Advertisement

Simulating the future energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of Turkish cement industry up to 2030 in a global context

  • Hasan Volkan OralEmail author
  • Hasan Saygin
Original Article

Abstract

Turkey ranked seventh among cement-producing countries in the world, and the country is also one of the extensive producers in the world cement market with cement production nearly 77 million tons. There are more than 50 functional cement plants over 90 Mt/year production capacity in Turkey. In this study, we present the ways of Turkish cement sector emissions fit into the global context, and simulate the impacts of energy efficiency scenarios on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitted from energy consumption of Turkish cement production and on total energy demands relevant with the cement production/tons from 2015 to 2030. We employ Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP) software for the simulation of the GHGs emitted from the Turkish cement industry in a global context, and we establish business as usual (BAU) and five alternative energy efficiency scenarios for this study. We suggest six possible mitigation strategy recommendations to reduce CO2 emissions in cement production. Among them, three of them are related to policy and strategy applying, such as increasing awareness, applying different strategies, and improving the governmental policies; and another three of them are directly linked to technological mitigation applications as improving the technology and materials, fuel and energy saving, and CO2 capture and disposal. For 2030; we simulate that more than 15 Mtoe energy consumption will be the main reason for more than 53 million tons of CO2-e emissions per year. The low GHG emissions value is found by applying the energy efficiency 3% (ENE3) scenario where the emission trend starts at 21.12 million tons of CO2-e per year in 2014 and ends up 33.2 million tons of CO2-e per year in 2030.

Keywords

GHG Cement sector Energy efficiency Energy demand Turkey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We, the authors gratefully thank Mr. Ali Osman Kılıncaslan of Turkish Republic Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, General Directorate of Energy Affairs for his contribution to construct the LEAP model.

References

  1. Aized T et al (2017) Energy security and renewable energy policy analysis of Pakistan. Renew Sust Energ Rev 84:155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atabi F et al (2011) Scenario analysis of the potential for CO2 emission reduction in the Iranian cement industry. World Renewable Energy Congress, SwedenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ates SA (2015) Energy efficiency and CO2 mitigation potential of the Turkish iron and steel industry using the LEAP (long-range energy alternatives planning) system. Energy 90(1):417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bautistita S (2012) A sustainable scenario for the Venezuelan power generation sector in 2050 and its costs. Energy Policy 44:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayar S, Talinli İ (2013) Solidification/stabilization of hazardous waste sludge obtained from a chemical industry. Clean Techn Environ Policy 15:157.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0494-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benhelal E, Zahedi G, Shamsaei E, Bahadori A (2013) Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in the cement industry. J Clean Prod 51:142–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bose RK (1996) Energy demand and environmental implications in urban transport: case of Delhi. Atmos Enviro 30(3):403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Çabuk, E., 2015. Turkish Cement Manufacturing. http://www.worldcement.com/europe-cis/15042015/Turkey-growing-cement-industry-and-market-683/. Accessed 01.05.2016
  9. Cai W, Wang C (2008) Comparison of CO2 emission scenarios and mitigation opportunities in China’s five sectors in 2020. Energy Policy 36:1181–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Civancık D, Yetiş U (2018) Substance flow analysis of mercury in Turkey for policy decision support. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:2996–3008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dagher L, Ruble I (2011) Modeling Lebanon’s electricity sector: alternative scenarios and their implications. Energy 36:7,4315–7,4326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidovits J (1994) Global warming impact on the cement and aggregates industries. World Resour Rev 6(2):263–278Google Scholar
  13. Dogan Ö, Karpuzcu M (2010) Recovery of phosphate sludge as concrete supplementary material. Clean Soil Air Water 38(10):977–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekincioglu O et al (2013) Approaches for sustainable cement production: a case study fromTurkey. Energy Build 66:136–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Environmental Protection Agency (2016) Understanding Global Warming Potentials. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gwps.html. Accessed 02.06.2016
  16. Gartner E (2004) Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. Cem Concr Res 34:1489–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. General Directorate of Energy Affairs (2014) Energy Balance Sheets, http://www.eigm.gov.tr/tr-TR/Denge-Tablolari/Denge-Tablolari. Accessed 04.05.2017
  18. Ghosh A, Mandal A (2018) Cement industry and strategies for mitigating carbon emissions. Int Res J Adv Eng Sci 3(2):175–178Google Scholar
  19. Gibbs MJ et al (2011) CO2 emissions from cement production, good practice guidance and uncertainty management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPPC, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  20. Green, F., & Stern, N (2017) China’s changing economy: Implications for its carbon dioxide emissions. Climate Policy, 17(4):423–442.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1156515
  21. Gürsel AP, Meral Ç (2012) Türkiye'de Çimento Üretiminin Karşılaştırmalı Yaşam Döngüsü Analizi 2. Proje ve Yapım Yönetimi Kongresi, İzmirGoogle Scholar
  22. Heaps CG (2012) Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning (LEAP) system. [Software version 2015.0.19]. Stockholm Environment Institute, SomervilleGoogle Scholar
  23. Hepbaslı A (2010) Coal as an energy source in Turkey. Energy Sources 26(1):55–63.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00908310490251864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang et al (2011) The long-term forecast of Taiwan’s energy supply and demand: LEAP model application. Energy Policy 39:6790–6803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2009) A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 17:668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolancı B (2013) Turkey’s growing market. https://library.e.abb.com/public/. Accessed: 05.03.2019
  27. Kumar S, Madlener R (2016) CO2 emission reduction potential assessment using renewable energy in India. Energy 97:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu X et al (2017) Greening cement in China: a cost-effective roadmap. Appl Energy 189:233–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mansell, A (2016) What’s ahead for carbon markets after COP 21, https://www.c2es.org/document/whats-ahead-for-carbon-markets-after-cop-21/. Accessed: 02.02.2019
  30. Mikulcic H et al (2013) Reducing the CO2 emissions in Croatian cement industry. Appl Energy 101:41–48Google Scholar
  31. Mirjat NH et al (2017) A review of energy and power planning and policies of Pakistan. Renew Sust Energy Rev 79:110–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Najabat A et al (2014) The greenhouse gas emissions produced by cement production and its impact on environment: a review of global cement processing. Int J Res 2:2Google Scholar
  33. Ogbeide SO (2010) Developing an optimization model for CO2 reduction in cement production process. J Eng Sci Technol Rev 3(1):85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ogulata RT (2005) Energy consumption in the Turkish industrial sector. Int J Green Energy 2(3):273–285.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01971520500198817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Okandan E (2011) Assessment of CO2 storage potential in Turkey modeling and a pre-feasibility study for injection into an oil field. Energy Procedia 4:4849–4856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ozer B et al (2013) The scenario analysis on CO2 emission mitigation potential in the Turkish electricity sector: 2006-2030. Energy 49:395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Özkan NF, Ulutas BH (2017) Efficiency analysis of cement manufacturing facilities in Turkey considering undesirable outputs. J Clean Prod 156:932–938.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rahmadi A, Aye L, Moore G (2013) The feasibility and implications for conventional liquid fossil fuel of the Indonesian biofuel target in 2025. Energy Policy 61:12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rehan R, Mehdi N (2005) Carbon dioxide emissions and climate change:policy implications for the cement industry. Environ Sci Policy 8:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salas DA (2016) Environmental impacts, life cycle assessment and potential improvement measures for cement production. J Clean Prod 113:114–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shin HC et al (2005) Environmental and economic assessment of landfill gas electricity generation in Korea using the LEAP model. Energy Policy 10:1261–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Söğüt ZM (2012) A research on exergy consumption and potential of total CO2emission in the Turkish cement sector. Environ Conserv Manag 56:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Song HJ et al (2007) Environmental and economic assessment of the chemical absorption process in Korea using the LEAP model. Energy Policy 10:5109–5116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trading economics of Russia (2019) https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/cement-production. Accessed 05.03.2019
  45. Turkish Cement Manufacturers’ Association (2018) Cement Manufacturing Statistics. http://www.tcma.org.tr/. Accessed 12.05.2018
  46. Turkish Cement Sector (2014) Garanti Securities Report. https://rapor.garantiyatirim.com.tr/arastirma/sector_reports/CementSector0614.pdf. Accessed 09.03.2019
  47. Udomsri S, Martin AR, Fransson FR (2010) Economic assessment and energy model scenarios of municipal solid waste incineration and gas türbine hybrid dual-fueled cycles in Thailand. Waste Manag 30(7):1414–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ulusu H et al (2016) Investigation on characteristics of blended cement containing pumice. Constr Build Mater 118:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. United States Geological Survey Statista Report (2018) https://www.statista.com/statistics/267364/world-cement-production-by-country/. Accessed 23.01.2019
  50. Valderrema C (2012) Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: a life-cycle assessment study. J Clean Prod 25:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang Y, Gu A, Zhang A (2011) Recent development of energy supply and demand in China, and energy sector prospects through 2030. Energy Policy 39(11):6745–6759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang Y, Zhu Q, Geng Y (2013) Trajectory and driving factors for GHG emissions in the Chinese cement industry. J Clean Prod 53:252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Warrel E et al (2001) Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry. Annu Rev Energy Environ 26:303–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. World Bank (1998) Pollution prevention and abatement handbook. Cement Manufacturing, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  55. Xu JH, Fleiter T, Eichhammer W, Fan Y (2012) Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in China’s cement industry: a perspective from LMDI decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 50:821–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yildirim H, Sümer M, Akyüncü V, Gürbüz E (2011) Comparison on efficiency factors of F and C types of fly ashes. Constr Build Mater 25(6):2939–2947CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Energy Politics and Market Research Center & Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering DepartmentIstanbul Aydın UniversityİstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Application and Research Center for Advanced Studies, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineeringİstanbul Aydın UniversityİstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations