ASSESSMENT OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM BIOFUEL 

PRODUCTION BY LIFE CYCLE APPROACH 

 

 

 

BİYOYAKIT ÜRETİM AŞAMASINDA AÇIĞA ÇIKAN SERA 

GAZI EMİSYONLARININ YAŞAM DÖNGÜSÜ YAKLAŞIMI İLE 

DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ 

 

 

 

GİZEM ERSOY 

 

 

 

ASSOC. PROF. DR. MERİH AYDINALP KÖKSAL 

Supervisor 

 

 

 

Submitted to 

Graduate School of Science and Engineering of Hacettepe University 

as a Partial Fulfillment to the Requirements 

for the Award of the Degree of Master of Science 

in Environmental Engineering 

 

 

2023



 
 

i 
 

ABSTRACT 

 

 

ASSESSMENT OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM BIOFUEL PRODUCTION BY LIFE 

CYCLE APPROACH 

 

 

Gizem Ersoy 

 

 

Master of Science, Department of Environmental Engineering 

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Merih AYDINALP KÖKSAL 

January 2023, 95 pages 

 

 

The decreasing stocks of petroleum-based fuels, increasing energy security 

problems, and the problems related to climate change and air pollution problems 

encourage the growing interest in biofuels. Biofuels are among low-carbon 

alternatives for road transport, as they have a much better CO2 emission 

performance and lesser air pollution impacts than traditional fossil transport fuels. 

However, it is significant to examine whether the GHG emissions from biofuels' 

lifecycle are lower than those from fossil fuels. In addition, biofuel production from 

crops should not compete with food production and should be economically and 

environmentally sustainable. According to Turkey’s National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventory, in 2020, the transport sector's share in total GHG emissions was 15.4%, 

corresponding to 80.7 million tons of CO2eq. Road transportation accounts for 94.9% 

of the country's transport sector's GHG emissions. In addition, Turkey’s domestic oil 

source is also limited, making her dependent on imported liquid fuels. Turkey has 

recently created a road map for 2053, which includes essential principles and 

important actions to decrease GHG emissions and climate change. In addition, the 



 
 

ii 
 

transposition and implementation of the current and future EU Directives on climate 

change are critical for Turkey to implement its road map for 2053. For these reasons, 

Turkey's biofuel potential and emission effects were analyzed in this study. As a 

method, BioGrace Calculation Tool is used to calculate the life cycle GHG emission 

reduction potentials of biodiesel from rapeseed and waste oil and bioethanol from 

sugar beet and corn. According to the results of each biofuel production pathway's 

life cycle GHG emissions, biodiesel production from waste oil has the lowest life 

cycle GHG emission, 21.9 g CO2eq/MJ. Bioethanol production from corn (44.9 g 

CO2eq/MJ) and sugar beet (46.1 g CO2eq/MJ) follows biodiesel from waste oil. 

Biodiesel from rapeseed has the highest life cycle GHG emission, which is 53.2 g 

CO2eq/MJ. Secondly, various biodiesel and bioethanol blending scenarios were 

implemented to estimate the GHG emissions of biofuel-blended passenger cars. 

This is accomplished by assuming a 5% annual rise in the proportion of biofuel-

blended passenger cars will reach up to 50% of all non-blended passenger cars in 

2030, starting from 2020, which is selected as the base year. Finally, crop demand 

analyses were conducted for rapeseed, sugar beet, and corn cultivation area to 

estimate Turkey’s capacity to meet biodiesel and bioethanol demands in 2030 

according to various biofuel blending rates. According to projection results, blending 

the biofuels at 0.5% and 2% can easily meet the demand for biodiesel production 

from rapeseed. Consequently, bioethanol production from sugar beet and corn can 

be easily achieved with all blending rates by the end of 2030. However, sugar beet 

and corn production for food demand should also be considered since biofuel 

production should not compete with food production.  

 

 

Keywords: Transport Sector, Greenhouse Gas Emission, Biodiesel, Bioethanol, 

BioGrace, Life Cycle Assessment 

  



 
 

iii 
 

ÖZET 

 

 

BİYOYAKIT ÜRETİM AŞAMASINDA AÇIĞA ÇIKAN SERA GAZI 

EMİSYONLARININ YAŞAM DÖNGÜSÜ YAKLAŞIMI İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ  

 

 

Gizem Ersoy 

 

 

Yüksek Lisans, Çevre Mühendisliği Bölümü 

Tez Danışmanı: Doç. Dr. Merih AYDINALP KÖKSAL 

Ocak 2023, 95 sayfa 

 

 

Petrol bazlı yakıt stoklarının azalması, artan enerji güvenliği sorunları, iklim 

değişikliğine bağlı sorunlar ve hava kirliliği sorunları biyoyakıtlara olan ilginin 

artmasına neden olmuştur. Biyoyakıtlar, geleneksel fosil kaynaklı ulaşım 

yakıtlarından çok daha düşük CO2 emisyon performansına ve daha az hava kirliliği 

etkilerine sahip olduklarından, karayolu taşımacılığı için düşük karbonlu alternatifler 

arasında yer almaktadır. Ancak, biyoyakıtların yaşam döngüleri boyunca açığa çıkan 

sera gazı emisyonlarının fosil yakıtlarınkinden daha düşük olup olmadığının 

araştırılması önemlidir. Bunun yanında, tarımsal kaynaklı biyoyakıt üretimi, gıda 

üretimi ile rekabet etmemeli ve ekonomik ve çevresel olarak sürdürülebilir olmalıdır. 

Türkiye Ulusal Sera Gazı Envanteri ‘ne göre 2020 yılında ulaştırma sektörünün 

toplam sera gazı emisyonlarındaki payı %15,4; 80,7 milyon ton CO2 eşdeğeridir ve 

karayolu taşımacılığı da sektörün sera gazı emisyonlarının %94,9'unu 

oluşturmaktadır. Ayrıca, Türkiye'nin yerli petrol kaynağının da sınırlı olması, onu ithal 

sıvı yakıtlara bağımlı kılmaktadır. Türkiye yakın zamanda 2053 yılı için, sera gazı 

emisyonlarını ve iklim değişikliğini azaltmak için temel ilkeleri ve önemli eylemleri 



 
 

iv 
 

içeren bir yol haritası oluşturmuştur. Ayrıca, iklim değişikliğine ilişkin mevcut ve 

gelecekteki AB Direktiflerinin iç hukuka aktarılması ve uygulanması, Türkiye'nin 

2053 yol haritasını uygulaması açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu nedenlerden 

dolayı bu çalışmada Türkiye’nin biyoyakıt potansiyeli ve emisyon etkileri analiz 

edilmiştir. Yöntem olarak BioGrace Hesaplama Aracı kullanılarak, kanola ve atık 

yağdan elde edilen biyodizel ile şeker pancarı ve mısırdan elde edilen biyoetanolün 

yaşam döngüsü sera gazı emisyonlarını azaltma potansiyelleri hesaplanmıştır. Her 

bir biyoyakıt üretim yolunun yaşam döngüsü sera gazı emisyonlarının sonuçlarına 

göre, atık yağdan biyodizel üretimi, 21,9 g CO2eşdeğer/MJ ile en düşük yaşam 

döngüsü sera gazı emisyonuna sahiptir. Mısır (44,9 g CO2eşd/MJ) ve şeker 

pancarından (46,1 g CO2eşd/MJ) biyoetanol üretimi emisyonları, sırasıyla atık 

yağdan üretilen biyodizel emisyonunu takip etmektedir. Kanoladan elde edilen 

biyodizel, 53,2 g CO2eq/MJ ile en yüksek yaşam döngüsü sera gazı emisyonuna 

sahiptir. Buna ek olarak, bu çalışmada, biyoyakıt karışımlı binek otomobillerin sera 

gazı emisyonlarını tahmin etmek için çeşitli biyodizel ve biyoetanol harmanlama 

senaryoları uygulanmıştır. Hesaplamalar referans yıl olarak seçilen 2020'den 

başlayarak, biyoyakıt karışımlı binek otomobillerin oranında yıllık %5'lik bir artışın 

yapılarak, 2030'da tüm harmanlanmamış binek otomobillerin %50'sine ulaşacağı 

varsayılarak yapılmıştır. Son olarak, çeşitli biyoyakıt harmanlama oranlarına göre 

Türkiye'nin 2030 yılında biyodizel ve biyoetanol taleplerini karşılama kapasitesini 

tahmin etmek için kanola, şeker pancarı ve mısır ekim alanları için ürün talep 

analizleri yapılmıştır. Projeksiyon sonuçlarına göre %0,5 ve %2 oranındaki 

biyoyakıtların harmanlanması kanoladan biyodizel üretimi talebini rahatlıkla 

karşılayabilecektir. Buna ek olarak, şeker pancarı ve mısırdan biyoetanol üretimi, 

2030 yılı sonuna kadar tüm harmanlama oranlarıyla kolaylıkla sağlanabilir. Ancak 

biyoyakıt üretiminin gıda üretimi ile rekabet etmemesi gerektiğinden, gıda talebine 

yönelik şeker pancarı ve mısır üretimi de dikkate alınmalıdır. 

 

 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Ulaşım Sektörü, Sera Gazı Emisyonu, Biyodizel, Biyoetanol, 

BioGrace, Yaşam Döngüsü Değerlendirmesi  



 
 

v 
 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

 

 

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Merih 

AYDINALP KÖKSAL, for her invaluable support, patience, motivation, enthusiasm, 

and extensive knowledge throughout the research and writing of this thesis. Her 

guidance was instrumental in the successful completion of this work. 

 

I also extend my sincere appreciation to the faculty members and staff of Hacettepe 

University's Environmental Engineering Department for their excellent support. 

 

I would like to offer a special thank you to my dear father, Erçin ERSOY, who passed 

away untimely. I am also grateful to my dear mother, Nejla ERSOY, and my dear 

brother, Erdinç ERSOY, who have always been there for me, providing unwavering 

support and encouragement through every challenge.  



 
 

vi 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

 

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... i 

ÖZET ...................................................................................................................... iii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................. v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... vi 

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. ix 

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xi 

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... xiv 

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 

1.1. Problem Definition ...................................................................................... 3 

1.2. Goal and Objective .................................................................................... 4 

1.3. Scope of the Study ..................................................................................... 5 

1.4. Structure of the Study ................................................................................ 6 

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..................................................................... 7 

2.1. What is Biofuel? ......................................................................................... 7 

2.1.1. Biorefinery Technology ........................................................................ 9 

2.1.2. Liquid Biofuels ................................................................................... 11 

2.2. Biofuel Sector in Turkey ........................................................................... 16 

2.2.1. Biodiesel in Turkey ............................................................................ 16 

2.2.2. Bioethanol in Turkey .......................................................................... 18 

2.3. Energy Crops Used for Biofuel Production or Food ................................. 19 

2.4. Legal Situation of The Biofuel Sector in Turkey ....................................... 22 

2.5. Scope of EU Biofuels Directives .............................................................. 24 



 
 

vii 
 

2.6. Closing Remarks ...................................................................................... 25 

3. PREVIOUS STUDIES .................................................................................... 27 

3.1. Studies on Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Biofuel Generation .................. 27 

3.2. Studies Using the BioGrace Tool ............................................................. 29 

3.3. Studies on GHG Emission Estimation of Turkish Crops ........................... 30 

3.4. Closing Remarks ...................................................................................... 31 

4. BIOGRACE-I GHG CALCULATION TOOL VERSION 4D FOR COMPLIANCE

 34 

4.1. Structure of the Estimation Tool ............................................................... 34 

4.2. Closing Remarks ...................................................................................... 36 

5. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES ..................................................... 37 

5.1. Data Gathering and Analyses .................................................................. 37 

5.2. Data Input to BioGrace Calculation Tool and GHG Emission Calculation 39 

5.2.1. Data Used for Biodiesel Production from Rapeseed ......................... 39 

5.2.2. Data Used for Biodiesel Production from Waste Oil .......................... 44 

5.2.3. Data Used for Bioethanol Production from Sugar Beet ..................... 46 

5.2.4. Data Used for Bioethanol Production from Corn ............................... 49 

5.3. Developing Biofuel Blending Scenarios ................................................... 51 

5.3.1. Biodiesel Blending ............................................................................. 52 

5.3.2. Bioethanol Blending ........................................................................... 52 

5.3.3. Passenger Car Stock, Fuel Type and Milage .................................... 52 

5.4. Closing Remarks ...................................................................................... 53 

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................................... 55 

6.1. Life Cycle GHG Emission Estimation for Biofuel Production .................... 55 

6.1.1. Biodiesel Production .......................................................................... 55 

6.1.2. Bioethanol Production ....................................................................... 58 



 
 

viii 
 

6.1.3. Comparison of Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Biofuel Production ...... 61 

6.2. Biofuel Consumption Blending Scenarios ................................................ 62 

6.2.1. Results of Biodiesel Blending Scenarios ........................................... 62 

6.2.2. Results of Bioethanol Blending Scenarios ......................................... 67 

6.3. Crop Demand Analysis for Biofuel Production (Turkey’s context) ............ 72 

6.3.1. Rapeseed Demand Analysis for Biodiesel Production ....................... 72 

6.3.2. Sugar Beet Demand Analysis for Bioethanol Production ................... 74 

6.3.3. Corn Demand Analysis for Bioethanol Production ............................. 76 

6.4. Policy Analysis ......................................................................................... 78 

6.5. Closing Remarks ...................................................................................... 79 

7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 82 

7.1. Future Studies .......................................................................................... 86 

8. REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 88 

 

 

  



 
 

ix 
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

 

Figure 1. GHG emissions from the transportation sector of Turkey[4] .................... 2 

Figure 2. Schematic Biorefinery Technology [9] .................................................... 10 

Figure 3. Biodiesel production in integrated biodiesel plants and pure 

transesterification plants [12] ........................................................... 12 

Figure 4. Overview of the bioethanol production process [15] .............................. 14 

Figure 5. Total crop and food production indices of 51 developing countries between 

2011 and 2016 [24] ................................................................................ 20 

Figure 6. Total Biofuel and food production of 51 developing countries [24] ......... 21 

Figure 7. The relationship between biofuels and food security [25]....................... 22 

Figure 8. Methodology flow chart of the study ....................................................... 37 

Figure 9. Production pathway of Biodiesel-Rapeseed in the BioGrace tool [53] ... 40 

Figure 10. Production pathway of Biodiesel-Waste oil in the BioGrace tool [53] ... 44 

Figure 11. Production pathway of Bioethanol-Sugar beet in the BioGrace tool [53]

 .............................................................................................................................. 47 

Figure 12. Production pathway of Bioethanol-Corn in the BioGrace tool [53] ....... 49 

Figure 13. Comparison of Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Biofuel Production ......... 61 

Figure 14. Comparison of GHG emission reduction potentials of all rapeseed-based 

biodiesel blending scenarios (The B0.5 scenario was omitted from the 

figure because the difference with BAU is insignificant.) ...................... 65 

Figure 15. Comparison of GHG emission reduction potential of all waste oil-based 

biodiesel blending scenarios (The B0.5 blend scenario was omitted from 

the figure because the difference with BAU is insignificant.) ................ 67 

Figure 16. Comparison of GHG emission reduction potential of all sugar beet-based 

bioethanol blending scenarios .............................................................. 70 

Figure 17. Comparison of GHG emission reduction potential of all corn-based 

bioethanol blending scenarios ............................................................ 72 

Figure 18. Required biodiesel production amount from rapeseed by different 

blending scenarios and the base year (2020) production potential .... 74 



 
 

x 
 

Figure 19. Required bioethanol production amount from sugar beet by different 

blending scenarios and the base year (2020) production potential .... 76 

Figure 20. Required bioethanol production amount from corn by different blending 

scenarios and the base year (2020) production potential ................... 78 

 

 

  



 
 

xi 
 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

 

Table 1. Biomass categories, contents, and origins [7] ........................................... 8 

Table 2. Amount of biodiesel delivered in Turkey in 2020 [17] .............................. 17 

Table 3. Turkey's oilseed production in 2020 [19] ................................................. 17 

Table 4. Bioethanol delivery amount in Turkey in 2020 [17] .................................. 19 

Table 5. Sunflower cultivation energy inputs related to one ha for each farm in 

Tuscany, Italy [41] .................................................................................. 29 

Table 6: Previous Studies on life cycle GHG emissions of biofuel generation ...... 32 

Table 7: Previous studies using the BioGrace Tool ............................................... 32 

Table 8: Previous studies using the BioGrace Tool on GHG emission estimation of 

Turkish crops .......................................................................................... 33 

Table 9. Steps of the life cycle GHG analysis of biofuel production ...................... 35 

Table 10. The data set used in calculations .......................................................... 37 

Table 11. The data used for the calculation of GHG emissions resulting from the land 

use change ........................................................................................... 39 

Table 12. The data used in the BioGrace tool in the step of the biomass supply chain 

of life cycle GHG emissions from biodiesel-rapeseed .......................... 40 

Table 13. The data used in the step of biorefinery of rapeseed [51] ..................... 41 

Table 14. The data used in the step of transport and distribution [51] ................... 43 

Table 15. The data used in the BioGrace tool in the step of the biomass supply chain 

of life cycle GHG emissions from biodiesel-waste oil [51] .................... 44 

Table 16. The data used in the step of biorefinery of waste oil [51] ...................... 45 

Table 17. The data used in the transportation and distribution step [51] ............... 46 

Table 18. The data used in the BioGrace tool in the step of the biomass supply chain 

of life cycle GHG emissions from ethanol-sugar beet ........................... 47 

Table 19. The data used in the step of biorefinery of sugar beet [51] ................... 48 

Table 20. The data used in the step of transport and distribution [51] ................... 48 

Table 21. The data used in the BioGrace tool in the step of the biomass supply chain 

of life cycle GHG emissions from ethanol-corn .................................... 50 



 
 

xii 
 

Table 22. The data used in the step of biorefinery of corn [51] ............................. 50 

Table 23. The data used in the step of transport and distribution [51] ................... 51 

Table 24. Commonly used biofuel blend rates for vehicles ................................... 51 

Table 25. The number of passenger cars based on fuel type in 2020 for Turkey [66]

 .............................................................................................................................. 53 

Table 26. 2020 Passenger Cars' total mileage by fuel type [67] ........................... 53 

Table 27. Life cycle GHG emissions of biodiesel production from rapeseed ........ 56 

Table 28. GHG emission reduction potentials of various blending ratios of biodiesel 

in comparison to base-year diesel consumption .................................. 57 

Table 29. Life cycle GHG emissions of biodiesel production from waste oil ......... 57 

Table 30. GHG emission reduction potentials of various blending ratios of biodiesel 

in comparison to base-year diesel consumption .................................. 58 

Table 31. Life cycle GHG emissions of ethanol production from sugar beet ......... 59 

Table 32. GHG emission reduction potentials of various blending ratios of bioethanol 

in comparison to base-year gasoline consumption .............................. 59 

Table 33. Life cycle GHG emissions of bioethanol production from corn .............. 60 

Table 34. GHG emission reduction potentials of various blending ratios of bioethanol 

in comparison to base-year gasoline consumption .............................. 61 

Table 35. Total, diesel-fueled, and biodiesel blended passenger car stock estimates

 .............................................................................................................................. 63 

Table 36. GHG emissions estimates based on the BAU scenario (Diesel) ........... 64 

Table 37. GHG emission reduction potentials of all rapeseed-based biodiesel 

blending scenarios until 2030 ............................................................... 65 

Table 38. GHG emission reduction potentials of all waste oil-based biodiesel 

blending scenarios until 2030 ............................................................... 66 

Table 39. Total, gasoline-fueled, and bioethanol blended passenger car stock 

estimates .............................................................................................. 68 

Table 40. GHG emissions results of BAU scenario (Gasoline) ............................. 69 

Table 41. GHG emission reduction potentials of all sugar beet-based bioethanol 

blending scenarios until 2030 ............................................................... 70 



 
 

xiii 
 

Table 42. GHG emission reduction potentials of all corn-based bioethanol blending 

scenarios until 2030 ............................................................................. 71 

Table 43. Projection of rapeseed cultivation area to meet biodiesel demand based 

on various biofuel blending rates (reference year is 2020 with 35,000 ha)

 ............................................................................................................. 73 

Table 44. Projection of sugar beet cultivation area to meet bioethanol demand 

according to various biofuel blending rates (reference year is 2020 with 

338,108 ha) .......................................................................................... 75 

Table 45. Projection of corn cultivation area to meet bioethanol demand according 

to various biofuel blending rates (reference year is 2020 with 691,632 ha)

 ............................................................................................................. 77 

Table 46. GHG emission reduction potentials of all biofuel pathways in 2030 based 

on biofuel blend rates ........................................................................... 81 

 

 

  



 
 

xiv 
 

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

 

 

SYMBOLS 

C Carbon 

CH4 Methane 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 

CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalent 

K2O Potassium 

m3 Cubic meter 

N Nitrogen 

N2O Nitrous oxide 

P2O5 Phosphorus Pentoxide 

 

ABBREVIATIONS 

BAU Business as usual 

CHP Combined Heat and Power 

CONCAWE European Council for Clean Air and Water in Europe 

COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 

DDGS Dried Distillers Grains 

EC European Commission 

EMRA Energy Market Regulatory Authority 

EU European Union 

EUCAR European Council for Automotive Research and Development 

FAME Fatty acid methyl esters 

FFA free fatty acids 

FQD Fuel Quality Directive 

g gram 

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GWP Global Warming Potential 

ha hectare 



 
 

xv 
 

ISO The International Organization for Standardization 

JEC Joint European Commission 

JRC Joint Research Center 

kg Kilogram 

km kilometre 

LCA Life Cycle Assessment 

MJ Mega joule 

NG Natural Gas 

NPK nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium 

RED Renewable Energy Directive 

TAMRA Tobacco and Alcohol Market Regulatory Authority 

toe tons of oil equivalent 

TSE Turkish Standards Institute 

TURKSTAT Turkish Statistical Institute 

 

 

 



 
 

1 
 

1. INTRODUCTION 

 

Population and economic growth are the main contributors to climate change. The 

human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) is increasing daily and is 

now higher than ever. High dependency on fossil fuels is one of the major 

contributing factors to air pollution and climate change. Yet, they are the primary 

energy sources for some economic sectors to meet high energy demand. Because 

of the excessive dependence on fossil fuels, the transport sector is one of the most 

climate-intensive sectors in the world. Especially road transportation is considered 

the primary source of GHGs as a part of the total transport emissions. 

  

Due to improvements in fuel efficiency, electrification, and the use of biofuels, 

transportation emissions increased by less than 0.5% in 2019 globally  (compared 

to 1.9% yearly since 2000). Despite this, transportation is still responsible for 24% of 

direct carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel combustion. Road vehicles, such as 

cars, buses, trucks, two-wheelers and three-wheelers – account for approximately 

three-quarters of CO2 emissions from the transportation sector [1]. 

 

Between 2018 and 2019, domestic transportation emissions in the European Union 

increased by 0.8%. According to preliminary estimates, they dropped by 12.7% in 

2020 due to a severe decline in transportation activities during the Covid-19 

pandemic [2]. 

 

In Turkey, from the beginning of the 2000s, fuel consumption in road transportation 

has increased dramatically. In 2020, Turkey's overall fuel consumption in road 

transportation reached 25,284 tons of oil equivalent (toe).[3] Moreover, the increase 

in road vehicle numbers has reached 66% in the last decade. This rise in vehicle 

numbers, unfortunately, has caused to increase in the level of GHG (carbon dioxide, 

methane, and ozone) and air pollutant (carbon monoxide, particulate matter, 

nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide) emissions from the transportations sector, as can 

be seen in Figure 1[4]. 



 
 

2 
 

According to Turkey’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, in 2020, the transport 

sector's share in total GHG emissions was 15.4%, corresponding to 80.7 million tons 

of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Road transportation accounts for 94.9% of the 

country's transport sector's GHG emissions (76.6 million tons of CO2eq). It is 

followed by domestic aviation (2.7%), pipeline transport (0.4%), and railway (0.4%), 

respectively [4]. Figure 1 depicts Turkey's historical trends in GHG emissions from 

the transportation sector. Emissions from the transport sector were 199.2 % higher 

than in 1990, and the annual emission increase is more than 6.4%.  

 

 

Figure 1. GHG emissions from the transportation sector of Turkey[4]  

 

On the other hand, Turkey’s domestic oil source is limited and mostly depends on 

imported fossil fuels. Turkey’s dependency on external sources such as Russia, Iran, 

or any other country creates energy security problems resulting from various 

reasons. Due to these reasons, Turkey needs to invest in alternative fuels to 

increase energy security and deal with the continuous increase in GHG emissions. 

Energy insecurity and emissions from the lifecycle of fossil fuels can be reduced by 

switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Biomass-based low-carbon 

transport fuels (biofuels) are the primary renewable sources of road transportation. 



 
 

3 
 

Electric cars and low-carbon fossil fuel (LNG) are also significant alternatives to 

reducing lifecycle emissions of fossil fuels in road transportation. 

   

Biofuels, as mentioned above, are among low-carbon alternatives for road transport, 

as they have a much better CO2 emission performance and lesser air pollution 

impacts than traditional fossil transport fuels. The European Union (EU) supports 

biofuel use in road transportation as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels in its 

Member States and Candidate Countries such as Turkey. However, the EU has also 

aimed to mitigate the potential negative impacts of biofuel production, such as its life 

cycle GHG emissions.  

 

1.1. Problem Definition 

The decreasing stocks of petroleum-based fuels, increasing energy security 

problems, the problems related to climate change (including increasing vehicle 

contributions to GHG emissions in road transportation) and air pollution problems 

encourage the growing interest in biofuels and other bioliquids from biomasses, 

which are considered renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels [5]. 

 

Biofuels and other bioliquids are critical in achieving the EU’s 14% use of renewable 

sources objective in transportation. However, it is significant to examine that GHG 

emissions from biofuels' lifecycle are lower than those from fossil fuels. In addition, 

biofuel production should not compete with food production and should be 

economically and environmentally sustainable. For this purpose, the EU sets out 

biofuel sustainability standards for all EU-produced or consumed biofuels to ensure 

that they support sustainability and are produced in an environmental-friendly 

manner. 

 

Turkey has recently created a road map including essential principles and important 

actions to decrease GHG emissions and climate change mitigation, which sets short-

, medium-, and long-term strategic objectives and contributes to the legislation to be 

drafted on climate in line with the country’s 2053 net zero emission and green 



 
 

4 
 

development strategies. Transposition and implementation of EU Directives on 

climate change are critical for Turkey to implement its road map for 2053. Turkey 

has sought to become a full member of the EU since 1987 by aligning its legal 

framework with the EU standards. As part of the harmonization process, Turkey is 

harmonising its regulatory framework in the environmental sector, which includes the 

harmonisation of renewable energy systems. As a result, the EU has various effects 

on Turkey's renewable energy strategy, including biomass-based energy production 

and utilization. 

   

To achieve successful harmonization with the EU Climate and Environment Acquis, 

Turkey should increase biofuel blending, integrate electric cars, and utilise low-

carbon fuels.  

 

1.2. Goal and Objective 

The main objective of this study is to examine the Life Cycle Assessment of GHG 

emissions from biofuel production in Turkey (Biodiesel and Bioethanol) by analysing 

the biofuel production by selected feedstocks. These feedstocks are determined 

taking into account the Turkish agricultural system: rapeseed to produce biodiesel, 

waste oil to produce biodiesel, sugar beet to produce bioethanol, and corn to 

produce bioethanol. Secondly, this study aims to forecast the GHG emission saving 

potential from the Turkish transportation sector by substituting petroleum transport 

fuels with produced biofuels by considering different biofuel blending rates. 

 

A comparison analysis was conducted between the life cycle of biodiesel and 

bioethanol GHG emissions to their fossil fuel alternatives to calculate the emission 

reduction potential of biofuels. Besides, a comparison analysis was conducted for 

calculated life cycle GHG emissions of biofuels with EU RED default values. Based 

on the life cycle GHG emissions of the biofuel production pathways, a policy analysis 

was conducted to understand the GHG contribution of the different stages: 

cultivation, biorefinery and transport in the system boundary of each pathway.  

 



 
 

5 
 

In addition, GHG emission reduction potentials of different blending ratios of the 

produced biodiesel and bioethanol are estimated until 2030. Finally, crop demand 

analysis for biofuel production was conducted according to various blending ratios 

until 2030.  

 

1.3. Scope of the Study 

This study provides baseline information on the life cycle GHG emissions of biodiesel 

and bioethanol production based on the most common feedstocks used for biofuel 

generation in Turkey, mainly rapeseed, waste oil, sugar beet, and corn. The 

analyses included the cradle-to-gate concept and used BioGrace GHG Calculation 

Tool [7], recognized as a voluntary scheme by the European Commission. The 

baseline information includes comparison analyses to provide policy advice, namely, 

a comparison of the lifecycle of biodiesel and bioethanol GHG emissions to their 

fossil fuel alternatives to show the emission reduction potentials of biofuels in Turkey. 

In addition, a comparison analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuels with EU 

context, which is given as EU RED default values, is included to show the differences 

between the EU and Turkish context. 

  

In the study, a forecasting scenario of GHG emission saving potential from the 

Turkish transportation sector by substituting petroleum transport fuels with produced 

biofuels is given. Different biofuel blending rates were considered, and the 

projections were made until 2030. The base year was selected as 2020, and relevant 

data was taken from TURKSTAT.  Due to data availability for the base year, only 

passenger cars were used to develop blending scenarios for all vehicle types. The 

study considered five types of blending rates for biodiesel (B0.5, B2, B5, B20, B100) 

and six types of blending rates for bioethanol (E3, E5, E10, E20, E85, E100). Crop 

demand analyses for rapeseed, sugar beet and corn were conducted to provide 

baseline information for biofuel production in Turkey by considering different 

blending ratios until 2030.  

 



 
 

6 
 

1.4. Structure of the Study 

There are seven chapters in this study. In the first chapter, preliminary information 

about the study, problem definition, goal and objective, and scope of the study are 

presented. In Chapter 2, background information on biofuels is given. This includes 

Turkey’s biofuel situation, historical development, legal situation, a review of EU 

biofuel directives, and biofuel- food production dilemma. Studies on these subjects 

are included in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, information on BioGrace Calculation Tool is 

presented. The methodology and data sources of the study are given in Chapter 5. 

In Chapter 6, the results of the study are presented, and discussions are made on 

these results. In the last chapter, Chapter 7, the conclusions of the study are 

presented.   



 
 

7 
 

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

  

This section provides detailed information on the definition and categorization of 

biofuels and Turkey’s biofuel situation, including historical development and legal 

status, policies, strategies, and targets.  

 

2.1. What is Biofuel?   

Biomass can be described as all biologically produced carbon-based materials on 

Earth, which is considered a significant renewable energy source. Biomass has a 

strategic role among renewable energy sources, as it is environmentally friendly and 

suitable for producing liquid, solid, and gaseous fuels. Also, biomass is considered 

the only naturally carbon-rich material source on Earth besides fossil fuels among 

all the other renewable energy sources [6]. 

  

Biomass is used widely as an energy source in today's world to improve energy 

supply security, reduce the dependence on imported fossil fuels, decrease GHG 

emissions, and thus, mitigate climate change and enhance local development. There 

are a lot of different feedstocks to produce biomass energy. Agriculture, forests, 

wastes and residues provide most of the world's usable biomass  [7]. Algae culture 

is another area to produce biofuel; however, it is still developing.  

 

Bioheat and biopower can be produced using several types of biomass sources. The 

origin and content of biomass can be characterized based on their organic matter 

elemental composition, calorific value, physical qualities, mineral matter and 

moisture content, biochemical composition, and so on. [7]. Table 1 shows the broad 

categories of biomass sources and their content and origin. 

  



 
 

8 
 

Table 1. Biomass categories, contents, and origins [7] 

 Biomass Sources 

Category Woody Non-woody 

Content • Lignocellulose 

• Lignocellulose 

• Sugar 

• Starch 

• Oil 

Origin 

• Forest 

• Agriculture 

• Wastes/Residues 

• Agriculture 

• Wastes/Residues 

 

Biomass is a broad term that encompasses all biologically produced matters, 

including growing plants and animal manure, such as oilseed plants (soybean, 

rapeseed, sunflower, etc.), wood (energy forests and woody leftovers), carbon 

hydrate plants (corn, wheat, potato, beet, etc.), fibre plants (sorghum, hemp plant, 

linseed, etc.), vegetal wastes (straw, stalk, branch, root, husk, etc.), animal wastes, 

industrial and municipal wastes; and algae [6].  

 

Producing energy from biomass is a versatile system, and diverse biomass sources 

can be transformed using various conversation technologies. While some renewable 

energy sources produce heat and electricity, such as solar, wind, hydro, etc., 

biomass is considered the only alternative source to fossil sources to produce fuels, 

chemicals, and other carbon-based materials. 

 

Based on the choice of feedstock, production process, and development stage, 

biofuels are typically divided into first-, second-, third-, and fourth-generation. 

However, the same biofuel may be classified differently depending on technology 

maturity, physical state, and other variables.  

 

First-generation biofuels are currently used and produced in large amounts on 

commercial scales. Bioethanol from sugar and starch-based feedstocks, biodiesel 

from oil crop-based feedstock and biogas from anaerobic digestion are the most 

common. Although second-generation biofuels have been produced, their 

widespread use has been limited by technological difficulties and expensive costs.  

Bioethanol, biodiesel, biohydrogen and synthetic biofuels are some examples of 



 
 

9 
 

second-generation biofuels. These fuels are produced from non-food crops that do 

not compete directly with food crops (lignocellulosic biomass such as agricultural 

and forestry residues/wastes, non-edible vegetable oils, used cooking oils, and 

animal fats). Third-generation biofuels will be applicable as of 2030 and are 

produced from algae or genetically modified feedstocks that contain less lignin and 

more cellulose, which will not compete with food crops. Similarly, fourth-generation 

biofuels will be applicable as of 2030 and are referred to as carbon-negative biofuels. 

They are produced from feedstocks with consummated genetics. Advanced 

technologies like sequestration and carbon storage will lower the expected CO2 

emissions [6]. 

 

Based on technology maturity, there are two types of biofuel technologies 

classification: “conventional” and “advanced”.  

 

While conventional biofuel technologies cover first-generation biofuels, advanced 

biofuel technologies cover second-, third- and fourth-generation biofuels, which are 

still in research and development. 

  

Biofuels can also be classified based on their physical forms; 

 

• as solid (biochar, biopellet, woodchip, biobriquette, etc.),  

• as liquid (bioethanol, biodiesel, biomethanol, etc.),  

• and as gas (biogas, biohydrogen, biosynthesis gas, etc.) [8]. 

  

The development of biorefineries is currently being driven by the liquid biofuel 

industry (mostly biodiesel and bioethanol plants). 

 

2.1.1. Biorefinery Technology 

The biorefinery idea has emerged for the conversion of biomass into energy carriers 

(biofuels, bioheat, biopower, biocold) and a variety of valuable products 

(biomaterials, biochemicals) such as food and feed [8].  



 
 

10 
 

Biorefinery technology can produce a flexible product mixture and energy carriers 

through different biomass conversation technologies such as biochemical, 

physicochemical, thermochemical, and physical/mechanical, depending mainly on 

features of the biomass feedstock and the desired intermediate and final products . 

Figure 2 presents the schematic biorefinery technology. 

 

 

Figure 2. Schematic Biorefinery Technology [9] 

 

Biorefineries function similarly to petrochemical (oil) refineries. Unlike fossil-based 

refineries, which create a range of energy carriers and products from fossil sources 

like crude oil, biorefineries utilise biomass as a feedstock and create safe and 

environmentally friendly products like food and feed. Furthermore, a biorefinery 

designed for energy generation must not compete with food production; therefore, 

food and feed sources cannot be used ethically as raw materials for a biorefinery. 

Biorefineries offer considerable economic and environmental benefits comparing 

fossil-based refineries and other biomass utilization concepts. Traditional and 

modern biomass use for energy production is the primary category. Conventional 

biomass utilization worldwide includes direct combustion to heat and cook, widely 

used in rural regions. Modern biomass utilization in the world includes biomass 

energy systems to transform biomass into useful forms of energy. 

 



 
 

11 
 

2.1.2. Liquid Biofuels 

Biodiesel and bioethanol are the most important and the first liquid biofuels that come 

to mind worldwide. They are the most important commercially available industrial 

liquid biofuels, with a market share growing by the day. 

 

In 2020, bioethanol and biodiesel supplied about 3.5% of the energy used in 

transportation. After dropping in 2020 due to a decrease in transportation demand 

caused by the COVID-19 epidemic, biofuel production levels returned to 2019 levels 

in 2021. However, high feedstock production costs limited biofuel production in 2021. 

Production of bioethanol increased by 26% between 2011 and 2021. In addition, 

between 2011 and 2021, the world's biodiesel production doubled [10]. 

 

Biofuels are now seen as key players in circular and creative economies. They have 

a unique role in bio trade, which entails collecting, producing, transforming, and 

commercialising natural biodiversity goods and services according to environmental, 

economic, and social sustainability criteria [11]. 

 

Bioethanol and biodiesel play a significant role in the transportation sector to support 

countries’ strategies towards sustainability, low carbon economy, and climate 

change mitigation. Biofuels are important in fighting climate change as they are 

considered carbon-neutral. Biofuels do not contribute to an increase in the carbon 

dioxide (CO2) concentration because the amount of CO2 emitted during combustion 

is balanced by the CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis when 

biomass feedstock is grown. Even if biofuels are essential in fighting climate change, 

their effects on biodiversity, water resources, soils, and agricultural land-use change 

are crucial.  

 

2.1.2.1. Biodiesel  

Biodiesel is mainly made from vegetable oils, but it can also be made from animal 

fat or cooking oil. Based on the composition of the feedstock, various conversation 

technologies can be used to produce biodiesel. The most common process is 



 
 

12 
 

transesterifying vegetable oils with methanol to make fatty acid methyl esters; FAME. 

Low concentrations of water and free fatty acids in vegetable oil can provide high 

conversation efficiencies. Therefore, in the case of animal fats and used cooking 

oils, free fatty acids should be esterified or separated to increase efficiency. Only two 

manufacturing facilities often carry out integrated biodiesel plants with oil mills and 

transesterification. Oilseeds are used as feedstock in integrated plants, and the oil 

is produced directly in the biodiesel plant. Oils are obtained from external oil mills by 

plants focusing on pure transesterification. In both types, the oils or fats are 

transesterified, and the biodiesel and the resulting by-product, glycerol (mostly), are 

refined. Figure 3 shows the schematic biodiesel production in integrated biodiesel 

plants and pure transesterification plants.  

 

 

Figure 3. Biodiesel production in integrated biodiesel plants and pure 

transesterification plants [12] 

 

The production and use of biodiesel started in the 1890s with the invention of the 

first diesel engine by Rudolf Diesel. At the Paris Exposition in 1900, Rudolf Diesel 

displayed his diesel engine running on peanut oil. In the next 20-30 years, many 

countries started using vegetable oils as fuels in internal combustion engines. In 

1937, G. Chavanne was granted a patent for the use of ethyl esters of palm oil as 

diesel fuel, which is most likely the first mention of what is now known as biodiesel. 

The subject did not receive widespread attention until high petroleum prices in the 

1970s prompted substantial study into alternate fuels. The Scientist E. Parente 



 
 

13 
 

invented the first industrial-scale biodiesel synthesis technology using ethanol 

transesterification in 1977. The world's first industrial-scale biodiesel facility began 

operations in 1989 in Austria, using rapeseed as a biomass feedstock. Biodiesel has 

been commercially produced worldwide since the early 1990s, and applicable ASTM 

and EN standards were developed in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Today, biodiesel 

has many forms in the market: as a blend component, as an additive, and as a pure-

neat fuel (B100) [6], [13].  

 

Biodiesel production in the world reached 45 billion litres in 2021. With an 18% 

production rate (more than 8 billion litres in 2021), Indonesia is now the world’s 

leading biodiesel producer. Indonesia increased its biodiesel blending target from 

20% to 30% in 2020 and set a 40% target for 2021 to lessen its reliance on imported 

oil. However, this target was postponed to 2020 due to high feedstock costs. By 

producing and using biodiesel as an alternative fuel, Indonesia was able to decrease 

its import oil cost by 4 billion USD in 2021. Brazil raised its biodiesel production to 

6.5 billion litres in 2021 and placed itself as the world’s second-largest biodiesel 

producer. Brazil also put biodiesel blending targets as 13% for 2021 and 15% for 

2022. However, the blending rate in 2021 was reduced to 10% due to high soya oil 

prices, raising biodiesel's cost and declining demand. The USA increased its 

biodiesel production level to 70% between 2011 and 2021. However, biodiesel 

production partially decreased in 2021 because of the high soya oil cost, making 

manufacturing financially unattractive [10]. 

  

In 2020, the EU biodiesel production declined by 2% compared to 2019 because of 

lower domestic consumption and lower demand from the world market.  Germany, 

with a 4.1 million litre production, was the most prominent European producer in 

2021, followed by France, with a 2.1 million litre production [14].  

  



 
 

14 
 

2.1.2.2. Bioethanol 

Bioethanol is primarily produced from feedstocks that contain sugar, such as sugar 

beet, molasses, sugar cane, sweet sorghum or starch, such as wheat, maize, 

triticale, and rye, as well as materials derived from lignocellulose such as forest and 

agricultural residues. Bioethanol production involves a series of different process 

phases. Firstly, a fermentable sugar solution is produced as part of the feedstock 

processing. The methods used include mechanical, thermal, chemical, and 

biochemical processes. In fermentation, yeasts are utilized to transform the sugar 

solution into alcohol (ethanol) and CO2, which can then be processed to produce a 

co-product. The distillation and rectification processes remove water and residues 

from the feedstock from the ethanol. Before marketing, the ethanol is dehydrated to 

a concentration of 99.9 wt.%. If the feedstock is sugar, the main co-product is 

vinasse. If the feedstock is starch, the main co-product is stillage. These co-products 

can be processed and utilized as fertilizer, animal feed, or to produce biogas. 

Different co-products, such as bran, gluten, and germ oil, can be produced from 

starch and sugar feedstocks. Also, carbonatation lime and beet pulp can be 

produced as co-products. The below figure shows an overview of the bioethanol 

production process.  

 

 

Figure 4. Overview of the bioethanol production process [15] 

 

Bioethanol has a long history as an engine fuel, dating back to the invention of 

internal combustion engines. Nikolaus August Otto, the inventor of the modern four-

cycle internal combustion engine, used alcohol as fuel in his engine studies. The 



 
 

15 
 

combustion of alcohol was taken into account by Henry Ford in his design studies, 

and the first automobile powered by ethanol (the Ford Motor T) was manufactured 

in the United States in 1908. Bioethanol was first used in Brazil in 1931, with 5% 

blending to gasoline. US army built the first industrial-scale fuel ethanol plant in the 

1940s. In the 1970s, the oil crisis increased interest in ethanol as a fuel. The 1980s 

and 1990s were important periods for bioethanol production as there were solid 

steps in designing and engineering studies. Bioethanol is now the world's leading 

engine biofuel. Bioethanol can be used in blends or its pure form. Bioethanol can be 

blended with any proportion of gasoline or diesel fuel. However, the most popular 

blending ratios are gasoline + 5% alcohol at maximum (e-gasoline); gasoline + 10% 

alcohol (gasohol); gasoline + 20%, + 25%, +85%  (E20, E25, E85 respectively), 

diesel fuel + 15% alcohol at maximum (e-diesel or diesohol, or oxydiesel) [6],[13]. 

 

Bioethanol remained the leading source of transport biofuels in the world in 2021, 

with a production amount of 150 billion litres. However, production slightly declined 

in 2020 due to the pandemic. The USA and Brazil stayed the world's leading 

producers, accounting for 83% of the global output in 2021. The USA produced 54% 

of the worldwide supply, mainly from corn, while Brazil produced 29% primarily from 

sugar cane but growing levels from corn. China became the third largest bioethanol 

producer in 2021, with a production amount of 3.3 billion litres, where it was 

responsible for 3% of the global supply, followed by India, with a production amount 

of 3.2 billion litres [10]. 

  

In 2020, the EU bioethanol production was 4.7 billion litres, with a cut of around 10% 

due to the COVID-19 crisis. Bioethanol production fell mainly in France and Belgium 

in 2020; however, the production suffered from the reduced demand in the domestic 

and export markets. The bioethanol production in 2021 was nearly 8 billion litres. 

There were some limits on the production of first-generation bioethanol, and the 

expansion of cellulosic bioethanol production remained limited due to high costs and 

a lack of certainty in the EU policy-making process [14].  

 



 
 

16 
 

2.2. Biofuel Sector in Turkey 

At the National Agriculture Conference, liquid biofuels and the need to use locally 

produced engine fuels were first considered in Turkey in 1931 to reduce the country's 

dependency on imported petroleum. In 1936, the second five-year industrialization 

plan created under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the 

Turkish Republic, included a section on the necessity to produce non-petroleum-

based engine fuels using domestic resources. The idea, however, could not be 

implemented due to the start of World War II. Liquid biofuels became important in 

Turkey in the 1970s due to oil shortages and price changes, as in many other 

countries. With the increased importance in the market, legal regulations on liquid 

biofuels were also developed [16].  

 

2.2.1. Biodiesel in Turkey 

The first biodiesel-related study in Turkey was conducted in 1934 at the Atatürk 

Forest Farm under Atatürk's directions, titled "use of vegetable oils for agricultural 

tractors”. Following the oil crisis of the 1970s, research into the use of vegetable oils 

as a fuel alternative increased, especially in the 1980s. Industrial biodiesel 

production has been popular in Turkey since the early 2000s. Regulations for the 

biodiesel industry started in 2003 and have continued until now. After petrol and 

diesel, biodiesel is now Turkey's third engine fuel in the liquid fuel market. As a liquid 

fuel, biodiesel is subject to all legal definitions, regulations, and inspections. 

Biodiesel producers must get a processing license from the Energy Market 

Regulatory Authority (EMRA) to produce biodiesel under license and following the 

Turkish Standards Institute's (TSE) standards. Biodiesel producers should submit a 

report annually to EMRA on the production amount they can present to the market 

for the upcoming year and three months' production amounts within the year. EMRA 

is also responsible for all quality controls, including controlling blending rates [6]. 

Table 2 shows the biodiesel delivery amount in Turkey in 2020.  

  



 
 

17 
 

Table 2. Amount of biodiesel delivered in Turkey in 2020 [17] 

Company Name  City Feedstock 
Delivery to 
Distributor 

Total 

DB Tarımsal Enerji Sanayi ve 
Ticaret A.Ş  

İzmir 
Vegetable Oil, 

Waste Oil 
58,678,421 58,678,421 

Aves Enerji Yağ ve Gıda Sanayi 
A.Ş.  

Mersin Vegetable Oil 14,805,316 14,805,316 

Ömer Bucak İnşaat Taahhüt 
Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi 

Şanlıurfa N/A 650,000 650,000 

Maysa Yağ Sanayi A.Ş İstanbul N/A 442,015 442,015 

Total:  74,575,752 

 

Sunflower and cottonseed are Turkey's most important oilseed crops, accounting for 

over 90% of the total production of 3,131,193 tons. Groundnut, soybean, rapeseed, 

and safflower are other important oilseed crops. Rapeseed and safflower production, 

which are not used primarily for food in the country, has seen significant growth in 

the recent decade. In Turkey, biodiesel producers have chosen rapeseed and 

safflower crops as their raw materials, particularly as they have been doing 

contractual farming across the country. Safflower is particularly popular in low-

yielding, low-rainfall farmlands, providing a solid, satisfying income for the farmer 

thanks to government subsidies. Camelina has become popular for biodiesel 

producers as it offers farmers a good and reliable alternative crop [18]. 

 

On the other hand, even though Turkey possesses arable land for oilseed crop 

development, the area assigned to oilseed cultivation in the country is less than 5%. 

Unfortunately, oilseed production in Turkey does not cover the country's 

consumption rate, and thousands of tons of oilseeds and vegetable oils (even for 

food) are imported annually. Imports provide 75% of the raw material requirements 

for the vegetable oil sector. As a result, increasing the production of oilseeds is 

critical for Turkey's long-term development goals [19] [20]. 

  

Table 3. Turkey's oilseed production in 2020 [19]  
 

Sunflower Rapeseed Cotton seed Soybean 

Production (Tons) 2,067,004 121,542 106,4189 155225 

Area Sown (Hectare) 728,854 34,989 359,220 35,135 

 



 
 

18 
 

In addition to oilseed crops, waste vegetable oils are the other significant raw 

material potential for biodiesel manufacturing in Turkey. Turkey has the capacity to 

collect more than 150,000 tons of waste vegetable oil every year. Only 38,000 tons 

of waste vegetable oil were collected and used to produce biodiesel in 2017 [21]. 

The legal framework for collecting used cooking oil is under development. The 

Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change implements an online 

system for registering and processing used cooking oils from the source to its 

conversion to biodiesel. The system aims to collect and process used cooking oils 

with complete monitoring, ensuring they do not re-enter the food chain. The biodiesel 

industry provides a large quantity of labour and management capacity to collect and 

process more used cooking oils for biodiesel production. The expectation is that the 

volumes will gradually increase to their maximum capacity. 

 

2.2.2. Bioethanol in Turkey 

Bioethanol was first discussed in Turkey in 1931 during a National Agriculture 

Conference to minimize dependence on imported petroleum. Mustafa Kemal 

Ataturk's Second Five-Year Development Plan emphasized the need to create non-

petroleum-based engine fuels using domestic sources. In 1942, 20 % bioethanol 

was blended with gasoline and used in the army. In 1974, after the oil crisis 

worldwide, Turkish Sugar Factories started exploring bioethanol production to use it 

as fuel. 

 

Tarkim Bitki Koruma San ve Tic A.Ş, Turkey’s first and leading bioethanol producer, 

has a capacity of 40 million litres per year and is the first E2 (2% ethanol and 98% 

petroleum) supplier in the liquid fuel sector. Çumra Sugar Integrated Plant (Konya 

Şeker) is one of the biggest bioethanol producers in Turkey, with a capacity of 84 

million litres per year. In addition, Tezkim Tarımsal Kimya A.Ş. produces 100,000 

litres of bioethanol daily using corn as raw material and has a capacity of 26 million 

litres per year. Eskisehir Sugar Plant, which has a capacity of 20 million litres per 

year, is one of the bioethanol plants established in Turkey. According to official data 

from the Tobacco and Alcohol Market Regulatory Authority (TAMRA) [6]. Turkey's 



 
 

19 
 

overall bioethanol production capacity is approximately 162 million litres annually; 

46.9% of this amount is used as fuel. A share of 8% of bioethanol is exported, and 

92% is blended with gasoline to meet the country’s fuel needs [22]. 

   

The bioethanol plants in Turkey use sugar- or starch-based feedstocks, known as 

first-generation bioethanol production. These feedstocks are produced from energy 

crops and can also be consumed as food.  

 

In 2019, there were 13 companies registered as producers of ethyl alcohol in Turkey, 

with a total capacity of 237,811,000 litres per year [23]. Table 4 shows the bioethanol 

delivery amount in Turkey in 2020.  

 

Table 4. Bioethanol delivery amount in Turkey in 2020 [17] 

Company 
Name 

Blended 
Products 

City Feedstock 
Delivery to 
Refinery 

(tons) 

Delivery to 
Distributor 

(tons) 
Total (tons) 

Tarkim 
Tarımsal Kimya 
A.Ş. 

Bioethanol Bursa Maize - 20,094,630 20,094,630 

Konya Şeker 
A.Ş. 

Bioethanol Konya 
Sugar 
beet, 

molasses 
5,542,750 10,655,76 16,198,486 

Tezkim 
Tarımsal Kimya 
A.Ş. 

Bioethanol Adana 
Maize, 
wheat 

- 15,974,916 15,974,916 

Total: 5,542,750 121,301,034 126,843,784 

 

Sugar beet, molasses, wheat, and maize (corn) are Turkey's most common 

feedstocks for bioethanol production. 

 

2.3. Energy Crops Used for Biofuel Production or Food 

Currently, there is an ongoing debate on using energy crops for fuel production or 

food production all over the World. Energy crops are valuable, and producing biofuel 

from those materials may put the food supply at risk due to the increased use of food 

crops and lead to food insecurity. Currently, food insecurity is one of the most 

significant problems in the world, with roughly 842 million people worldwide 

estimated to be suffering from a lack of regular access to sufficient and nutritious 



 
 

20 
 

food. The rapid development of the global biofuel industry is anticipated to 

exacerbate this problem. As a result of the growing use of food crops, increased 

biofuel production may affect food availability. Figure 5 presents the impacts of 

biofuels on food security.  

 

 

Figure 5. Total crop and food production indices of 511 developing countries 

between 2011 and 2016 [24] 

 

In Figure 5, the historical relationship between crop production and food production 

is presented. It demonstrates that while total crop production in 51 developing 

countries increases, the total food production tends to decrease, which is against 

the expectation that it should also increase. This could be linked to the rapidly 

growing biofuel sector in the same period, as shown in Figure 6. 

 

 
1 Angola, Belarus Argentina, Bulgaria, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,aEgypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, 

Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama,a Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Serbia, Sudan, 
South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania,aUruguay, Viet Nam, Barbados, Croatia, Cuba, Fiji, Iran, Mauritius, Jamaica, Swaziland, The 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe 



 
 

21 
 

 

Figure 6. Total Biofuel and food production of 51 developing countries [24] 

 

The primary source of this debate assumes that the competition between biofuel 

production and food production drives up food prices and price volatility, which 

ultimately causes food insecurity. Increased use of basic agricultural commodities 

for biofuel production inevitably leads to crop shortages and higher food commodity 

prices [25]. 

 



 
 

22 
 

 

Figure 7. The relationship between biofuels and food security [25] 

 

In this regard, second-generation biofuel production has gained importance around 

the world. Second-generation biofuel production uses lignocellulosic feedstocks, the 

most studied since they do not compete with food production. As a significant cereal 

producer, Turkey has enormous potential for growing energy crops, plant leftovers 

and other cellulosic biomaterials suitable for producing second-generation 

bioethanol [26]. However, there is currently no industrial production of second-

generation bioethanol in Turkey. 

 

2.4. Legal Situation of The Biofuel Sector in Turkey 

On December 4, 2003, the term "biodiesel" was included among the blended 

products for the first time in the "petroleum market law no. 5015”. Biodiesel 

production has increased quickly since the law exempted it from the special 

consumption tax. On September 10, 2004, biodiesel was accepted as fuel oil, and 

on June 17, 2005, the imports, distribution, transportation, and end-user sales were 

included in the petroleum market license. Turkish Standards Institution (TSE) 



 
 

23 
 

published the first Turkish biodiesel standards (TS EN 14214 for auto biodiesel and 

TS EN 14213 for fuel oil biodiesel) in 2005, the same as the EU standards. Energy 

Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA), in 2006, with its technical regulation 

communiqué on the production of diesel oil types, their supply from domestic and 

international sources, and delivery to the market, enabled a blending ratio of up to 

5% in the transportation sector. Again, in 2006, in response to claims of unfair 

competition in the petroleum market, a special consumption tax was applied to auto 

biodiesel within the framework of “income tax law no: 5479”. In addition, due to the 

high special consumption tax, the biodiesel sector was exempted from the special 

consumption tax in 2006 if the blending ratio for auto biodiesel produced from 

domestic agricultural products was at least 2%. As a result, an optional biodiesel 

contribution of 2% to diesel fuel has started. On September 27, 2011, the Turkish 

official gazette published the amendment to the communiqué on technical 

requirements for diesel types numbered 28067. With this, blending biodiesel from 

local agricultural feedstocks to the diesel types supplied as fuel oil to the market 

became mandatory to apply a minimum of 1% in 2014, 2% in 2015, and 3% in 2016. 

This communiqué was later cancelled. The technical regulatory communiqué on the 

production of fuel biodiesel and its delivery from domestic and international sources 

(Turkish official gazette of February 4, 2015, numbered 29257) was also lifted from 

enforcement. 

 

Based on the communiqué, numbered 30098, on blending biodiesel to diesel fuel 

issued in the Turkish official gazette on June 6, 2017, biodiesel produced from local 

agricultural feedstocks and/or waste vegetable oils must now be blended with the 

diesel fuel provided by refineries at a minimum of 0.5 % (v/v). In addition, the Turkish 

biodiesel standard, TS EN 14214:2012+A1:2014 (liquid petroleum products - Fatty 

acid methyl esters (FAME) for use in diesel engines and heating applications - 

Requirements and test methods), has been cancelled by TSE. However, the Ministry 

maintained it as a mandatory practice for the indication of blending ratio [27].  

 



 
 

24 
 

On April 19, 2005, the regulation for producing biodiesel from waste vegetable oils 

as an alternate source of raw material for biodiesel production was issued for the 

first time (Turkish official gazette numbered 25791). It was afterwards lifted from 

enforcement. Currently, the regulation on waste vegetable oil control numbered 

29378, published in the Turkish official gazette on June 6, 2015, is applicable. The 

Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change is in charge of waste 

vegetable oil collection and transportation, as well as recycling process licenses and 

control procedures.  

 

In addition, Turkey has sought to become a full member of the EU since 1987 by 

aligning its legal framework with the EU standards. As part of the harmonization 

process, Turkey is harmonizing its regulatory framework in the environmental sector, 

including developing renewable energy. Therefore, the EU has a variety of effects 

on Turkey's policy towards renewable energy, including biomass-based energy 

production and utilization.  

 

2.5. Scope of EU Biofuels Directives 

To enhance energy supply security by reducing the reliance on imported fossil fuels, 

decreasing GHG emissions, and thus, mitigating climate change, the EU defined 

sustainable criteria for the whole bioenergy sector. This is accomplished under the 

Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (EU RED) and Renewable Energy 

Directive 2018/2001 (EU RED II), which is a recast of Directive 2009/28/EC and 

adapted in 2018 as part of “Clean energy for all Europeans Package” [28].  

 

The EU RED established a common framework for promoting energy from 

renewable sources in the EU. This directive established a binding target for 

renewable energy to be met by 2020 with a contribution of 20% to the total final 

energy supply in the EU and at least 10% to the transport sector in each Member 

State. EU RED II covers the period between 2021 and 2030 and sets a new binding 

renewable energy target for 2030: at least 32% of the gross final energy consumption 

and at least 14% of renewable energy supply in the transportation sector.[29]. In 



 
 

25 
 

terms of binding sustainability criteria and bioenergy verification requirements, RED 

I specified at least 35% and 60% savings for waste/residues and biofuels produced 

in installations starting on or after January 1, 2017, respectively. RED II specified at 

least 65% for biofuels, biogas used in transportation, and bioliquids produced in 

operation from January 1, 2021 [28].  

 

Due to the substantial uncertainty about the environmental performance of 

bioenergy chains, many countries have required some minimum requirements for 

biofuel production to be eligible for public incentives [30].  

 

Fulfilling the specific criteria is significant to reach the above targets of EU RED to 

receive financial support. Energy production from biofuel is playing a key role in 

fulfilling these targets [31].  

 

EU RED II also requires a 6.8% increase in the share of other "low-emission fuels" 

in transportation, such as renewable electricity and advanced biofuels. Moreover, 

the Commission states that advanced biofuels produce at least 70% less GHG 

emissions than fossil fuels (compared to savings of 60% in 2018 for new production 

plants by RED). This seems to indicate a trend in which the EC will continue to assist 

the development of advanced alternative fuels for transportation by enforcing a 

blending mandate on fuel suppliers while progressively phasing out the contribution 

of food-based biofuels. The negative public view partly drives the trend that biofuels 

compete directly with food. As Marie Donelly, Former Director for Renewables, 

Research, and Energy Efficiency in the Commission’s Energy directorate, puts it, 

“we have to be very sensitive to the reality of citizens’ concerns, sometimes even if 

these concerns are emotive rather than factual based or scientific [32]”. 

 

2.6. Closing Remarks 

Biomass is considered one of the most important renewable energy sources and the 

only alternative source to fossil sources to produce fuels, chemicals and other 

carbon-based materials. Biofuels are usually categorised into 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 



 
 

26 
 

generation biofuels based on feedstock choice, production process and 

development stage. 1st generation biofuels are currently used and produced in large 

amounts on commercial scales. Bioethanol, biodiesel and biogas are the most 

common ones. The most critical and first liquid biofuels are biodiesel and bioethanol. 

They are commercially available, and their market share is steadily increasing. In 

2020, bioethanol and biodiesel provided about 3.5% of transportation energy. Biofuel 

production levels returned to 2019 levels in 2021 after falling in 2020 due to reduced 

transportation demand caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Biofuels are essential in 

combating climate change because they are carbon-neutral. Thus, bioethanol and 

biodiesel play a vital role in the transportation sector to support countries' 

sustainability and low-carbon development strategies. 

 

To improve energy supply security by reducing the dependence on imported fossil 

fuels, decreasing GHG emissions, and thus, mitigating climate change, the EU 

defined sustainable criteria for the whole bioenergy sector. This is accomplished 

through the EU RED and EU RED II directives. EU RED established a binding target 

for renewable energy to be met by 2020 with a contribution of 20% to the total final 

energy supply in the EU and at least 10% to the transport sector in each Member 

State. EU RED II covers the period between 2021 and 2030 and sets a new binding 

renewable energy target for 2030: at least 32% of the gross final energy consumption 

and at least 14% of renewable energy supply in the transportation sector. Regarding 

GHG saving thresholds for transportation biofuels, RED I specified at least 60% 

savings for biofuels produced in installations starting on January 1, 2017, and RED 

II set at least 65% for biofuels produced in operation from January 1, 2021. Turkey 

is aligning its regulatory framework in the environmental sector with the EU 

standards, including developing renewable and biomass-based energy production 

and utilization.  

  



 
 

27 
 

3. PREVIOUS STUDIES 

 

The emissions from the whole life cycle of producing and delivering biofuels must be 

favourable to ensure they successfully reduce GHG emissions from the transport 

sector [33]. According to Matthew Aylott from UK’s National Non-Food Crop Centre, 

measuring the life cycle GHG emissions of biofuels is a serious and complex issue. 

The emissions from a biofuel supply chain cannot be measured directly; instead, 

models or tools are required to calculate the effects of biofuel production [34]. The 

provision of biofuel involves the consumption of non-renewable sources during 

cultivation, harvesting, transport, and processing [34].  

 

By identifying and quantifying energy and materials flows and waste and emissions 

emitted, the LCA approach is frequently used to assess the environmental impacts 

associated with a product, process, or activity. The method has been used as a 

standard to determine biofuels' life-cycle GHG emissions. The International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards provide a general structure for 

conducting the assessment. Defining scope, system boundaries, functional units, 

and reference systems; determining mass and energy flows; addressing co-

products; and attributing impacts to energy and material flows are all steps in the 

overall procedure [35]. 

 

New criteria for effective GHG reduction strategies are currently emerging in 

response to global climate change. As a result of the specialized evaluation 

demands for GHG emissions, interest in life cycle studies for energy applications 

has grown. Significant effort is being made, particularly in EU nations, to determine 

life cycle GHG emissions using LCA principles to achieve ecologically sustainable 

biofuel production. 

 

3.1. Studies on Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Biofuel Generation  

Acquaye et al. assessed the life cycle GHG emissions of biodiesel and bioethanol 

and compared them to fossil fuels to analyze the potential of biofuels contributing to 



 
 

28 
 

the UK emission reduction targets and, thus, EU emission reduction targets [36]. The 

results of the study showed that the life cycle GHG emission of rapeseed-based 

biodiesel is found as 55.5 kg CO2 eq/GJ, waste oil-based biodiesel is found as 10.6 

kg CO2 eq/GJ, sugar beet-based bioethanol is found 26.6 kg CO2 eq/GJ, and corn-

based bioethanol is found 70.3 kg CO2 eq/GJ. Based on these results, waste oil-

based biodiesel and sugar beet-based bioethanol offer the most significant potential 

for emission saving in the UK context.  

 

Another study in the UK is conducted to compare the life cycle GHG emissions of 

large-scale and small-scale biodiesel production from rapeseed oil. According to 

Gupta et al., large-scale biodiesel production systems in the UK have an annual 

global warming potential of 2.63 tons CO2eq/ton biodiesel [37]. Small-scale biodiesel 

production systems in the UK have an annual global warming potential of 2.88 ton 

CO2eq/ton biodiesel, whereas the rapeseed agriculture stage caused more than 

65% carbon emissions.  

 

Fridrihsone et al. analyzed the global warming potential of the seasonal cultivation 

of rapeseed in Latvia [38]. Due to more agricultural inputs and a higher yield, winter 

rapeseed production has a lesser environmental impact than spring rapeseed 

agriculture. Seasonal variation of GWP for rapeseed-based biodiesel production was 

found as 1.27 and 1.06 ton CO2eq/ton biodiesel for spring and winter, respectively. 

  

Foteinis et al. examined the environmental sustainability of second-generation 

biodiesel, which is used as cooking oil on an industrial scale in Greece [39]. It is 

found that the life cycle GHG emission of used cooking oil-based biodiesel is 14 g 

CO2eq/MJ. This is 40% lower than first-generation biodiesel, an order magnitude 

lower than third-generation biodiesel (microalgae) since it is not a fully-fledged 

technology yet. Given its overall low environmental footprint and commercial 

availability, second-generation biodiesel, which currently accounts for 15% of the 

biodiesel market in Greece, could serve as a stepping stone toward decarbonizing 

Europe's transportation sector and improving supply and energy security. 



 
 

29 
 

In Brazil, Pereira et al. [40] analyzed the main differences and similarities in the 

methodological structures, calculation procedures, and assumptions for the major 

commercial bioethanol by using three LCA calculation tools which are: BioGrace 

(EU), GHGenius (Canada), and GREET (U.S.). The calculated emissions across the 

models for corn-based bioethanol ranged from 43.4 g CO2 eq/MJ (BioGrace), 61.9 

g CO2 eq/MJ (GHGenius), and 57.7 g CO2 eq/MJ (GREET). The main differences, 

in this case, are due to how the coproducts were treated. The default method used 

by BioGrace (energy) resulted in a 50% partitioning of GHG emissions between 

ethanol and its coproducts. In contrast, the substitution methods used by GREET 

and GHGenius provide credits for non-energy products to ethanol of 12.8 and 16.7 

g CO2eq per MJ, respectively. 

 

3.2. Studies Using the BioGrace Tool  

   Most of the studies conducted in the EU have employed the BioGrace tool for the 

calculation of life cycle GHG emissions of biofuels. For instance, a study used the 

BioGrace tool to calculate the life-cycle assessment of GHG emissions from 

sunflower cultivation for biodiesel production in Tuscany, Italy, using different case 

studies from five other farms. The study showed that different cultivation techniques 

(Table 5) have a different impact on the life cycle GHG emission of biodiesel.  

 

Table 5. Sunflower cultivation energy inputs related to one ha for each farm in 

Tuscany, Italy [41] 

 

 

The results of the study showed that the life cycle GHG emission of biodiesel from 

sunflower-Farm 1 is 53.4 g CO2-eq/MJ, Farm 2= 79.4 g CO2-eq/MJ, Farm 3= 61.9 g 

CO2-eq/MJ, Farm 4= 53.8 g CO2-eq/MJ, Farm 5= 72.3 g CO2-eq/MJ. The GHG 



 
 

30 
 

emissions from sunflower farming in the five case studies are higher than the default 

value (18 g CO2eq /MJ) indicated by the RED. The main reasons for this difference 

with the default value are;  diesel consumption and extensive use of nitrogen fertilizer 

which cause higher GHG emissions than the default value. These findings suggest 

that without a considerable change in local farm practices, primarily oriented toward 

reducing the use of nitrogen fertilizers and diesel consumption. It will be difficult to 

comply with such requirements on GHG emissions for the sunflower biodiesel 

cultivation phase in Tuscany [41]. 

 

Another study conducted in Germany used BioGrace Tool to calculate GHG 

emissions of sugar beet cultivation in Germany by using data from farm surveys. 

However, in this study, the BioGrace tool was used for calculations concerning sugar 

beet cultivation only, as the tool allows for examining the production of the biofuel 

crops separately. The study considered emissions from producing and using 

fertilizers and pesticides, tillage, and field emissions. As a result, total GHG 

emissions of sugar beet cultivation in Germany between 2010 and 2012 were 

estimated as 2626 CO2eq kg ha−1 year−1 when applying mineral plus organic fertilizer 

and 1782 CO2eq kg ha−1 year−1 when only organic fertilizer was applied. CO2eq 

emissions from N fertilization were 2.5 times higher than diesel and further 

production factors. The absence of emissions for producing organic fertilizers led to 

12% less total CO2eq emissions than mineral fertilisers. However, there were more 

emissions via diesel due to larger volumes transported by using organic fertilizer 

only [42].  

 

3.3. Studies on GHG Emission Estimation of Turkish Crops  

   To the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific study conducted for the Life 

Cycle Assessment of GHG emissions from biofuel production in Turkey.  In Turkey's 

context, BioGrace default values are used by some studies to calculate GHG 

emissions for the cultivation process of specific feedstocks. For example, in a study, 

GHG emissions of cotton cultivation in the Besiri region of Batman province in Turkey 

were determined using various default values such as chemicals, nitrogen, 



 
 

31 
 

phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) fertilizers, and electricity data listed in the 

BioGrace Calculation tool. The necessary cultivation data is collected through face-

to-face surveys with 64 selected farms in the 2018-2019 cultivation season. The total 

GHG emission of cotton cultivation was calculated as 3742.50 kg CO2eq /ha [43].    

Similarly, in another study conducted in Turkey to determine GHG in the production 

of different aromatic plants, various default values from the BioGrace Calculation 

tool, NPK fertilizers and pesticides are used. The results indicated that total GHG 

emissions for four different aromatic plant productions (guar, lavender, sesame, and 

tobacco) were computed as 1488.50 kgCO2eq /ha, 494.81 kg CO2eq /ha, 907.13 kg 

CO2eq /ha, 6604.58 kg CO2eq /ha respectively [44]. 

 

3.4. Closing Remarks 

In this section, we analysed various studies to examine different practices to better 

understand (i) life cycle GHG emissions of biofuels, mainly of biodiesel production 

from rapeseed and waste oil, bioethanol production from sugar beet and corn,  (ii) 

BioGrace use to analyse different feedstock’s GHGs, (iii) Turkey context. The results 

of the studies analysed above are shown in the tables below. 

 

As seen in Table 6, the life cycle GHG emission estimates of biodiesel production 

from rapeseed range from 27.5 g CO2 eq/MJ to 74.6 g CO2 eq/MJ. This difference 

could be due to the scale of the biodiesel production facility, the global warming 

potential of the seasonal cultivation of rapeseed, different cultivation methods such 

as using different amounts of fertilizers, and the energy intensity of the countries. 

The life cycle GHG emission estimates of biodiesel production from waste oil range 

from 14 g CO2 eq/MJ (Greece) to 10.6 g CO2 eq/MJ (UK), which is a smaller range 

than that of the rapeseed. In a study conducted in the UK, the life cycle GHG 

emission of sugar beet-based bioethanol is found to be 26.6 g CO2 eq/MJ, which 

offers the most significant potential for emission savings in the UK context with waste 

oil-based biodiesel. Life cycle GHG emission of bioethanol from corn ranges from 

43.4 g CO2 eq/MJ to 70.3 g CO2 eq/MJ. Based on these estimates, we can say that 

different calculation tools can give different results alongside different bioethanol 



 
 

32 
 

production styles, different cultivation methods, and the energy intensity of the 

countries.   

 

The studies estimating life cycle GHG emissions of biofuels using BioGrace are 

listed in Table 7. In a study in Italy, the life cycle GHG emission of bioethanol from 

sunflowers was examined by comparing different farming techniques, and emissions 

ranged from 53.4 g CO2 eq/MJ to 79.4 g CO2 eq/MJ. The other practices of using 

the BioGrace tool in the literature are for calculating GHG emissions of feedstock 

cultivation, such as sugar beet calculation in Germany, and cotton, guar, lavender, 

sesame and tobacco cultivation in Turkey. The studies conducted using BioGrace 

for the Turkish crops are listed in Table 8. 

 

To the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific study conducted for the Life Cycle 

Assessment of GHG emissions from biofuel production in Turkey. This study aims 

to fill this gap in the Turkish context.  

 

Table 6: Previous Studies on life cycle GHG emissions of biofuel generation 

Country Feedstock 
Emission 

(g CO2 eq/MJ) 
Remarks Ref. 

UK Rapeseed to Biodiesel 55.5 g CO2 eq/MJ NA [36] 
UK Waste Oil to Biodiesel 10.6 g CO2 eq/MJ NA [36] 
UK Sugar beet to Bioethanol 26.6 g CO2 eq/MJ NA [36] 
UK Corn to Bioethanol 70.3 g CO2 eq/MJ NA [36] 

UK Rapeseed to Biodiesel  68.2 g CO2 eq/MJ 
Large-scale biodiesel 
production from rapeseed 

[37] 

UK Rapeseed to Biodiesel 74.6 g CO2 eq/MJ 
Small-scale biodiesel 
production from rapeseed 

[37] 

Latvia Rapeseed to Biodiesel 27.5 g CO2 eq/MJ Winter season [38] 

Latvia Rapeseed to Biodiesel 32.9 g CO2 eq/MJ Spring season [38] 

Greece Waste oil to Biodiesel 14 g CO2 eq/MJ NA [39] 
Brazil Corn to Bioethanol 43.4 g CO2 eq/MJ BioGrace Calculation Tool [40] 

Brazil Corn to Bioethanol 61.9 g CO2 eq/MJ GHGenius Calculation Tool [40] 

Brazil Corn to Bioethanol 57.7 g CO2 eq/MJ GREET Calculation Tool [40] 

 

Table 7: Previous studies using the BioGrace Tool 

Country Feedstock 
Emission 

(g CO2 eq/MJ) 
Remarks Ref. 

Italy Sunflower to Bioethanol 53.4 g CO2 eq/MJ Farm 1-LCA [41] 

Italy Sunflower to Bioethanol 79.4 g CO2 eq/MJ Farm 2-LCA [41] 

Italy Sunflower to Bioethanol 61.9 g CO2 eq/MJ Farm 3-LCA [41] 



 
 

33 
 

Country Feedstock 
Emission 

(g CO2 eq/MJ) 
Remarks Ref. 

Italy Sunflower to Bioethanol 53.8 g CO2 eq/MJ Farm 4-LCA [41] 

Brazil Corn to Bioethanol 43.4 g CO2 eq/MJ 
BioGrace Calculation 
Tool 

[40] 

Germany Sugar beet cultivation 2626 kg CO2eq/ha 

Sugar beet cultivation 
emission in Germany by 
applying mineral plus 
organic fertilizer 

[42] 

Germany Sugar beet cultivation 1782 kg CO2eq/ha 
Sugar beet cultivation 
emission in Germany by 
applying organic fertilizer 

[42] 

 

Table 8: Previous studies using the BioGrace Tool on GHG emission estimation of 

Turkish crops 

Feedstock 
Emission 

(g CO2 eq/MJ) 
Remarks Ref. 

Cotton cultivation 3742.5 kg CO2eq/ha Cotton cultivation in Besiri Region [43] 

Guar cultivation 1488.5 kg CO2eq /ha 
Emission of production of different 
aromatic plants in Turkey 

[44] 

Lavender cultivation 494.81 kg CO2eq /ha 
Emission of production of different 
aromatic plants in Turkey 

[44] 

Sesame cultivation 907.13 kg CO2eq /ha 
Emission of production of different 
aromatic plants in Turkey 

[44] 

Tobacco cultivation  6604.58 kg CO2eq /ha 
Emission of production of different 
aromatic plants in Turkey 

[44] 

 

  



 
 

34 
 

4. BIOGRACE-I GHG CALCULATION TOOL VERSION 4D FOR 
COMPLIANCE 

 

The life cycle GHG emissions analyses of biofuel production and use were 

conducted using “BioGrace-I GHG Calculation Tool Version 4d for Compliance”. 

BioGrace is a spreadsheet model for calculating biofuel GHG emissions that country 

model owners developed from Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United 

Kingdom as part of a European cooperative harmonization effort to implement the 

EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the EU Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). 

The calculation is based on a database that includes default values (EU averages) 

for 22 commercial feedstock/biofuels pathways developed by a collaborative group 

of experts, from the Joint European Commission (JEC), the Joint Research Center 

(JRC), the European Council for Automotive Research and Development (EUCAR), 

and the European Council for Clean Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE) [45]. 

The BioGrace GHG calculation tool allows the reproduction of the Annex V default 

values of the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) (EU RED) for biofuel 

production pathways and to perform individually adapted calculations.  

 

4.1. Structure of the Estimation Tool 

The GHG emission and the GHG savings along the entire biofuel production chain 

are added together to calculate the GHG emissions resulting from the production 

and use of biofuels. The System Boundary of the Life Cycle GHG Analysis was 

conducted for Biofuel production, and it was developed according to Point 6, article 

2 of the Fuel Quality Directive (98/70/EC). “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions” 

means all net emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O that can be assigned to the fuel 

(including any blended components) or energy supplied. This includes all relevant 

stages from extraction or cultivation, including land-use changes, transport, 

distribution, processing and combustion, irrespective of where those emissions 

occur” [46].  

 



 
 

35 
 

Table 9. Steps of the life cycle GHG analysis of biofuel production  

Name of steps Entire biofuel Production Chain 

Biomass supply chain 
• Cultivation of biomass energy crops and/or waste collection 

• Transport of energy crops and/or transport of wastes 

Biorefinery 
• Biofuel production processes applying biomass conversion 

technologies 

Transport and distribution 
• Transport of biofuel from production facility (biorefinery) to depot 

• Transport of biofuel from depot to filling station 

Use • Biofuel combustion in vehicles 

 

Based on the steps of analysing GHG emissions from biofuel production, which are 

given in Table 9, the total emissions of biofuel production and use should be 

calculated following the methods defined in the EU RED. The regulations include 

concrete calculation formulas. A biofuel’s GHG reduction potential is determined by 

the GHG emissions resulting from its production and use phases and on a 

comparison to a fossil fuel reference value.  

 

Total emissions were calculated based on the following formula, which is generally 

binding formula as per EU FQD and based on GHG emissions and GHG emission 

savings. In the BioGrace tool, GHG emissions from the production and use of 

biofuels were calculated from Equation 1 [46] :  

 

E= eec,+ el + ep + etd + eu,– esca – eccs – eccr – eee  (Eq.1) 
 

where; 

E = total emissions from the use of the fuel; 

eec = emissions from the extraction or cultivation of raw materials; 

el = annualised emissions from carbon,stock changes caused by land use change; 

etd = emissions from transport and distribution; 

eu = emissions from the fuel in use; 

esca = emission savings from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural 

management; 

eccs = emission savings from carbon capture and geological storage; 

eccr = emission savings from carbon capture and replacement; and 

eee = emission savings from excess electricity from cogeneration. 



 
 

36 
 

 

The following Equation (Eq.2) is used in the calculation tool to calculate the GHG-

saving potential of biofuels when compared to GHG emissions from fossil-based 

fuels [47]. 

 

SAVING,= (EF – EB)/EF (Eq.2) 

 

where; 

EB = total emissions from the biofuel; and 

EF = total emissions from the fossil fuel comparator. 

 

   The selected feedstocks for producing biofuels in this study, which takes into 

account the Turkish agricultural system, are; 

• Rapeseed to produce biodiesel 

• Waste oil to produce biodiesel 

• Sugar beet to produce bioethanol 

• Corn to produce bioethanol 

 

4.2. Closing Remarks 

   In this study, BioGrace- I GHG Calculation Tool Version 4d for Compliance was 

selected to provide baseline information on the life cycle GHG emission of biodiesel 

and bioethanol production based on the most common feedstocks used in Turkey. 

The BioGrace Calculation tool is recognized as a voluntary scheme by the EC and 

is in line with the sustainability criteria of EU RED. 

 

 

   



 
 

37 
 

5. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES 

 

This chapter presents the methodologies of the life cycle GHG analysis for biofuels 

from the selected feedstocks and biofuel blending scenarios that are developed 

based on the results of life cycle GHG analysis of biofuel production and use.  

 

The flow chart of the study’s methodology is presented below:  

 

Figure 8. Methodology flow chart of the study 

 

5.1. Data Gathering and Analyses 

In this study, besides the standard values given in the BioGrace tool, various data 

types and parameters from different data sources are used in calculations. Some of 

the data used in calculations are presented in Table 10. 

 

Table 10. The data set used in calculations 

Type of Data Value Unit Data Source 

The average carbon emissions from the 
fossil part of gasoline and diesel 

83.8 CO2eq/MJ 
EU Fuel Quality 

Directive[48] 

Diesel fuel - Lower Heating Value 36.0 MJ/ litre [49] 

Gasoline fuel -  Lower Heating Value 32.0 MJ/litre [49] 

Biodiesel - Lower Heating Value 32.1 MJ/ litre [50] 



 
 

38 
 

Bioethanol  - Lower Heating Value 21.2 MJ/litre [50] 

Biodiesel density 832 kg/ m3 [51] 

Bioethanol density 794 kg/ m3 [51] 

CO2 emissions from the Turkish electricity 
production mix  

464 g CO2 / kWh [52] 

Fuel consumption of diesel and gasoline 
passenger car 

0.06 Litre/km [48] 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2 1 g CO2eq [48] 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 23 g CO2eq [48] 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) of N2O 296 g CO2eq [48] 

 

- In the tool, in accordance with FQD, the functional unit was chosen as 1 MJ 

of fuel energy generated. Additionally, energy content was expressed in terms 

of the lower heating value (LHV) under dry conditions. 

- Unlike BioGrace tool standard values, country-specific NPK fertiliser values 

based on the selected crop type are provided from the official source (these 

data are given in the following sections) 

- Other required data related to crop and fuel production was given in the tables 

in the following sections. 

 

Due to the lack of data, some required values for calculations are taken from the 

tool’s database. Some of them are: 

 

- Pesticide usage amounts for all crop cultivation, energy consumption and 

transportation data, the yield for waste oil 

- In accordance with FQD, the tool also calculates GHG emissions from direct 

land use change during the cultivation of crops based on the required data for 

the country-specific. The default calculation method given in BioGrace is 

considered. The calculations made using the data from the guidelines on 

Commission Decision for the calculation of land use carbon stocks and GHG 

emission from the resulting land use change were found to be 0.11 ton CO2 

ha-1 year-1. Table 11 shows the details of the data used in the calculation [36]. 

  



 
 

39 
 

Table 11. The data used for the calculation of GHG emissions resulting from the 

land use change 

 Actual Land Use Reference Land Use 

Climate region Warm temperate, dry Warm temperate, dry 

Vegetation/crop (land-use) Cultivated/cropland Cultivated/cropland 

Soil type High activity clay High activity clay 

Soil management Full-tillage Reduced-tillage 

Soil organic carbon [ton C / ha] 38 38 

Land use factor reflecting the difference in soil 
organic carbon associated with the type of land 
use compared to the standard organic carbon [-] 

0.8 0.8 

Management factor,reflecting the difference in 
soil organic carbon associated with the principle 
management practice compared to the standard 
soil organic carbon [-] 

1 1.02 

Input factor reflecting the difference in soil 
organic carbon associated with different levels of 
carbon input to soil compared to the standard 
soil organic carbon [-] 

1 1 

 

5.2. Data Input to BioGrace Calculation Tool and GHG Emission Calculation 

In the following sections, the data types are given based on the selected feedstock 

in biofuel production. 

 

5.2.1. Data Used for Biodiesel Production from Rapeseed 

Various data are needed to calculate the life cycle GHG emissions of biodiesel 

production and use from rapeseed. Figure 9 presents all production pathways 

defined in the BioGrace tool. 

 



 
 

40 
 

 

Figure 9. Production pathway of Biodiesel-Rapeseed in the BioGrace tool [53] 

 

The production process is divided into four steps, as shown in Table 9. The first step 

is the biomass supply chain which covers the cultivation and transport of rapeseed. 

The required data for this step are given in the following table. 

 

Table 12. The data used in the BioGrace tool in the step of the biomass supply 

chain of life cycle GHG emissions from biodiesel-rapeseed 

Type of Data Value Unit Source 

Cultivation area 35,000 ha 

[54] Production 122,000 tons 

Yield 3485.7 kg ha-1 year-1 

Moisture Content 10%  [55] 

Energy Consumption, Diesel 2.87 MJ ha-1 year-1 [56] 

N fertiliser 122.5 kg N ha-1 year-1 [57] 

P fertiliser 50 kg P2O5 ha-1 year-1 [57] 

K fertiliser 50 kg K2O ha-1 year-1 [57] 

Pesticides 1.2 kg ha-1 year-1 [51] 

Seeding material 10 kg ha-1 year-1 [58] 

 

Rapeseed is mostly grown in Turkey's Thrace region. The amount of fertilizer 

required for rapeseed growing varies depending on the agricultural region's soil and 

climate characteristics. The fertilizer requirement rates specific to the Thrace region 

for rapeseed were obtained and applied in the model using the fertilizer 



 
 

41 
 

recommendation guideline [57] prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 

of Turkey. 

 

The tool calculates direct and indirect N2O emissions from managed soils during 

rapeseed cultivation based on the IPCC Tier 1 approach using the required data in 

the table above. According to the result, the overall (direct and indirect) N2O 

emissions from rapeseed cultivation were found as 4.18 kg N2O ha-1 year-1. 

Biorefinery is the name given to the second step. This step was divided into six 

different processes in the tool. 

 

1. Drying of rapeseed 

2. Transport of rapeseed 

3. Extraction of rapeseed oil 

4. Transport of rapeseed oil 

5. Refining of rapeseed oil 

6. Transesterification 

 

Table 13 gives the data used in this step to calculate GHG emissions in every 

process. 

 

Table 13. The data used in the step of biorefinery of rapeseed [51] 

DRYING OF RAPESEED 

Rapeseed 1000 MJrapeseed/MJrapeseed, BioGrace 

Diesel 0.00018x MJ/MJrapeseed, BioGrace 

Average Electricity Mix in Turkey 0.00308x MJ/MJrapeseed, BioGrace 

TRANSPORT OF RAPESEED 

Rapeseed 0.990x MJrapeseed/MJrapeseed, BioGrace 

Truck for dry product- Fuel type: Diesel 50 km, BioGrace 

EXTRACTION OF RAPESEED OIL 

Yield: 

Crude vegetable oil 0.6125 MJoil/MJrapeseed, BioGrace 

Co-product rapeseed cake 0.3875 MJrapeseedcake/MJrapeseed, BioGrace 

Energy Consumption:  

Average Electricity Mix in Turkey 0.0118x MJ/MJoil, BioGrace 

Steam (from NG boiler) 0.0557x MJ/MJoil (Heat), BioGrace 

NG Boiler:  

Natural gas input/MJ steam 1.111x MJ/MJsteam , BioGrace 

Natural gas (4000xkm, EU mix quality) 0.062x MJ/MJoil, BioGrace 



 
 

42 
 

Electricity input/MJ steam 0.020x MJ/MJsteam , BioGrace 

Average electricity mix in Turkey 0.001x MJ/MJoil, BioGrace 

Chemicals: 

n-Hexane 0.0043 MJ/MJoil, BioGrace 

TRANSPORT OF RAPESEED OIL 

Crude vegetable oil 1000 MJoil/MJoil, BioGrace 

Truck for liquids- Fuel Type: Diesel 0 km, BioGrace 

REFINING OF RAPESEED OIL 

Yield:  

Rapeseed oil 0.96 MJoil/MJoil, BioGrace 

Energy Consumption:  

Average Electricity Mix in Turkey 0.0008 MJ/MJoil, BioGrace 

Steam (from NG boiler) 0.0115 MJ/MJoil, BioGrace 

NG Boiler:  

Natural gas input/MJsteam 1.111 MJ/MJsteam , BioGrace 

Natural gas (4000 km, EU mix quality) 0.013