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.
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
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].
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 However, the IOT of Russia for the latest year (1997) is outdated and does not contain data about nuclear power.
References
Acar, S., Voyvoda, E., & Yeldan, A. E. (2018). Macroeconomics of Climate Change in a Dualistic Economy: A Regional General Equilibrium Analysis. Academic Press.
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.
Anindita, R. (2007). Estimating the Economic Impact of Nuclear Power and Desalination Plant Construction in Indonesia. In: International Conference on Policy Modeling (EcoMod2007).
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.
Aydın, C. I. (2020). Nuclear energy debate in Turkey: Stakeholders, policy alternatives, and governance issues. Energy Policy, 136, 111041.
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.
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.
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).
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.
DautajŞenerdem, E., & Akkemik, K. A. (2017). An electricity-based social accounting matrix for Turkey for 2010. Network Industries Quarterly, 19(2), 6–9.
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.
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.
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.
Kim, K. (2008). Hypothetical integration in a social accounting matrix and fixed-price multiplier analysis. Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 552.
Kumbaroglu, G. S. (2003). Environmental taxation and economic effects: A computable general equilibrium analysis for Turkey. Journal of Policy Modelling, 25(8), 795–810.
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.
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.
Mayeda, P., & Riener, K. (2013). Economic benefits of diablo canyon power plant: An economic impact study. California Energy Commission, Report No. 13-IEP-1J.
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and OECD. (2018). Measuring Employment Generated by the Nuclear Power Sector. NEA Report No. 7204.
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.
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.
TEIAS. (2021). Turkey Electricity Energy Generation and Capacity Projection (2021–2025). Turkish Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAS).
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.
TMMOB. (2016). Nükleer Enerji Raporu – II. Ankara, TMMOB Elektrik Mühendisleri Odası.
TUSIAD. (2016). Ekonomi Politikaları Perspektifinden İklim Değişikliğiyle Mücadele. Istanbul, TUSİAD Araştırma Raporu, Yayın No. T/2016, 12-583.
Voyvoda, E., & Yeldan, E. (2020). COVID-19 Salgının Türkiye Ekonomisi Üzerine Etkileri ve Politika Alternatiflerinin Makroekonomik Genel Denge Analizi. Mimeo.
Yeldan, E., & Voyvoda, E. (2015). Low Carbon Development Pathways and Priorities for Turkey. Sabanci University and Stiftung Mercator Initiative.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
Armington composite good and CET aggregation function
Prices
Household balances
Government balances
Savings and investments
Market equilibrium conditions
CO2 emissions
Dynamic module
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
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.
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42495-023-00113-z