ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY M.Sc. THESIS MAY 2014 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL HEATING SYSTEMS USING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR TURKEY Gökçe DURUKAN Department of Environmental Engineering Environmental Sciences and Engineering Programme MAY 2014 ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL HEATING SYSTEMS USING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR TURKEY M.Sc. THESIS Gökçe DURUKAN (50111743) Department of Environmental Engineering Environmental Sciences and Engineering Programme Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. Kadir ALP MAYIS 2014 İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ  FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ TÜRKİYE İÇİN ENDÜSTRİYEL VE KONUT ISINMA SİSTEMLERİ KAYNAKLI EMİSYONLARIN COĞRAFİ BİLGİ SİSTEMİ KULLANARAK MEKANSAL DAĞILIMI YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ Gökçe DURUKAN (501111743) Çevre Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı Çevre Bilimleri ve Mühendisliği Programı Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. Kadir ALP v Thesis Advisor : Prof. Dr. Kadir ALP .............................. İstanbul Technical University Jury Members : Prof. Dr. İsmail TORÖZ ............................. İstanbul Technical University Prof. Dr. Selahattin İNCECİK .............................. İstanbul Technical University Gökçe Durukan, a M.Sc. student of ITU Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology student ID 501111743, successfully defended the thesis/dissertation entitled “SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL HEATING SYSTEMS USING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR TURKEY”, which she prepared after fulfilling the requirements specified in the associated legislations, before the jury whose signatures are below. Date of Submission : 5 May 2014 Date of Defense : 30 May 2014 vi vii To the miners those lost their lives in Soma... viii ix FOREWORD During the preparation of this thesis I have used a varios sources. Capacities were determined carefully especially to be up to date from web sites and annual reports of the facilities and coordinates of these facilities recorded one by one. Using heating systems, fuel types and number of residences were calculated with the data which was taken from TUIK. For verify these calculated results concerned official and private sector people were contacted. If there was not enough information to calculate emissions right, then approximation method was used. Spatial distribution of emissions were generated with ArcGIS programme. Results of the study were compared between seven geographical regions of Turkey. I especially would like to thank to my thesis advisor, Prof. Dr. Kadir ALP for all the guidence and of course I would like to thank Ümmügülsüm AKYUZ, Gökhan CÜCELOĞLU, and Yiğit BURAN who actively help the preparation of the thesis. I also grateful to my dear family, for being always behind me and supporting me for all these years. May 2014 Gökçe DURUKAN Environmental Engineer x xi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... xi ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS ................................................................. xiii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xvii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xix SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xxiii ÖZET ..................................................................................................................... xxvii 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Objective ...................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Scope ............................................................................................................ 4 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 7 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................ 13 3.1 Overview of Turkey ................................................................................... 13 3.2 Energy Profile of Turkey ........................................................................... 14 3.3 Industrial Structure of Turkey .................................................................... 20 3.4 Brief Information About Air Pollutants ..................................................... 21 3.4.1 Carbon monoxide (CO2) ....................................................................... 21 3.4.2 Nitrogen oxides (NOX) ......................................................................... 21 3.4.3 Nitrous oxide (N2O) .............................................................................. 21 3.4.4 Sulphur dioxide (SO2) ........................................................................... 22 3.4.5 Ammonia (NH3) .................................................................................... 22 3.4.6 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) ................................................... 23 3.4.7 Methane (CH4) ...................................................................................... 23 3.4.8 Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) ....................... 23 3.4.9 Particulate matter (PM) ......................................................................... 23 3.4.10 Heavy metals ......................................................................................... 23 3.4.11 Organic micro-pollutants ...................................................................... 24 4 MATERIALS AND METHOD ....................................................................... 25 4.1 Determination of Production Plants ........................................................... 25 4.2 Collection of Geographical Coordinates .................................................... 26 4.3 Uncontrolled Emission Inventory for Energy Production ......................... 26 4.4 Controlled Emission Inventory of Energy Production ............................... 30 4.5 Distribution of Emissions ........................................................................... 33 4.6 Emission Inventory of Residential Heating ............................................... 34 5 DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS ...................................... 45 5.1 Distribution of Oil Refinery Emissions ..................................................... 46 5.2 Distribution of Organic Chemical Industry Emissions .............................. 47 5.3 Distribution of Inorganic Chemical Industry Emissions ............................ 51 5.4 Distribution of Mineral Product Industry Emissions ................................. 58 5.5 Distribution of Metallurgical Industry Emissions ...................................... 61 xii 5.6 Distribution of Pulp and Paper Industry Emissions ................................... 65 5.7 Distribution of Sugar Industry Emissions .................................................. 66 5.8 Distribution of Beverage Industry Emissions ............................................ 66 5.9 Emissions of Energy Usage in Industries ................................................... 67 6 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS .............................................. 69 6.1 Spatial Distribution of Energy Production Emissions................................ 70 6.2 Spatial Distribution of Industrial Process Emissions ................................. 76 6.3 Spatial Distribution of Residential Heating Emissions .............................. 81 6.4 Spatial Distribution of Total Emissions ..................................................... 85 7 CONCLUDED REMARKS ............................................................................. 89 7.1 Regional Comparison of Residential Heating Emissions .......................... 94 7.2 Regional Comparison of Energy Production Emissions ............................ 99 7.3 Regional Comparison of Industrial Emissions ......................................... 104 7.4 Regional Comparison of Overall Emissions ............................................ 109 8 COMPARISON OF RESULTS .................................................................... 115 8.1 Comparison with the Air Quality Report of the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planing ................................................................................... 115 8.2 Comparison of Results With Other Emissions Inventory Studies ........... 118 8.3 Comparison of Result With Some EC Country Emissions ...................... 120 8.4 Comparison of Emissions of Istanbul Province ....................................... 123 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 125 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 131 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. 141 CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................ 179 xiii ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS ACN : Acrylonitrile bcm : Billion cubic meter BAGFAS : Balıkesir Fertilizer Company BTX : Aromatics (benzene, toluene, xylene) CaCO3 : Calcium carbonate CH4 : Methane Cl2 : Chlorine CO : Carbon monoxide CO2 : Carbon dioxide DAP : Diammonium phosphate EAF : Electrical arc furnaces EDC : Ethylene dichloride EEA : European environmental agency EF : Emission factor EG : Ethylene glycol EMEP : European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme EO : Ethylene oxide EPA : Environmental protection agency, USA EPDK : Republic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority EU : European Union EUAS : Electricity generation company, Turkey ESRI : Environmental Systems Research Instıtute GDP : Gross domestic product GIS : Geographical Information System GWh : Gigawatt hour GUBRETAS : Fertilizer Company, Turkey g/hr : Grams per hour HCFCs : Hydrochlorofluorocarbons H2O : Water H2S : Hydrogen sulphide H3PO4 : Phosphoric acid HCl : Hydrogen chloride HCl : Hydrochloric acid xiv HDPE : High density poly ethylene HNO3 : Nitric acid IEA : International energy agency IGSAS : Istanbul Fertilizer Company IPPC : Integrated Pollution Prevent and Control ITU : Istanbul Technical University kg/hr : Kilograms per hour kg/y : Kilograms per year kg/m3 : Kilograms per cubic meter kg/hl : Kilograms per hectolitre kWh : Kilowatt hour l/y : Litres per year LDPE : Low density poly ethylene LHV : Low heating value LLDPE : Linear low density poly ethylene LPG : Liquid Petroleum Gas MEF : Ministry of Environment and Forestry MEG : Mono ethylene glycol MENR : Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources MgCO3 : Magnesit, magnesium carbonate MgO : Magnesia, magnesium oxide m2/y : Square meter per year Mt : Million tonnes MW : Megawatt μm : Micrometer N.D. : No data NE : Not Estimated N2O : Nitrous oxide NaCl : Sodium chloride NaOH : Sodium hydroxide NH3 : Ammonia NMVOC : Nonmethane volatile organic compounds NO : Nitric oxide NO2 : Nitrogen dioxide NOx : Nitrogen oxides NPK : Compose fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) OECD : The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development O2 : Oxygen PAH : Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAN : Phtalic anhydride PCB : Polychlorinated biphenyls xv PE : Poly ethylene PFCs : Perflorocarbons PM : Particulate matter PM10 : PM emissions that are 10 μm in diameter or less PM2.5 : PM emissions that are 2.5 μm in diameter or less POM : Polycyclic organic matter PP : Poly propylene PS : Polystyrene PVC : Poly vinyl chloride SBR : Styrene butadiene rubber SCR : Selective catalytic reduction SNCR : Selective non-catalytic reduction SO2 : Sulphur dioxide SOx : Sulphur oxides STPP : Sodium tri poli phosphate TAPDK : Tobacco and Alcohol Market Regulatory Authority TCCU : Thermal catalytic cracking unit TEIAS : Turkey electricity transmission corporation TKI : Turkey Coal/lignite Enterprise TNO : Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TOBB : The Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey TOC : Total organic compound t/yr : Tons per year TSP : Total suspended particles TSP : Triple super phosphate TUGSAS : Turkish Fertilizer Company TURKSEKER : Turkish Sugar Company TUPRAS : Turkey petroleum corporation TurkStat : Turkish statistical institution UNFCCC : United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VCM : Vinyl chloride monomer VOC : Volatile organic carbon wt. : Weight xvi xvii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1 : Lignite-fired power plants CO2 and SO2 emission factors. .................... 28 Table 4.2 : Emission factors by fuel type. ................................................................. 28 Table 4.3 : Total uncontrolled emissions of power plants by fuel type. ................... 29 Table 4.4 : Total fuel consumption of power plants. ................................................ 30 Table 4.5 : Controlled SOX emissions of coal-fired power plants. ........................... 31 Table 4.6 : Controlled emissions of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 for coal-fired plants. ..... 32 Table 4.7 : Controlled TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions of fuel oil-fired plants. ....... 32 Table 4.8 : Total controlled emissions of power plants by fuel type. ....................... 33 Table 4.9 : Quantitative distribution of sectors. ........................................................ 34 Table 4.10 : Total amount of residence by type of fuel. ........................................... 36 Table 4.11 : Amount of residence by type of fuel. .................................................... 36 Table 4.12 : Ratio of heating system for each region in Turkey. .............................. 37 Table 4.13 : Regional provinces and some counties. ................................................ 38 Table 4.14 : Annual heating demands. ...................................................................... 39 Table 4.15 : Amount of fuel consumption per residence. ......................................... 39 Table 4.16 : Emission factors of fuel type. ............................................................... 39 Table 4.17 : SOX Emission factors. ........................................................................... 40 Table 4.18 : Total amount of fuel consumptions. ..................................................... 40 Table 4.19 : Total amount of emissions. ................................................................... 40 Table 4.20 : Regional rates of number of rooms. ...................................................... 41 Table 4.21 : Regional heating demand. ..................................................................... 41 Table 4.22 : Heating demand and household size. .................................................... 42 Table 4.23 : Total amount of fuel consumptions. ..................................................... 43 Table 4.24 : Total fuel consumptions by regional ..................................................... 43 Table 4.25 : Emissions of residential heating ........................................................... 44 Table 5.1 : Emissions of petroleum refineries........................................................... 46 Table 5.2 : Emissions of synthetic rubber industry. .................................................. 47 Table 5.3 : Emissions of petrochemical industry. ..................................................... 48 Table 5.4 : Emissions of synthetic fibre and production. .......................................... 49 Table 5.5 : Emissions of Formaldehyde production. ................................................ 49 Table 5.6 : Emissions of Crude terephtalic acid production. .................................... 50 Table 5.7 : Emissions of detergent production. ......................................................... 50 Table 5.8 : Emissions of paint, varnish and ink production. ..................................... 51 Table 5.9 : Emissions of Boron production............................................................... 51 Table 5.10 : Emissions of soda ash production. ........................................................ 52 Table 5.11 : Emissions of Chromium oxide production. .......................................... 52 Table 5.12 : Emissions of Magnesium oxide production. ......................................... 53 Table 5.13 : Emissions of Ammonium sulphate production. .................................... 54 Table 5.14 : Emissions of Ammonium nitrate production. ....................................... 54 Table 5.15 : Emissions of Urea production. .............................................................. 54 xviii Table 5.16 : Emissions of Triple super phosphate production. ................................. 55 Table 5.17 : Emissions of Diammonium phosphate production. .............................. 55 Table 5.18 : Emissions of compose fertilizer production. ......................................... 55 Table 5.19 : Emissions of Sodium tri poli phosphate production. ............................ 56 Table 5.20 : Emissions of Dicalcium phosphate production. .................................... 56 Table 5.21 : Emissions of Sulphuric acid production. .............................................. 56 Table 5.22 : Emissions of Phosphoric acid production. ............................................ 57 Table 5.23 : Emissions of Chlor alkali production. ................................................... 57 Table 5.24 : Emissions of HCl production. ............................................................... 57 Table 5.25 : Emissions of Ammonia production. ...................................................... 58 Table 5.26 : Emissions of Nitric acid production. ..................................................... 58 Table 5.27 : Emissions of cement industry. .............................................................. 59 Table 5.28 : Emissions of lime industry. ................................................................... 59 Table 5.29 : Emissions of carbide industry. .............................................................. 60 Table 5.30 : Emissions of glass industry. .................................................................. 61 Table 5.31 : Emissions of integrated steelworks industry. ........................................ 61 Table 5.32 : Emissions of integrated coke production. ............................................. 62 Table 5.33 : Emissions of electrical arc furnaces. ..................................................... 62 Table 5.34 : Ferroalloy production process emissions. ............................................. 63 Table 5.35 : Primary aluminium production process emissions. .............................. 63 Table 5.36 : Secondary aluminium production process emissions. .......................... 64 Table 5.37 : Aluminium casting production process emissions. ............................... 64 Table 5.38 : Emissions of pulp and paper production with kraft method. ................ 65 Table 5.39 : Emissions of pulp and paper production with sulphite method. ........... 65 Table 5.40 : Emissions sugar industry....................................................................... 66 Table 5.41 : Production amounts of alcoholic drinks in 2012................................... 66 Table 5.42 : NMVOC Emission factors and emissions............................................. 67 Table 5.43 : Emissions of alcoholic drinks after abatement. ..................................... 67 Table 5.44 : Emissions of energy usage. ................................................................... 67 Table 7.1 : Overall emissions. ................................................................................... 94 Table 8.1 : Comparison of fuel consumption in energy production. ....................... 115 Table 8.2 : Comparison of fuel consumption in residential heating. ...................... 116 Table 8.3 : Comparison of provinces by SO2 pollution. ......................................... 117 Table 8.4 : Comparison of provinces by PM10 pollution. ....................................... 117 Table 8.5 : Listing of maximum NOX emissions by province. ............................... 118 Table 8.7 : Comparison of calculated NOX emissions with TNO. .......................... 118 Table 8.8 : Comparison of calculated SOX emissions TNO. ................................... 119 Table 8.9 : Comparison of LRTAP and NIR emissions with study results............. 121 Table 8.10 : Emission comparison of Istanbul province with previous studies. ..... 123 xix LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 3.1 : Turkey map. ........................................................................................... 14 Figure 3.2 : Energy consumption rates as usage. ...................................................... 15 Figure 3.3 : Electricity producers and production rates. ........................................... 16 Figure 3.4 : Ratio of installed power in Turkey by primary sources. ....................... 17 Figure 3.5 : Natural gas consumption by sectors. ..................................................... 17 Figure 3.6 : Oil Consumption (Mt.) over the years. .................................................. 18 Figure 3.7 : Sectoral coal consumption. .................................................................... 19 Figure 4.1 : General flow chart of the methodology. ................................................ 25 Figure 4.2 : Installed power by type of fuel. ............................................................. 27 Figure 4.3 : General flow chart of emission inventory of residential heating. ......... 35 Figure 6.1 : Spatial distribution of power plants by installed power. ....................... 72 Figure 6.2 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for energy production plants. .... 73 Figure 6.3 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for energy production plants. .... 74 Figure 6.4 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for energy production plants. ... 75 Figure 6.5 : Spatial distribution of industrial plantsby sectors. ................................ 77 Figure 6.6 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for industrial processes. ............. 78 Figure 6.7 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for industrial processes. ............ 79 Figure 6.8 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for industrial processes. ............ 80 Figure 6.9 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for residential systems.............. 82 Figure 6.10 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for residential heating systems.83 Figure 6.11 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for residential heating systems.84 Figure 6.12 : Spatial distribution of total CO2 emissions. ........................................ 86 Figure 6.13 : Spatial distribution of total SOX emissions. ........................................ 87 Figure 6.14 : Spatial distribution of total NOX emissions. ........................................ 88 Figure 7.1 : Breakdown of overall SOX emissions. ................................................... 90 Figure 7.2 : Breakdown of overall NOX emissions. .................................................. 90 Figure 7.3 : Breakdown of overall CO emissions. .................................................... 91 Figure 7.4 : Breakdown of overall NMVOC emissions. ........................................... 91 Figure 7.5 : Breakdown of overall NH3 emissions. ................................................... 92 Figure 7.6 : Breakdown of overall PM10 emissions................................................... 92 Figure 7.7 : Breakdown of overall PM2.5 emissions. ................................................. 93 Figure 7.8 : Breakdown of overall CO2 emissions. ................................................... 93 Figure 7.9 : Amount of residence by regions. ........................................................... 94 Figure 7.10 : Breakdown of the heating system in residences. ................................. 95 Figure 7.11 : Residential heating emissions of SOx by region. ................................. 95 Figure 7.12 : Residential heating emissions of NOx by region. ................................ 96 Figure 7.13 : Residential heating emissions of CO by region. .................................. 96 Figure 7.14 : Residential heating emissions of PM10 by region. ............................... 97 Figure 7.15 : Residential heating emissions of PM2.5 by region. .............................. 97 Figure 7.16 : Residential heating emissions of NH3 by region. ................................ 98 Figure 7.17 : Residential heating emissions of NMVOC by region. ......................... 98 Figure 7.18 : Residential heating emissions of CO2 by region. ................................. 99 xx Figure 7.19 : Energy production emissions of SOX by region................................. 100 Figure 7.20 : Energy production emissions of NOX by region. ............................... 100 Figure 7.21 : Energy production emissions of CO by region. ................................. 101 Figure 7.22 : Energy production emissions of PM10 by region. .............................. 101 Figure 7.23 : Energy production emissions of PM2.5 by region .............................. 102 Figure 7.24 : Energy production emissions of NMVOC by region. ........................ 102 Figure 7.25 : Energy production emissions of CO2 by region. ................................ 103 Figure 7.26 : Industrial emissions of SOX by region. .............................................. 104 Figure 7.27 : Industrial emissions of NOX by region. ............................................. 105 Figure 7.28 : Industrial emissions of CO by region................................................. 105 Figure 7.29 : Industrial emissions of PM10 by region. ............................................. 106 Figure 7.30 : Industrial emissions of PM2.5 by region. ............................................ 107 Figure 7.31 : Industrial emissions of NMVOC by region. ...................................... 107 Figure 7.32 : Industrial emissions of NH3 by region. .............................................. 108 Figure 7.33 : Industrial emissions of CO2 by region. .............................................. 108 Figure 7.34 : Overall SOX emissions by region. ..................................................... 109 Figure 7.35 : Overall NOX emissions by region. ..................................................... 110 Figure 7.36 : Overall CO emissions by region. ....................................................... 111 Figure 7.37 : Overall PM10 emissions by region. .................................................... 111 Figure 7.38 : Overall PM2.5 emissions by region. .................................................... 112 Figure 7.39 : Overall NMVOC emissions by region. .............................................. 112 Figure 7.40 : Overall NH3 emissions by region. ..................................................... 113 Figure 7.41 : Overall CO2 emissions by region....................................................... 114 Figure 8.1 : Comparison of energy production emissions with Poland, Romania, Italy and Spain. ................................................................................... 120 Figure 8.2 : Comparison of industrial process emissions with Poland, Romania,Italy and Spain. ............................................................................................ 122 Figure 8.3 : Comparison of residential heating emissions with Poland, Romania, Italy and Spain. ................................................................................... 122 Figure A.1 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for energy production plants. ... 143 Figure A.2 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for energy production plants. ............................................................................................................. 144 Figure A.3 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for energy production plants. 145 Figure A.4 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for industrial processes. ........... 146 Figure A.5 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for industrial processes. .. 147 Figure A.6 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for industrial processes. ........ 148 Figure A.7 : Spatial distribution of NH3 emissions for industrial processes. .......... 149 Figure A.8 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for residential heating systems. 150 Figure A.9 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for residential heating systems. ............................................................................................... 151 Figure A.10 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for residential heating systems. .......................................................................................................... 152 Figure A.11 : Spatial distribution of NH3 emissions for residential heating systems. .......................................................................................................... 153 Figure A.12 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 154 Figure A.13 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 155 Figure A.14 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 156 xxi Figure A.15 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 157 Figure A.16 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. ...................................... 158 Figure A.17 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 159 Figure A.18 : Spatial distribution of NH3 emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 160 Figure A.19 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 161 Figure A.20 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 162 Figure A.21 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 163 Figure A.22 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 164 Figure A.23 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. .......................................................... 165 Figure A.24 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. .............................................................. 166 Figure A.25 : Spatial distribution of total CO2 emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. .............. 167 Figure A.26 : Spatial distribution of total SOX emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. .............. 168 Figure A.27 : Spatial distribution of total NOX emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. .............. 169 Figure A.28 : Spatial distribution of total CO emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. .............. 170 Figure A.29 : Spatial distribution of total NMVOC emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. .......................................................................................................... 171 Figure A.30 : Spatial distribution of total PM10 emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. .............. 172 Figure A.31 : Spatial distribution of total NH3 emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. .............. 173 Figure A.32 : Spatial distribution of total CO emissions. ....................................... 174 Figure A.33 : Spatial distribution of total NMVOC emissions. .............................. 175 Figure A.34 : Spatial distribution of total PM10 emissions. .................................... 176 Figure A.35 : Spatial distribution of total NH3 emissions....................................... 177 xxii xxiii SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL HEATING SYSTEMS USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR TURKEY SUMMARY The purpose of the thesis is spatial distribution of energy and industrial production plants emissions and residential heating systems emissions. Firstly all fossil fuel using thermal power plants, thats generating capacities greater than 10 MW electricity were determined and investigated. The key industries are; petroleum refining, organic chemicals industry, inorganic chemicals industry, mineral products industry, metallurgical industry, pulp and paper industry, sugar industry and alcoholic drink industry. Additionally residential heating emission inventory was build up for natural gas, wood, domestic lignite and imported lignite systems. In this study there are several air pollutants investigated for spatial distribution, such as; SOX, NOX, CO, NH3, NMVOC, PM, CO2, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5. Emission inventory was calculated for uncontrolled and controlled conditions, but spatial distribution was investigated only controlled conditions. In this study there were taken benefit from previous emission inventory study for spatial distribution of industrial emissions. To distribute the total emissions of 382 industrial production plant, each one of them identified in web searches and open sources. Production capacity of industrial plants was recorded and geographical coordinates are collected with Google Earth Map. According to results of this study for industrial facilities, overall uncontrolled emissions of CO2, SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 pollutants of Turkey were calculated as 55,124,263 ton, 42,737 ton, 790,861 ton, 28,609 ton, 220,055 ton, 5,834,130 ton, 3,300,394 ton and 8,920 ton respectively. Also, total controlled emissions were calculated for SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 pollutants and results were 24,720 ton, 28,565 ton, 13,234 ton, 36,042 ton, 44,019 ton, 7,926 ton and 457 ton respectively. Industries energy usage is one of the important emission source in air pollution. Because of that, also, emissions of industial fuel combustion were considered in this study. Total emissions were taken from previous emission inventory study as well as industrial process emissions. Emissions of CO2, SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC and PM10 pollutants were taken as 57,663,913 ton, 156,037 ton, 156,844 ton, 69,242 ton, 15,120 ton and 156,844 ton respectively. When the emissions of energy production plants were calculated, power plants selected according to type of fuel. Domestic lignite-fired, hard coal-fire, imported lignite-fired, natural gas-fired, fuel oil-fired and biogas-fired power plants were determined as the power plants which were the most of the pollutants released. Before to start emission inventory of power plants; geographical coordinates of plants were collected and installed capacities were determined as 32,147 MW in 2010. The capacity value which was registered as 32,278 MW of thermal power xxiv capacity is close approximately 99% to the calculated capacity value. EUAS facilities for those considering emission calculations were carried out certain operating data. Operating reports for rest of representative emissions were estimated and were used in the calculation. Total capacity value of these EUAS facilities were determined as 7,251 MW. Emission factors were determined according to characteristics of fuel, such as; calorific value, sulphur and carbon content. Thus, emissions were calculated for 110 power plant. According to results of this study for energy production plants, overall emissions of CO2, SOX, NOX, CO, NMVOC, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants of Turkey was calculated for uncontrolled conditions as; 123,587,348 ton, 2,325,499 ton, 325,716 ton, 111,018 ton, 2,453 ton, 5,333,215 ton, 1,343,733 ton, 201,794 ton respectively. Total controlled emissions of power plants were calculated for SOX, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants and results were determined as 1,528,192 ton, 106,664 ton, 26,875 ton and 10,089 ton respectively. To calculate the emissions of residential heating, population of 81 province and associated counties and average size of households by province was taken from TurkStat. According to Ministry of Familiy and Social Policies, rates of heating systems which were given as Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) were taken from Researh of The Family Structure report. To determine more realistic result, size of residences’ were calculated for each province and county. Also, amount of total fuel consumption and annual heating demands were calculated for each province and county. After the first calculations were completed, emission factors were analyzing. With the emission factors and amount of fuel consumption, emission inventory calculations were completed for each province. Geographical coordinates of counties and provinces were determined with Google Earth programme for spatial distribution. In this study, residential heating system emissions were calculated by consider amount of residences’ and type of fuel which was natural gas, wood, domestic lignite and imported lignite. Total amount of residence was calculated as 19,053,629. Total fuel consumptions’ were calculated for natural gas, imported coal, domestic coal and wood; 4,718,312,578 m3/yr, 5,718,951 t/yr, 3,899,285 t/yr and 3,119,285 t/yr respectively. The consumption values were taken from official institutions with personal contact are compatible with calculated consumption values. In Turkey, there were not found any control technologies in residential heating systems. Because of that, total emissions of residential heating were calculated for only uncontrolled conditions. Results of CO2, SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 pollutants were determined as 38,195,817 ton, 232,599 ton, 1,059,298 ton, 37,471 ton, 136,015 ton, 127,182 ton, 124,877 ton and 3,803 ton respectively. ArcGIS is the key application of this study. The spatial distribution of industrial and power plant emissions and residential heating system emissions were the applied by ArcGIS. This study was completed in six stages; determination of energy and industrial production plants, collection of geographical coordinates with Google Earth, distribution of emissions between each production plant, activity data and emission factor research for residential heating systems and final calculation of emissions for residential heating systems and finally spatial distribution of emissions with Geographical Information System. xxv According to results of this study for energy production, industrial production plants and residential heating systems’ overall controlled emissions of CO2, SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 pollutants of Turkey was calculated as 216,908,038 t/yr, 1,785,512 t/yr, 1,198,882 t/yr, 376,421 t/yr, 174,509 t/yr, 198,076 t/yr, 142,892 t/yr and 4,260 t/yr respectively. These values were compared with Turkey’s national and international study results and some interesting similarities and differences were confirmed. Results of this study was examined according to seven geographical regions of Turkey. When the regions were compared, Central Anatolia, Mediterranean, Marmara and Aegean regions were determined as the most polluted regions of Turkey. This results were explained with power plants which were located in these regions and high rate of urbanization and industrialization in the regions. Also, in this study, most polluted 10 province was listed for each pollutant. Kahramanmaraş, Zonguldak, Ankara and Izmir was determined as the most polluted provinces in Turkey. Afşin Elbistan power plant was determined as the major source of the air pollution in the country, besides other plants, especially hard coal-fired and imported lignite-fired power plants and industrial facilities were effective on the distribution of emissions. xxvi xxvii TÜRKİYE İÇİN ENDÜSTRİYEL VE KONUT ISINMA SİSTEMLERİ KAYNAKLI EMİSYONLARIN COĞRAFİ BİLGİ SİSTEMİ KULLANARAK MEKANSAL DAĞILIMI ÖZET Bu tez çalışmasının amacı, Türkiye’de enerji ve endüstriyel kaynaklı emisyonlar ile konut ısınma sistemlerinden kaynaklanan emisyonların mekansal dağılımını oluşturmaktır. İlk olarak elektrik üretim kapasitesi 10 MW’tan büyük, fosil yakıt kullanan termik santraller belirlenmiş, çalışmada Türkiye’nin en önemli endüstrileri olan; petrol rafinasyonu, organik kimya endüstrisi, inorganik kimya endüstrisi, mineral endüstrisi, metalürji endüstrisi, kâğıt ve karton endüstrisi, şeker endüstrisi dikkate alınmıştır. Bu endüstrilere ek olarak alkollü içecek endüstrisinin de emisyon hesaplamaları çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Çalışmada emisyonları hesaplanan ana kirletici parametreleri SOx, NOx, CO, NH3, NMVOC, PM, CO2, TSP, PM10 ve PM2.5 olmuştur. Emisyon hesaplamaları hem kontrolüz hem kontrollü durumlar için yapılmış, ancak mekansal dağılımda sadece kontrollü durumlar göz önüne alınmıştır. Endüstriyel kaynaklı emisyonların Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi’nde mekansal dağılımı için, 2011 yılında oluşturulan emisyon envanter çalışmasından yararlanılmıştır. Emisyon değerleri hesaplanan her endüstriyel sektör için üretici taraması yapılmıştır. Çalışmada bilgilerinden faydalanılan 382 endüstriyel tesis ve tesis bilgileri, açık kaynaklardan, internet sitelerinden, derneklerden ve sanayi birliklerinden elde edilmiştir. Belirlenen her tesisin adreslerine ve üretim kapasitelerine ulaşılmış, bilgilerine ulaşılamayan tesisler için işçi sayıları ile emisyon değerleri arasında yaklaşımda bulunulmuştur. Her endüstri için hesaplanan toplam emisyon değerleri, belirlenen üretim kapasiteleri ile doğru orantılı olarak dağıtılmıştır. Mekansal dağılım için en temel veri olan coğrafi koordinasyonların belirlenmesi için ise Google Earth programı kullanılmıştır. Endüstriyel tesisler için toplam CO2, SOX, NOX, CO, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 ve NH3 emisyonları kontrolsüz durumlar için 2010 yılında sırasıyla; 55.124.263 ton, 42.737 ton, 28.609 ton, 790.861 ton, 220.055 ton, 5.834.130 ton, 3.300.394 ton ve 8.920 ton olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ayrıca, bazı sektörler için mevcut olduğu bilinen klasik emisyon kontrol sistemlerinin ortalama verimleri kullanılarak kontrollü durum emisyonları hesaplanmıştır. Toplam kontrollü durum endüstriyel emisyonlar, SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 ve NH3 kirleticileri için sırasıyla 24.720 ton, 28.565 ton, 13.234 ton, 36.042 ton, 44.019 ton, 7.926 ton ve 457 ton olarak hesaplanmıştır. Endüstri tesislerinde yakıt kullanımı sonucu açığa çıkan emisyonlar da emisyon envanterinde oldukça önem taşımaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada endüstrilerin yakıt kullanımı da göz önüne alınmıştır. Toplam emisyonlarda, endüstrilerin proses emisyonlarında olduğu gibi 2011 yılında oluşturulan emisyon envanter xxviii çalışmasından faydalanılmıştır. CO2, SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC ve PM10 kirleticileri için toplam emisyonlar sırasıyla 57.663.913 ton, 156.037 ton, 156.844 ton, 69.242 ton, 15.120 ton ve 156.844 ton olarak belirlenmiştir. 2010 yılında çalışmaya dahil edilen yerli linyit, taş kömürü, ithal linyit, doğal gaz, fuel oil ve biyogaz kullanılan termik santrallerin toplam kurulu gücü 32.147 MW olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu kapasite Türkiye’deki kayıtlı termal güç üretim kapasitesi olan 32.278 MW değerinin yaklaşık %99’una karşılık gelmektedir. EÜAŞ bünyesinde olanlar için emisyonlar, kesin işletme verileri dikkate alınarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bunların kapasitesi ise 7.251 MW’tır. Geri kalanlar için temsil edici işletme planları tahmin edilmiş ve emisyon hesabında kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada hali hazırda faaliyette olan 110 adet termik santral belirlenmiştir. Bunlardan 16 tanesi yerli linyit, 1 tanesi taş kömürü, 5 tanesi ithal linyit, 75 tanesi doğal gaz, 10 tanesi fuel oil ve 3 tanesi de biyogaz kullanılan termik santrallerdir. Mekansal dağılım çalışmasında faydalanmak üzere, termik santrallerin coğrafi koordinatları ise Google Earth programı ile belirlenmiştir. Termik santraller için kullanılan yakıtın türüne göre yakıt tüketim miktarları hesaplanmıştır. Ancak sadece yerli linyitin kullanıldığı termik santraller için tesis işletme raporlarından 2010 yılında tüketilen yakıt miktarları elde edilmiş, hesaplamalara bu bilgiler ışığında devam edilmiştir. Diğer termik santrallerin toplam yakıt tüketim miktarı ise, yakıt türüne ve özelliğine göre yaklaşımda bulunarak elde edilen, yakıtın kalorifik değeri, kapasite kullanım oranı ve ısıl dönüşüm verimliliği ile hesaplanmıştır. İçerdiği kükürt miktarına bağlı olarak, özellikle yerli linyit kullanılan termik santraller için tesis bazından SOX emisyon faktörleri tek tek hesaplanmıştır. Yerli linyit kullanılan termik santraller için diğer emisyon faktörleri ise yakıtın ve yakma sisteminin karakteristik özelliklerine uygun olacak şekilde çeşitli kaynaklardan alınmıştır. Diğer termik santraller için emisyon faktörleri ise yine yakıt türlerine uygun olacak şekilde çeşitli kaynaklardan alınmıştır. Bu çalışma sırasında fosil yakıtların kullanıldığı termik santrallere ek olarak biyogaz kullanılan santraller için de emisyon envanteri oluşturulmuştur. Tüketilen toplam yakıt miktarları daha önceki termik santraller için uygulanan hesap yöntemi ile aynıdır ancak, emisyon hesaplamaları biyogaz içerisindeki metan miktarı ile belirlenmiştir. SOX emisyon faktörleri metan gazı içerisindeki hidrojen sülfür ve diğer sülfürlü bileşenlerin kükürt miktarına bağlı olarak hesaplanmıştır. Diğer kirleticiler için emisyon faktörleri çeşitli kaynaklardan alınarak hesaplamalar tamamlanmıştır. Hesaplamalar sonucunda enerji üretim tesisleri için kontrolsüz durum 2010 yılı için emisyonları CO2, SOX, NOX, CO, NMVOC, TSP, PM10 ve PM2.5 kirleticileri için 2010 yılında sırasıyla; 123.587.348 ton, 2.325.499 ton, 325.716 ton, 111.018 ton, 2.452 ton, 5.333.215 ton, 1.343.733 ton ve 201.795 ton, toplam kontrollü durum emisyonları ise SOX, TSP, PM10 ve PM2.5 kirleticileri için sırasıyla 1.528.192 ton, 106.664 ton, 26.875 ton ve 10.089 ton olarak hesaplanmıştır. Konut ısınma kaynaklı emisyonların hesapları 81 il ve ilçeler için Türkiye’nin 2013 yılı nüfus ile hanehalkı büyüklüğü verileri TÜİK’ten alınmış, bu veriler kullanılarak il ve ilçelerdeki konut sayıları elde edilmiştir. Isınma sistemlerinin kullanım oranları Aile ve Sosyal İlişkiler Bakanlığı’nın yayınladığı Aile Yapısı Araştırması 2011 raporundan alınmış, çalışmada ilgilenilen her ısıtma sistemi için (doğal gaz, yerli linyit, ithal linyit ve odun) konut sayıları il ve ilçe bazında hesaplanmıştır. xxix Emisyon hesaplamaları, ilk olarak Türkiye’deki her konutun ortalama 80 m2 olduğu varsayımı ile yapılmış ancak hesaplanan yakıt tüketim miktarlarının Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı tarafından rapor edilen miktarlardan daha düşük olduğu görülmüştür. Bu nedenle, daha gerçekçi sonuçlar elde edebilmek için emisyon hesaplamalarına konut büyüklüğü ile ilişkili olacak yaklaşımlarla devam edilmiştir. Yine Aile ve Sosyal İlişkiler Bakanlığı’nın yayınladığı Aile Yapısı Araştırması 2011 raporundan Türkiye’de konutlardaki oda sayısı oranları elde edilmiştir. İlk etapta her il için hesaplanan toplam konut sayısı, illerdeki konut büyüklüğü oranlarına göre yeniden hesaplanmıştır. Böylece her yakıt türü ve her konut büyüklüğü için konut sayısı elde edilmiştir. Konutların yıllık ısınma ihtiyacı, konut büyüklükleri ile ilişkili olacak şekilde hesaplanmıştır. Konutların yakıt tüketim miktarları ise yıllık ısınma ihtiyacı ve konut sayısı ile hesaplanmıştır. Emisyon faktörleri her yakıt türü için yakıtların karakteristik özelliklerine bağlı olarak ayrı ayrı belirlenmiş ve emisyon miktarları hesaplanmıştır. Türkiye’de toplam konut sayısı 19.053.629 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Çalışma sonuçlarına göre toplam konut sayısının Türkiye’de konutların %40’ının doğal gaz, %33’ünün ithal linyit, %15’inin yerli linyit ve %12’sinin odun ile ısınma ihtiyacını karşıladığı belirlenmiştir. Tüketilen toplam yakıt miktarları doğal gaz, ithal linyit, yerli linyit ve odun için hesaplanmış ve sonuçlar sırasıyla; 4.718.312.578 m3/y, 5.718.951 t/y, 3.899.285 t/y and 3.119.285 t/y olarak elde edilmiştir. Bu değerler resmi kurumlardan kişisel temaslarla alınan tüketim verileri ile uyumludur. Hesaplamalar sonucunda konut ısınma sistemleri için CO2, SOX, NOX, CO, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 ve NH3 emisyonları 2013 yılı için sırasıyla; 38.195.817 ton, 232.559 ton, 37.471 ton, 1.059.298 ton, 136.015 ton, 127.182 ton, 124.877 ton ve 3.803 ton olarak hesaplanmıştır. Emisyonların mekansal dağılımını incelemek için kullanılan program olarak Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemi uygulamalarından olan, ArcGIS, seçilmiştir. Her endüstriyel sektör ve enerji üretim tesislerinden kaynaklanan toplam kirletici emisyonlarının görülebildiği haritaları elde edebilmek ve konut ısınma kaynaklı kirletici emisyonlarının mekansal dağılımını inceleyebilmek için Google Earth programı ile kaydedilen coğrafi koordinatlar ArcGIS uygulamasında kullanılmış, kirleticilerin mekansal dağılımı elde edilmiştir. Çalışma sonunda, CO2, SOX, CO, NOx, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 ve NH3 kirleticilerinin toplam kontrollü durum emisyonları enerji üretim, endüstriyel ve konut ısınma sistemleri için sırasıyla 216.907.428 t/y, 1.785.512 t/y, 1.198.882 t/y, 376.421 t/y, 174.509 t/y, 198.076 t/y, 142.892 t/y ve 4.260 t/y olarak hesaplanmıştır. Kontrollü durumda toplam SOX emisyonunun kaynaklar arasındaki oransal dağılımı; termik santrallerde %79, konut ısınma sistemlerinde %12, endüstriyel tesislerde %1 ve endüstriyel yakıt kullanımında %8 şeklindedir. Bu değerler Türkiye’ye ait ulusal ve uluslar arası bir çok çalışma sonucu ile karşılaştırılmış ve ilginç benzerlikler ve farklılıklar tespit edilmiştir. Hesaplanan emisyon miktarları Türkiye’nin 7 coğrafi bölgesi arasında incelenmiş, kirliliğin en fazla olduğu bölgeler İç Anadolu, Akdeniz, Marmara ve Ege bölgeleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar incelendiğinde ise bu bölgelerde termik santrallerin, kentleşmenin ve sanayileşmenin yoğun olduğu görülmüştür. xxx Ayrıca bu çalışmada Türkiye’deki kirliliğin en fazla olduğu 10 il her kirletici için ayrı ayrı belirlenmiş, Kahramanmaraş, Zonguldak, Ankara ve İzmir kirliliğin en yoğun olduğu iller olarak görülmüştür. Özellikle Afşin Elbistan termik santrali ülkede kirliliğe sebep olan en büyük etkenlerden biri olarak belirlenmiştir. Diğer illerde de termik santrallerin, endüstriyel tesislerin ve konut ısınma sistemlerinin kirliliği belirleme de oldukça önemli bir yere sahip olduğu görülmüştür. 1 1 INTRODUCTION With the developing world environmental pollution is became the inevitable end. There are various anthropogenic activities to cause environmental pollution such as transport, industry, power plants, households, agriculture and waste treatment. Households and industrialization are the most important ones for sure. This is often the case in developing countries, where less attention is paid to environmental protection, environmental standards are often inappropriate or not effectively implemented, and pollution control techniques are not yet fully developed. Also the rapid proliferation of informal small-scale enterprises in townships as well as in rural areas, which often create serious environmental pollution because of lack of sufficient knowledge and funds. Environmental pollution from hazardous industries or technologies transferred from developed countries are no longer acceptable for occupational and environmental health reasons in developed countries [1]. In developing countries, air pollution is emitted not only from stack emission of pollutants from relatively large industries, like iron and steel, non-ferrous metals and petroleum products industries, but also from fugitive emission of pollutants from small-scale factories, such as cement mills, lead refineries, chemical fertilizer and pesticide factories and so on, where inadequate pollution control measures exist and pollutants are allowed to escape to the atmosphere [1]. Air pollution in cities is a serious environmental problem especially in the developing countries. The air pollution path of the urban atmosphere consists of emission and transmission of air pollutants resulting in the ambient air pollution. Most cities world wide suffer from serious air quality problems, which have received increasing attention in the past decade. A major probable reason for the air-quality problems is urban population growth, which has many consequences like higher air pollutants emission, combined with change in land use due to increasing urban areas. The urban population growth is caused by drift to the cities and excess of births over 2 deaths in the cities themselves especially due to high birthrates in the developing countries [2]. An effective environmental planning and management process helps decision makers to formulate and implement realistic and effective strategies and action plans to improve air quality. These strategies and action plans have to systematically address the short and long-term causes of urban air pollution and help the city to achieve a sustainable growth pattern [3]. Air pollution can cause adverse effects on the atmosphere and human health, e.g. irritation, increase of incidence or prevalence of respiratory diseases, cancer, excess mortality and deleterious effects on animal or plant life [4]. By reducing air pollution levels, countries can reduce the burden of disease from stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma [5]. The sources of air pollution are divided into three categories; point, area and mobile. Point Sources: The major point source emissions categories are power plants, industrial boilers, petroleum refineries, industrial surface coatings and chemical manufacturing industries. Point sources' emissions are generated from stack emissions. Area Sources: Area sources are those emissions that are too small to be treated as point sources. Area sources' emissions can be generated from solvents used for surface coating operation, degreasing, graphic arts, dry cleaning and gasoline station. Area sources are the activities where aggregated source emissions information is maintained for the entire source categories instead of each point source, and are reported at the county level. Mobile Sources: Mobile sources are categorized for highway and off-highway sources. The highway sources include the automobile, buses truck and other vehicle traveling on local and highway roads [6]. In this study point sources and area surces were investigated. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mainly concerned with emissions which are or could be harmful to people. EPA calls this set of principal air pollutants, criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), lead 3 (Pb), nitrogen dioxide(NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) [7]. The other important air pollutants are carbon dioxide (CO2), Mercury (Hg), Hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFC), Volatile Organic Compunds (VOCs), Aerosols and Asbestos [8]. This study worked with the air pollutants which emitted by Turkish industry sector. A Geographic Information System is a means of electronically storing, analyzing, and displaying data that innately includes a spatial component; it includes actual location information. GIS data systems easily store and manipulate spatial objects such as areas, polygons, boundaries, lines, and points. Each of these objects relate to real-world features such as census tracts, facility locations, roads, rivers, elevation, spatial demographic information, and political boundaries, all of which can be combined, interrelated, and analyzed using GIS tools. GIS technology can provide significant enhancements in estimating and analyzing emission estimates of airborne pollutants. These capabilities will help to improve our ozone and particulate matter attainment plans. In addition, GIS is an important tool for evaluating neighborhood level community health air pollution impacts. In combination with the Internet, GIS allow us to more effectively display our results to the public and help them understand the types and sources of air pollution around them [9]. It is important to calculate the emission values and to show them with GIS to determine the pollution concentrations and distrubutions in advance. It is also important to evaluate the industrial plants on their own and compare them with other plants to inform the decision makers with the necessary information and to determine the necessary precautions [10]. Ultimately, emission inventories that incorporate GIS will substantially improve our ability to develop effective plans to meet air quality standards and help understand the effects of air pollution at the local community level [9]. This study worked with only spatial mapping for emission inventory. 4 1.1 Objective As a result of industrial variety, air pollutants change with industry to industry. Because of the lack of information, estimations of air pollutants from different industries is become very difficult. The exposure levels of the pollutions in developed countries are usually much lower than that in developing countries, where air pollution is not strictly controlled and residential areas are usually near to the industries. Hence developing countries started to investigate this subject. The collaborations with developed countries are also become a requirement because of the international arrangements. A knowledge of the types of pollutants and their emissions is fundamental to the study and control of air pollution. The systematic collection and collation of detailed information concerning the air pollution emissions in a given area are referred to as an emission inventory. One of the objective of this study was spatial distribution of air pollutants which were emitted from industrial activities, households and power plants in Turkey with Geographical Information System. 1.2 Scope  The production facilities are determined for each section. These sections are divided into eight category: Energy Production: Public electricity and heat production. Organic Chemicals Industry: Synthetic rubber, Ethylene – Propylene, Aromatics – BTX, Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), Ethylene oxide – Ethylene glycol (EO/EG), Acrylonitrile (Vinyl Cyanide), Phtalic Anhydride, Poly Ethylene (LDPE – HDPE – LLDPE), Polypropylene, Polystyrene, Polyvinyl Chloride, Synthetic Fibre and Yarn, Formaldehyde, Isopropyl Alcohol, Methanol, Ethanol, Soap, Detergents, Paint, Varnish and Ink. Inorganic Chemicals Industry: Boron Compounds, Soda Ash, Chromium Oxides, Primary Magnesium Production, Fertilizer (Ammonium sulphate, Ammonium nitrate, Urea, Triple super phosphate, Diammonium phosphate, Compose fertilizer), Inorganic Phosphates (Sodium tri poli phosphate, Dicalcium Phosphate), Sulphuric 5 Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Hydrofluoric Acid, Chlor Alkali, Hydrochloric acid, Ammonia, Nitric Acid. Mineral Products Industry: Cement, Lime, Glass, Magnesium Oxide. Metallurgical Industry: Iron and Steel Industry -Integrated Steelworks, Metallurgical coke production, Electrical arc furnaces, Foundries - Non-Ferrous Metal Industry, Ferroalloys, Aluminium. Wood Products Industry: Pulp and paper Petroleum Refining Industry Food and Beverages Industry: Sugar, Alcoholic drinks.  Considered emission values are distributed between the industrial facilities.  Energy production emission inventory was build up for determineted power plants.  Industrial emission inventory was considered from the MSc. thesis of Alyuz U. [8].  For using GIS the coordinates of each production facility are saved in form of longitude and latitude.  Populations of each province, counties and average size of households by province were derived.  Rates of heating systems for each region in Turkey was determined.  Total fuel consumption amounts for each province were calculated.  With the analyzed emissions factors and fuel consumption amounts air pollutant emissions calculations were completed for each province.  Geographical Information System was used for spatial distribution of pollutants. 6 7 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this section knowledge about emissions in Turkey is investigated to understand various approaches. For this reason, scientific articles, national inventory reports, master theses are examined. As a conclusion of literature review, there are not found any thesis related with industrial emission inventory with usage of GIS programme [11]. However there is only one thesis found about using GIS programme. Sabit T., is prepared a MSc. thesis in 2012 which was titled “Inventory of emissions from residential heating in Istanbul”. In this study emission inventory for residential heating sources was prepared in the city of Istanbul. The emissions of SO2, NOx, PM10, PM2,5, CO, NMVOCs, CO2, N2O and CH4 were calculated by using emission factors for the winter of 2009-2010. Spatial distribution maps of the emissions for all pollutants were plotted using a GIS. Markakis et al. [12] were prepared an article with the name of “A computational approach based on GIS technology for the development of an anthropogenic emission inventory of gaseous pollutants in Greece”. This paper describes a computational system developed for the compilation of an anthropogenic emission inventory of gaseous pollutants for Greece. The inventory was developed using a geographical information system and GIS computer software to provide high temporal gridded emission fields for CO, NO 2 , NO, SO 2 , NH 3 and 23 non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) species for the reference year 2003. Guttikunda S. K. and Calori G. [13] were published an article with the name “A GIS based emissions inventory at 1 km × 1 km spatial resolution for air pollution analysis in Delhi, India” which is about a multi-pollutant emissions inventory for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, covering the main district and its satellite cities - Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad, and Ghaziabad for the base year 2010. They estimate emissions of PM2,5, PM10, SOX , NOX , CO, VOC. The inventory is further spatially disaggregated into 80 × 80 grids at 0.01° resolution for each of the contributing sectors, which include vehicle exhaust, road dust re-suspension, domestic cooking 8 and heating, power plants, industries, diesel generator sets and waste burning. In “A GIS based methodology for gridding of large-scale emission inventories: Application to carbon-monoxide emissions over Indian region” Dalvi M. et al. [14] were studied about to develop a GIS based methodology for distributing the CO emissions from a broader level inventory to finely gridded emission values, considering local micro-level details and activity data. Kim J.H. et al. [15] were prepared an article with the name of “A GIS-based national emission inventory of major VOCs and risk assessment modeling: Part 1 – methodology and spatial pattern of emissions” which was about a method for assessing and managing the South Korean atmospheric emission inventory of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) based on a GIS. The use of this GIS-based assessment technique makes it possible to obtain the geographical characteristics of anthropogenic emission sources, observe spatial patterns within the emission inventory, and develop a new bottom-up method for improving the spatial accuracy of emission inventories. As a case study, they estimated the emission rates of five major VOCs (benzene, ethyl-benzene, styrene, toluene, and xylene) throughout South Korea for the year 2004. Aleksandropoulou V. et al. [16] were published an article which was titled “Atmospheric emission inventory for natural and antropogenic sources and spatial emission mapping for The Greater Athens Area”. In this study a spatially, temporally and chemically resolved emission inventory for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM2.5- 10) and gaseous species (ΝΟx, SOx, NMVOCs, CO and ΝΗ3) from anthropogenic and natural sources was created for the Great Athens Area for base year 2007. Anthropogenic sources in the Great Athens Area considered in this study include combustion (industrial, non-industrial, commercial and residential), industrial production, transportation, agriculture and solvent use. The emissions were distributed on a high resolution grid of 70 × 70 grid points, with spatial resolution of 1 × 1 km2. Markakis M. et al. [17] were prepared an article which is titled “Compilation of a GIS based high spatially and temporally resolved emission inventory for the Greater Istanbul Area”. In this study they present a computational approach, an emission processing core that is used to compile a high spatially and temporally resolved 9 emission inventory for the anthropogenic sources covering the Greater Istanbul Area (GIA) for the reference year 2007. The emission processor is used to produce emissions for a 92 x 57 km area covering the Great Istanbul Area with 2 km grid resolution. The emission inventory has high temporal resolution, covering monthly, weekly and diurnal processing and includes CO, NOx, SOx, NH3, and chemically speciated PM10, PM2.5 and NMVOCs emissions. In 2011 an article published which was titled “Development of GIS-aided emission inventory of air pollutants for an urban environment”. Sailesh N.B. et al [18] were studied about to present a systematic set of approaches to prepare a GIS-based emission inventory for an urban environment. They have considered development of PM10 emission inventory as an example. The study area is Kanpur city which represents typical weather conditions and atmospheric seasonal variability in the Ganga basin. Digitized map of the study area with 2 km × 2 km grid resolutions is evolved. An emission inventory of PM10 has been developed with ArcGIS after execution of data management of activity levels. At the end spatially resolved map of PM10 emission loads over the study area is generated and the contributions of identified sources towards PM10 pollution are assessed. Fu X. et al. [19] were published an article with the name of “Emission inventory of primary pollutants and chemical speciation for the Yangtze River Delta region, China”. In this study they developed a high-resolution emission inventory of primary air pollutants for Yangtze River Delta region, which included Shanghai plus 24 cities in the provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang. A detail speciation of PM2.5 for the Yangtze River Delta region was developed. Gumrukcuoglu M. and Macit M. B. [10] published an article whisch was titled “Determination of Industrial Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Mapping by Geographic Information System”. In this study their aim was to calculate the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission concentrations of industrial plants with the help of the Gauss Plume Model Equation, to map their distributions and, in regions where there is more than one industrial plant, to present the importance of total emissions. With this aim, in Sakarya city, three industrial plants that are close to each other and that use sulfur- containing fuels for energy were chosen, and the SO2 emission concentrations coming out of their stacks were calculated in defined points of 50 m intervals. Total 10 concentration values were determined and emission distribution is mapped using the GIS. In 2012 Karaca F. [20] was studied about “Determination of air quality zones in Turkey” which is about the PM10 profile of Turkey with data from the air quality monitoring stations located throughout the country was used. The number of stations 55. First, a classification method was developed. Then, a GIS-based interpolation technique and statistical analyses were used to generate PM10 pollution profiles of the annual heating time and non-heating time periods. Finally, the coherent air pollution management zones of Turkey, based on air quality criteria and measured data using a GIS-based model supported by statistical analyses. Zhang Q. et al. [21] published an article “GIS-based emission inventories of urban scale: A case study of Hangzhou, China” which is about GIS-based SO2, NOX, and PM10 emission inventories of Hangzhou in 2004 from fuel combustion (except traffic) with fuel based factors, fuel consumption in traffic with travel-distance-based factors, and industrial process with product-based factors. In 2013 Tian H. et al. [22] published an article “An elaborate high resolution emission inventory of primary air pollutants for the Central Plain Urban Agglomeration of China”. The study was about high resolution emission inventory for the year 2010 was established for the first time for the Central Plain Urban Agglomeraion of China. It was spatially disaggregated into 3 km × 3 km grids cells and the monthly profiles of power plants and industrial sectors were investigated in detail in order to better understand the current air pollution situations and their temporal and spatial distribution characteristics. In 2008 Fauser P. and Illerup J. B. [23] published an article “Danish emission inventory for solvents used in industries and households” which was about emission inventory for NMVOC compounds from the use of solvents in industries and households. Can A. and Altıntay A. T. [24] have an article “CO2 emission inventory for Turkey”. In the study CO2 emission data for the year of 1995 to 2000 from the households, manufacturing industry, thermal power plants and road vehicles were calculated for all 910 districts of Turkey and this has been investigated by using Geographic Information System techniques. Using GIS programs in the study according to the 11 emission sources formed scaled emission maps. The CO2 emission inventory was prepared by considering the total amount of fuels used in provinces with respect to sources, then this inventory was linked to the GIS mapping of provinces. Elbir T. et al. [25] were published an article “Evaluation of some air pollution indicators in Turkey” In the study there was a national emission inventory was prepared with respect to five major pollutants consisting of particulate matter, SOx, NOx, NMVOCs, and CO with 5-year intervals between 1985 and 2005. Elbir T. et al. [26] were published an article “Estimation of emission strenghts of primary air pollutants in the city of Izmir, Turkey” which was about a local emission inventory for NOx, SO2 and PM with 1-h temporal and 1-km spatial resolution within an area of 80 km × 100 km with the metropolitan city of Izmir at the center. Sari D. and Bayram A. [27] studied about an article in 2013 which was titled “Quantification of emissions from domestic heating in residential areas of Izmir, Turkey and assessment of the impact on local/regional air-quality”. The study was about quantifying the amount of domestic heating emissions for PM10, SO2, NO2, VOCs and CO together with greenhouse gases which are CO2, N2O and CH4 in İzmir for 2008–2009 winter season. As a result of this literature review, there is not a study found that investigate emissions of energy production, industrial activities and residential heating systems and spatial distribution of these emissions using Geographical Information System. From a policy perspective, the most important linkages between climate change and air pollution exist at the level of emission sources. Air pollutants and greenhouse gases are often emitted by the same sources and hence changes in the activity levels of these sources affect both types of emissions. Air quality is determined by the concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere, which are, in turn affected by the dispersion of pollutants from emission sources. An emission inventory is an accounting of the amount of pollutants discharged into the atmosphere. An emission inventory usually contains the total emissions for one or more specific greenhouse gases or air pollutants, originating from all source categories in a certain geographical area and within a specified time span, usually a specific year. Understanding emissions is at the core of understanding environmental pollution. Emission inventories are also at the core of the international agreements on climate change. Especially the use of inventories to monitor progress towards the agreed 12 emission targets is an important application both in the convention and under the Kyoto protocol. Emissions inventory can be carried out in two methods. First method is referred to as the top-down approach and the second one is the bottom-up approach. A top-down inventory is characterised by a lack of detailed information about location and emissions from individual sources. When fuel consumption, production, vehicle and other activity statistics are available, a top-down inventory can be constructed,using the statistics and emission factors. So a top-down emission inventory is based on statistical data collected over a larger region (a country, a NUTS region). If total emissions are a concern, e.g. emission inventories to monitor emission ceilings or CO2, this approach is often used. In a first phase, a top-down inventory can be produced with relatively little effort, to give an overview of the emissions, the most important sources and categories, etc. These inventories, however, lack local detail, as they use typical country-wide behavioural patterns which may not be reflected by an urban area to be considered specifically. Sometimes spatial information is added based on land use population densities, etc. The bottom-up inventory is constructed from the more detailed knowledge of source types and locations, and their specific emissions or consumption data. A bottom-up emission inventory is activity and location based. For each activity at all locations within an area (a city, a region) the emissions are determined. For monitoring emission policy the individual sources are aggregated for the area concerned. Bottom-up approaches provide a wealth of additional information compared to top- down approaches and can more easily be used to diagnose situations and formulate (local) policy. However, they are laborious to make and the chances of missing certain emissions are substantial. For detailed air quality modelling the individual emission sources are used [117]. The approach used in this study has been bottom-up approach. 13 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION In this section, parameters distributed in the study are explained with their potential sources and possible effects. Also Turkey’s industrial structure is described. 3.1 Overview of Turkey Turkey is situated between Southeastern Europe and Southwestern Asia; bordering the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. The geographic coordinates of the country lie at 39°N 35°E. The area of Turkey is 783,562 km2 land; 770,760 km2 water; 9,820 km2 [28]. Total population of the country is 76,667,864 as of May 2014 [29]. The 81 provinces of Turkey are divided into 919 districts [118]. Turkey is an important energy terminal and corridor in Europe connecting the East and the West. Located at a close proximity of more tha 70% of the world’s proven primary energy reserves, while the largest energy comsumer, which is Europe. Thus, making the country a key point in energy transit and an energy terminal in the region [30]. As a result of the geological structure it is sitting upon, Turkey is one of the rare countries in the world that can supply a significant portion of its own raw material requirements thanks to the diversity of its minerals. It is ranked 28th in the world in terms of total mining production and 10th in terms of the diversity of mines produced. Only 13 out of the 90 types of minerals traded throughout the world have not so far been discovered in country. Turkey is either rich or very rich in terms of the remaining 50 types of minerals and has insufficient resources in terms of 27 types of minerals. As far as reserves, Turkey is among the leading reserve-rich countries in the world starting with boron, trona, bentonite, marble, feldspar, mangesite, limestone, pumice stone, perlite, strontium and calcite. 72% of the world’s boron reserves, 23% of the world’s feldspar reserves and, 20% of the bentonite reserves are in Turkey. The plant established to process the Beypazarı Trona mine, which is the second largest soda 14 ash reserve in the world, supplies 2.5% of the world’s consumption by producing 1 million tons of soda ash and 100 thousand tons of sodium carbonate per annum. There are nearly 3,500 known metallic and close to 2,000 industrial raw materials beds and resources in Turkey. In addition there are more than 600 hot water springs and more than 140 geothermal energy fields that have been discovered [31]. Figure 3.1 : Turkey map. 3.2 Energy Profile of Turkey Turkey will likely see the fastest medium to long-term growth in energy demand among the International Energy Agency (IEA) member countries [32]. Over the past decade demand in the Turkish energy market has been growing in line with its economic developments, driven by industrialization and urbanization. This situation together with population growth expectations shows great potential for further growth. As a fast-growing country, energy consumption in Turkey is on the rise. With the on- going liberalization process, the Turkish energy sector is becoming more vibrant and competitive, attracting the attention of more investors for each component of the value in chain all the energy sub-sectors [33]. Affordable energy is essential for increasing the living standards for Turkish people. Large investments in energy infrastructure, especially in electricity and natural gas, 15 are needed over the coming years to avoid bottlenecks in supply and to sustain rapid economic growth. Turkey will rely largely on the private sector as the source for such energy investments [32]. With the 73% production capacity, thermal power plants are the most important electricity production alternative in the Turkey. Hydraulic, geothermal and wind power plant production capacity are respectively 24.2% and 2.8% in 2012 [34]. As a growing country, Turkey’s total energy consumption is changes with requirement of energy and population growth. Figure 3.2 shows the energy consumption rates among the areas of usage [35]. Figure 3.2 : Energy consumption rates as usage. In Turkey some of the thermal power plants are owned by Electricity Generation Company, and some of them are owned by private sector. The biggest owner of the sector is independent producers with the 31%. Figure 3.3 shows the electricity producers and their production ratio [35]. The Turkish electricity market is one of the fastest growing in the world, with approximately 9% annual growth on average, in 2010 and 2011. Electrical Energy Production in 2012 has been decreased by % 4.4 (10,101.7 million kWh) as compared with the previous year and has been 239,496.8 million kWh and Industrial 35% Transportation 18% Residential 35% Agriculture 7% Usage out of energy 5% 16 consumption has been decreased by % 5.2 (12,063.6 million kWh) and has been 242,369.9 million kWh [34]. Figure 3.3 : Electricity producers and production rates. At the end of 2012, the installed capacity of Turkish power system has increased at a rate of % 7.8 corresponding to 4,148.3 MW according to the previous year and has been realized as 57,059.4 MW. 1,096.1 MW increase at thermal power plants, 2,472.3 MW at hydraulic power plants and 579.9 MW at geothermal and wind power plants have been provided. In the end Turkey’s production of electrical energy was 239,496.8 GWh in 2012 [34]. 174,872 GWh electricity was produced by thermal power plants, 57,865 GWh electricity was produced by hydraulic power plants and 6,760 GWh electricity was produced by geothermal and wind power plants [34]. Ratio of primary energy resources and total installed powers were given in Figure 3.4 [34]. The investment climate of Turkey has increasingly become more welcoming to international investors, making the country among the most important investment destinations in the world. The energy sector alone has made 32% of the deal volume through privatizations and private sector transactions in 2012. Investment opportunities exist in almost all components of the value chain for electricity, natural gas, oil and coal [33]. Independent producer 31% EUAS 30% Built operate 18% EUAS Affiliations 8% Built operate transfer 6% Autoproducer 5% Transfer of operating rights 2% 17 Figure 3.4 : Ratio of installed power in Turkey by primary sources. Similar to the electricity market, natural gas consumption in Turkey is growing as well. The use of natural gas increased significantly in the last 15 years, both in industry, and within households. In 2012 natural gas consumption reaches approximately 46 billion cubic meters, demonstrating an increase of 4.7% compared to the previous year. Local production in Turkey is quite limited, covering approximately 2% of total consumption. In 2011 0.76 billion cubic meters was produced. Turkey is an import-dependent country due to its limited production capacity. Natural gas imported from Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan through pipelines. In addition, LNG is imported from Nigeria, Algeria and spot markets. Total natural gas consumption and usage rates by sectors were given in Figure 3.5 [33]. Figure 3.5 : Natural gas consumption by sectors. Coal 28% Liqued Fuels 1% Natural Gas 44% Renewable+Waste 0% Hydraulic 24% Geo+Wind 3% 18 Oil consumption in 2012 was approximately 31.5 million tons and is expected to increase in upcoming years. Given the very limited amount of oil production, which was 2.3 million tons in Turkey in 2012, this demand is being met by imported oil to the great extent. Difference between supply and demand demonstrates potential growth and this difference is expected to decrease. TUPRAS, the market leader in the refinery industry currently has four different refineries in Izmit, Izmir, Kırıkkale and Batman. The refineries in Izmit and Izmir are the largest according to generation capacity. Approximate amount of oil consumption for following years were given in Figure 3.6 [33]. Figure 3.6 : Oil Consumption (Mt.) over the years. Turkey is a middle-level country in terms of lignite reserves and production amounts and lower-level in hard coal. Having about 34% of world's total lignite reserves which is 377 billion tons of world lignite reserves. Turkey's domestic resource potential is 15.4 billion tons of coal and of this total 14.1 billion tons is lignite. Of our country's lignite reserves, around over 50% is in Afsin- Elbistan basin as well. The most important hard coal reserves of our country are in Zonguldak and its vicinity. The total hard coal reserve in Zonguldak Basin is 1.316 billion tons, while visible reserve here is at the level of 514 million tons [36]. Use of these reserves would make many positive contributions in line with development, reduction of foreign trade deficit, supply security, reduction of electricity costs, employment, keeping value added in the country and creating a competitive industry [33]. 19 Coal production in Turkey increased by approximately 10 million tons in last ten years and reached a volume of 75.9 million tons in 2011. At present there are only one power plants fuelled with hard coal. In 2011 total coal consumption amounted to 104.127 million tons, 70.8 million tons coal for electricity generation, 14.2 million tons for household heating and 19.2 million tons for industrial usage [33]. Sectoral usage ratio of total coal consumption was given in Figure 3.7 [33]. Figure 3.7 : Sectoral coal consumption. As of the end of 2013, installed power of domestic coal-based thermal power plants in Turkey is 8,516 MW, which corresponds to 13% of our total installed power. Contribution of coal (domestic + imported) to total installed power is 12,429 MW, which corresponds to 19.4% of our total installed power. Out of total electricity energy produced by the end of 2012, around 28.4% was from imported and domestic coal. Out of coal fired electricity production by the end of 2012, 43% comes hard coal and imported coal, while 57% comes from domestic lignite coal [36]. Energy-related CO2 emissions have more than doubled since 1990 and are likely to continue to increase fast over the medium and long term, in parallel with significant growth in energy demand. Turkey is a Party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and became a Party to the Kyoto Protocol in 2009. However, as a rapidly developing economy with low emissions per capita, Turkey has preferred not to set a quantitative overall target to limit emissions. This exemption is based on the decision 26/CP.7 of 2001 by the Parties to the Household heating 14% Electricity generation 68% Steel industry 6% Cement industry 7% Other industry 5% 20 UNFCCC. Turkey is the only Annex-I country that has not (by May 2010) set mitigation targets for the post-2012 period or proposed mitigation actions to support them, as required under the Copenhagen Accord. It is also the only OECD country that does not have a national emission target for 2020. Turkey’s approach is to implement policies and measures to protect the climate system on the basis of equity and in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities. Turkey sees that its special circumstances and differences from other Annex-I Parties are not addressed in the Copenhagen Accord. Nevertheless, Turkey has been working on further developing its post-2012 approach and determining its commitments [32]. 3.3 Industrial Structure of Turkey Turkey is the 17th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest in Europe with [33]. In developing Turkey, the most important sector linking to the global economy is manufacturing industry. The wide and diverse manufacturing industry of Turkey, with strong international connections, and manufacturing mostly for export, entered a phase of rapid development after 2001. Its stability combined with the impact of the Customs Union with the EU and resulted in a significant transformation in manufacturing and foreign trade structure. Rapid development of the Eastern Asian economies and the preservation of the EU’s competitive edge have made Turkey’s geographic location even more important. These qualities make Turkey a center of attraction for global investors. Turkey has the potential to assume a vital role in the inclusion of neighboring countries in the global economy, which will bring many new opportunities to Turkish industry in the future. Recently, many multinational companies, primarily EU-based ones, have chosen Turkey as their production and investment base [37]. Turkish industry mainly depends on the private sector activities. The share of public sector in the manufacturing industry has been decreased through privatisation activities in recent years. More than 80 % of production and about 95 % of gross fixed investment in the manufacturing industry is realized by the private sector based on 2001 data [38]. 21 3.4 Brief Information About Air Pollutants Air pollutants investigated in this study and their potential effects on human health and the environment is given in this section. 3.4.1 Carbon monoxide (CO2) Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. Combustion of fossil fuels for energy and transportation, industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2 . The largest source of CO2 emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity Many industrial processes emit CO2 through fossil fuel combustion. Several processes also produce CO2 emissions through chemical reactions that do not involve combustion, for example, the production and consumption of mineral products such as cement, the production of metals such as iron and steel, and the production of chemicals [39]. 3.4.2 Nitrogen oxides (NOX) Nitrogen oxides are emitted from fuel combustion, such as from power plants and other industrial facilities [40]. Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) formed in combustion processes are due either to thermal fixation of atmospheric nitrogen in the combustion air ("thermal NOX"), or to the conversion of chemically bound nitrogen in the fuel ("fuel NOX"). The term NOX refers to the composite of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Test data have shown that for most external fossil fuel combustion systems, over 95 percent of the emitted NOX is in the form of nitric oxide (NO) [41]. 3.4.3 Nitrous oxide (N2O) Nitrous oxide (N2O) is not included in NOx but has recently received increased interest because of atmospheric effects [41]. Human activities such as agriculture, fossil fuel combustion, wastewater management, and industrial processes are increasing the amount of N2O in the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide is emitted as a byproduct during the production of nitric acid, production of adipic acid, agricultural soil management, manure management and combustion of transportation fuels [42]. 22 3.4.4 Sulphur dioxide (SO2) Sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions are generated during oil combustion from the oxidation of sulfur contained in the fuel. The emissions of SOX from conventional combustion systems are predominantly in the form of SO2. Uncontrolled SOX emissions are almost entirely dependent on the sulfur content of the fuel and are not affected by boiler size, burner design, or grade of fuel being fired. On average, more than 95 percent of the fuel sulfur is converted to SO2, about 1 to 5 percent is further oxidized to sulfur trioxide (SO3), and 1 to 3 percent is emitted as sulfate particulate [41]. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as “oxides of sulfur.” The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73%) and other industrial facilities (20%). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore, and the burning of high sulfur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships, and non-road equipment [43]. 3.4.5 Ammonia (NH3) The vast majority of NH3 emissions come from the agricultural sector. A relatively small amount is also released from various industrial processes [40]. Various industries were identified as emitters of ammonia. These include the fertilizer manufacture industry, coke manufacture, fossil fuel combustion, livestock management, and refrigeration methods. Most of the ammonia emitted is generated from livestock waste management and fertilizer production, comprising about 90% of total ammonia emissions [44]. Fossil fuel combustion is different from the other industries identified in that ammonia is not emitted from the process itself, but from the control technology applied to the source in order to control nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic reduction are two technologies used to control nitrogen oxides in the post-combustion gases exhausting from combustion sources. These methods reduce nitrogen oxides by injecting urea or ammonia into the exhaust gas to react with the nitrogen oxides, with or without a catalyst present, depending on the method selected. If the reaction is not complete, a portion of the ammonia may exit the system in the effluent. This condition is known as ammonia slip [44]. 23 3.4.6 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) VOCs are chemical compounds containing carbon that vaporize easily and enter the atmosphere. They can be released directly into the air, or by incomplete combustion in the burning of fossil fuels in automobile engines and power plants [8]. 3.4.7 Methane (CH4) Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Natural gas and petroleum systems are the largest source of CH4 emissions from industry. Methane is also emitted from a number of natural sources such as wetlands, oceans, sediments, volcanoes, and wildfires [45]. 3.4.8 Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) NMVOCs, important ground-level ozone precursors, are emitted from a large number of sources including industry, paint application, road transport, dry-cleaning and other solvent uses. Certain NMVOC species, such as benzene (C6H6) and 1,3- butadiene, are directly hazardous to human health [40]. 3.4.9 Particulate matter (PM) In terms of potential to harm human health, PM is one of the most important pollutants as it penetrates into sensitive regions of the respiratory system, and can cause or aggravate cardiovascular and lung diseases. PM is emitted from many sources and is a complex mixture comprising both primary and secondary PM; primary PM is the fraction of PM that is emitted directly into the atmosphere, whereas secondary PM forms in the atmosphere following the release of precursor gases (mainly SO2, NO X , NH 3 and some volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) [40]. 3.4.10 Heavy metals The heavy metals arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr) lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and nickel (Ni) are emitted mainly as a result of various combustion processes and from industrial activities. As well as polluting the air, heavy metals can be 24 deposited on terrestrial or water surfaces and subsequently buildup in soils and sediments, and can bio-accumulate in food chains. They are typically toxic to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [40]. 3.4.11 Organic micro-pollutants Benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and dioxins and furans are categorised as organic pollutants. They cause different harmful effects to human health and to ecosystems, and each of these pollutants is a known or suspected human carcinogen; dioxins and furans and PAHs also bioaccumulate in the environment. Emissions of these substances commonly occur from the combustion of fuels and wastes and from various industrial processes [40]. 25 4 MATERIALS AND METHOD In this section, method of the study and used materials are summarized. Methodology of the study was explained under the separate titles. Figure 4.1 : General flow chart of the methodology. 4.1 Determination of Production Plants For each energy and industrial production plants, private and public production facilities were determined with their names and addresses. With the aim of using as activity data, plant capacities and number of workers were investigated. Facilities which we couldn’t reach any of information about their capacities nor number of workers were not included with the ground of that would not be beneficial to the study. Thus, the study completed with the remaining plants. The number of plant which was included to the study was determined as 492. 26 In Turkey there are many chambers and associations . These are charged with a lot of assingments. Address of each 492 plants’ were determined with the help of different sources. In general, The Union of Chambers, Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB) database [28], 9th Development Reports of Prime Ministry, State Planning Organization General Directorate for Economic Sectors and Coordination Industry Department, Compilation of an Industrial Emission Inventory for Turkey, M.Sc. Thesis which was done by Alyuz, U [8], as open source; official and unofficial chambers, associations databases and annual reports of the facilities were used as main source. 4.2 Collection of Geographical Coordinates Data, which is one of the important components of GIS, contains an geographic reference, such as a latitude and longitude coordinate, or an implicit reference such as an address, postal code, census tract name or road name [46]. There are many ways to get data into a GIS; digitizing, automatic scanning, entry of coordinates and conversion of existing digital data [47]. In this study one of the data which was used with GIS to observe the distribution of pollutants, which is from point and area sources, is coordinates of production facilities and province’s centres. Thus, the third option was choosen in this study. In this stage, the coordinates of production facilities were collected. Google Earth was used as one of the component of the study. Because of it’s easily accessible and useable users and also it can providing up to date data. The coordinates of facilities which we could not sure the exact location, were accepted as a central location of province. 4.3 Uncontrolled Emission Inventory for Energy Production In this study, as a defined clean power production technologies; hydraulic, geothermal and wind power plants were not accepted, only thermal power plants were investigated. The fuels which were considered in this study; natural gas, lignite, hard coal, fuel oil and biogas. Figure 4.2 was show the rates of installed power by type of fuels in this study. 27 In Turkey, power plants, especially lignite-fired power plants were take an important place in energy production. Released emissions from these power plants were also take an important place in air quality of the country. With high installed power, coal characteristic and operating condition of power plants were considering the major emission source in Turkey. In first step, before the emissions were calculated, 110 power plant was determined with names, type of fuels and installed powers. But, it was understood that accessing the capacity data for all of the power plants was quite hard and time consuming. Thus, between all of the power plants in Turkey some of the plants were eliminated by considering their accessibility to the capacities and either it is running or not. Energy production plants were also eliminated according to installed power of power plants. This study studied with power plants which have installed power higher than 10 MW. The total installed power of investigated thermal power plants was established as 32,147 MW [48]. For lignite-fired power plants, emission calculations were generated with the amount of total fuel consumptions for based year 2010 which were derived from operation reports and characteristics of coal such as; calorific value and sulphur content in fuel. Emission factors of CO2 and SO2; were determined seperately for each power plant. Figure 4.2 : Installed power by type of fuel. Lignite-fired 26,98% Hard coal-fired 0,93%Imported coal- fired 14,85% Natural gas-fired 54,91% Fuel oil-fired 2,13% Biogas fired-fired 0,19% 28 Emission factors of hard coal-fired power plants, imported lignite-fired power plants, natural gas-fired power plants and fuel oil fired power plants were taken according to characteristics of fuel. Table 4.1 : Lignite-fired power plants CO2 and SO2 emission factors. EF CO2 (t/TJ) EF SO2 (kg/t) Installed Capacity (MW) Orhaneli 92,672 25.5 210 18 Mart Çan 95,92 33 320 Soma A 95,314 21 990 Soma B 95,314 21 44 Tunçbilek 115,000 28.5 365 Yatağan 115,000 13.5 630 Yeniköy 90,900 25.5 420 Kemerköy 115,000 33 630 Afşin-Elbistan A 115,000 21 1355 Afşin-Elbistan B 115,000 21 1440 Kangal 115,000 28.5 457 Seyitömer 115,000 13.5 600 Park Termik 115,000 39 640 Konya Şeker 115,000 39 22 Enerjisa 115,000 39 450 Tam Enerji 115,000 39 100 As given in Table 4.2 emission factors of CO2, SOX, NOX, CO, NMVOC, N2O, CH4, TSP, PM10, PM2.5 and PM were taken from Alyuz, U [8]. Table 4.2 : Emission factors by fuel type. Lignite- fired Hard coal- fired Imported lignite- fired Natural gas-fired Fuel oil- fired Biogas- fired Pollutant EF (kg/TJ) EF (kg/TJ) EF (kg/TJ) EF (kg/TJ) EF (kg/TJ) EF (kg/TJ) CO2 196,600 97,500 56,100 73,300 54,600 SOX 519 519 0.3 485 11 NOX 360 310 360 88 215 617 CO 113 150 113 39 5 451 NMVOC 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.5 0.8 N2O 1 2 2 0.1 0.1 CH4 1 1 1 0.3 TSP 30 30 25 PM10 20 20 2 PM2.5 9 9 1 PM 0.9 123 29 Emission factors of domestic lignite are chosen for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 are respectively, 87.5 kg/t, 22 kg/t and 3.28 kg/t [8]. Emissions of biogas-fired power plants were calculated with determinated fuel consumption amounts, calorific values, capacity usage rates and emission factors. NOX, CO and PM emission factores derived from AP42 [49] and CO2 emission factor was taken from IPCC [50]. Emission factor of SOX was calculated with the help of the hydrogen sulfide content in fuel. Determination of the SOX emission factor was based on the combustion of the hyrogen sulfide with oxygen and total amount of occured sulphur dioxide. According to results, total uncontrolled emissions of power plants were given in Table 4.3. As seen from the table, overall emissions calculated for uncontrolled conditions. Table 4.3 : Total uncontrolled emissions of power plants by fuel type. According to installed power, ratio of capacity usage and calorific exchange factor of power plants, amount of fuel consumptions were calculated for each power plant. Also, ratio of capacity usage and calorific exchange factor was determined according to type of fuel. Total fuel consumption of power plants was given in Table 4.4. Fuel typ Number of plants Installed Power (MW) CO 2 t /yr NO X t /yr SO X t /yr SO 2 t /yr CO t /yr NMVOC t/yr PM t /yr TSP t /yr PM 10 t /yr PM 2.5 t /yr Lignite- fired 16 8673 47,778,355 157,126 2,124,893 49,320 742 5,325,192 1,338,905 199,619 Hard oal- fired 1 300 3,494,312 5,510 13,703 2,666 21 533 355 160 Imported coal-fired 5 4775 21,453,120 79,212 169,642 24,864 374 6,601 4,401 1,980 Natural gas-fired 75 17,651 48,125,353 75,491 257 33,456 1,287 772 Fuel oil- fired 10 686 2,606,895 7,646 17,249 178 28 889 71 36 Biogas fired- 3 61.5 129,313 731 13 535 146 Total 110 32,147 123,587,348 325,716 2,325,499 257 111,018 2,453 918 5,333,215 1,343,733 201,795 Emissions 30 Table 4.4 : Total fuel consumption of power plants. Type of fuel Fuel consumption (t/yr and m3/y) Lignite 60,859,339 Hard coal 685,164 Imported lignite 8,482,082 Fuel oil 850,017 Biogas 125,789,369 Natural gas 21,582,203,829 4.4 Controlled Emission Inventory of Energy Production The term flue gas desulfurization has traditionally referred to wet scrubbers that remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from large electric utility boilers (mainly coal combustion) [119]. FGD systems can be categorized as dry or wet. Scrubbers are capable of reduction efficiencies in the range of 50% to 98%. The highest removal efficiencies are achieved by wet scrubbers, greater than 90% and the lowest by dry scrubbers, typically less than 80% [120]. Commonly used chemicals or natural materials used include lime as the "scrubbing" media [121]. In this study a coal-fired power plants on 18 Mart, Park Termik, Konya Seker, Enerjisa, Tam Enerji, IÇDAŞ Electricity Production, Eren Energy, Isken Sugözü, Ayas Energy and Izdemir Energy Electricity Production plants used SO2 removal technologies and calculations were contiuned with controlled emissions. Abatement efficiencies were determined as 90% for each power plant. As given in Table 4.5 results of after abatement emissions with SOx controlled coal-fired power plants were calculated as 88,590 t/yr. An electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is air pollution control device used to separate solid particulate matter from a contaminated air stream. Contaminated air flows into an ESP chamber and is ionized by electron emitting electrodes; also known as the corona chamber. The suspended particles are charged by the electron field and migrate to a collection plate. Accumulate particulate matter is removed from the collection plates at periodic intervals by rapping or hitting the plates with rappers (mallets type hammers). Heavy particles fall to the base of the ESP where hoppers hold the removed particles for disposal [122]. 31 Table 4.5 : Controlled SOX emissions of coal-fired power plants. Plant Uncontrolled Emissions t/yr Controlled Emissions t/yr 18 Mart Çan 158,014 15,801 Park Termik 196,353 19,635 Konya Şeker 11,781 1,178 Enerjisa 288,127 28,813 Tam Enerji 61,98 6,198 IÇDAŞ 42,632 4,263 Eren Energy 49,383 4,938 Isken Sugözü 42,988 4,299 Ayas Energy 22,204 2,22 Izdemir 12,434 1,243 Total 885,896 88,590 ESPs are configured in several ways. Some of these configurations have been developed for special control action, and others have evolved for economic reasons. The types are (1) the plate-wire precipitator, the most common variety; (2) the flat plate precipitator, (3) the tubular precipitator; (4) the wet precipitator, which may have any of the previous mechanical configurations; and (5) the two-stage precipitator. Design efficiency of ESPs are determined between 95% and 99%. [123]. In Turkey ESPs were used in coal-fired power plants (domestic lignite, hard coal and imported lignite) and fuel oil-fired power plants which were EUAS plants, Park Termik, Konya Seker, Enerjisa, Tam Enerji, IÇDAŞ Electricity Production, Eren Energy, Isken Sugözü, Ayas Energy and Izdemir Energy Electricity Production and Catalağzı. Removal efficiencies of ESPs were accepted as 98% for TSP and PM10, 95% for PM2.5. In Table 4.6 after abatement emissions of coal-fired power plants were given. Ambarlı, Aksa, Idil Iki, Gül Energy, Habaş, Izaydaş, Karkey Karadeniz Electricity Production power plants were determined as the fuel oil-fired power plants which were used ESP. Removal efficiencies of ESPs were accepted as 98% for TSP, PM10, and PM2.5. In Table 4.6 after abatement emissions of coal-fired power plants were given. 32 Table 4.6 : Controlled emissions of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 for coal-fired plants. Plant TSP Emissio ns t/yr PM10 Emissions t/yr PM2.5 Emissions t/yr Orhaneli 2,306 580 216 18 Mart Çan 3,072 773 288 Soma "A" 40 10 4 Soma "B" 8,182 2,057 767 Tunçbilek 2,684 675 252 Yatağan 5,832 1,466 547 Yeniköy 2,906 731 272 Kemerköy 6,587 1,656 617 Afşin-Elbistan "A" 9,056 2,277 849 Afşin-Elbistan "B" 28,911 7,269 2,709 Kangal 8,565 2,153 803 Seyitömer 9,576 2,408 897 Park Termik Elektrik San. ve Tic. A.Ş. 6,608 1,661 619 Konya Şeker Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. 396 100 37 Enerjisa Enerji Üretim A.Ş. 9,697 2,438 909 Tam Enerji Üretim A.Ş. 2,086 524 195 Catalağzı 11 7 8 Iİçdaş Elektrik Enerjisi Üretim ve Yatırım A.Ş. 33 22 25 Eren Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.Ş. 38 26 29 İsken Sugözü Enerji Santrali 33 22 25 Ayas Enerji Üretim 17 12 13 İzdemir Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.Ş. 10 6 7 Total 106,647 26,873 10,088 Table 4.7 : Controlled TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions of fuel oil-fired plants. Plant TSP Emissions t/yr PM10 Emissions t/yr PM2.5 Emissions t/yr Ambarlı 8.55 0.684 0.34 Aksa 0.83 0.067 0.03 Aksa 0.62 0.05 0.02 Idil İki 0.62 0.05 0.02 Gül Energy 0.63 0.05 0.03 Habaş 0.47 0.037 0.02 Habaş 0.93 0.075 0.04 Izaydaş 0.13 0.011 0.01 Karkey 3.69 0.295 0.15 Karkey 1.3 0.104 0.05 Total 17.78 1.423 0.71 33 After abatement calculation of power plants, overall emissions were determined as given in Table 4.8. When the first calculations (before abatement) and the second calculations (after abatement) were compared a decrease to be seen, especially in SOX, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Table 4.8 : Total controlled emissions of power plants by fuel type. 4.5 Distribution of Emissions In this study, during the distribution of emissions, four type of criteria were considered. This criteria are; installed power of power plants, producion capacity of industrial plants as tonne/year or litre/year and number of employee of industrial plants. If there were not found any information about production capacities, number of employee was considered. Total amount of installed power, production capacity and number of employee was given by sectoral in Table 4.9. In this study, total amount of considered production plant according to sectors; 110 power plant, 4 oil refinery, 57 organic chemical plant, 45 inorganic chemical plant, 108 mineral product plant, 76 metallurgical industrial plant, 31 pulp and paper production plant and 61 food and beverages production plant. Fuel type Number of plants Installed Capacity (MW) CO 2 t /yr NO X t /yr SO X t /yr SO 2 t /yr CO t /yr NMVOC t /yr PM t /yr TSP t /yr PM 10 t /yr PM 2.5 t /yr Lignite- fired 16 8673 47,778,355 157,126 2,124,893 49,320 742 106,504 26,778 9,981 Hard coal- fired 1 300 3,494,312 5,510 13,703 2,666 21 11 7 8 Imported coal-fired 5 4775 21,453,120 79,212 169,642 24,864 374 132 88 99 N tural gas- fired 75 17,651 48,125,353 75,491 257 33,456 1,287 772 Fuel oil- fired 10 686 2,606,895 7,646 17,249 178 28 18 1 1 Biogas fired- fired 3 61.5 129,313 731 13 535 146 Total 110 32,147 123,587,348 325,716 1,528,192 257 111,018 2,453 918 106,664 26,875 10,089 Emissions 34 Table 4.9 : Quantitative distribution of sectors. 4.6 Emission Inventory of Residential Heating Emission inventory of residential heating was calculated in two different way. In this chapter each way of the calculations were summarized. But the final emissions were Sector Sub-sector Number of plant Installed power (MW) Production capacity (t/y) Production capacity (l/y) Number of employee Lignite-fired 16 8673 Hard coal fired 1 300 Imported coal fired 5 4775 Natural gas fired 75 17.651 Fuel oil fired 10 686 Biogas fired fired 3 61,5 Oil Refineries Oil Refineries 4 28.000.000 Synthetic rubber 4 687 Ethylen - propylene 1 520.000 Aromatics - BTX 1 134.000 Vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) 1 152.000 Acrylonitrile (Vinyl Cyanide) 1 90.000 Ethylen oxide - Ethylene glycol 1 89.000 Phtalic anyhydride (PAN) 1 34.000 Low density polyethylene 1 190.000 Linear low density polyethylene 1 160.000 High density polyethylene 1 96.000 Polypropylene 1 144.000 Polyvinyl chloride 1 150.000 Synthetic fibre and yarn 11 1.161.325 Polystyrene 1 126.000 Formaldehyde 5 511.000 Crude terephtalic acid 1 70.000 Detergents 7 1.323.100 Paint, varnish and ink 17 1.646.000 Boron compounds 4 3.900.000 Soda ash 2 2.200.000 Chromium oxides 2 1.240.000 Magnesium oxides (Magnesia) 2 330.000 Ammonium sulphate 1 197.287 Ammonium nitrate 1 578.000 Urea 1 561.000 Triple super phosphate 3 505.000 Diammonium phosphate 5 970.022 Compose fertilizer 5 1.931.000 Sodium tri poli phosphate 1 36.000 Dicalcium Phosphate 2 89.520 Sulphuric Acid 4 1.097.797 Phosphoric Acid 5 659.560 Chlor Alkali 1 100.000 Hydrochloric Acid 1 18.000 Ammonia 2 726.000 Nitric Acid 3 969.580 Lime 23 12.415.748 Carpide 1 18.500 Glass 30 3.098.538 Cement 54 91.989.425 Iron and Steel Industry 27 44.503.720 Ferroalloys 2 172.000 Alluminium 47 1.030.870 Wood Products Industry Pulp and Paper 31 2.854.950 Sugar 32 64.232.895 Alcoholic drinks 29 83.374.179 1627 Total 492 32.147 271.021.837 83.374.179 2314 Food and Beverages Energy Production Organic Chemical Industry Inorganic Chemical Industry Mineral Product Industry Metallurgical Industry 35 completed with the fuel consumption amounts which were more realistic then the another fuel consumption amounts. Figure 4.3 : General flow chart of emission inventory of residential heating. In first approach, first stage for the emission inventory of was calculation of the amount of residence. To calculate the amount of residence; 2013 populations of each province and county were determinated from TurkStat database and average size of households were deteminated from Address Based Population Registration System for based year 2012, which was the latest data. Amount of residence derived from population and average size of households. According to results total amount of residence was 19,039,762 in Turkey. In Table 4.10 total amount of residence by using fuel type was given. To derive the number of residence for the year of 2010, the ratio of population considered between 2013 and 2010, which was determined as 4%. Also, emission results evaluated with this approach. In this study, results of calculations compared between geographical regions of Turkey. Amount of resindence were given by regional in Table 4.11. 36 Table 4.10 : Total amount of residence by type of fuel. Type of fuel Number of residence Natural gas 6,976,729 Wood 2,144,474 Domestic coal 2,680,593 Imported coal 5,897,304 Total 19,039,762 In the second stage heating system rates were calculated for each region in Turkey. While calculate the heating system rates there were made some assumptions. Residence heating system rates were taken from Research of The Family Structure, 2011 [103]. In this study, before calculations were starts, some of the heating system rates were ignored, because one of these rates was climate usage ratio (4%) which was irrelevant with the study and the remainig rates (2.6%) which were running with unknown fuel systems, were not involved to the study. Calculations were continued with 93.4% heating system rate. Table 4.11 : Amount of residence by type of fuel. Region Total amount of residence Natural gas Wood Domestic coal Imported coal Mediterranean 2,555,977 124,292 380,891 476,114 1,047,451 Aegean 2,901,516 406,212 388,803 486,004 1,069,209 Marmara 6,451,034 4,091,966 436,263 545,329 1,199,724 Black Sea 1,639,020 286,775 263,799 329,748 725,446 Central Anatolia 3,312,831 1,769,592 299,757 374,697 824,333 Eastern Anatolia 924,525 147,308 156,615 195,769 430,692 Southeastern Anatolia 1,254,859 150,583 218,345 272,932 600,450 Total 19,039,762 6,976,729 2,144,474 2,680,593 5,897,304 After the assumption, final ratio of heating systems were determined as; 40% of the residence were using natural gas, 12% of the residence were using wood, 15% of the residence were using domestic coal and 33% of the residence were using imported coal in Turkey. The main difference was seen in rates of regional value. In Table 4.12 rates of heating systems for each region in Turkey were given [103]. 37 Table 4.12 : Ratio of heating system for each region in Turkey. Region Natural gas Wood Domestic coal Imported coal Istanbul 0.75 0.04 0.05 0.11 Western Marmara 0.25 0.14 0.18 0.39 Eastern Marmara 0.50 0.09 0.12 0.26 Aegean 0.14 0.13 0.168 0.369 Mediterranean 0.048 0.15 0.19 0.41 Western Anatolia 0.622 0.074 0.093 0.20 Central Anatolia 0.327 0.13 0.16 0.36 Western Black Sea 0.198 0.16 0.20 0.43 Eastern Black Sea 0.082 0.18 0.22 0.49 Northeast Anatolia 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.46 Central Eastern Anatolia 0.172 0.17 0.21 0.46 Southeastern Anatolia 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.47 In third stage the amount of the residence which were used the natural gas as heating system, the amount of the residence which were used wood as heating system, the amount of the residence which were used domestic coal as heating system and the amount of the residence which were used imported coal as a heating system were calculated with the help of the Table 4.12. When the total amounts of residence calculating, the another assumption was made in this stage. For each province and county, heating system rates are accepted the same value with their involved region. The fourth stage was fuel consumption calculations; an amount of fuel consumption for each province is determined from Table 4.12. Before the fuel consumption amounts were calculated, annual heating demands were determined for residence sizes (80 m2) in each province. The another datas which were using in calculations of annual heating demand; structural features such as window size and window locations, wall thickness, structural heat losses and usage of solar energy [104]. Annual heating demands were calculated for four regions which were given in Table 4.13. These regions were determined according to locations of the province, total energy consumptions and conventional heating systems which were using over the years. 38 Table 4.13 : Regional provinces and some counties. 1st Region 2nd Region 3rd Region 4th Region Adana Adıyaman Afyonkarahisar Ağrı Antalya Amasya Aksaray Ardahan Aydın Balıkesir Ankara Bayburt Hatay Bartın Artvin Bitlis Mersin Batman Bilecik Erzincan Izmir Bursa Bingö Erzurum Osmaniye Canakkale Bolu Gümüşhane Muğla Denizli Burdur Hakkari Diyarbakır Cankırı Kars Düzce Corum Kastamonu Edirne Elazığ Kayseri Gaziantep Eskişehir Muş Giresun Iğdır Sivas Istanbul Isparta Van Kahramanmaraş Karabük Yozgat Kilis Karaman Kocaeli Kırıkkale Manisa Kırklareli Mardin Kırşehir Ordu Konya Rize Kütahya Sakarya Malatya Samsun Nevşehir Siirt Niğde Sinop Tokat Sanlıurfa Tunceli Sırnak Uşak Tekirdağ Trabzon Yalova Zonguldak Total amount of annual heating demands were given in Table 4.14 After the annual heating demands calculated, fuel consumption amounts were determined. By considering the calorific values of natural gas, wood, imported coal and domestic coal the fuel consumptions were calculated for one residence. In Table 4.15 fuel consumptions were given. 39 Table 4.14 : Annual heating demands. Region Heat demand (kJ/yr) 1st region 81,873,803 2nd region 155,890,424 3rd region 209,441,035 4th region 343,349,966 Table 4.15 : Amount of fuel consumption per residence. Type of fuel 1st Region 2nd Region 3rd Region 4th Region t Domestic coal/yr 0.543 1.034 1.390 2.279 t Imported coal/yr 0.407 0.776 1.042 1.709 t Wood coal/yr 0.543 1.034 1.390 2.279 m3 Natural gas/yr 257 49 658 1,079 The fifth stage is emission factor analyzing. Emission factors were derived from EMEP [105]. Only SOx was analyzing separately because of the differences of the S content in fuel [124,125]. In Table 4.16 the emission factors for each fuel type were given. Table 4.16 : Emission factors of fuel type. Pollutant Emission Factors for natural gas (kg/t) Emission Factors for wood (kg/t) Emission Factors for imported coal (kg/t) Emission Factors for domestic coal (kg/t) NOX 2.04 1.4 2.9 1.9 CO 1.04 68 78 102 NMVOC 0.08 10.2 12.6 8.2 TSP 0.05 13.6 11.5 7.5 PM10 0.05 12.9 10.5 6.9 PM2.5 0.05 12.6 10.4 6.8 NH3 1.2 0.01 0.01 CO2 2.2 1,874 2,374 1,690 40 The sulphur content in the fuel and SOX emission factors were given in Table 4.17. Table 4.17 : SOX Emission factors. Type of fuel S content in fuel (%) EF (kg/t) Natural gas 0.3 0.01 Wood 0.15 0.2 Imported coal 1 19.5 Domestic coal 2 30.6 At the final stage, emissions were calculated for each province and county for each heating system. Total amount of fuel consumptions were given in Table 4.18. Table 4.18 : Total amount of fuel consumptions. Type of fuel Consumption (m3/yr and t/yr) Natural gas 3,807,873,748 Wood 2,328,592 Domestic coal 2,912,372 Imported coal 4,802,956 According to the first calculations, total amount of emissions were given in Table 4.19. Table 4.19 : Total amount of emissions. Pollutant Emissions (t/yr) SOX 184,348 NOX 30,118 CO 833,997 NMVOC 108,431 TSP 109,266 PM10 100,707 PM2.5 98,904 NH3 2,848 CO2 30,591,612 In second approach the difference of the calculations started with determination of the residence size. In first approach every residence was accepted as 80 m2. But when the emissions and total amount of fuel consumptions were calculated, results were not close enough to the Yanar, E. who is responsible person in Air 41 Management Department Directorate of Ministy of Environment and Urban Planning [106]. Because of this reason, second approach was applied to the study. According to Research of The Family Structure report, rates of rooms in residences were change by region to region. According to the Table 4.20. and Table 4.10, total amount of residence in provinces, which were changing with number of rooms, were calculated for each type of fuel. Table 4.20 : Regional rates of number of rooms. Region Rates of rooms in residence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Istanbul 0.6 8.6 52.6 32.7 3.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 Western Marmara 2.4 8.9 46.9 35.4 4.6 0.3 0 0.1 1.3 0.1 Eastern Marmara 0.8 6.6 39.2 44.7 4.9 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 Aegean 0.7 8.8 42.2 41.9 4.9 0.2 0.2 0 0.9 0.2 Mediterranean 1.2 10.3 45.1 37.2 4.2 0.9 0.5 0 0.5 0.1 Western Anatolia 0.5 4.8 30 54.9 5.8 2 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.4 Central Anatolia 0.7 5.7 29.6 54.2 7 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 0 Western Black Sea 0.9 8.3 39.6 40.5 7.8 1.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 Eastern Black Sea 1.1 11.8 37.2 40.2 7.3 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 Northeast Anatolia 3.9 25.2 43 24.8 1.8 0.4 0.4 0 0.7 0 Central Eastern Anatolia 1.9 8.8 40.6 39.2 6.3 1.6 0.3 0 1.3 0 Southeastern Anatolia 4 17.5 45.1 27.8 4.9 0.4 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 In next step, fuel comsumptions were calculated. Before the final consumption calculations, firstly, heating demands were calculated for 1 m2 area of households, Table 4.21. Table 4.21 : Regional heating demand. Region Heating demand (kJ/m2) 1st Region 127,928 2nd Region 243,579 3rd Region 327,252 4th Region 536,484 42 Table 4.22 : Heating demand and household size. Number of room 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Room size (m2) 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224 252 280 Heating demand (kJ/y) 1st Reg 3,581,984 7,163,968 10,745,952 14,327,936 17,909,920 21,491,904 25,073,888 28,655,872 32,237,856 35,819,840 2nd Reg 6,820,212 13,640,424 20,460,636 27,280,848 34,101,060 40,921,272 47,741,484 54,561,696 61,381,908 68,202,120 3rd Reg 9,163,056 18,326,112 27,489,168 36,652,224 45,815,280 54,978,336 64,141,392 73,304,448 82,467,504 91,630,560 4th Reg 15,021,552 30,043,104 45,064,656 60,086,208 75,107,760 90,129,312 105,150,864 120,172,416 135,193,968 150,215,520 43 To determine the residence size as m2, there was an assumption made by Alp, K. In this assumption, for 1 roomed house; dimensions of room was accepted as 15 m2 and living spaces accepted ad 13 m2. Thus, for 1 roomed, residence size was 28 m2, for 2 roomed, residence size was 56 m2, for 3 roomed, residence size was 84 m2. Then, heating demands were calculated as regional for residence size which was changed from 1 roomed and to 10 roomed. Other size of households and total amount of heating demands were given in Table 4.22. After the fundamental calculations, then fuel consumptions were calculated with amount of heating demands and amount of residence. Total amount of fuel consumptions were given in Table 4.23. Table 4.23 : Total amount of fuel consumptions. Type of fuel Fuel consumption (m3/yr and t/yr) Natural gas 4,718,312,578 Wood 3,119,428 Domestic coal 3,899,285 Imported coal 5,718,951 Amount of fuel consumption in heating systems was changing with parameters such as; population in provinces, average size of households, amount of resindences, number of rooms in provinces and heating demands. According to results, total amount of fuel consumptions was given by geographical regions in Table 4.24. Table 4.24 : Total fuel consumptions by regional Region Natural gas Consumption m3/yr Wood Consumption t/yr Imported coal consumption t/yr Domestic coal consumption t/yr Mediterranean 38,855,904 280,394 514,055 350,492 Aegean 177,156,448 402,715 738,310 503,393 Marmara 2,430,164,219 626,635 1,148,831 783,294 Black Sea 204,734,635 433,870 795,428 542,337 Central Anatolia 1,630,703,808 704,248 1,291,121 880,309 Eastern Anatolia 155,075,354 390,481 715,882 488,101 Southeastern Anatolia 81,622,211 281,086 515,325 351,358 44 Emissions were calculated with the same emission factors in the first calculations. Total amount of emissions were given in Table 4.25. When the first calculations and the second calculations compared; results were seen quite different. As seen in the results, second calculations were became more realistic than first calculations. Also, second results were determined much higher than first calculations. Difference between the each calculation was determined approximately 1,2-1.3%. Because of that difference, study was completed with the more realistic results which was second calculations. Table 4.25 : Emissions of residential heating Pollutant Emissions (t/yr) SOX 232,599 NOX 37,471 CO 1,059,298 TSP 138,087 PM10 127,182 PM2.5 124,887 NMVOC 136,015 NH3 3,803 CO2 38,195,817 After the emission calculations completed, emissions distributed spatially with ArcGIS programme. In Section 6 specific method was described for point and area sources. 45 5 DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS In this section, total industrial emissions were distributed between the production plants; which were identified in the first step. In the lightning of the calculation of emission inventory, emission distribution was determinated between the industrial facilities. Emission distribution methodologies were explained in under the following section for each industrial sector. The direct proportion between emissions and plant capacities is a known fact. [51], with that information the calculated controlled emissions distributed directly between the industrial activities. With consideration of the production capacities the first approach was used for industrial facilities; refineries, organic chemical industry (synthetic fibre and yarn, detergents, paint, varnish and ink), inorganic chemical industry (Boron compounds, Soda ash, Chromium oxides, Primary Magnesium production, fertilizer (Ammonium sulphate, Ammonium nitrate, Urea, Triple super phosphate, Diammonium phosphate, Compose fertilizer), Inorganic Phosphates (Sodium tri poli phosphate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Sulphuric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Ammonia, Nitric Acid) , mineral products industry (cement, lime, glass, carpide), metallurgical industry (iron and steel Industry, integrated steelworks, metallurgical coke production, electrical arc furnaces, ferroalloys, Aluminium (Primary Aluminium production, Secondary Aluminium production, Aluminium foundries), pulp and paper industry, sugar industry and alcoholic drinks industry. If there is not found any information about capacity values, the number of workers for each production plant were considered with the approach. When emission were distributing between synthetic rubber production plants and alcoholic drink production plants, number of workers were used in the calculations. In following chapters, emission distribution was explained briefly. 46 5.1 Distribution of Oil Refinery Emissions Currently in Turkey there are only one petroleum refinery which is Turkish Petroleum Refineries Co. (TUPRAS). The crude oil processing capacity is 28 mt/yr in TUPRAS [52]. Refineries is located in Izmir, Kocaeli, Batman and Kırıkkale, the production capacity of each plant respectively; 11 mt/yr, 11 mt/yr, 1 mt/yr and 5 mt/yr. Distributed air pollutant emissions which were from processes; PM, SO2, CO, Total HC, NO2, Aldehydes and NH3. When emissions were distributed between each refinery, the fugitive and storage tanks emissions were calculated with process emissions. Because fugitive emission sources include leaks of hydrocarbon vapors from process equipment, evaporation of hydrocarbons from open areas, valves of all types, flanges, pump and compressor seals, process drains, cooling towers, and oil/water separators which are process equipments [53]. Overall emissions from petroleum refineries were given in Table 5.1 [8]. Table 5.1 : Emissions of petroleum refineries. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) Process Emissions PM 36,827 1,841 SO2 32,403 4,860 CO 57,805 2,890 Total HC 43,762 2,301 NO2 729 510 Aldehydes 42 NH3 201 20 Fugitive Emissions HC 19,920 3,051 Storage tanks Emissions VOC 26,903 47 5.2 Distribution of Organic Chemical Industry Emissions In Turkey rubber industry is import-dependent, especially raw rubber production is nearly not exist. According to PAGEV there was only 2 plants which were produce raw synthetic rubber in 2010 in Turkey and total production capacity was 6,500 t/yr [54]. Because of the diffuculty to find each producer in rubber industry and the total amount of producers is limited; emission distribution was completed with the number of workers [55,56]. The main pollutant of rubber production process is VOC which is mainly occurs from uncontrolled monomer recovery, absorber vents, uncontrolled blend/coagulation tank and dryers. Only VOC emissions were calculated [8]. Additionaly, production process could not be determined for each producer, thus VOC emissions were distributed for total crumb and latex production. Emissions of synthetic rubber industry were given in Table 5.2 [8]. Table 5.2 : Emissions of synthetic rubber industry. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) Crumb production 124 71 Latex production 48 48 In petrochemical industry, PETKIM is the only producer of the Ethylene - Propylene, Aromatics (BTX), Vinyl chloride monomer (EDC/VCM), Ethylene oxide - Ethylene glycol (EO/EG), Acrylonitrile (Vinyl Cyanide), Phtalic Anhydride, Poly Ethylene (LDPE - HDPE - LLDPE), Polypropylene and Polyvinyl Chloride which was located in Izmir [64]. In the study, for each chemical, distribution of the process emissions were compeleted directly for each air pollutant. The air pollutants were emitted from petrochemical industry; NMVOC, VOC, CH4, CO2, CO, NH3, PM and SOX.. In Turkey there was only one producer found which was producing Polystyrene. The total production capacity is 126,000 t/yr [57]. Overall emissions from petrochemical industry were given in Table 5.3 [8]. 48 Table 5.3 : Emissions of petrochemical industry. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) Ethylene production NMVOC 2,246 300 Aromatics-BTX VOC 513 51 CH4 222 22 VCM production NMVOC 914 224 VOC 3,719 861 CO2 2,452 EO/EG production VOC 1,612 2.36 CH4 141 62 CO2 67,878 Acrylonitrile production VOC 4,702 94 CO 11,756 588 CO2 94,045 CH4 339 17 NH3 19 3 PAN production PM 4,784 254 SOX 187 187 NMVOC 48 4 CO 6 318 LDPE production VOC 3,032 455 PM 59 4 LLDPE production VOC 3,032 332 TSP 47 3 HDPE production NMVOC 1,259 189 TSP 53 8 PP production NMVOC 201 80 TSP 535 20 PS production NMVOC 385 5.28 PM 2.4 0.24 PVC production NMVOC 341 51 TSP 433 39 PM10 165 15 PM2.5 8 1 49 Synthetic fibre and yarn industry is one of the largest industries in Turkey. There were approximately 83 producers in the synthetic fibre and yarn production [58]. Distribution of emissions were completed directly to base on total amount of production capacity which was 1,161,325 t/yr for the biggest eleven producers in Turkey [58]. Main air pollutants in synthetic fibre and yarn industry are VOC and PM. VOC is emitted by synthetic fibres industry generally organic solvent usege to dissolve the polymer for extrusion or during the filament forming step. The major source of PM is polyester polymer fibre production which accounts nearly all of the PM emitted from synthetic fibre and yarn industry [8]. Overall emissions were given in Table 5.4 [8]. Table 5.4 : Emissions of synthetic fibre and production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) NMVOC 4,814 722 PM 23,952 132 Generally in Turkey, production aim of formaldehyde is for glue production and the main producers are furniture production facilities. In formaldehyde production the total amount of capacity was determined as 511,000 t/yr for five producer which were located in Kocaeli [59, 61], Balıkesir [60], Samsun [62], and Ordu [63]. Distributed emissions in formaldehyde production were CO, VOC and PM. Total amount of emissions were given in Table 5.5 [8]. Table 5.5 : Emissions of Formaldehyde production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) CO 436 7 NMVOC 255 0,06 TSP 18 0,02 Terephtalic acid is primarily used in the manufacture and production of polyester fibres, films, polyethylene terephthalatesolid state resins and polyethylene terephthalate engineering resins [8]. In Turkey there was only one producer found for 50 Crude terephatalic acid production with total production capacity as 126,000 t/yr [65]. Total amount of emissions were given in Table 5.6 [8]. Table 5.6 : Emissions of Crude terephtalic acid production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) CO 1,400 14 NMVOC 1,459 15 Detergent industry is the another largest industry in Turkey. There were approximately 236 detergent producers found in Turkey [66]. The term “synthetic detergent products” applies broadly to cleaning and laundering compounds containing surface-active compounds along with other ingredients [8]. Distribution of emissions were completed directly to base on total amount of production capacity which is 1,323,100 t/yr for the biggest seven producers in Turkey [67]. The emissions from detergent production are mainly emitted from spray drying towers and contain fine detergent particles, within this information calculations were completed only PM. Process emissions were given in Table 5.7 [8]. Table 5.7 : Emissions of detergent production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 62,226 747 Paint production is also one of the major industries in Turkey. There were approximately 200 paint, varnish and ink producer found in country [68,69]. Distribution of emissions were completed directly to based on total amount of production capacity which was 1,646,000 t/yr, between the biggest seventeen producers [70]. In paint, varnish and ink production, VOC emissions was distributed separetly because of the difference between emission factors for each prosses. PM is emitted only from paint production, thus, distribution of emissions was considered just paint 51 production. Distribution of emissions calculations were done only VOC and PM in this study. Total amount of emissions were given in Table 5.8 [8]. Table 5.8 : Emissions of paint, varnish and ink production. Paint Varnish Ink Pollutant Controlled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 211 5 NMVOC 91 90 28 5.3 Distribution of Inorganic Chemical Industry Emissions Borate is wide range of use and product diversity, 85% borate is used in the glass, glass-wool, detergents, agriculture and ceramics sectors. Boron chemicals are produced in by Eti Maden with 3,900,000 t/yr. The company produced 39.6% of the Boron compounds in the world and has 69.7% of world Borate reserves [71]. There are four production plants where located; Bigadiç, Emet, Bandırma and Kirka. The main pollutants are in boron production PM, PM10, PM2.5. Distribution of plant capacities are determinated base on product type; concentreted boron is produced in Kirka, Emet and Balıkesir [72] and boron oxides are produced in Kirka, Emet and Bigadiç [73]. Based on the production capacities, emissions were distributed between the production plants. Total amount of process emissions were given in Table 5.9 [8]. Table 5.9 : Emissions of Boron production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 2,559 122 PM10 1,439 73 PM2.5 550 28 Sodium carbonate, soda ash, is one of the largest volume mineral products in Turkey. Soda ash is used in a different applications like; glass production, soaps, detergents and pulp and paper production [8]. 52 There are 2 main soda ash producers; Sisecam Soda Sanayii and Eti Soda [77, 78]. Sısecam Soda Sanayi is located in Ankara and produce synthetic soda ash with 1,100,000 t/yr production capacity. Eti Soda is located in Mersin and produce 1,100,000 t/yr natural soda ash. Natural soda ash can produced from trona and nahcolite [74]. Synthetic soda ash production is made with Solvay process which is also called ammonia soda process by using the locally available natural raw materials of salt brine and limestone of the required purity [75, 76]. In Turkey Sisecam Soda Sanayi is using Solvay process. The emission distributions of producers determined separetly because the difference of pollutants and process types. As a result of difference in process types there were different emission factors for both plant. The total amount of soda ash process emissions were given in Table 5.10 [8]. Table 5.10 : Emissions of soda ash production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) Natural Soda Ash Production PM 148,816 442 CO2 298,768 Synthetic Soda Ash Production CO2 300,000 CO 12,000 120 NH3 1,000 50 Dust 100 1 Chromium chemicals has a wide range of usege in different industries. Chromium oxide production is occured in 2 biggest producers; Eti Krom and Sisecam Soda Sanayi, each of manufacturer’s production capacity is 1,100,000 t/yr [77, 79]. In this process there are 2 type of emission distributed which were; PM and Chromium. Process emissions of chromium oxide production was given in Table 5.11 [8]. Table 5.11 : Emissions of Chromium oxide production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 22,690 154 Chromium 29 29 53 Magnesium oxide is the most important material of the steel and refractory products. Turkey is one of the biggest magnesium oxide producer in the world. 2 magnesium oxide forms produced in Turkey; Dead Burned Magnesia and Caustic Calcined Magnesia [8]. In Turkey, magnesium oxide produced in 2 facilities which were located in Kütahya and Eskişehir [80,81]. Production capacities of manufacturer’s are respectively; 65,000t/yr and 265,000 t/yr. In this process there are three air pollutant emissions distributed; PM, CO2 and NOx. CO2 and NOx emissions were emitted from calcining and sintering sections [8]. Total amount of process emissions were given in Table 5.12 [8]. Table 5.12 : Emissions of Magnesium oxide production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 11,368 108 CO2 360,000 NOx 1,872 1,310 The fertilizer industry is one of the important industry especially for farmers. In Turkey there are six major fertilizer producer; TUGSAS, IGSAS, BAGFAS, GUBRETAS, Ege Fertilizer, Toros Agri, Samsun Fertilizer Industry and Gemlik Fertilizer Industry. In fertilizer industry there are various products are occur; Nitrogen fertilizers, Phosphate fertilizers, Potash fertilizers and Complex fertilizers [8]. In Turkey; ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, urea, triple super phosphate, diammonium phosphate, potassium phosphate and compose fertilizer were produced. [82]. Each type of fertilizer production process release different pollutants, and in this study emission distributions determined by the type of products in fertilizer industry. Ammonium sulphate ([NH4]2SO4) is an inorganic chemical which is used as a fertilizer. In Turkey Ammonium sulphate was produced in only BAGFAS with 197,287 t/yr capacity. PM and VOC is the emitted during the production process. Process emissions of Ammonium sulphate production is given in Table 5.13 [8]. 54 Table 5.13 : Emissions of Ammonium sulphate production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 4,648 4 VOC 150 22 Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) is produced by neutralizing nitric acid (HNO3) with ammonia (NH3). In Turkey there is only one production facility, which is Yıldız Entegre in Kütahya with 578,000 t/yr capacity and the main pollutants of this industry are PM and NH3 [83]. Total amount of process emissions of Ammonium nitrate production is given in Table 5.14 [8]. Table 5.14 : Emissions of Ammonium nitrate production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions t/yr Controlled Emissions t/yr PM 5,503 553 NH3 1,548 77 HNO3 N.E. 61 Urea is produced in IGSAS in Turkey with 561,000 t/yr capacity. Distribution of emissions for PM, NH3 and NO2 were calculated. Total amount of emissions from urea production was given in Table 5.15 [8]. Table 5.15 : Emissions of Urea production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions t/yr Controlled Emissions t/yr PM 823 57 NH3 1,074 53 NO2 116 81 Triple super phosphate is produced in Samsun Fertilizer Industry and Gemlik Fertilizer Industry, Diammonium phosphate is produced in Ege Fertilizer, Toros Agri and BAGFAS, Compose fertilizer is produced in BAGFAS, IGSAS, Ege Fertilizer, Toros Agri and GUBRETAS. Total production capacities of each fertilizer is 55 respectively, 505,000 t/yr, 970,022 t/yr and 1,931,000 t/yr. Emission distribution calculations were completed for PM and Fluoride emissions between Triple super phosphate manufacturers. Process emissions of Triple super phosphate production was gven in Table 5.16 [8]. Table 5.16 : Emissions of Triple super phosphate production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions t/yr Controlled Emissions t/yr PM 15,494 155 Fluoride 17 PM, NH3, SO2 and Fluoride emissions were emitted from diammonium production plants and distribution of the emissions were determined for between three facility. Total amount of emissions which were emitted from Diammonium production was given in Table 5.17 [8]. Table 5.17 : Emissions of Diammonium phosphate production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions t/yr Controlled Emissions t/yr PM 3,372 168.6 NH3 694 34.7 SO2 1,983 19.8 Fluoride 9.9 During the compose fertilizer production, PM, NH3 and Fluoride emissions were emitted. Emission distribution calculations were determined for five compose fertilizer producer directly. Total amount of emissions which were emitted from compose fertilizer production were given in Table 5.18 [8]. Table 5.18 : Emissions of compose fertilizer production. Production Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 1,309 65 NH3 3,272 164 Fluoride 26.2 56 Sodium tri poli phosphate is generally used in a detergents. In Turkey there is only one Sodium tri poli phosphate producer which is A.B. Gıda Sanayi and production capacity is 36,000 t/yr [84]. PM and Fluorine is the main pollutants in the industry. Process emissions of Sodium tri poli phosphate production was given in Table 5.19 [8]. Table 5.19 : Emissions of Sodium tri poli phosphate production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 21,420 21.4 Fluoride 9.2 Dicalcium phosphate is known as a feed phosphate. In Turkey there are 2 main producer were found; A.B. Gıda Sanayii and Aytekinler Industry. Total amount of production capacity is calculated as a 89,520 t/yr for both industry. PM is the only emission in the dicalcium phosphate industry [8]. Table 5.20 : Emissions of Dicalcium phosphate production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) PM 3,545 3.5 Sulphuric acid is produce in fertilizer industries in Turkey; Samsun Fertilizer Industry, GUBRETAS, Bandırma Fertilizer industry and Toros Agri. Total production capacity 1,097,797 t/yr. Total capacity amount of sulphuric acid is shows; the sulphuric acid industry is involves the huge part in Turkish industry. Emission distribution was calculated for four industry and three air pollutants which were; SO2, CO2 and Acid mist. Total amount of process emissions of Sulphuric acid production was given in Table 5.21 [8]. Table 5.21 : Emissions of Sulphuric acid production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) SO2 4,162 416.2 CO2 4,345 Acid Mist 687 69 57 In Phosphoric acid industry total production capacity was found as 659,560 t/yr for A.B. Gıda, Samsun Fertilizer Industry, Toros Agri and Bandırma Fertilizer Industry which were the biggest phosphoric acid manufacturers in Turkey. Fluoride and PM are the only air pollutamts in the industry, and emissions were distributed with direct proportion between the facilities. Emissions of phosphoric acid production was given in Table 5.22 [8]. Table 5.22 : Emissions of Phosphoric acid production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) Fluoride 35 0,6 PM 2,485 49.7 Chlor alkali is produced only in PETKIM with 100,000 t/yr capacity and emission distribution was determined for H2, Cl and CO2. Total amount of process emissons which were emitted from chlor alkali production was given in Table 5.23 [8]. Table 5.23 : Emissions of Chlor alkali production. Pollutant Emissions (t/yr) H2 537 Cl 14.3 CO2 555 Hydrochloric acid is produced from VCM recycle with 18,000 t/yr capacity. Production process occured in Petkim which was located in Izmir. Main air pollutant of Hydrochloric acid production was HCl. Total amount emissions of production process was given in Table 5.24 [8]. Table 5.24 : Emissions of HCl production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) HCl 0.015 0.001 Ammonia (NH3) is an important chemical in fertilizer industry. In Turkey with the 726,000 t/yr capacity of production, Ammonia is produced in IGSAS and Gemlik 58 Fertilizer Industry. In ammonia industry; CO2, NH3, NOX, CO and SOX were emitted during the production. Distribution calculations of emissions were determineted with consider the capacity of each plant. Process emissions were given in Table 5.25 [8]. Table 5.25 : Emissions of Ammonia production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) CO2 861,410 NH3 1,084 54 NOx 516 361 CO 516 26 SOx 46 2 Nitric acid is mainly used as a raw material in the manufacture of nitrogeneous-based fertilizer. Gemlik Fertilizer, Toros Agri and Yıldız Entegre ar the main producers of the nitric acid. Total production capacity of nitric acid determineted as 969,580 t/yr. The emitted air pollutants were N2O and NOX. Distribution of the pollutants were calculated between the three plants with considering the capacities of each plant. Total amount of process emissios were given in Table 5.26 [8]. Table 5.26 : Emissions of Nitric acid production. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions (t/yr) Controlled Emissions (t/yr) N2O 6,671 2,252 NOx 10,762 1,013 5.4 Distribution of Mineral Product Industry Emissions For cement indusrty there were found a 54 facility in Turkey which produce both cement and clinker [85]. The total cement production capacity is 91,989,425 t/yr, and total clinker production capacity is 67,507,011 t/yr [85]. The reason of the considering clinker production; it is due to one of the main source of SO2. Depending on the process and the sulphur, SO2 absorption changes between 70% to more than 95%. Table 5.27 shows the used emissions of cement industry [8]. 59 Emission distribution of clinker production was calculated separately from cement production. For Çimentaş Industry there was not any information about clinker production, thus an approach was condsidered in clinker production. For 800 gr clinker production amount of cement is 1,000 gr [8]. With this information the unknown clicker amounts was calculated. Table 5.27 : Emissions of cement industry. Pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions Controlled Emissions (t/yr) (t/yr) PM 7,186,267 14,373 * cement factories 6,726,062 13,452 * milling and packaging factories 460,204 920 PM10 5,422,294 10,845 PM2.5 2,982,262 5,965 CO2 29,807,076 SO2 (kg/ton clinker) 6,778 In Turkey lime manufacturing industry production capacity was found approximately 12,415,748 t/yr for 23 production facility [86]. Distribution of emissions are determined by the production capacities. Table 5.28 shows the total amount of emissions in lime industry respectively for process and fuel combustion [8]. Table 5.28 : Emissions of lime industry. Uncontrolled Controlled Emissions Emissions Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) CO2 2,743,421 TSP 32,921 1,463 PM2.5 2,561 110 PM10 12,803 732 The only producer of carbide in Turkey is Eti Elektrometalurji which is located in Antalya, and production capacity of plant is 18,500 t/yr [87]. 60 Table 5.29 shows the emissions for carbide industry [8]. Table 5.29 : Emissions of carbide industry. Uncontrolled Controlled Emissions Emissions Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) CO2 37,419 CH4 166 8 1.27 PM 25 The glass industry is characterised by product type. The products of this industry are flat glass, container glass, and pressed and blown glass. The procedures for manufacturing glass are the same for all products except forming and finishing. Container glass and pressed and blown glass, 51 and 25 percent respectively of total soda-lime glass production, use pressing, blowing or pressing and blowing to form the desired product. Flat glass, which is the remainder, is formed by float, drawing, or rolling processes. In Turkey there are various type of glass manufacturing; float glass, double glazing, tempered, glass containers, household glassware and fibre glass [88]. When the sectoral research was completed there were some findings determinated. At this point there were making some assumptions about production capacities, especially on double glazing production. The given unit in double glazing process was m2/y, but for calculate the emissions of each plant there must all the units are same. The obtained density of glass was 2.5 kg/m3 [89]. Conversion of the m2/y unit to the t/yr unit completed with the acceptence of glass height as a 1 cm. As a result of calculations, in Turkey the total production capacity of float gass and household glassware and fibreglass respectively was 1,815,538 t/yr, 1,283,000 t/yr. The distribution of float glass and household glass process emissions and fibreglass process emissions were calculated separetly, because of the difference between emission factors for each process. Table 5.30 shows the emissions of glass industry [8]. 61 Table 5.30 : Emissions of glass industry. Uncontrolled Controlled Emissions Emissions Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) Float Glass CO2 158,734 158,734 TSP 2,208 110 PM10 204 85 PM2.5 1,699 10 Others CO2 181,09 181,09 TSP 5,433 272 PM10 4,889 244 PM2.5 4,346 217 5.5 Distribution of Metallurgical Industry Emissions Steel is produced from either iron ore in integrated steelworks or scrap in electrical arc furnaces. In Turkey, 71% of the steel is produced in electrical arc furnaces and 29% is produced in integrated steelworks in 2013 [90]. While the total amount of iron and steel capacity was 44,503,720 t/yr; 10,650,000 t/yr iron was from integrated steelworks and the 33,853,720 t/yr iron was from electrical arc furnices. Table 5.31 and Table 5.32 shows the emissions of integrated steelworks [8]. Table 5.31 : Emissions of integrated steelworks industry. Uncontrolled Controlled Emissions Emissions Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) PM 282,574 17,365 CO 255,723 5,114 SO2 9,744 3,475 NOX 2,636 1,845 CO2 16,197,615 Metallurgical coke production is destructive distillation of coal in coke ovens and used in iron and steel industry processes (primarily in blast furnaces) to reduce iron ore to iron. Most coke plants are collocated with iron and steel production facilities, and the demand for coke generally corresponds with the production of iron and steel [91]. Most of the coke is produced by integrated steelworkd in Turkey with the usage of coal as feedstock. 62 Table 5.32 : Emissions of integrated coke production. Uncontrolled Controlled Emissions Emissions Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) PM 37,291 3,519 CO 8,811 176 SOX 1,869 919 VOC 22,059 252 NH3 28 1.4 CH4 468 23 NOX 3,886 2,720 CO2 2,045,989 Electrical arc furnaces (EAF) directly melt the materials which contain iron (mainly scrap) and don’t need coke. Currently there are 24 electrical arc furnaces in Turkey [90]. Integrated steel works, metallurgical coke and electrical arc furnaces emission distribution determinated separetly because of the differences between processes. Table 5.33 shows the emissions of electrical arc furnaces [8]. Table 5.33 : Emissions of electrical arc furnaces. Uncontrolled Controlled Emissions Emissions Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) PM 522,623 3,136 CO 83,62 1,672 SO2 8,362 1,254 NOX 3,882 2,718 NMVOC 19,233 962 CO2 1,672,393 Ferroalloy is the term used to describe concentrated alloys of iron and one or more metals such as silicon, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium and tungsten. Silicon metal production is usually included in the ferroalloy group because silicon metal production process is quite similar to the ferrosilicon process. These alloys are used for deoxidising and altering the material properties of steel. Ferroalloy facilities manufacture concentrated compounds that are delivered to steel production plants to be incorporated in alloy steels. Silicon metal is used in aluminium alloys, for production of silicones and in electronics. Ferroalloy production involves a metallurgical reduction process that results in significant carbon dioxide emissions [92]. 63 Ferro-Manganese, Ferro-Silicioum, Ferro-Chromium, Ferro-Molibden and other ferroalloys are produced in Turkey [93]. As a result of the researches; there are mostly 2 types ferroalloys were produced; Low Carbon Ferro-chromium and High Carbon Ferro-chromium. Plants located in Elazığ and Antalya, capacities of plants are respectively 150,000 t/yrr and 22,000 t/yr. Table 5.34 shows the emissions of ferroalloy industry [8]. Table 5.34 : Ferroalloy production process emissions. Uncontrolled Controlled Emission Emission Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) PM 8,983 138 CO2 173,665 Aluminium production starts with Aluminium ingots production in two ways; ones is primary (from ore) and second one is secondary (from scrap) production. Then Aluminium ingots are used by foundries (Aluminium casting) to produce 4 main type of Aluminium products; flat, conductive, extrusion, architectural products (with sub products) [8]. Primary aluminium produced directly from mined ore by converting bauxite ore into aluminium [94]. There is only one producer of primary aluminium in Turkey which is Eti Aluminium located in Konya. Production capacity of the plant is 63,000 t/yr. Table 5.35 shows the primary aluminium emissions [8]. The main air pollutants which were emitted from primary aluminium production are respectively CO2, SO2, PM, CO, NOx, F-, PFCs. Table 5.35 : Primary aluminium production process emissions. Uncontrolled Controlled Emission Emission Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) PM 16,187 740 CO2 115,605 115,605 NOX 126 63 SOX 8,820 441 CO 153,72 7,686 Fluoride (gaseous and particulate) 89.46 PFCs 41.58 64 Secondary aluminium producers recycle aluminium from aluminium-containing scrap, while primary aluminium producers convert bauxite ore into aluminium [95] As a findings shows, in Turkey the total amount of production capacity is approximately 818,970 t/yr in 2014 [96, 97]. Table 5.36 shows the emissions of secondary aluminium production [8]. Table 5.36 : Secondary aluminium production process emissions. Uncontrolled Controlled Emissions Emissions Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) TSP 27,051 180 PM10 189 126 PM2.5 74 50 CO2 1,803 Many different type of melting furnaces are used in aluminium foundries the choice depending on individual requirements. Directly and indirectly heated furnaces, using fuel and electricity, are applied. The fossil fuels currently used are natural gas, liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and oil. Natural gas is favoured by most foundries on convenience grounds. Electrical heating may be provided by either resistance elements or by induction. Capacity is one of the most important parameters for melting and holding furnaces. In Turkey total production capacity is found approximately 148,900 t/yr by taking consider the major facilities. The emissions of air pollutants were given in Table 5.37 [8]. Table 5.37 : Aluminium casting production process emissions. Uncontrolled Controlled Emissions Emissions Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) PM 3,072 15.36 NOX 384 23.04 SO2 102.4 5.12 CO 384 19.2 VOC 307.2 15.36 65 5.6 Distribution of Pulp and Paper Industry Emissions Pulp and paper production consists of three major processing steps: pulping, bleaching and paper production. The type of pulping and the amount of bleaching used depends on the nature of the feedstock and the desired qualities of the end product [98]. There are 3 type of chemical pulping; kraft pulping, acid sulphite pulping and neutral sulphite pulping. In Turkey paper production plants were used kraft and sulphite method. The total amount of production capacity is 2,854,950 t/yr in 2013 [99]. The major producers considered in the study, and the amount of facility was found as a 31. When emissions were distributed kraft method and sulphite method determined individually, because of the difference between kraft and sulphite methods. In Table 5.38 and Table 5.39 pulp and paper emissions were shown [8]. Table 5.38 : Emissions of pulp and paper production with kraft method. Uncontrolled Controlled Emission Emission Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) NOX 2,580 1,806 CO 198,690 9,935 NMVOC 72,251 3,613 SOX 18,063 3,613 TSP 361,255 1,806 PM10 289,004 1,445 PM2.5 216,753 1,084 Table 5.39 : Emissions of pulp and paper production with sulphite method. Uncontrolled Controlled Emission Emission Pollutant (t/yr) (t/yr) NOX 1,965 1,375 NMVOC 2,750 138 SOX 13,752 2,750 TSP 137,524 688 PM10 103,143 516 PM2.5 92,141 461 66 5.7 Distribution of Sugar Industry Emissions Turkey is 6th in the world and 5th in the Europe to production of sugar beet in 2012 [100]. Production capacity was determineted as a 64,232,895 t/yr. Total amount of sugar production plant is 32.9 of them is owned by private sector and the remainig part is owned by TURKSEKER which is the biggest sugar industry in Turkey. Emissions of sugar production was given in the Table 5.40 [8]. Table 5.40 : Emissions sugar industry. Pollutant Uncontrolled Controlled Emission Emission (t/yr) (t/yr) NMVOC 24,386 1,219 PM 340 17 5.8 Distribution of Beverage Industry Emissions In Turkey one of the biggest source of NMVOCs was released from beverage industry. By the reason of huge production amounts in beverage industry, the emission amounts of air pollutants are comparatively higher. Thus, alcoholic beverages industry is also included to the study. According to the TAPDK total production amount of each alcoholic drinks given in Table 5.41 [101]. Table 5.41 : Production amounts of alcoholic drinks in 2012. Product Production (l/yr) Wine 136,183,703 Beer 1,493,285,050 Distillate drinks 115,861,438 As defined by TAPDK, distillate drinks are; gin, raki, brandy, vodka and whisky which have approximately 40% alcohol by volume. According to EMEP, spirits are assumed to be 40% alcohol by volume. Before the NMVOC emissions calculated, emission factors determined from EMEP Tier 2 approach [102]. Emission factors and emissions are given in Table 5.42. 67 Table 5.42 : NMVOC Emission factors and emissions. Product EF (kg/hl) Emissions (t/yr) Wine 0.08 108.95 Beer 0.035 522.65 Distilllate drinks 15 17,379 Emissions of after abatement technology was also calculated by using EMEP approach. Abatement technology efficiency was accepted as 90%. Table 5.43 shows the emissions of alcoholic drinks after abatement. Table 5.43 : Emissions of alcoholic drinks after abatement. Product Emissions (t/yr) Wine 10.9 Beer 52.3 Distillate drinks 1.74 5.9 Emissions of Energy Usage in Industries Industries energy usage is one of the important emission source in air pollution. Because of that reason , emissions of energy usage in industries were considered in this study. Total emissions were taken from previous emission inventory study as well as industrial process emissions [8]. Fuel combustion emissions of industrial activities were determined for CO2, NOX, PM10, CO, NMVOC and SOX pollutants for all of the industrial sectors which were explained within the study. Total emissions of fuel combustion were given in Table 5.44. Table 5.44 : Emissions of energy usage. Pollutant Emissions t/yr CO2 57,663,913 NOX 69,242 PM10 20,934 CO 156,844 NMVOC 15,120 SOX 156,037 68 69 6 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS ArcGIS is a general purpose GIS software system developed by ESRI [116]. It is an extensive and integrated software platform technology for building operational GIS. ArcGIS comprises four key software parts: a geographic information model for modeling aspects of the real world; components for storing and managing geographic information in files and databases; a set of out-of-the-box applications for creating, editing, manipulating, mapping, analyzing and disseminating geographic information; and a collection of web services that provide content and capabilities (data and functions) to networked software clients. Just as ArcGIS is routinely used in managing the built environment, it is also very popular in measuring, mapping, monitoring and managing the natural environment. ArcGIS provides a strong set of tools for describing, analyzing, and modeling natural system processes and functions. Interactions and relationships among diverse system components can be explored and visualized using the powerful analytical and visualization tools that GIS software provides [106]. Spatial data analysis is now commonly employed in many areas of the social and environmental sciences. It is perhaps commonest in the sciences that employ an inductive rather than a deductive approach, in other words where theory is comparatively sparse and data sets exist that can be explored in search of patterns, anomalies, and hypotheses. In that regard there is much interest in the use of spatial data analysis in public health, particularly in epidemiology. Mapping and spatial data analysis are also widely employed in criminology, archaeology, political science, and many other fields [107]. Spatial distribution of emissions are important in some cases; reported emissions data are an input for models used to assess atmospheric concentrations depositions, as the spatial location of emissions determines to a great extent their atmospheric dispersion patterns and impact area. The results of model assessments inform national and international policies used to improve the environment and human health [51]. 70 For all that reasons in this study spatial distribution was applied for air pollutants. First of all, an emission inventory for point and area sources compiled which was explained previous sections. In second step the shares of emissions from sources determined which was also determined previous sections. Finally, different layers were used to interact and to determine the locations of industries, power plants and residential areas. Coordinates of industries, power plants and provinces, an amount of emissions for all sources were imported into GIS software, which was ArcGIS. After inputting the sources into software, air pollutants were selected. The database for air pollutant sources contains information by location, latitude and longitude, total emissions for heating systems, amount of fuel consumptions and amount of households. The latitude and longitude coordinates allow the data to be used in GIS, which will allow matching emission sources. In this study spatial distribution of pollutants was applied with Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) method. One of the most commonly used techniques for interpolation of scatter points is inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation [126]. IDW interpolation explicitly implements the assumption that things that are close to one another are more alike than those that are farther apart. To predict a value for any unmeasured location, IDW will use the measured values surrounding the prediction location. Those measured values closest to the prediction location will have more influence on the predicted value than those farther away. Thus, IDW assumes that each measured point has a local influence that diminishes with distance. It weights the points closer to the prediction location greater than those farther away, hence the name inverse distance weighted [127]. 6.1 Spatial Distribution of Energy Production Emissions As given in Figure 6.1 spatial distribution of energy production plants were seen. Most of the power plant is located in the Aegean, Mediterranean and Marmara regions. As a result of that distribution, energy production plant caused emissions 71 were released from these regions. Also, emissions were depend on installed power of power plants, characteristics of fuel and amount of fuel consumption. As seen in the Figure 6.2, spatial distribution of the CO2, pollution mostly seen in the Aegean, the Black Sea regions and Kahramanmaraş province. Afşin Elbistan power plant is determined as the main reason the CO2 pollution in this region. Also, other coal-fired power plants, natural gas-fired power plants have been effective in distribution of emissions. Uncontrolled conditions of CO2 is one of the major result of the high amount emission. Changing colors in the map, can explain with the high installed power and high density of plants which were located in this regions. Controlled condition of SOX emissions were distributed as given in Figure 6.3. Most of the SOX emissions were released in Kahramanmaraş province, and the remaining emissions distributed between 13,000 and 65,000 t/yr. Domestic lignite-fired power plants were determined the major source of the SOX emissions. Low SOX emissions in the Marmara region, Konya province and the Southeastern Anatolia region can explain with the absence of the coal-fired power plants in this regions. Natural gas-fired power plants were determined as the major NOX source in the counrty as seem in the Figure 6.4. Most of the emissions distributed between 4,000 and 8,000 t/yr. In the Aegean region, emissions distributed mostly in Izmir province and its’ neighbours. One of the main reason of the high amount of emissions seen in neighbour provinces to the plants, distribution of total emissions in that reigon. For example; distribution of total NOX emission of power plants in the Aegean region was effected the whole region. In the Eastern Black Sea region, there are uncertainties determined. As a result of the lack of information (power plants and coordinates) about this region colors changing with the expected values. This expectation values determined by the IDW method. In this situation, if the Aegean region and the Eastern Black Sea region was compared, the results of the Aegean region have been more realictic than the Eastern Black Sea and Eastern Anatolia regions. This uncertainties,in the same way for the spatial distribution of pollutants released from other sources, especially energy production plants, were also determined. Besides, as seen in the legend, color ranges and emission amounts were determined according to maximum and minimum emission values. Distribution of emissions is generated with that determination. 72 Figure 6.1 : Spatial distribution of power plants by installed power. 73 Figure 6.2 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for energy production plants. 74 Figure 6.3 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for energy production plants. 75 Figure 6.4 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for energy production plants. 76 6.2 Spatial Distribution of Industrial Process Emissions Spatial distribution of production plants were given in Figure 6.5. As seen from the figure, the Marmara region, is the most intense about industrial plants in Turkey. According to the Figure 6.5;  food and beverage industry is one of the major sector in Turkey, which was located in almost all of the provinces.  inorganic chemicals industry is mostly located in the Marmara and Aegean regions.  metallurgical industry, a high amount of emissions released in Turkey, which is one of the largest sector. Generally, this industrial plants are located in the Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean regions.  with the high amount production capacity, oil refineries are located only 4 province, where is Izmir, Kocaeli, Kırıkkale and Batman.  Marmara region is the most intense area for the organic chemical industry facilities is.  wood products industries, which is pulp and paper production plants are located generally in the Aegean, Marmara and Black Sea regions. According to the Figure 6.6 industrial controlled emissions of CO2 released mostly in Hatay and Zonguldak provinces. Especially iron and steel producers, which were located in this provinces have been effective on the emissions. Also, in Istanbul, Kocaeli and Kahramanmaraş provinces, where determined as the major cement production plants located in. As given in Figure 6.7 and Figure 6.8, controlled SOX and NOX emissions generally emitted from the Marmara and Aegean regions, where the industrial activities, especially iron and steel, pulp and pape and inorganic chemical industries’ mostly seen. For other regions that have not industrialized enough in that area seems to be quite low emissions. The lowest emissions of NOX emissions in these regions were released, is only up to 60 t/yr. SOX emissions can say in the same situation. 77 Figure 6.5 : Spatial distribution of industrial plantsby sectors. 78 Figure 6.6 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for industrial processes. 79 Figure 6.7 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for industrial processes. 80 Figure 6.8 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for industrial processes. 81 6.3 Spatial Distribution of Residential Heating Emissions In this chapter spatial distribution results of ArcGIS study were given for residential heating emissions. In this study, spatial distribution of emissions were applied for 81 province of Turkey. Natural gas combustion and wood combustion, domestic coal combustion, imported coal combustion were distributed spatially for uncontrolled emissions of SOX, NOX, CO, NMVOC, NH3, PM10 and CO2 pollutants. Due to a large number of map, this section was provided only to the spatial distribution of the total emissions of residential heating system. Remaining maps, which were generated separately according to fuel type, were given in Appendix A. Besides, other pollutants were given Appendix A either. In following figures spatial distribution of the total emissions were given with IDW method which was explained before. This emission were related with the interval of the emissions which were given in the legends. Intervals were determined according to emissions. Minimum interval of the emissions were given with the green color and the maximum interval of the emissions were given with the purple color. As seen from the Figure 6.9 uncontrolled emissions of CO2 emitted generally in the big provinces, which were determined as the most populated provinces. Also this provinces were draw an attention according to the fuel consumption, especially coal consumption. Changing ranges and colors between the emissions were determined according to maximum and minimum CO2 emission values. Uncontrolled emissions of SOX were related directly with the imported and domestic coal combustion in this regions.Besides, amount of high population was also effective in this distribution. Chaning colors over the country were determined according to the highest and lowest emissions.Results of the distribution was given in Figure 6.10. NOX emissions were distributed spatially and results of that distribution was given in Figure 6.11.Imported coal combustion and natural gas combustion in residences was determined as the major reason of the results. In Istanbul and Ankara provinces were generally comsumed natural gas in the residences.The distribution results in the Eastern Anatolia provinces, could explained with the amount of usage the domestic lignite is more often and the amount of natural gas use is quite low. 82 Figure 6.9 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for residential systems. 83 Figure 6.10 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for residential heating systems. 84 Figure 6.11 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for residential heating systems. 85 6.4 Spatial Distribution of Total Emissions Total emissions of pollutants were determined according to energy production emissions, industrial process emissions and residential heating emissions In this sections, emissions are much higher and distribution of emissions much more unstable. In this way, when it constitutes an idea of the pollution across the country. Before examining the individual pollutants,the tottal emissions of the Aegean and Mediterranean regions as a result of this distribution can be said that how high. According to results the main reason of this distribution, especially in the Aegean and Mediterranean regions, is power plants, which ones are located in this regions, such as; Afşin Elbistan, Yatağan, Yeniköy and Soma. Also, Catalağzı and Kangal plants have been effective on the distribution of emissions, especially for the Black Sea and Central Anatolia regions. Distribution of total CO2 emission was given in Figure 6.12.As mentioned before, the Aegean and Mediterranean regions are determine as the most pollutated regions according to CO2. With the effect of high industrilization and high population in the Marmara region, distribution of the CO2 was determined as given in the Figure 6.12. Like results of CO2, distribution of SOX was obtained as seem in the Figure 6.13. Afşin Elbistan plant was effected the distribution in the Mediterranean region. Also, Yeniköy, Kemerköy and Yatağan plants in Muğla, Kangal plant in Sivas, Soma plant in Manisa and Tunçbilek plant in Kütahya have been effective on the distribution in the Aegean and Central Anatolia region. For total SOX emissions other sources have not effective as much as power plants. Distribution of NOX was given in Figure 6.14. As seen from the figure, the Mediterranean, Aegean and Marmara regions are the most effected regions at NOX pollution, because of the power plants which are located in this regions. Iron and steel, aluminium and pulp and paper producers in Aegean region, especially for Izmir and its’neighbours, have been effective on the NOX pollution.In Ankara, there is a private lignite-fired power plant located in, which is effective on Ankara and its region. Also,imported coal and natural gas combustion in residences have an effect on NOX pollution. 86 Figure 6.12 : Spatial distribution of total CO2 emissions. 87 Figure 6.13 : Spatial distribution of total SOX emissions. 88 Figure 6.14 : Spatial distribution of total NOX emissions. 89 7 CONCLUDED REMARKS In this thesis, it is aimed to spatial distribution of energy production, industrial and residential heating emissions with geographic information system. Total emissions of energy production and industrial activities’ were distributed between 492 production facility. Residential heating emissions were calculated and spatial distribution of emissions were applied by ArcGIS. In this section results of emission inventory was summarized. Emissions were calculated for uncontrolled and controlled conditions in power plants and industries, only residential heating system emissions calculated for uncontrolled conditions because of the non-existence of any control technologies in residences. Overall emissions were calculated with controlled emissions of power plants, controlled emissions of industries, uncontrolled emissions of energy usage in industries and uncontrolled emissions of residential heating systems. All of the comparisons were established in this circumstances. Results of calculations were compared between seven geographical region in Turkey; Mediterranean, Aegean, Marmara, Black Sea, Central Anatolia, Eastern Anatolia and Southeastern Anatolia. Residential heating emissions were calculated for nine pollutants, such as; SOX, NOX, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NMVOC, NH3 and CO2. Results of calculated emissions were; 232,599 t/yr, 37,471 t/yr, 1,059,298 t/yr, 127,182 t/yr, 124,877 t/yr, 136,015 t/yr, 3,803 t/yr and 38,195,817 t/yr respectively. Energy production plants emissions were calculated for; SOX, NOX, CO, TSP, PM10, PM2.5, NMVOC and CO2 for based year 2010. According to results of the study, controlled emissions were calculated as; 1,528,192 t/yr, 325,716 t/yr, 110,018 t/yr, 106,664 t/yr, 26,875 t/yr, 10,089 t/yr, 2,453 t/yr and 123,587,348 t/yr respectively. The total amount of controlled SOX, NOX, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NMVOC, NH3 and CO2 emissions from industrial processes were obtained from previous study [8] as; 24,720 t/yr, 13,234 t/yr, 28,565 t/yr, 44,019 t/yr, 7,926 t/yr, 36,042 t/yr, 457 t/yr and 55,124,263 t/yr respectively. Industrial process emissions were calculated for based year 2010. 90 Fuel combustion emissions are important as much as industrial process emissions. In this study emissions of energy usage in industrial activities were taken into account. Industrial fuel combustion emissions of SOX, NOX, CO, PM10, NMVOC and CO2 were obtained as; 156,037 t/yr, 69,242 t/yr, 156,844 t/yr, 20,934 t/yr, 15,120 t/yr and 57,663,913 t/yr respectively [8]. Comparison of the SOX emissions between the industry, industrial fuel combustion, energy production and residential heating was given in Figure 7.1. When residential heating SO2 emissions were seem as 12%, major source of the SOX emissions were calculated in energy production with 79%. According to results, power plants which were operating with lignite, hard coal and imported lignite became the main reason of the SOX pollution. Figure 7.1 : Breakdown of overall SOX emissions. Figure 7.2 : Breakdown of overall NOX emissions. As given in the Figure 7.2 the major NOX emissions were emitted in energy production and energy usage in industrial plants. In energy production plants, NOX Energy 79% Industry 1% Residential 12% Industrial FC 8% Energy 73% Industry 3% Residential 8% Industrial FC 16% 91 emissions were emitted by lignite-fired, natural gas-fired, hard coal-fired and biogas- fired power plants with 58%. According to results, residential heating, power plants and industrial fuel consumption released the highest CO emissions in Turkey. In residential heating, coal combustion was the major source of the CO emissions with approximately 80%. Between the industry sectors, CO was emitted from primary aluminium production, iron and steel industry, pulp and paper production and oil refineries with the highest amount. Results of the CO emissions were given in Figure 7.3. Figure 7.3 : Breakdown of overall CO emissions. With the 72% emission rate as a result of using imported coal, domestic coal and wood in residential heating was the major source of the NMVOC emissions. Pulp and paper production, iron and steel industry and oil refineries are the industrial sectors which were emitted the second highest NMVOC emissions. With 19% in Turkey. NMVOC emission rates were given in Figure 7.4 Figure 7.4 : Breakdown of overall NMVOC emissions. Energy 8% Industry 2% Residential 78% Industrial FC 12% Energy 1% Industry 19% Residential 72% Industrial FC 8% 92 As given in Figure 7.5 residences which were heating with wood and coal were seem the major NH3 emission source in the country. In industrial production plants, the highest amount of NH3 was emitted from inorganic chemical industry, especially fertilizer production. Figure 7.5 : Breakdown of overall NH3 emissions. In Figure 7.6 PM10 emission rates were given. PM10 emissions was mostly emitted from residential heating systems. Coal and wood combustion in residences were effected the PM10 pollution in Turkey. Controlled conditions of industries especially, cement production, pulp and paper production and glass industry, impact with 20% of the total PM10 emissions. With 12% emission rate,controlled energy production plants had been effected PM10 pollution, especially lignite-fired power plants. Figure 7.6 : Breakdown of overall PM10 emissions. Industry 11% Residential 89% Energy 12% Industry 20% Residential 58% Industrial FC 10% 93 As given in the Figure 7.7 the major source of PM2.5 emissions of power plants and residential heating systems in the country. Coal combustion in both source (power plants and heating systems) was the main reason of the PM2.5 pollution. Figure 7.7 : Breakdown of overall PM2.5 emissions. In Figure 7.8 overall emissions of CO2 was given. As seen in the figure CO2 is released from all of the sources. Coal-fired power plants, natural gas-fired power plants and fuel oil-fired power plants, also, mineral product industries’ and iron and steel industries were determined as the major CO2 sources in the Turkey. Coal and natural gas combustion in heating systems was also effected the CO2 pollution in the country. Figure 7.8 : Breakdown of overall CO2 emissions. Energy 7% Industry 6% Residential 87% Energy 45% Industry 20% Residential 14% Industrial FC 21% 94 Controlled overall emissions of residential heating systems, industrial processes and energy production were given in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 : Overall emissions. Emissions (t/yr) Pollutant Residential Heating Industrial Processes Energy Production Total CO2 38,195,817 55,124,263 123,587,348 216,908,428 NOX 37,471 13,234 325,716 376,421 SOX 232,599 24,720 1,528,192 1,785,512 CO 1,059,298 28,565 111,018 1,198,882 NMVOC 136,015 36,042 2,453 174,509 PM10 127,182 44,019 26,875 198,076 PM2.5 124,877 7,926 10,089 142,892 NH3 3,803 457 4,260 7.1 Regional Comparison of Residential Heating Emissions According to results of the study the total amount of residence was calculated as 19,053,629 for based year 2013. Regional comparison of amount of residences were given in Figure 7.9. Figure 7.9 : Amount of residence by regions. 95 The total amount of residences were calculated according to heating systems such as; natural gas, wood, imported coal and domestic coal. As a result of the calculations, ratio of heating systems in residences were given in Figure 7.10. Figure 7.10 : Breakdown of the heating system in residences. As given in the Figure 7.11 Central Anatolia Region was emitted the highest SOX emisson and Marmara Region was following it. Emission of SOX was emitted mainly in Cental Anatolia and Marmara by coal combustion in residences. According to results, Central Anatolia and Marmara have the highest amount of residence in Turkey. As the reason of the high amount of residence the coal combustion was higher than other regions. Figure 7.11 : Residential heating emissions of SOx by region. Natural gas 40% Wood 12% Domestic coal 15% Imported coal 33% 96 According to results, NOx emissions were calculated as seen in Figure 7.12. As a high populated region, Marmara was emitted 10,560 t/yr NOx which was the highest value between the other regions. The main reason of NOx emissions were natural gas combustion and imported coal combustion in residences. Figure 7.12 : Residential heating emissions of NOx by region. CO emissions were given in Figure 7.13. CO emitted in Marmara and Central Anatolia Region with the highest amount. The main source of the CO emission was coal combustion in residences. The main difference between Marmara and Central Anatolia was became from the amount of fuel combustion. In Central Anatolia coal consumption was calculated higher than Marmara. As seen in Figure 7.13 other regions were released CO effectively, because of the high consumption of coal in residences. Figure 7.13 : Residential heating emissions of CO by region. 97 PM10 emissions were given in Figure 7.14. PM10 emitted from Central Anatolia and Marmara with the highest values. PM10 was emitted by wood combustion and imported coal combustion. Figure 7.14 : Residential heating emissions of PM10 by region. In Figure 7.15 regional amounts of PM2.5 emissions were given. PM2.5 emitted in Central Anatolia and Marmara with the highest values. The main reason of the PM2.5 emission was from wood combustion and imported coal combustion in residences. Figure 7.15 : Residential heating emissions of PM2.5 by region. 98 Regional comparison of the NH3 emissions were given in Figure 7.16. NH3 was emitted in Central Anatolia and Marmara with the highest values. The main reason of the NH3 emission was determined as wood combustion in residences. Figure 7.16 : Residential heating emissions of NH3 by region. As the given in Figure 7.17. The highest NMVOC emissions were emitted in Central Anatolia and Marmara. The main reason of the NMVOC emission was wood combustion, domestic coal combustion and imported coal combustion. Figure 7.17 : Residential heating emissions of NMVOC by region. CO2 emissions were given in Figure 7.18 Residential CO2 emissions emitted in Marmara and Central Anatolia with the highest values. CO2 was emitted from all fuel sources; natural gas combustion, wood combustion, domestic coal combustion and imported coal combustion. 99 Figure 7.18 : Residential heating emissions of CO2 by region. As a conclusion, in this chapter, residential heating emissions were depend on mainly population of provinces, amount of residences, heating demands of provinces and heating systems in residences. 7.2 Regional Comparison of Energy Production Emissions According to results, regional comparison of the energy production plants emissions were vary from the locations of the power plants. SOX, NOX, CO, TSP, PM10, PM2.5, NMVOC and CO2 emissions were examined in the figures. As given in Figure 7.19 the highest emission of SOX was emitted from Mediterranean region. The reason of this high emission amount was became from Afşin Elbistan A and Afşin Elbistan B power plants. With the highest installed capacity; most of lignite-fired power plants were located in Mediterranean and Aegean region, such as; Kemerköy, Seyitömer, Soma, Yeniköy, Tunçbilek. In Central Anatolia, Kangal and private power plants were effecting SOX emissions in Turkey. Regional comparison of NOX emissions were given in Figure 7.20. As shown in figure Aegean region was the major emission area in the country. Mainly, NOX emissions were emitted from natural gas-fired power plants and lignite-fired power plants. Due to NOX source, some of the major lignite-fired power plants located in Aegean region, which are; Kemerköy, Yatağan and Yeniköy, Soma A and Soma B, 100 Seyitömer and Tunçbilek. These power plants installed with high production capacity and emitted high emission amount. Figure 7.19 : Energy production emissions of SOX by region. In Marmara region Hamitabat, Ambarlı, Bursa and 18 Mart Çan power plants were the biggest natural gas-fired plants in Marmara region. In Kocaeli a large number of natural gas-fired power plants were located, this number was also effected the NOX emissions in this region. In Mediterranean region Afşin Elbistan A and Afşin Elbistan B plants and some of the major private power plants were emitted NOX. Figure 7.20 : Energy production emissions of NOX by region. 0 100.000 200.000 300.000 400.000 500.000 600.000 700.000 t SOx/yr Region 0 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 100.000 t NOx/yr Region 101 Figure 7.21 : Energy production emissions of CO by region. CO emissions were emitted from Aegean region with the highest amount in Turkey as seen in Figure 7.21. Natural gas-fired power plants and lignite-fired power plants were calculated as the major source of CO. In Aegean region, as a lignite-fired power plant; Muğla, Manisa, Kütahya and Izmir located plants were emitted the CO. In Mediterranean region, lignite-fired power plants where were located in Kahramanmaraş, Adana, Hatay and in Marmara region, as a lignite-fired power plant 18 Mart Çan and as a natural gas-fired power plant Bursa and Kocaeli located plants were emitted the CO with the highest amount. Figure 7.22 : Energy production emissions of PM10 by region. 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 t CO/yr Region 0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 t PM10/yr Region 102 PM10 emissions were calculated for energy production plants and results were given in Figure 7.22. PM10 emissions were emitted mostly in Adana, Kahramanmaraş, Manisa, Muğla, Kütaha, İzmir and Sivas located power plants. In Marmara region as a natural gas-fired power plant, Bursa was determined one of the PM10 sources in Turkey. Figure 7.23 : Energy production emissions of PM2.5 by region PM2.5 emissions were calculated and results were given in Figure 7.23. As calculated for PM10 calculations, PM2.5 emissions were emitted mostly in Adana, Kahramanmaraş, Manisa, Muğla, Kütaha, İzmir and Sivas located power plants. In Marmara region as a natural gas-fired power plant, Bursa was one of the PM10 sources in Turkey. Figure 7.24 : Energy production emissions of NMVOC by region. 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 5.000 t PM2.5/yr Region 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1.000 t NMVOC/yr Region 103 NMVOC emissions were emitted generally from natural gas-fired and lignite-fired power plants. As given in Figure 7.24 the major emission of the NMVOC was became in the Marmara region. Ambarlı, 18 Mart Çan, Hamitabat, Bursa and the plenty of natural gas-fired power plants where were located in Kocaeli were determined as a source of the NMVOC in Marmara. In Mediterranean and Aegean region, Adana, Antalya and Kahramanmaraş with Muğla, Manisa, Kütahya and İzmir located power plants were determined as a NMVOC source. CO2 emissions were given in Figure 7.25. The highest CO2 emission was emitted in Marmara region as seen in the figure. Natural gas-fired power plants and lignite-fired power plants were determined as the major CO2 source in the region, especially İstanbul, Çanakkale, Bursa, Kırklareli, Balıkesir, Sakarya, Kocaeli and Tekirdağ located plants. In addition to that mentioned provinces, Adana, Antalya, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Muğla, Manisa, Kütahya and İzmir was also determined as a CO2 sources in Turkey. Figure 7.25 : Energy production emissions of CO2 by region. In Black Sea region; Zonguldak was determined the only province which was emitted emissions between the other provinces. In Zonguldak, there was a hard coal- fired power plant located, which has the highest emission amount than other power plants located in Zonguldak. As seen on previous figures, Black Sea region is one of the region which was emitted the minimum emission than other regions. That difference was explained with the installed power and characteristic of coal in Çatalağzı power plant. 0 5.000.000 10.000.000 15.000.000 20.000.000 25.000.000 30.000.000 35.000.000 40.000.000 45.000.000 t CO2/yr Region 104 7.3 Regional Comparison of Industrial Emissions According to results, determined 382 industrial production plants distribution between seven geographical region was established more of an Aegean, Mediterranean, Central Anatolia and Marmara region. Industrial facilities in Eastern Anatolia, Southeastern Anatolia and Black Sea region has been determined much more rare than in other regions distribution. As a results of the distribution of emissions to industry plants, which regions have been identified, which is released more dense pollutants. Emissions in the regions to vary in each region can be explained by the differences of sectors, capacities of industrial production plants and number of industries. Distribution of SOX emissions were given in Figure 7.26. As seen in figure, SOX was released mostly in Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean regions. In Mediterranean, especially in Hatay province, there is a iron and steel producer found which was emitted the highest SOX in the region as calculation result shows. Another souces of SOX were determined as pulp and paper production and iron and steel industry where were located generally in Marmara and Aegean regions. Figure 7.26 : Industrial emissions of SOX by region. As given in Figure 7.27 NOX emissions were emitted mostly in Mediterranean, Marmara and Aegean region. Inorganic chemical industry, iron and steel industry, magnezia production plants and pulp and paper production plants where were located generally in Mersin, Hatay, Bursa, Kütahya, Zonguldak, Karabük, Canakkale, 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 t SOx/yr Region 105 Eskişehir, Tekirdağ, Yalova and İzmir provinces were determined the major NOX emission sources in Turkey. Distribution of CO emissions were given in Figure 7.28 by regions. As seen in figure CO was emitted generally in Mediterranean, Marmara, Aegean and Central Anatolia. Figure 7.27 : Industrial emissions of NOX by region. Alluminium production, iron and steel industry, pulp and paper production, oil refineries released the highest emissions of CO. Konya, Hatay, Zonguldak, Karabük, Tekirdağ, Kocaeli, Kırıkkale, Manisa and İzmir provinces were determined where were the production plants located. Figure 7.28 : Industrial emissions of CO by region. 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 t NOx/yr Region 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 t CO/yr Region 106 According to results, PM10 emissions were emitted mostly from iron and steel industry and cement production plants. As seen in Figure 7.29 PM10 emissions were emitted generally in every region. Hatay, Zonguldak, Karabük, Burdur, Çanakkale, Kocaeli, Adana, İzmir and Konya are some of the provinces where cement, iron and steel, aluminium and oil refinery plants located in. Figure 7.29 : Industrial emissions of PM10 by region. In Figure 7.30 industrial emissions of PM2.5 were given. As seem in the figure PM2.5 emissions were released from mostly in the Marmara region. Pulp and paper producers which were located in Kocaeli and Tekirdağ and cement production plant which was located in İstanbul, were determined the main sectors of PM2.5 pollution in the Marmara region. Burdur, Çanakkale, Adana, Kahramanmaraş and Şanlıurfa were the other provinces where the other major cement and pulp and paper producers located in. As the distribution results showed, NMVOC emissions were emitted generally in Marmara, Aegean, Mediterranean and Central Anatolia region. Oil refineries, pulp and paper production plants, iron and steel industry, organic chemical industry, liquor and sugar production sectors were determined the main NMVOC source in the country. 0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 t PM10/yr Region 107 Figure 7.30 : Industrial emissions of PM2.5 by region. İzmir, Kocaeli, Kırıkkale, Batman, Tekirdağ, Manisa provinces are some of the provinces where the major production plants located in. Regional comparison result of the study was given in Figure 7.31. Figure 7.31 : Industrial emissions of NMVOC by region. According to results of the study, NH3 emissions were emitted mostly in inorganic chemical industry, oil refineries and iron and steel industry. Especially fertilizer production was determined as the main sector. In Marmara region Bursa, Balıkesir and Kocaeli, in Aegean region İzmir, Kütahya, in Mediterranean region Hatay and Mersin and in Black Sea region Zonguldak and Karabük provinces were established the cities where production plants located in. Regional comparison of NH3 emissions were given in Figure 7.32. 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 t PM2.5/yr Region 0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 t NMVOC/yr Region 108 Figure 7.32 : Industrial emissions of NH3 by region. Figure 7.33 : Industrial emissions of CO2 by region. As given in Figure 7.33 CO2 emissions were emitted in every region, but Mediterranean, Marmara and Black Sea regions were draw attention with high CO2 emissions. Main sectors of CO2 emission were determined as iron and steel industry, cement production, lime production and inorganic chemical industry; especially ammonia production. Istanbul, Bursa, Kocaeli, Zonguldak, Karabük, Ordu, Burdur, Hatay, Gaziantep and Mardin are some of the provinces where determined as the plants location. 0 50 100 150 200 250 t NH3/yr Region 0 2.000.000 4.000.000 6.000.000 8.000.000 10.000.000 12.000.000 14.000.000 16.000.000 18.000.000 20.000.000 t CO2/yr Region 109 7.4 Regional Comparison of Overall Emissions In this chapter, the emission sources; residential heating, energy production and industrial activities, examined together which were examined separately in the first three sections. Thus, which source was released more emission than the other sources could be seen. Each in the following figures were provided for comparison between the source of pollutants. Power plants and industrial production plants were given in controlled conditions, however, residential heating system emissions were given in uncontrolled conditions in this chapter. As given in Figure 7.34 SOX emissions were emitted mostly in power plants. Public power plants like Afşin Elbistan A, Afşin Elbistan B, Kangal, Kemerköy and Soma were determined the biggest SOX sources where located in Mediterranean, Aegean and Central Anatolia regions. In Central Anatolia and Mediterranean region, private power plants were also effecting the SOX pollution in country. As seen in the figure, residential heating systems and industrial activities were not effecting the SOX emissions as much as energy production. Figure 7.34 : Overall SOX emissions by region. As given in Figure 7.35 NOX emissions were released generally in energy production such as; domestic lignite-fired, imported lignite-fired and natural gas-fired power plants which were located in Mediterranean, Aegean and Marmara regions. Also Zonguldak and Hatay determined as the provinces where the 2 major private imported lignite-fired power plant were located in. NOX emissions from industrial activities were emitted generally in inorganic chemical and iron and steel industries. 0 100.000 200.000 300.000 400.000 500.000 600.000 700.000 Mediterranean Aegean Marmara Black Sea Central Anatolia East Anatolia Southeastern Anatolia t SOx/yr Region Residential Industry Energy 110 Mersin, Bursa, Hatay and Zonguldak are some of the provinces which were determined the industrial districts. Natural gas combustion in residences, especially in Marmara and Central Anatolia, was effected NOX emissions, as seen in Figure 7.35. Figure 7.35 : Overall NOX emissions by region. In Figure 7.36 overall CO emissions were given. According to results of the study, CO emissions were released effectively from residential heating systems. Emissions of CO from residential heating systems was determined as wood and coal combustion in Central Anatolia, Marmara and Black Sea regions. Controlled emissions of CO from industrial acitivities were emitted generally in alluminium production, iron and steel industry, pulp and paper production and oil refineries. Some of the provinces were determined as Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Konya, Tekirdağ, Kocaeli, Zongulgak and Karabük. Results of the study were given in Figure 7.36. As given in Figure 7.37, according to results, iron and steel and cement production plants in Mediterranean and Aegean regions were determined the major PM10 sources in the country. Energy production plants, especially Afşin Elbistan A and Afşin Elbistan B, Seyitömer, Soma A and Soma B and private plants were also effected the emissions in these regions. 0 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 100.000 Mediterranean Aegean Marmara Black Sea Central Anatolia East Anatolia Southeastern Anatolia t NOx/yr Region Residential Industry Energy 111 Residential heating systems, especially coal combustion was determined as one of the main PM10 source in the country. Like the Central Anatolia and Marmara, the regions which were high populated, consumed much more coal than the other regions. Figure 7.36 : Overall CO emissions by region. Figure 7.37 : Overall PM10 emissions by region. 0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 Mediterranean Aegean Marmara Black Sea Central Anatolia East Anatolia Southeastern Anatolia t CO/yr Region Resindetial Industry Energy 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 Mediterranean Black Sea Southeastern Anatolia t PM10/yr Region Residential Industry Energy 112 Figure 7.38 : Overall PM2.5 emissions by region. As well as PM10 results, PM2.5 emissions were released from mostly from coal and wood combustion in residences, which was effected the regional distribution of emissions. In Figure 7.38 PM2.5 emissions were given. Besides, pulp and paper producers and cement production plants in Marmara, Mediterranean regions. The cement factories spread across the country was determined as the other PM2.5 sources in the country. Figure 7.39 : Overall NMVOC emissions by region. According to results of the study, NMVOC emissions were emitted in pulp and paper production plants, iron and steel industry, oil refineries and organic chemical 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 Mediterranean Black Sea Southeastern Anatolia t PM2.5/yr Region Residential Industry Energy 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 Mediterranean Aegean Marmara Black Sea Central Anatolia East Anatolia Southeastern Anatolia t NMVOC/yr Region Residential Industry Energy 113 industry. As given in Figure 7.39 industrial NMVOC emissions were released in the Marmara and Aegean regions. Residential heating systems were also effected NMVOC emissions. Combustion of wood and coal in residences, especially in Central Anatolia and Marmara which were determined as high populated regions. Figure 7.40 : Overall NH3 emissions by region. In Figure 7.40 overall NH3 emissions were given. As seen in the figure, NH3 was emitted generally from industrial activities in Marmara and Aegean regions. As a result of being a region of fertilizer production, Marmara was determined the main NH3 released region in the county. Wood combustion in residences was also effected amount of released NH3 in the country as seen in Figure 7.40. According to results, CO2 emissions were given in Figure 7.41. As seen in the figure, CO2 was released in energy production, industrial activities and residential heating systems. In Marmara, Mediterranean and Aegean region, CO2 was emitted with high density. Bursa, Kırklareli, Manisa, Kahramanmaraş, Antalya and Zonguldak are some of the provinces where location of power plants which were fired with natural gas, domestic lignite and imported lignite. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1.000 Mediterranean Aegean Marmara Black Sea Central Anatolia East Anatolia Southeastern Anatolia t NH3/yr Region Residential Industry 114 Iron and steel industry, lime production, cement production and ammonia production plants were determined the main CO2 sources between the industial sectors. Hatay, Gaziantep, Istanbul, Adana, Kocaeli and Karabük were determined some of the important provinces in regions. Combustion of natural gas and imported coal in residences was establised the one of the CO2 source. According to results, population density and high usage of coal and natural gas in Marmara and Central Anatolia was effected the CO2 emissions in country. Figure 7.41 : Overall CO2 emissions by region. 0 5.000.000 10.000.000 15.000.000 20.000.000 25.000.000 30.000.000 35.000.000 40.000.000 45.000.000 Mediterranean Aegean Marmara Black Sea Central Anatolia East Anatolia Southeastern Anatolia t CO2/yr Region Residential Industry Energy 115 8 COMPARISON OF RESULTS 8.1 Comparison with the Air Quality Report of the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planing Emission inventory is play an important role on determination of air pollutants. In Chapter 2 previous studies about emission inventory and usage of geographical information systems in air pollution were mentioned detailed. In this chapter, similarities and differences between calculated emissions and European Union emission inventory report, TNO and EMEP emission inventories, results of Ministry of Environment and Urban Planing Air Quality report and some previous studies, were analyzed. First of all, examination of total amount of fuel consumpution with TEIAS values and values which were taken from personal contact, Yanar. E. [108], who is a responsible person in Air Management Department Directorate of Ministry of Environment and Urban Planing, will be much better. Relation between fuel consumptions and emissions is explained with type of fuel and pollutant formation potential of fuel. High amount of ash and sulphur content in domestic lignite are the main reason of PM and SO2 pollution in air. Usage of natural gas in residential heating systems in high populated provinces is correlated with NOX pollution in these cities. In Table 8.1 total amount of fuel consumption in power plants were compared with 2010 TEIAS report [109]. As seen in this table, reported and calculated amounts are relatively close to each other. With that comparison it was understood that, in this study, calculated emissions of energy production are comparatively related with actual amounts. Table 8.1 : Comparison of fuel consumption in energy production. Type of fuel This study (t/yr and m3/yr) TEIAS (t/yr and m3/yr) Lignite-fired 60.859.339 56.689.392 Hard coal 685.164 7.419.703 Imported lignite 8.482.082 Fuel oil 850.017 891.782 Biomass 131.861 Natural gas 21.832.858 21.783.414 116 Fuel consumption in residential heating systems was also compared with Ministry data. In Table 8.2 comparison of fuel consumption was given. As given in table; results in domestic coal consumption was calculated comperatively close to ministry data. In this study, hard coal was not used as a fuel of residential heating systems and private sector consumption was also not considered in this study. According to Table 8.2 there is seem a huge difference in comsumption of imported lignite. Here, in the Ministry reports, imported coal is recorded for the heating purposes, although iron and steel, mainly used in this industry, significant share of the amount of coal is estimated. As a result of the personal contact with some Coal Importers’ Association (KIAD) members, which are the main contact of the imported coal, about total amount of 2012 imported coal consumption, they assigned a consumption value for heating purpose approximately 6-8 million t/yr. This value is much more compatible with the calculated value which is given in Table 8.2. Table 8.2 : Comparison of fuel consumption in residential heating. Type of fuel This study (2013) Yanar, E. (2013) Domestic coal 3,899,285 4,000,000 Hard coal 300,000 Imported coal 5,718,951 11,000,000 Private sector 1,500,000 If we continue with reports of Ministry of Environment and Urban Planing, in 2011, Ministry was published a report which was about most pollutant provinces in the country. This observation results were taken from monitoring stations which were located in almost every province in Turkey. In this report considered pollutants are determined as PM10 and SO2 [110]. According to this report, in 2011, SO2 pollution was seen mostly in Edirne. But, in this study, when we putting in order provinces according to total emissions, most of the SO2 emission was released from Kahramanmaraş. In Table 8.3 10 province were compared by SO2 pollution. The only common province was determined as Muğla for both list. 117 Table 8.3 : Comparison of provinces by SO2 pollution. This Study Air Quality Report [110] Kahramanmaraş Edirne Muğla Muğla Sivas Aydın Kütahya Çorum Manisa Isparta Bursa Malatya Ankara Kars Adana Amasya Istanbul Konya (Selçuklu) Canakkale İzmir (Güzelyalı) In same Ministry report, PM10 pollution was seen mostly in Afyonkarahisar province. According to this study results, as given in Table 8.4, PM10 emissions were released mostly in Hatay province. Ankara and Kayseri were seen as the only common province for both sorting. Table 8.4 : Comparison of provinces by PM10 pollution. This study Air Quality Report [110] Hatay Afyonkarahisar Ankara Siirt Kahramanmaraş Gaziantep Istanbul Aydın Zonguldak Sakarya Izmir Düzce Kayseri Ankara (Sıhhiye) Bursa Burdur Kocaeli Kayseri 3 (Hürriyet) Adana Kütahya According to both sorting system, differences were determined. That differences were explained with the operating conditions and location of monitoring stations and transportation and dispersion of pollutants in the vicinity of sources. Operating the monitoring stations under the actual usage condition is determined one of the main reason of this argumentative results. One of the other explanation in difference between studies is determined as the non-existance of monitoring stations in some provinces. For example, in 2011, there was not found any monitoring station in 118 Kahramanmaraş [110]. Meteorological conditions, such as; mild or severe winter conditions have been effective in the monitoring results. NOX emission in provinces were also puting in order for this study. According to listing, most of the NOX emissions were released in provinces where power plants located in. Natural gas combustion in power plants, industrial plants and residential heating systems have been effective in results. In Table 8.5 comparison of NOX emissions by province was given. Table 8.5 : Listing of maximum NOX emissions by province. Province Kahramanmaraş Zonguldak Çanakkale Manisa Muğla Hatay Kütahya Adana İzmir 8.2 Comparison of Results With Other Emissions Inventory Studies In Table 8.6, TNO inventory [112] and the study results of NOX emissions were compared. Even though, total emissions were similar in magnitude, in industrial process and residential heating results, TNO reported higher emissions than this study. Calculated NOX emissions of energy production plants, were determined higher two times than TNO. In comparison of NOX , controlled conditions of industrial processes’ is the important explanation for this huge difference. Besides, increasing amount of natural gas consumption in power plants since 2009, is the major effect of NOX emissions in energy production. Table 8.6 : Comparison of calculated NOX emissions with TNO. Emission (t/yr) TNO 2009 This study Energy production 146,801 325,716 Residential heating 60,999 37,471 Industrial processes 282,101 13,234 119 Also, calculated SOX emissions were compared with TNO results [112]. As given in Table 8.7, different results of SOX emissions were determined. Emissions of energy production and residential heating were calculated higher than TNO results. However, industrial process emissions were reported higher in TNO report, than this study. Coal-fired power plants and combustion in residential heating systems are determine the major source of the SOX. However, controlled conditions in industrial processes have been effective in comparisons. Table 8.7 : Comparison of calculated SOX emissions TNO. Emission (t/yr) TNO 2009 This study Energy production 843,172 1,528,192 Residential heating 108,872 232,599 Industrial processes 784,541 24,720 Calculated CO2, NOX, CO, NMVOC and SO2 emissions were compared with National Emission Inventory Report (NIR) [111]. Sectoral comparison is given in Table 8.8. As seen in the table, CO2, NOX and CO emissions from public electricity production plants; were seen compatible with both study. However, emissions of NMVOC and SOX were indicated a difference. CO2 emissions, which emitted in industrial processes, were given by NIR were compatible with study results. However, calculated CO and NMVOC emissions were determined higher than NIR. Although, NOX emissions, which reported by NIR, were much higher than this study results. Calculated emissions, which were released in residential heating systems, were compatible with the NIR results in magnitude. However, results of this study determined lower than NIR results in numerically, as given in Table 8.8 With NIR report, also, LRTAP results were compared with this study. In Table 8.8 comparisons were given. Emissions of industrial processes’ which were reported by LRTAP, are similar in magnitude with this study. However, LRTAP results determined relatively lower than this study. As given in Table 8.8 LRTAP residential heating emission results and calculated results were seem similar in magnitude, although, LRTAP emissions were higher 120 approximately two times than calculated emissions. However, Calculated NH3 emissions were determined much higher than LRTAP results and CO emissions were seem compatible in both study. That differences, for industrial processes in both study, explained with the controlled conditions in this study. Some other emissions were compared with European Environment Agency LRTAP Convention [113]. As seen in Table 8.8 energy production emissions were determined compatible with calculated results, except NH3 and CO2 emissions. NH3 emissions was not calculated within this study for energy production plants and CO2 emissions were not calculated for LRTAP report. 8.3 Comparison of Result With Some EC Country Emissions Comparison of emissions with four different country such as Poland, Romania, Italy and Spain, was established in following figures. These countries was chosen according to similarities with Turkey, such as population, industrial and economic structure and geographical conditions. Figure 8.1 : Comparison of energy production emissions with Poland, Romania, Italy and Spain. In Figure 8.1 energy production emissions were compared with this four country. The main reason of the difference was explained with usage of clean technologies in this countries. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 SOX NOX NMVOC NH3 PM10 CO Gg/yr Pollutant Poland Romania Italy Spain Turkey 121 Table 8.8 : Comparison of LRTAP and NIR emissions with study results. Pollutant NIR LRTAP This Study Energy production Industrial processes Residential heating Energy production Industrial processes Residential heating Energy production Industrial processes Residential heating CO2 106,823,958 56,847,802 50,474,540 123,587,348 55,124,263 38,195,817 NOX 316,135 168,792 71,590 328,850 3,918 73,209 325,716 13,234 37,471 CO 115,826 63,032 1,622,640 191.211 8,319 1,922,611 111,018 28,565 1,059,298 NMVOC 11,482 9,019 181,010 2.752 95,060 256,530 2,453 36,042 136,015 SO2 413,783 IE,NE NE 1,375,749 3,196 550,078 1,528,192 24,720 232,599 NH3 175 10,333 603 457 3,803 PM10 26,630 486,341 203,343 26,875 44,019 127,182 122 Figure 8.2 : Comparison of industrial process emissions with Poland, Romania,Italy and Spain. As given in Figure 8.2 industrial process emissions; especially CO emissions of Turkey were relatively higher than other countries. Other emissions were seem compatible with other countries. Also, controlled conditions in industrial processes in Turkey, is one of the important explanation for the similarity between these five country. Figure 8.3 : Comparison of residential heating emissions with Poland, Romania, Italy and Spain. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 SOX NOX NMVOC NH3 PM10 CO Gg/yr Pollutant Poland Romania Italy Spain Turkey 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 SOX NOX NMVOC NH3 PM10 CO Gg/yr Pollutant Poland Romania Italy Spain Turkey 123 Comparison of residential heating emissions between these five country were given in Figure 8.3. Poland and Turkey’s SOX and CO emissions were relatively higher than other countries. Close population and similar residential heating systems in those two country, were the reason of the high emissions. 8.4 Comparison of Emissions of Istanbul Province As given in Table 8.9 for Istanbul province, results of this study were compared with previous study which was published by Markasis et. al in 2012 [17]. Sectoral emissions were similar in magnitude, but some differences were seen between two study. In both study, NOX emissions were seem similar for three sector. Also, in SOX emissions of residential heating systems were compatible in both study. However, SOX emissions of industrial plants were not calculated in previous study. Also, for this study, controlled conditions in power plants had been effective in the difference. In Istanbul province, from 2007 to this day, the increasing usage of natural gas has been effective in reduction of SOX emissions. Also, increasing population, urbanization and industrial facilities are other causes of increased emissions. CO, NMVOC results of both study was determined similar in each sector. However, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions were seem different, especially in energy production. According to results, controlled condition of energy production plants have been effective that difference. Table 8.9 : Emission comparison of Istanbul province with previous studies. Emission (t/yr) This study Markasis et. al (ref. year 2007) [17] Pollutant Residential heating Industrial processes Energy production Residential heating Industrial processes Energy production NOX 5,514 116 9,841 6,513 211 9,880 SOX 15,515 520 8,303 13,369 - 32,316 CO 72,114 12.671 2,925 47,399 14,352 3,187 NMVOC 9,174 294 112 2,011 273 154 PM10 8,544 1,098 0.68 4,286 9,605 1,088 PM2.5 8,391 416 0.34 4,273 7,354 809 As mentioned previous chapters, residential heating system emissions were calculated for based year 2013. The population difference of Turkey, between 2013 and 2010 years was determined as 4%. When the results were compared, emissions of 2010 should be evaluating with that information. 124 125 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The objective of this study is to calculate air pollutant emissions, especially CO2, SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC, TSP, PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 pollutants in energy production, industrial facilities for 2010 and residential heating systems for 2013 of Turkey and spatial distribution of calculated emissions with geographical information systems. Emissions were calculated for uncontrolled and controlled conditions, but spatial distribution and comparisons of emissions with other studies were done with controlled results. Calculations and spatial distributions are separated into three parts; energy production plants, industrial processes and residential heating. Calculation results were compared by sectoral between seven geographical region of Turkey.Industrial plants total emissions were taken from study of Alyuz U. which was titled “Compilation of an Industrial Emission Inventory for Turkey”. These industrial emissions were distributed between 382 industrial facility for application of GIS. Overall controlled emission of CO2, SOX, CO, NOX, NMVOC, PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 pollutants for three sector of Turkey was calculated as 216,908,428 t/yr, 1,785,512 t/yr, 1,198,882 t/yr, 376,421 t/yr, 174,509 t/yr, 198,076 t/yr, 142,892 t/yr and 4,260 t/yr respectively. Residential heating system emissions were calculated by consider the size and amount of residences’ which were comsume natural gas, wood, domestic lignite and imported lignite. Total amount of residences were calculated as 19,053,629. According to results, 40% residence comsume natural gas, 33% residence consume imported coal, 15% residence consume domestic coal and 12% residence consume wood in Turkey. Total fuel consumptions’ were calculated for natural gas, imported coal, domestic coal and wood; 4,718,312,578 m3/y, 5,718,951 t/yr, 3,899,285 t/yr and 3,119,285 t/yr respectively. Energy production plants’ total CO2 emission was calculated as 123,587,348 ton in this study by generating power plant specific emission factors for only lignite-fired 126 power plants. Residential heating systems’ total CO2 emission was calculated as 38,195,817 ton. 10,587,893 (~28%) ton CO2 emitted from residences’ which were consume natural gas, 15,017,966 ton (~39%) CO2 emitted from residences’ which were consume imported coal, 6,695,072 ton (~17%) CO2 emitted from residences’ which were consume domestic coal and 5,939,391 (~16%) ton CO2 emitted from residences’ which were consume wood. Industrial facilities’ total CO2 emission was taken as 55,124,263 ton. CO2 emissions were calculated only uncontrolled conditions. Total SOX emission of energy production plants’ was calculated for uncontrolled condition as 2,325,499 ton. Total SOX emission for controlled conditions were calculated only for 18 Mart power plant and imported lignite-fired private power plants. In this situation controlled SO2 emission calculated as 1,528,192 t/yr. Residential heating systems’ total SO2 emission was calculated as 232,599 ton. 57 ton (~0%) SO2 emitted from residences’ which were consume natural gas, 111,520 ton (~48%) SO2 emitted from residences’ which were consume imported coal, 120,878 ton (~52%) SO2 emitted from residences’ which were consume domestic coal and 484 ton (~0%) SO2 emitted from residences’ which were consume wood. Industrial facilities’ total uncontrolled SO2 emission was determined as 42,737 ton. For ArcGIS application, industries’ controlled SO2 emission was determined as 24,720 ton. NOX emission of the energy production plants’ was calculated for only uncontrolled condition as 325,716 ton in this study. 37,471 ton NOX emission were emitted from residential heating system in residences. Emissions of natural gas, imported lignite, domestic lignite and wood consumptions’ were calculated as 9,625 ton (~26%), 16,356 ton (~44%), 7,292 ton (~19%) and 4,242 ton (~11%) respectively. Total uncontrolled NOX emission of industrial facilities was taken as 790,861 ton. For spatial distribution of emission, NOX emission was determined as 13,234 ton. Energy production plants’ total CO emission was calculated as 111,018 ton in this study for uncontrolled and controlled conditions. According to results, residential heating systems’ total CO emission was calculated as 1,059,298 ton. 4,907 ton (~0%) CO was emitted from natural gas combustion, 446,078 ton (~42%) CO was emitted from imported coal combustion, 397,727 ton (~38%) CO was emitted from domestic coal combustion, 212,121 ton (~20%) CO was emitted from wood combustion in 127 residences. Total uncontrolled CO emission of industrial facilities was taken as 790,861 ton and total controlled CO emission of industries’ was determined as 28,565 ton. In this study, total uncontrolled and controlled NMVOC emissions of energy production plants’ were calculated as 2,453 ton for both conditions. 136,015 ton NMVOC emission was emitted from residential heating systems. 359 ton (~0%) NMVOC was emitted from residences’ which were consume natural gas, 71,944 ton (~53%) NMVOC emitted from residences’ which were consume imported coal, 32,091 ton (~24%) NMVOC emitted from residences’ which were consume domestic coal and 31,818 ton (~23%) NMVOC emitted from residences’ which were consume wood. Industrial facilities’ total NMVOC emission was determined for uncontrolled condition as 220,055 ton and for spatial distribution, industrial NMVOC emission for controlled condition result was 36,042 ton. According to results of this study, total PM10 emission of energy production plants’ was calculated for uncontrolled condition as 1,343,698 ton. After abatement, results were changed as 26,875 ton. Abatement technologies’ accepted for only coal-fired and fuel oil-fired power plants. PM10 emission of heating systems calculated as 127,182 ton. Emissions of natural gas, imported lignite, domestic lignite and wood consumptions’ were calculated as 226 ton (~0%), 60,049 ton (~47%), 26,788 ton (~21%) and 40,303 ton (~32%) respectively. Total PM10 emission of industrial facilities for uncontrolled condition was taken as 5,834,130 ton. For spatial distribution, total controlled PM10 emission was determined as 44,019 ton. Total PM2.5 emission of energy production plants’ was calculated for uncontrolled condition as 201,777 ton in this study. For controlled condition PM2.5 emission of power plants was calculated as 26,875 ton. Abatement calculations’ for applied only coal-fired and fuel oil-fired power plants in this study. Residential heating systems’ total PM2.5 emission was calculated as 124,877 ton. 226 ton (~0%) PM2.5 was emitted from residences’ which were consume natural gas, 59,191 ton (~47%) PM2.5 emitted from residences’ which were consume imported coal, 26,398 ton (~21%) PM2.5 emitted from residences’ which were consume domestic coal and 39,242 ton (~32%) PM2.5 emitted from residences’ which were consume wood. Total PM2.5 emission of industrial facilities was taken as 3,300,394 ton. Controlled PM2.5 emission of industrial facilities was determined as 7,926 ton. 128 In this this study, total NH3 emission of energy production plants’ was not calculated and according to calculation results, 3,803 ton NH3 emission was emitted from residential heating systems. There was not calculated any NH3 emission from natural gas combustion and 57 ton (~2%) NH3 was emitted from imported coal combustion, 39 ton (~1%) NH3 was emitted from domestic coal combustion. Wood combustion was determined as the major source of the NH3 emission with 3,712 ton (~97%) in residences. For uncontrolled conditions 8,920 ton NH3 was emitted from industrial facilities, mostly from fertilizer production. For controlled conditions 457 ton NH3 was emitted from industrial facilities, which is also from fertilizer production. Turkey must determine a ceiling for the emissions emitted from power plants, industrial processes and residential heating systems. Development potential, resources, technologies, the quality of natural resources and economic power should be considered for determining ceilings for the parameters of the NEC Directive. Turkey ought to start studies for reducing fossil fuel usage, especially fuels which has higher Sulphur and ash content. Currently in Turkey, energy demand is mainly dependent on fossil fuels. Especially coal have major environmental risks by having low calorific values and high moisture, sulphur and ash content.On the other hand, usage of domestic lignite in energy production suggested for the reduce the foreign dependence on energy resources. But, there is needed an implementation of incentives for increasing the quality of coal,enhancement of combustion systems and treatment of pollutants in the combustion gases. Under the clean technologies, gasification, mixing with water, fluidized bed combustion systems, integrated gasification and combined cycle system, combustion of applications such as super- critical systems in the production of domestic domestic technologies should be encouraged. Natural gas is one of other important fossil fuel as an energy source. However, usage of natural gas is also depend on other countries. On the other hand, the important amount of current power plants has old technologies and completed their life. In the reduction of SO2 emissions, SO2 control technologies to provide public owned power plants will reduce these emissions significantly. The studies of privatization of these facilities are essential to compulsory treatment on SO2 and NOX. 129 PM10 control with Baghous system to switch with more efficient systems that simultaneously gaining importance in the control of mercury emissions will be positive effect. Starting to raise a public awareness about renewable energy usage should be considered by Turkish government. Increasing the expansion of renewable energy alternativies. As a well known fact, wind and solar energy play an important role in renewable energy potential. Increasing the usage of renewable energy provide an high yield in emission control and indepence in energy production. Building up an emission inventory database and providing constant up-to-dateness this database should be one of the important priority for Turkey. Databases should be reached easily for public usage. Besides, emission calculations and specific emission factors should be generated for Turkey. For the further projections, same studies should be maintained for transportation, waste management, agriculture sectors. Also, using meteorological data for investigation of the seasonal emissions will be more effective in inventory calculations. Also, developing the usage of GIS to observe the emissions should be considered by scientist. 130 131 REFERENCES [1] ILO Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. (n.d). Industrial Pollution in Developing Countries. Date retrieved: 23.04.2014, address: http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmental-health- hazards/item/497-industrial-pollution-in-developing-countries [2] Mayer H. Air pollution in cities. (1999). Atmospheric Environment. 33. pp.4029- 4037. [3] Elbir T., Mangir N., Kara M., Simsir S., Eren T., Ozdemir S. (2010). Development of a GIS-based decision support system CALPUFF for urban air quality management in the city of Istanbul. Atmospheric Environment. 44. pp.441-454. [4] ILO Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. (n.d). Air Pollution Management. Date retrieved: 23.04.2014, address: http://www.ilo.org/oshenc/part-vii/environmental-pollution- control/item/507-air-pollution-management#EPC_table1 [5] World Health Organization. (n.d). Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health. Date retrieved: 23.04.2014, address: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/ [6] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). Definitions. Date retrieved: 23.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/naaqs/definitions.html [7] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). Air Pollution Emissions Overview. Date retrieved: 23.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/emissns.html [8] Alyuz U. (2012). Compilation of an Industrial Emission Inventory for Turkey, MSc Thesis, ITU, Istanbul Turkey [9] Gaffney P. (2002). Developing a Statewide Emission Inventory Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). U.S. EPA Annual Emission Inventory Conference, Atlanta, Georgia USA [10] Gumrukcuoglu M. and Macit M. B. (2011). Determination of Industrial Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Mapping by Geographic Information System, Orginal Research, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey [11] National Council of Higher Education Online Thesis Centre (n.d). Web Page. Date retrieved: 20.04.2012, address: http://tez2.yok.gov.tr/ [12] Markakis K., Poupkou A., Melas D., Tzoumaka P., Petrakakis M. (2009). A Computational Approach Based on GIS Technology for the Development of an Anthropogenic Emission Inventory of Gaseous Pollutants in Greece. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 207. pp.157-180. 132 [13] Guttikunda S. K. and Calori G. (2013). A GIS based emissions inventory at 1 km*1 km spatial resolution for air pollution analysis in Delhi, India. Atmospheric Environment. 67. pp.100-111. [14] Dalvi M., Beig G., Patil U., Kaginalkar A., Sharma C., Mitra A.P. (2006). A GIS based methodology for gridding of large-scale emission inventories: Application to carbon-monoxide emissions over Indian region. Atmospheric Environment. 40. pp.2995-3007. [15] Kim J.H., Kwak B.K., Yi J., Park H.S., Kim N.G., Choi K. (2010). A GIS- based national emission inventory of major VOCs and risk assessment modeling: Part 1 – methodology and spatial pattern of emissions. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering. 27. pp.129-138 [16] Aleksandropoulou V., Torseth K., Lazaridis M. (2011). Atmospheric emission inventory for natural and antropogenic sources and spatial emission mapping for The Greater Athens Area. Water, Air, Soil Pollution. 219. pp.507-526. [17] Markakis M., Ulas I.M., Unal A., Melas D., Yenigun O., Incecik S. (2012). Compilation of a GIS based high spatially and temporally resolved emission inventory for the Greater Istanbul Area. Air Pollution Research. 3. pp.112-125. [18] Sailesh N. B., Sharma M., Dikshit O., Shukla S.P. (2011). Development of GIS-aided emission inventory of air pollutants for an urban environment. Advanced Air Pollution. Date retrieved: 24.04.2014. address: http://goo.gl/lxJKfS [19] Fu X., Wang S., Zhao B., Xing J., Cheng Z., Liu H., Hao J. (2013). Emission inventory of primary pollutants and chemical speciation for the Yangtze River Delta region, China. Atmospheric Environment. 70. pp.39-50. [20] Karaca F. (2012). Determination of air quality zones in Turkey. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. 62. pp.408-419 [21] Zhang Q., Wei Y., Tian W., Yang K. (2008). GIS-based emission inventories of urban scale: A case study of Hangzhou, China. Atmospheric Environment. 42. pp. 5150-5165 [22] Tian H., Qiu P., Zhu C., Liu K., Gao J., Zhou J. (2013). An elaborate high resolution emission inventory of primary air pollutants for the Central Plain Urban Agglomeration of China. Atmospheric Environment. 86. pp.93-101 [23] Fauser P., Illerup J. B. (2008). Danish emission inventory for solvents in industries and households. Atmospheric Environment. 42. pp.7947- 7953 [24] Can A., Atımtay A. T. (2004). CO2 emission inventory for Turkey. 13th World Clean Air and Environment Protection Congress and Exibition, London, UK [25] Elbir T., Muezzinoglu A., Bayram A. (2000). Evaluation of some air pollution indicators in Turkey. Environment International. 26. pp.5-10 133 [26] Elbir T., Muezzinoglu A. (2003). Estimation of emission strenghts of primary air pollutants in the city of Izmir, Turkey. Atmospheric Environment. 38. pp.1851-1857 [27] Sari D., Bayram A. (2013). Quantification of emissions from domestic heating in residential areas of Izmir, Turkey and assessment of the impact on local/regional air-quality. Science of the Total Environment. Corrected Proof. [28] The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, General Directorate of Combating Desertification and Erosion. (2012). Information note. Date retrived: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.cem.gov.tr/erozyon/Files/workshop/info_note.pdf [29] Turkish Statistical Institute. (2014). Population statistics. Date retrieved : 26.04.2014, address: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/Start.do [30] The Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and Promotion Agency. (2014). Investment guide. Date retrieved : 26.04.2014, address: http://www.invest.gov.tr/en- US/investmentguide/Pages/10Reasons.aspx [31] The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. (2014). Natural resources. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=en&sf=webpages&b=tabiikayn aklar_EN&bn=216&hn=&nm=40718&id=40718 [32] International Energy Agency. (2009). Turkey 2009 review. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/turkey200 9.pdf [33] The Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investments Support and Promotion Agency. (2013). Information note. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.invest.gov.tr/en- US/infocenter/publications/Documents/ENERGY.INDUSTRY.PDF [34] Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation. (2012). Annual Report 2012. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.teias.gov.tr/FaaliyetRaporlari/Faaliyet2012/TEIASfaayilet2 012INGLIZCE.pdf [35] Rebuplic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority. (2012). Annual Report 2012. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://goo.gl/8mFUSF [36] The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. (2014). Coal. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=en&sf=webpages&b=komur_E N&bn=511&hn=&nm=40717&id=40729 [37] The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Industry and Trade. (2010). Turkish Industrial Strategy Document 2011-2014. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: www.sanayi.gov.tr/Files/Documents/TurkiyeSanayiStratejisiIngilizce.p df? 134 [38] The Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry, State Planning Organisation General Directorate for Economic Sectors and Coordination Industry Department (2004). Sectoral profiles of Turkish industry, a general outlook. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/imalatsa/2004.pdf [39] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). Carbon dioxide Emissions. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html [40] European Environmental Agency. (2011). Technical Report on Revealing the costs of air pollution from industrial facilities in Europe.. N o15/2011. doi:10.2800/84800. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011 [41] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). AP 42, Fifth Edition. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Chapter 1.3. Fuel Oil Combustion. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf [42] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). Nitrous oxide Emissions. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html [43] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). Sulphur dioxide. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/ [44] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Control and Pollution Prevention Options for Ammonia Emissions. Date retrieved: 18.04.2012, address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ammonia.pdf [45] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). Methane Emissions. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html [46] San Diego State University. Department of Geography. (n.d). Web page. Date retrived: 26.04.2014, address: http://map.sdsu.edu/geoagent/gis_intro.htm#datasource [47] South African National Biodiversity Institute. The Biodiversity GIS Unit. (n.d). Web page. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://bgis.sanbi.org/gis-primer/page_25.htm [48] Rebuplic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority. (n.d). Licensed production of corporations database. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www2.epdk.org.tr/lisans/elektrik/lisansdatabase/verilenuretim.asp [49] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). AP 42, Fifth Edition. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Chapter 1.3. Fuel Oil Combustion. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf [50] International Panel on Climate Change. (2006). 2006 Guideline for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 2, Chapter 2. Energy. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.ipcc- 135 nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_ Combustion.pdf [51] European Environment Agency. (2013). Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook, Chapter 7. Spatial mapping of emissions. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/emep-eea- guidebook-2013 [52] Turkish Petroleum Refineries Co. (n.d). Technical Information. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.tupras.com.tr/detailpage.en.php?lDirectoryID=103 [53] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). AP 42, Fifth Edition. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Chapter 5. Petroleum Industry. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch05/final/c05s01.pdf [54] Turkish Plastic Industry Foundation. (2010). Rubber Sector Report. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.pagev.org.tr/admin/PICS/dosyalar/Dunya_ve_Turkiye_201 0_Yili_Kaucuk_Sektor_Raporu.pdf [55] Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. (2007). 9th development plan, Special Ad Hoc Committee Report on chemical industry. Tire pre- report.Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: esk.dpt.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/3895/oik707.pdf [56] The Union of Chambers, Commodity Exchanges of Turkey. (n.d). Industry database. Synthetic rubber production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://sanayi.tobb.org.tr/kitap_son3.php?kodu=2017105000 [57] IZOCAM. (n.d). Polystyrene production capacity. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.izocam.com.tr/tr-tr/urunler/yalitim- malzemeleri/ekstrude-polistren-%28xps%29.aspx [58] Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. (2007). 9th development plan, Special Ad Hoc Committee Report on chemical industry. Synthetic fibre and yarn report.Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://plan9.dpt.gov.tr/oik44_kimya/44kimyasanayii_10SentetikElyafipl ikaltkom.pdf [59] Polisan Chemical Co. (n.d). Formaldehyde production capacity. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.polisanholding.com.tr/en/en-Polisan- Kimya.html [60] MKS Devo. (n.d). Formaldehyde production capacity. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.mksdevo.com/tr/urunler.php?id=32 [61] Yıldız Entegre Co. (n.d). Formaldehyde production capacity. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.yildizentegre.com/eng/Fabrikalar.asp [62] Yıldız Entegre Co. (n.d). Formaldehyde production capacity. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.yildizentegre.com/eng/Fabrikalar.asp [63] Çamsan Poyraz Co. (n.d). Formaldehyde production capacity. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.camsanpoyraz.com/en/uretim.php?sf=hakkimizda_&k=&u =368 136 [64]PETKIM. (n.d). Products. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.petkim.com.tr/Sayfa/1/228/FABRIKALAR.aspx [65] PETKIM. (n.d). Crude terephtalic acid production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.petkim.com.tr/Sayfa/1/241/URETIM- FABRIKALAR-PTA-FABRIKASI.aspx [66] The Union of Chambers, Commodity Exchanges of Turkey. (n.d). Industry database. Detergent production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://sanayi.tobb.org.tr/kitap_son3.php?kodu=2041318000 [67] Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. (2007). 9th development plan, Special Ad Hoc Committee Report on chemical industry. Detergent and cleaning products report.Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://plan9.dpt.gov.tr/oik44_kimya/44kimyasanayii_7SabunDeterjanK ozmetikcalismagrubudeterjan.pdf [68] The Union of Chambers, Commodity Exchanges of Turkey. (n.d). Industry database. Paint production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://sanayi.tobb.org.tr/kitap_son3.php?kodu=2041318000 [69] The Association of Paint Industry. (n.d). Members. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://en.bosad.org/membership/our- members.aspx [70] Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. (2007). 9th development plan, Special Ad Hoc Committee Report on chemical industry. Paint report.Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://plan9.dpt.gov.tr/oik44_kimya/44kimyasanayii_3Boyacalismaguru buraporu.pdf [71] ETI MADEN. (n.d). Boron production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://en.etimaden.gov.tr/about-us-10s.htm [72] The Union of Chambers, Commodity Exchanges of Turkey. (n.d). Industry database. Concentrated boron production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://sanayi.tobb.org.tr/kitap_son3.php?kodu=0891190013 [73] The Union of Chambers, Commodity Exchanges of Turkey. (n.d). Industry database. Boron oxide production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://sanayi.tobb.org.tr/kitap_son3.php?kodu=2013246000 [74] European IPPC Bureau. (2001). Reference document on best available technique for the manufacture of Large Volume Inorganic Chemicals- Solids and Other Industry. Date Retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/BREF/lvic-s_bref_0907.pdf [75] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). AP 42, Fifth Edition. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Chapter 8. Inorganic Chemical Industry. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch08/final/c08s12.pdf [76] Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. (2007). 9th development plan, Special Ad Hoc Committee Report on chemical industry main report. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://plan9.dpt.gov.tr/oik44_kimya/44KimyaSanayii_anarapor.pdf 137 [77] Sisecam Soda. (n.d). Soda ash production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.sisecam.com.tr/tr/faaliyet-alanlari/kimyasallar/sirket/soda- sanayi/ [78] ETI SODA. (n.d). Soda ash production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://en.etimaden.gov.tr/about-us-10s.htm [79] ETI KROM. (n.d). Chromium oxide production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://tr.etikrom.com/?mode=urundetay&UID=1271 [80] KUMAS. (n.d). Magnesium oxide production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.kumasref.com/product.asp [81] MAS. (n.d). Magnesium oxide production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.mas.com.tr/internet_tr/Hakkimizda/MAS/;jsessionid=FC41 6199CAFFEF77B82F1BCF6D31C3F9" [82] Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. (2007). 9th development plan, Special Ad Hoc Committee Report on chemical industry. Fertilizer report. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://plan9.dpt.gov.tr/oik44_kimya [83] Yıldız Entegre Co. (n.d). Formaldehyde production capacity. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.yildizentegre.com/eng/Fabrikalar.asp [84] AB Group. (n.d). Compose fertilizer. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.abfoods.com.tr/?u=3&p=6 [85] Turkish Cement Manufacturers Association. (n.d). Members. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.tcma.org.tr/ENG/index.php?page=icerikgoster&menuID=2 8 [86] Lime Manufacturers Association. (n.d). Members. Date retrieved: 26.04.2013, address: http://kirec.org/index.php?page=mod_uyekuruluslar&menuID=62 [87] ETI Electrometallurgy Inc. (n.d). Carpide production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.etimet.com/default.asp?islem=sayfa&id=43&lang=EN [88] The Union of Chambers, Commodity Exchanges of Turkey. (n.d.). Glass and glass products industry report. Date retrived: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.tobb.org.tr/Documents/yayinlar/2013/TOBB-CAM-SEKT- 20130924.pdf [89] The Engineering Toolbox. (n.d). Web site. Densities of Miscellaneous Solids. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-solids-d_1265.htm [90] Turkish Steel Producers Association. (n.d). Members. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, adress: http://www.dcud.org.tr/tr/news.asp?news_id=487 [91] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). AP 42, Fifth Edition. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Chapter 1.2. Metallurgical industry. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch12/final/c12s02_may08.pdf 138 [92] International Panel on Climate Change. (2006). 2006 Guideline for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 4. Metal Industry. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.ipcc- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_4_Ch4_Metal_Indus try.pdf [93] Turkish Statistical Institute. (2014). Industrial product statistics. Date retrieved : 26.04.2014, address: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/Start.do [94] Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development. (2007). 9th development plan, Special Ad Hoc Committee Report on metal industry main report. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://plan9.dpt.gov.tr/oik37_anametal [95] Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). AP 42, Fifth Edition. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Chapter 12. Metallurgical industry. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch12/final/c12s08.pdf [96] Turkish Aluminum Manufacturers Association. (n.d) Members. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.talsad.org.tr/Uyelerimiz.asp?m=3 [97] The Turkish Foundry Association. (n.d). Member foundries. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.tudoksad.org.tr/member- directory/member-foundries/ [98] European Environment Agency. (2013). Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook, Chapter 2. Glass production. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/emep-eea-guidebook- 2013 [99] Pulp and Paper Industry Foundation. (n.d). The Turkish Paper Industry. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.sksv.org/en/turkkagit.php [100] The Turkish Sugar Authority. (n.d). Sectoral Booklet. Turkish Sugar Industry. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.sekerkurumu.gov.tr/doc/file/seker%20sekt%C3%B6r%20br os%C3%BCr_35x50_1_CONV.pdf [101] Tobacco and Alcohol Market Regulatory Authority. (2012). Annual report. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.tapdk.gov.tr/TAPDK_Faaliyet.pdf [102] European Environment Agency. (2013). Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook, Chapter 2. Food and Beverage industry. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/emep-eea- guidebook-2013 [103] The Ministry of Family and Social Policies. (2011). Research of The Family Structure 2011. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.ailetoplum.gov.tr/upload/athgm.gov.tr/mce/2013/taya_kitap _butun.pdf [104] Association of Thermal Insulation, Waterproofing, Sound Insulation and Fireproofing Material Producers, Suppliers and Applicators. (n.d) TS825 Insulation calculation programme. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://goo.gl/EeRJMm 139 [105] European Environment Agency. (2013). Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook, Chapter 1. Small combustion. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/emep-eea-guidebook- 2013 [106] Maguire J. D. (2008).ArcGIS: General Purpose GIS Software System. Encyclopedia of GIS, Springer, NY, USA [107] Goodchild F. M. (2008). Data Analysis, Spatial. Encyclopedia of GIS, Springer, NY, USA [108] Yanar E., Personal contact. Warming, prevent air pollution from motor vehicles and fuel control branch manager. Department of Air Management. General Directorate of Environmental Management. Ministy of Environment and Urban Planning. [109] TEIAS. (2010). Web site. Annual development of fuels consumed in thermal power plants in Turkey by the electric utilities. Date retrieved, 30.05.2014, address: http://www.teias.gov.tr/T%C3%BCrkiyeElektrik%C4%B0statistikleri/i statistik2011/istatistik%202011.htm [110] Ministry of Environment and Urban Planing. (2011). Air Quality Report. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.csb.gov.tr/db/cygm/editordosya/HKD-2011yillik2.pdf [111] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2014). National Reports. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: https://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_in ventories_submissions/items/8108.php [112] Oner E. (2014). Evaluation of NOX Emission Inventories Using NO2 Ground Observations and NO2 Satellite Retrievals for Turkey, MSc Thesis, ITU, Istanbul, Turkey [113] European Environment Agency. (2009). Air pollutant emissions data viewer (LRTAP Convention). Date retrieved: 23.04.2012, address: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/air- emissions-viewer-lrtap [114] European Environment Agency. (2010). European Union Emission Inventory Report 1990-2010 Under The UNECE Convention on LRTAP. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/eu-emission-inventory-report- 1990-2010 [115] Markasis K., Im U., Unal A., Melas D., Yenigun O., Incecik S. (2012). Compilation of a GIS based high spatially and temporally resolved emission inventory for the greater Istanbul area. Atmospheric Pollution Research. 3. pp.112-125. [116] Environmental Systems Research Instıtute. (n.d). About ArcGIS. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/use-cases [117] European Union. (2011). Common Information to European Air. Integrated Urban Emission Inventories. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, 140 address:http://www.citeair.eu/fileadmin/Deliverables_and_documents/ Guidebook_Integrated_Emission_Inventories_-_final.pdf [118] Republic of Turkey Ministry of Interior. (2013). Inventory of Civilian Administration Units. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: https://www.e-icisleri.gov.tr/Anasayfa/MulkiIdariBolumleri.aspx [119] Environmental Protection Agency.. (n.d). Flue Gas Desulfurization (Removal) Systems. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oaqps/eogtrain.nsf/b81bacb527b016d785256e4 a004c0393/d4ec501f07c0e03a85256b6c006caf64/$FILE/si412c_lesson 9.pdf [120] Environmental Protection Agency.. (n.d). Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/ffdg.pdf [121] Flue Gas Desulfurization. (n.d). Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://www.fluegasdesulfurization.com/ [122] California Polytechnic State University. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. Advanced Air Pollution Control. Controlling Particulate Emissions with Electrostatic Percipitators. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address:http://ceenve3.civeng.calpoly.edu/cota/ENVE411- ESP.html [123] Environmental Protection Agency.. (n.d). Particulate Matter Controls. Electrostatic Precipitators. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address:http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/cs6ch3.pdf [124] Alp K., Özkan A. (2005). Amount of Volatile Matter in Coal and Effects on Air Pollution. In: Imported Coal Panel in Turkey, 29 January 2005, İstanbul, Turkey. [125] Alp K. (2008). Emission factors of the domestic coal with related to the heating. In: National Air Pollution Symposium, 30/31 May 2008, Konya, Turkey. [126] AQUAVEO. (n.d). Web page. Inverse Distance Weighted Interpolation. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.2/index.cfm?TopicName=How _Inverse_Distance_Weighted_%28IDW%29_interpolation_works [127] ESRI (n.d). Web page. How Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) Interpolation Works. Date retrieved: 26.04.2014, address: https://www.ems- i.com/smshelp/Data_Module/Interpolation/Inverse_Distance_Weighted. htm 141 APPENDIX Appendix A : Maps 142 143 Appendix A Figure A.1 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for energy production plants. 144 Figure A.2 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for energy production plants. 145 Figure A.3 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for energy production plants. 146 Figure A.4 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for industrial processes. 147 Figure A.5 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for industrial processes. 148 Figure A.6 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for industrial processes. 149 Figure A.7 : Spatial distribution of NH3 emissions for industrial processes. 150 Figure A.8 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for residential heating systems. 151 Figure A.9 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for residential heating systems. 152 Figure A.10 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for residential heating systems. 153 Figure A.11 : Spatial distribution of NH3 emissions for residential heating systems. 154 Figure A.12 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. 155 Figure A.13 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. 156 Figure A.14 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. 157 Figure A.15 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. 158 Figure A.16 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. 159 Figure A.17 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. 160 Figure A.18 : Spatial distribution of NH3 emissions for imported coal combustion in residential heating systems. 161 Figure A.19 : Spatial distribution of CO2 emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. 162 Figure A.20 : Spatial distribution of SOX emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. 163 Figure A.21 : Spatial distribution of NOX emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. 164 Figure A.22 : Spatial distribution of CO emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. 165 Figure A.23 : Spatial distribution of NMVOC emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. 166 Figure A.24 : Spatial distribution of PM10 emissions for natural gas combustion in residential heating systems. 167 Figure A.25 : Spatial distribution of total CO2 emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. 168 Figure A.26 : Spatial distribution of total SOX emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. 169 Figure A.27 : Spatial distribution of total NOX emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. 170 Figure A.28 : Spatial distribution of total CO emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. 171 Figure A.29 : Spatial distribution of total NMVOC emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. 172 Figure A.30 : Spatial distribution of total PM10 emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. 173 Figure A.31 : Spatial distribution of total NH3 emissions for domestic coal, imported coal and wood combustion in residential heating systems. 174 Figure A.32 : Spatial distribution of total CO emissions. 175 Figure A.33 : Spatial distribution of total NMVOC emissions. 176 Figure A.34 : Spatial distribution of total PM10 emissions. 177 Figure A.35 : Spatial distribution of total NH3 emissions. 178 179 CURRICULUM VITAE Name Surname: Gökçe Durukan Place and Date of Birth: Kayseri -18.05.1989 E-Mail: gkc.drkn@gmail.com B.Sc.: Yildiz Technical University, Environmental Engineering, 2012