries.
OECD Publications, Paris.
OECD/IEA, 2005. Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Turkey 2005
Review. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/
International Energy Agency, Paris.
OECD/IEA, 2006. Oil, Gas, Coal and Electricity Quarterly Statistics.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/Interna-
tional Energy Agency, Paris.
OECD/NEA, 2005. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2005
Update. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/
Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris.
Rashad, S.M., Hammad, F.H., 2000. Nuclear power and the environment:
comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of
electricity-generating systems. Applied Energy 65 (1–4), 211–229.
Saaty, T.L., 1999. Creative Thinking, Problem Solving and Decision
Making. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Saaty, T.L., 2001. The Analytical Network Process: Decision Making with
Dependence and Feedback. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
SPO, 2005. 8. Five-year Development Plan (2001–2005). 2005 Year
Programme. State Planning Organization, Ankara.
SPO, 2006. 2006 Year Programme. State Planning Organization, Ankara.
Strupczewski, A., 2001. Environmental and health impact of the energy
sources. In: International Conference on E. Fermi and Nuclear
Energy. Celebration of 100th Anniversary of Enrico Fermi Birth,
Aula Magna of Pisa University, Italy, /http://www2.ing.unipi.it/
dimnp/fermi2001/paper/Strupczewski.docS.
Strupczewski, A., 2003. Accident risks in nuclear-power plants. Applied
Energy 75 (1–2), 79–86.
TAEA, 2000. Sustainable Development and Nuclear Energy. Turkish
Atomic Energy Authority, Ankara.
- ., Voyvoda, E., Yeldan, E., 2006. Economics of environmental
Telli, C
policy in Turkey: a general equilibrium investigation of the economic
evaluation of sectoral emission reduction policies for climate change.
UNDP-GEF Project Final Report, Ankara.
TETC/RPCD, 2005. 10 years capacity projection of Turkey’s electricity
generation (2005–2014). Turkish Electricity Transmission Company/
Research Planning and Coordination Department, Ankara.
TETC/RPCD, 2006. 10 years capacity projection of Turkey’s electricity
generation (2006–2015). Turkish Electricity Transmission Company/
Research Planning and Coordination Department, Ankara.
Todaro, M.P., Smith, S.C., 2006. Economic Development, ninth ed.
Addison-Wesley, Boston.
TURKSTAT, 2005. Power installed of power plants, gross generation and
consumption of electricity, 1993–2004, /http://www.tuik.gov.trS.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987.
Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Yılmaz, A.O., Uslu, T., 2007. The role of coal in energy production
consumption and sustainable development of Turkey. Energy Policy
35 (2), 1117–1128.