Skip to main content
Log in

Estimating the economic and climate impacts of nuclear power in Turkey: hypothetical integration and dynamic CGE analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Economic Policy Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript
  • 2 Altmetric

Abstract

Turkey is launching a nuclear power plant (NPP) that will go operational in 2023. While it is expected to contribute to secure supply of energy, there are concerns about the environment. We construct a dynamic CGE model to examine the potential economic and environmental impacts of the NPP during the period 2023–2050. For this purpose, we estimate a social accounting matrix by hypothetically integrating a nuclear power sector. The results show that CO2 emissions are reduced by 1.3% by 2050 compared to the baseline without NPP. The reduction in emissions from electricity generation and transport services is decisive in this decline. In addition, while real GDP stays above the baseline in general, it falls below the long-run baseline trend after 2045. We also show that the government’s abatement policies should focus on high-emission sectors, construction, and non-metallic minerals, in particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Data source: Turkstat

Fig. 2

Data source: Turkstat

Fig. 3

Data source: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Turkey INDC

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Research data policy and data availability statements

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Plans to launch NPP in Turkey dates back to 1956 when the Atomic Energy Commission was established. See [5] and [21] for a history of NPP and the failure of past attempts to build an NPP in Turkey.

  2. http://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Turkey/1/The_INDC_of_TURKEY_v.15.19.30.pdf (accessed June 29, 2022).

  3. This study constructs a SAM with a focus on electricity sector [10]. In our original SAM which was based on Turkish IOT, electricity and gas was aggregated into one sector. We adjusted our data and disaggregated this sector into gas and electricity sector by proportionally fitting our data to the composition of the SAM in [10].

  4. One alternative would be to assume that intersectoral input–output relations regarding the nuclear power sector would be the same as in Russia since Akkuyu NPP is constructed by Russian nuclear power operators. However, the IOT of Russia for the latest year (1997) is outdated and does not contain data about nuclear power.

  5. Also, see [15] for an earlier analysis of environmental taxation and [21] for an analysis of alternative abatement policies in Turkey for the period 2006–2020.

References

  1. Acar, S., Voyvoda, E., & Yeldan, A. E. (2018). Macroeconomics of Climate Change in a Dualistic Economy: A Regional General Equilibrium Analysis. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Akkemik, K. A., & Oğuz, F. (2011). Regulation, efficiency and equilibrium: A general equilibrium analysis of liberalization in the Turkish electricity market. Energy, 36(5), 3282–3292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anindita, R. (2007). Estimating the Economic Impact of Nuclear Power and Desalination Plant Construction in Indonesia. In: International Conference on Policy Modeling (EcoMod2007).

  4. Atiyas, I., Çetin, T., & Gülen, G. (2012). Regulatory reform and competition in the turkish electricity industry. In I. Atiyas, T. Çetin, & G. Gülen (Eds.), Reforming Turkish Energy Markets (pp. 15–62). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Aydın, C. I. (2020). Nuclear energy debate in Turkey: Stakeholders, policy alternatives, and governance issues. Energy Policy, 136, 111041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aydin, L. (2010). The economic and environmental impacts of constructing hydro power plants in Turkey: A dynamic CGE analysis (2004–2020). Natural Resources, 1(2), 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aydin, L. (2011). Towards a low carbon economy in Turkish energy policy: nuclear and renewable vs fossil fueled plants in power generation. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 49–73.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Climate Transparency. (2021). Turkey Climate Transparency Report. Available online at http://www.climate-transparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CT2021Turkey.pdf (accessed 18 Feb 2023).

  9. Corsatea, T.D., Lindner, S., Arto, I., Román, M.V., Rueda-Cantuche, J.M., Velázquez Afonso, A., Amores, A.F., & Neuwahl, F. (2019). World input–output database environmental accounts. Update 2000–2016, EUR 29727 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

  10. DautajŞenerdem, E., & Akkemik, K. A. (2017). An electricity-based social accounting matrix for Turkey for 2010. Network Industries Quarterly, 19(2), 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. DautajŞenerdem, E., & Akkemik, K. A. (2020). Evaluation of the reform in the Turkish electricity sector: A CGE analysis. International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, 14(2), 389–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Galinis, A., & van Leeuwen, M. J. (2000). A CGE model for Lithuania: The future of nuclear energy. Journal of Policy Modelling, 22(6), 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kato, S., & Takeuchi, K. (2017). A CGE analysis of a rate-based policy for climate change mitigation. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 43, 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim, K. (2008). Hypothetical integration in a social accounting matrix and fixed-price multiplier analysis. Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 552.

  15. Kumbaroglu, G. S. (2003). Environmental taxation and economic effects: A computable general equilibrium analysis for Turkey. Journal of Policy Modelling, 25(8), 795–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumbaroglu, G. (2011). The Turkish Model for Transition to Nuclear Energy: The Economics of Nuclear Power in the Turkish Context (pp. 86–107). EDAM Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies EDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Madlener, R., Kumbaroğlu, G., & Ediger, V. Ş. (2005). Modeling technology adoption as an irreversible investment under uncertainty: The case of the Turkish electricity supply industry. Energy Economics, 27(1), 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mayeda, P., & Riener, K. (2013). Economic benefits of diablo canyon power plant: An economic impact study. California Energy Commission, Report No. 13-IEP-1J.

  19. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and OECD. (2018). Measuring Employment Generated by the Nuclear Power Sector. NEA Report No. 7204.

  20. Saari, M.Y., Yusoff, N.S.S., Utit, C., & Chik, N.A. (2016). Assessing the economic impacts of nuclear energy in Malaysia. In: 24th IIOA Conference.

  21. Sirin, S. M. (2010). An assessment of Turkey’s nuclear energy policy in light of South Korea’s nuclear experience. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6145–6152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. TEIAS. (2021). Turkey Electricity Energy Generation and Capacity Projection (2021–2025). Turkish Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAS).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Telli, Ç., Voyvoda, E., & Yeldan, E. (2008). Economics of environmental policy in Turkey: A general equilibrium investigation of the economic evaluation of sectoral emission reduction policies for climate change. Journal of Policy Modelling, 30(2), 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. TMMOB. (2016). Nükleer Enerji Raporu – II. Ankara, TMMOB Elektrik Mühendisleri Odası.

  25. TUSIAD. (2016). Ekonomi Politikaları Perspektifinden İklim Değişikliğiyle Mücadele. Istanbul, TUSİAD Araştırma Raporu, Yayın No. T/2016, 12-583.

  26. Voyvoda, E., & Yeldan, E. (2020). COVID-19 Salgının Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerine Etkileri ve Politika Alternatiflerinin Makroekonomik Genel Denge Analizi. Mimeo.

  27. Yeldan, E., & Voyvoda, E. (2015). Low Carbon Development Pathways and Priorities for Turkey. Sabanci University and Stiftung Mercator Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yoo, S. H., & Yoo, T. H. (2009). The role of the nuclear power generation in the Korean national economy: An input-output analysis. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 51(1), 86–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang, T., Ma, Y., & Li, A. (2021). Scenario analysis and assessment of China’s nuclear power policy based on the Paris Agreement: A dynamic CGE model. Energy, 228, 120541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Ali Akkemik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Details of the CGE Model

List of equations

Nested production

$${K}_{D,i}={\beta }_{K1,i}{p}_{Y1,i}{Y}_{1S,i}/r$$
(A.1)
$${L}_{D,i}={\beta }_{L1,i}{p}_{Y1,i}{Y}_{1S,i}/w$$
(A.2)
$${Y}_{1D,i}={\left(\frac{{a}_{3,i}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{E}+1\right)}{{\sigma }_{E}}}{\beta }_{Y3,i}{p}_{Y3,i}}{{p}_{Y1,i}}\right)}^{{\sigma }_{E}}{Y}_{3S,i}$$
(A.3)
$${Y}_{1S,i}={a}_{1,i}{K}_{D,i}^{{\beta }_{K1,i}}{L}_{D,i}^{{\beta }_{L1,i}}$$
(A.4)
$${Y}_{2D,ei}={\left(\frac{{a}_{3,i}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{E}+1\right)}{{\sigma }_{E}}}{\beta }_{A3,i}{p}_{Y3,i}}{{p}_{Y2,i}}\right)}^{{\sigma }_{E}}{Y}_{3S,i}$$
(A.5)
$${A}_{D,j,i(j\notin e)}={a}_{A,j,i(j\notin e)}{Y}_{S,i}$$
(A.6)
$${A}_{D,j,i(j\in e)}={Y}_{2S,e,i}$$
(A.7)
$${Y}_{3D,i}={a}_{Y,i}{Y}_{S,i}$$
(A.8)
$${Y}_{3S,i}={a}_{3,i}{\left({{\beta }_{Y3,i}Y}_{1D,i}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{E}+1\right)}{{\sigma }_{E}}}+{\sum }_{i\epsilon e}{\left({{\beta }_{A3,e,i}{\phi }_{ei}Y}_{2D,e,i}\right)}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{E}+1\right)}{{\sigma }_{E}}}\right)}^{\frac{{\sigma }_{E}}{({\sigma }_{E}-1)}}$$
(A.9)
$${A}_{D,j,i}={Y}_{2S,j,i(j\epsilon e)}+{a}_{A,j,i}{Y}_{S,i(i\notin e)}$$
(A.10)

Armington composite good and CET aggregation function

$${A}_{XS,i}={\left(\frac{{a}_{X,i}^{\frac{\left({\eta }_{X}+1\right)}{{\eta }_{X}}}{\beta }_{XA,i}{p}_{Y,i}}{{p}_{XA,i}}\right)}^{-{\eta }_{X}}{Y}_{D,i}$$
(A.11)
$${Y}_{D,i}={a}_{X,i}{\left({\beta }_{X,A,i}{A}_{XS,i}^{\frac{\left({\eta }_{X}+1\right)}{{\eta }_{X}}}+{\beta }_{X,i}{X}_{XS,i}^{\frac{\left({\eta }_{X}+1\right)}{{\eta }_{X}}}\right)}^{{\eta }_{X}+1}$$
(A.12)
$${X}_{S,i}={\left(\frac{{a}_{X,i}^{\frac{\left({\eta }_{X}+1\right)}{{\eta }_{X}}}{\beta }_{X,i}{p}_{Y,i}}{{p}_{X,i}}\right)}^{-{\eta }_{X}}{Y}_{D,i}$$
(A.13)
$${A}_{XD,i}={\left(\frac{{a}_{M,i}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{M}-1\right)}{{\sigma }_{M}}}{\beta }_{MAi}{p}_{AYi}}{{p}_{XA,i}}\right)}^{{\sigma }_{M}}{A}_{YS,i}$$
(A.14)
$${A}_{YS,i}={a}_{M,i}{\left({\beta }_{MA,i}{A}_{XD,i}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{m}-1\right)}{{\sigma }_{m}}}+{\beta }_{MA,i}{M}_{D,i}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{m}-1\right)}{{\sigma }_{m}}}\right)}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{m}-1\right)}{{\sigma }_{m}}}$$
(A.15)
$${M}_{Di}={\left(\frac{{a}_{Mi}^{\frac{\left({\sigma }_{M}-1\right)}{{\sigma }_{M}}}{\beta }_{Mi}{p}_{AYi}}{\left(1+{t}_{tMi}\right){p}_{Mi}}\right)}^{{\sigma }_{M}}{A}_{YSi}$$
(A.16)

Prices

$${p}_{G,i}={p}_{A,i}={p}_{I,i}={p}_{C,i}={p}_{AY,i}$$
(A.17)
$${p}_{Y2,e,i}{Y}_{2S,e,i}={p}_{A,i(i\epsilon e)}{A}_{D,e,i}$$
(A.18)
$$\left(1-{t}_{Y,i}\right){p}_{Y,i}{Y}_{S,i}={p}_{Y3,i}{Y}_{3D,i}+{\sum }_{i\notin e}{p}_{A,i}{A}_{D,j,i}$$
(A.19)
$${p}_{CC,i(i\in e)}{C}_{CS,i(i\in e)}={p}_{C,i(i\in e)}{C}_{D,i(i\in e)}$$
(A.20)
$${p}_{M,i}=\varepsilon \bullet {p}_{WM,i}$$
(A.21)
$${p}_{X,i}=\varepsilon \bullet {p}_{WX,i}$$
(A.22)

Household balances

$${C}_{D,i}={\gamma }_{H,i}B/{p}_{CC,i}$$
(A.23)
$$r\bullet K+w\bullet L={I}_{H}$$
(A.24)
$${I}_{H}-\left({S}_{H}+{T}_{D}\right)=B$$
(A.25)

Government balances

$${G}_{D,i}={\gamma }_{G,i}\left(T-{S}_{G}\right)/{p}_{G,i}$$
(A.26)
$${T}_{D}={t}_{tD}{I}_{H}$$
(A.27)
$${T}_{Y,i}={t}_{tY,i}{p}_{Y,i}{Y}_{S,i}$$
(A.28)
$${T}_{M,i}={t}_{tM,i}{p}_{M,i}{M}_{D,i}$$
(A.29)
$$T={T}_{D}+{\sum }_{i}{T}_{Y,i}+{\sum }_{i}{T}_{M,i}$$
(A.30)

Savings and investments

$${I}_{D,i}={\gamma }_{I,i}S/{p}_{I,i}$$
(A.31)
$${S}_{H}={s}_{sH}{I}_{H}$$
(A.32)
$${S}_{G}={s}_{sG}T$$
(A.33)
$$S={S}_{H}+{S}_{G}+{\varepsilon \bullet S}_{F}$$
(A.34)

Market equilibrium conditions

$${A}_{YD,i}={C}_{S,i}+{G}_{S,i}+{I}_{S,i}+{A}_{S,i}$$
(A.35)
$$K={\sum }_{i}{K}_{D,i}$$
(A.36)
$$L={\sum }_{i}{L}_{D,i}$$
(A.37)
$${Y}_{1D,i}={Y}_{1S,i}$$
(A.38)
$${Y}_{2D,e,i}={Y}_{2S,e,i}$$
(A.39)
$${Y}_{3D,i}={Y}_{3S,i}$$
(A.40)
$${A}_{S,i}={\sum }_{j}{A}_{D,i,j}$$
(A.41)
$${Y}_{D,i}={Y}_{S,i}$$
(A.42)
$${A}_{X,i}={A}_{XS,i}$$
(A.43)
$${A}_{YD,i}={A}_{YS,i}$$
(A.44)
$${G}_{D,i}={G}_{S,i}$$
(A.45)
$${I}_{D,i}={I}_{S,i}$$
(A.46)
$${C}_{D,i}={C}_{S,i}$$
(A.47)
$${\sum }_{i}{p}_{WM,i}{M}_{D,i}={\sum }_{i}{p}_{WX,i}{X}_{S,i}+S+F$$
(A.48)

CO2 emissions

$${CO2}_{hD,e}={a}_{hE,e}{C}_{D,e}$$
(A.49)
$${CO2}_{fD,e,i}={a}_{fE,e,i}{Y}_{2S,e,i}$$
(A.50)

Dynamic module

$${K}_{D,i,t+1}=\left(1-\delta \right){K}_{D,i,t}+{I}_{D,i,t}$$
(A.51)
$${K}_{t+1}=\left(1-\delta \right){K}_{t}+{\sum }_{i}{I}_{D,i,t}$$
(A.52)
$${L}_{t+1}=\left(1+n\right){L}_{t}$$
(A.53)

Glossary

Indices

\(i,j\)

Goods and production sectors

\(e,f\)

Energy goods

\(\mathrm{1,2},3\)

Stage of nested production

\(D\)

Demand

\(S\)

Supply

Parameters

\({a}_{1,i}\)

Production function shift factor, stage 1

\({a}_{3,i}\)

Production function shift factor, stage 3

\({a}_{A,i,j}\)

Input–output coefficients

\({a}_{fE,i}\)

CO2 emissions per unit output

\({a}_{hE,e}\)

CO2 emissions per unit consumption

\({a}_{M,i}\)

Shift factor in Armington CES Function

\({a}_{X,i}\)

Shift factor in CET function

\({a}_{Y,i}\)

Share of inputs in output in stage 3

\(n\)

Population growth rate

\({s}_{sH}\)

Household saving rate

\({s}_{sG}\)

Government saving rate

\({t}_{tD}\)

Direct tax rate

\({t}_{tM,i}\)

Import tariff rate

\({t}_{tY,i}\)

Indirect tax rates on production

\({\beta }_{A3,e,i}\)

Distribution parameter in CES function

\({\beta }_{K1,i}\)

Share of capital in aggregate factor

\({\beta }_{L1,i}\)

Share of labor in aggregate factor

\({\beta }_{M,i}\)

Share factor in Armington CES function

\({\beta }_{MA,i}\)

Share factor in Armington CES function

\({\beta }_{X,i}\)

Share factor in CET function

\({\beta }_{XA,i}\)

Share factor in CET function

\({\beta }_{Y3,i}\)

Distribution parameter in CES function

\({\gamma }_{G,i}\)

Share of public spending in expenditures

\({\gamma }_{I,i}\)

Share of investments in expenditures

\({\eta }_{X}\)

Elasticity of substitution between domestic goods and exports

\({\sigma }_{E}\)

Elasticity of substitution between energy goods and composite factor

\({\sigma }_{M}\)

Elasticity of substitution between domestic goods and imports

Variables

\({A}_{D,i,j}\)

Demand for intermediate inputs

\({A}_{S,i,j}\)

Supply of intermediate inputs

\({A}_{XD,i}\)

Demand for domestic goods

\({A}_{XS,i}\)

Supply of domestic goods

\({A}_{YD,i}\)

Demand for Armington composite goods

\({A}_{YS,i}\)

Supply of Armington composite goods

\(B\)

Household disposable income

\({C}_{D,i}\)

Demand for consumption

\({C}_{S,i}\)

Supply of consumption

\({C}_{D,i}\)

Household consumption demand

\({C}_{S,i}\)

Supply of household consumption goods

\({CO2}_{hD,i}\)

CO2 emission by households

\({CO2}_{fD,e,i}\)

CO2 emission by enterprises

\({G}_{D,i}\)

Demand for public goods

\({G}_{S,i}\)

Supply of public goods

\({I}_{D,i}\)

Demand for investment

\({I}_{H}\)

Household income

\({I}_{S,i}\)

Investment supply

\({K}_{D,i}\)

Capital demand

\(K\)

Total capital stock

\({L}_{D,i}\)

Labor demand

\(L\)

Total labor endowment

\({M}_{D,i}\)

Import demand

\({p}_{A,i}\)

Price of intermediate inputs

\({p}_{AYi}\)

Price of Armington composite goods

\({p}_{C,i}\)

Consumption prices

\({p}_{G,i}\)

Price of public goods

\({p}_{I,i}\)

Price of investment

\({p}_{M,i}\)

Import price

\({p}_{X,i}\)

Export price

\({p}_{XA,i}\)

Price of domestic goods

\({p}_{WM,i}\)

World prices of imports

\({p}_{WX,i}\)

World prices of exports

\({p}_{Y,i}\)

Output prices

\({p}_{Y1,i}\)

Price of aggregate factor in stage 1

\({p}_{Y2,e,i}\)

Price of composite factor in stage 2

\({p}_{Y3,i}\)

Price of composite factor in stage 3

\(r\)

Rate of return to capital

\(S\)

Aggregate savings

\({S}_{H}\)

Household savings

\({S}_{G}\)

Public savings

\(T\)

Total tax revenues

\({T}_{D}\)

Direct taxes

\({T}_{M,i}\)

Import tariff revenues

\({T}_{Y,i}\)

Indirect taxes on production

\(w\)

Wage rate

\({X}_{S,i}\)

Export supply

\({Y}_{D,i}\)

Total demand for goods

\({Y}_{S,i}\)

Total supply of goods

\({Y}_{1D,i}\)

Aggregate factor supply in stage 1

\({Y}_{1S,i}\)

Aggregate factor demand in stage 1

\({Y}_{2D,i}\)

Composite factor demand in stage 2

\({Y}_{2S,i}\)

Composite factor supply in stage 2

\({Y}_{3D,i}\)

Composite factor demand in stage 3

\({Y}_{3S,i}\)

Composite factor supply in stage 3

\(\varepsilon\)

Exchange rate

Appendix 2: Detailed simulation results

Table A2.1 Macroeconomic results: percentage deviation from the baseline
Table A2.2 Sectoral results: percentage deviation from the baseline

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akkemik, K.A., Kato, S. Estimating the economic and climate impacts of nuclear power in Turkey: hypothetical integration and dynamic CGE analysis. IJEPS 17, 489–532 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42495-023-00113-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42495-023-00113-z

Keywords

Navigation