**8. Cost of the renewable energy technology**

In terms of selection of the capital costs of renewable technologies by 2015; the World Bank Study [32], the market analysis and data tables of the International Energy Agency [33] and report prepared by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry [34] are benefited from. On the other hand, the calculated prices are adjusted for the year 2015 by learning rates for each technology. The learning rates are the decrease in cost of technologies for each doubling of capacity due to technological and operational improvements in these kinds of technologies. The formula used to calculate the future cost of technology is given below as [34]:

$$\text{SCI}\_{\text{F}} = \text{SCI}\_{\text{P}} \cdot \left(\text{C}\_{\text{F}} / \text{C}\_{\text{P}}\right)^{\ln\left(1 \cdot \text{LR/hr2}\right)} \tag{1}$$

**Price**

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54319

15

**Project type (USD/tCO2e)**

Present Situation and Future Prospect of Energy Utilization and Climate Change in Turkey

**Potential Potential Utilized 2030 Target**

Pvotovoltaics (PV) 21.50 Wind-Onshore (good wind) 12.40 Wind-Onshore (Moderate wind) 12.40 Wind-Offshore 12.40 Solar thermal with storage 21.50 Geothermal 17.00 Biomass Gasifier 16.20 MSW/Landfill Gas 16.20 Biogas 16.20 Mini Hydropower 5.20

**Energy sources (TWh/yr) (GW) (GW) (GW)** Hydropower 180 50 15 180 Wind energy 150 50 1 40 Geothermal 4.2 0.60 0.1 4.2 Solar energy 380 0.1 0.1 10 Biomass 3.6 0.50 0.1 2.2

According to the result of financial analysis, none of the listed renewable electricity generation technology will be financially attractive without additional carbon finance in 2020. Onshore wind plants in the areas with high level wind speed, landfill gas and biogas power plants will be attractive if they secure emission reduction certification and sell those certificates in the voluntary markets based on the price assumptions. However, the wind projects having smaller capacity factor and geothermal projects can be financially attractive. It is clear that, other than price for mini hydro, at least till 2020, none of this prices are realistic, hence these technologies shall have higher feed-in-tariffs to be more attractive by private investors. The effect of carbon finance as an additional revenue to the renewable electricity generation is analyzed. The

**Table 7.** Voluntary credit price changes by project type in 2010

**Table 8.** Renewable source potential, utilization by 2010 and target for 2030

**10. Results and discussion**

where SCIP is the current specific capital investment cost, CP is the current global installed capacity, CF is the installed capacity of the technology in a future time, and LR is the learning rate of the technology.

The learning rates for each technology type and estimated 2020 capacities for each technology are taken from the literature [32]. The calculated decrease by 2020 for capital cost of each technology types are given in Table 6.

**Table 6.** Decrease in capital cost by learning rate for each technology types


**4. Ultrasound access**

Ultrasound (US) for radial access from several smaller studies implied a benefit in time to access [13, 14]. The RAUST trial included 698 patients and showed that an ultrasound-guided approach decreased the number of attempts (mean 1.65 ± 1.2 vs. 3.05 3.4, p < 0.0001) and the time to getting access (88 ± 78 seconds vs. 108 ± 112 seconds, p = 0.006) [15]. In another randomized controlled trial performed in Australia that enrolled 1388 patients, ultrasound use decreased time to getting access (93 vs. 11 seconds, p = 0.009), the number of attempts (1.47 vs. 1.9, p < 0.0001) with increased chances of success from the first try (73% vs. 59.7%, p < 0.0001) [16]. Besides the faster and higher success rate, pre-puncture ultrasound can prevent vascular complications by properly sizing the radial artery to sheath diameter [17].