I saw a report too: the Boom and Bust report jointly prepared by Greenpeace and the Sierra Club[4]. It looks at the drop in coal investments and notes that construction of new coal-fired power plants has declined by 62 percent. These are encouraging indicators, but Turkey is mentioned among countries going against the stream. Several countries like Turkey, South Korea, Vietnam and Japan are reported to be underutilizing their renewable energy potential and choosing highly polluting coal plants instead.
HP
4. Boom and Bust 2017, https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/boom-bust-2017/
FA
And there’s something we must add: The growth rate of investment in renewables is certainly remarkable, but as a proportion it’s quite low. Moreover, power generated by hydroelectric plants – that is, by dams – is considered to be renewable, but considering where these facilities are constructed and the social and ecological damage they cause, the situation is much more complicated. Let’s just park that thought. We know for certain that Turkey is greatly underutilizing its potential in solar and wind. There is much more that can be done here. I’m not saying that nothing is being done, but this simultaneous insistence on coal is quite frightening. As I said earlier, there are major problems in our energy use, and significant progress can be made in every area from the transport of energy from one point to the other to the insulation of buildings and the efficiency of vehicles in our current transportation system.
Take a look at our buildings. Most are constructed without decent insulation, and consequently, heating or cooling them has an enormous cost. Which begs the question: Why doesn’t Turkey take more solid, more powerful steps to support energy efficiency both in generation and consumption? Why does it insist on constructing more plants and generating more power rather than instructing people to change their light bulbs, insulate their buildings to comply with certain norms, install rainwater capture or grey water systems in buildings, and so on? Why is there no such strategy in place – simple, yet with the potential to be massively effective if widespread? Wasn’t that fundamentally Germany’s strategy, for example? Such steps to deliver incredible efficiencies are needed, and urgently, but they’re not being taken. It’s really hard to understand. I simply can’t get my head around the insistence on constructing X number of new coal-fired plants instead.
BE
May I interrupt? I’m very sorry, but if a civil servant or a politician responsible for these matters were sitting here, he or she might very well exclaim, “You’re right, Professor Adaman; but when I say nuclear plant, you oppose me, when I say hydroelectric, you oppose me. See, we’re not doing that badly in solar energy, that’s what the World Bank says. We’ve made progress in renewable energy, and we’ll make more. I’ve got to look at the bigger picture, at Turkey’s needs. The need for growth, the need for job creation, the need to increase production; and here I am, up to my knees in coal. I have to use coal.” I must confess, there seems to me to be no other choice in the short term.
FA
Here’s my answer: The other investments cost the government more, that’s the issue. When we need to generate power, we have access to alternative sources. But they cost more. Your decision, therefore, is this: Shall I generate this for ten liras, or eight? The moment you say eight, you turn to coal; if you’d said ten, you’d have gone to other resources. But when you turn to coal, the cheap option, it comes with higher ecological costs.
BE
Which energy sources should I go to?
FA
Wind and solar have enormous potential. How come some developing countries – take Morocco, for instance – are so active in solar energy, and how can so many small towns in Germany manage on zero emissions energy when they get nearly half the sunlight Turkey gets? If they can manage on half the sunlight, why can’t Turkey? I see problems with imposing solutions before sufficient debate is held on what the alternatives might be, what the potential is, where one could build and what, and how successful these options would be in meeting our power needs. All of this needs to be debated, including costs, problems, and opportunities. Of course, if you’re not manufacturing solar panels in the country, if you’re having to order them from abroad, then you’re paying serious money. But why aren’t those investments incentivized in Turkey?
HP
The argument for coal is usually prefaced with, “It reduces our dependence on imports.” This is our energy policy, and it’s presented as if it were almost a matter of national interest. But then those power plants still burn imported coal. And as far as I’m aware – this is a little outside my field – domestic coal is not particularly efficient. It’s quite low quality. On the other hand, we do know that more investment in renewables lowers the costs of those technologies. It seems that a switch to renewable energy could be triggered without a paradigm shift by simply carrying out thorough feasibility calculations.
BE
If we were to examine Turkey’s renewable energy potential carefully and objectively, would we conclude that Turkey could free itself of its dependence on coal if it were to make use of all its renewable energy opportunities on a realistic scale? Could Turkey really meet its growth targets without constructing coal-fired plants? Do we have reliable and realistic numbers here?
FA
Yes, there are studies on the subject, although they’re not very comprehensive or deep. Let me reiterate: Turkey’s green energy potential is very high. For instance, you could use wave power on the Black Sea coast.
BE
There’s also the geothermal potential.