Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Biogas energy opportunity of Ardahan city of Turkey

€
Betül Ozer
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Technology Faculty, Kırklareli University, Kırklareli, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The importance of renewable energy usage is increasing gradually due to the reasons of energy supplying
Received 2 January 2017 security, environmental pollution and reducing dependency on external sources in all over the world as
Received in revised form also same in Turkey. Biomass is a clean and sustainable energy source that can be produced from various
15 May 2017
kind of organic waste. Turkey has considerable biomass energy potential, and about 6% of the total
Accepted 9 July 2017
potential is located in the eastern region. Ardahan is one of the eastern cities of the country whose
Available online 25 July 2017
economy mainly relies on livestock farming. This paper presents biogas energy potential from animal
manure and agricultural residue and corresponding CO2 emission reduction in Ardahan. Calculations
Keywords:
Renewable energy
were made according to the analysis of the animal manure and the agricultural crop quantities of 2015
Biogas data considering of the biochemical methane potential (BMP), availability factors, volatile solid ratio of
Animal manure the manure, harvested area and unit methane potential of cereals. The total electricity production po-
CO2 emission reduction tential of the evaluated biomass sources is 323 GWh/year. The total CO2 emission reduction is about 2
Ardahan million tons/year in the case of biogas combustion power plant exists instead of coal fired power plants.
Turkey © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction developed [4]. Correspondingly various studies have been accom-

Fossil fuels have the major share in the world’s energy supply
and they are causing the current environmental problems, espe-
cially air pollution and global warming. Accordingly, the rapid
depletion of their resources and the fluctuation of the prices caused
increasing trends for renewable energy sources in all over the
world [1].
The European Union (EU) has set a target of 20% share of its
gross final energy consumption from renewable energy sources
(RES) by 2020 basing on the energy and climate policy. Accordingly
every EU country set individual renewable energy targets. For
example, the mandatory national target for Slovenia is 25% share of
RES in the gross final energy consumption and to achieve 40% share
of RES in gross final electricity consumption by 2020 [2]. Germany
has pledged at least 80% of the power sector will be from renewable
energy by the year 2050 [3]concluded that bioenergy will play a
significant role to fulfill the most energy demand and ensure the
energy supply security, since it is practically available for flexible
power production. On the other hand the EU climate and energy
framework contains a binding target to cut greenhouse gas emis-
sions to 80e95% by 2050 from 1990 levels. To achieve this target
the entire world’s renewable energy using capacity is needed to be
E-mail address: betulozer@klu.edu.tr.
plished towards the use of 100% renewable and sustainable energy
[5]. One of these studies presented a scenario for a 100% renewable
energy system in the EU by the year 2050. And concluded that the
scenario is technically possible and it might be defined by political
ambition and implementation ability of the society to convenient
technologies [6].
Biomass is a sustainable renewable energy source including
broad range of organic waste such as: animal manure, forestry and
agricultural residues, municipal and agro-industrial solid wastes.
Biomass is not only making contribution to the sustainable devel-
opment but also providing energy security for all over the world’s
population and reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Besides due to the availability and the well-known conversion
technologies biomass will be one of the major energy resources in
the very near future to fulfil the most demand and ensure the en-
ergy supply security [7].
The gas evolved from the anaerobic biological process is called
biogas that is reproducible clean gas and is able to supply rural
energy demand [8]. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biological process
for the transformation of organic waste materials to biogas as an
energy sources. Biogas, is a mixture of mostly methane (CH4
(60e75%), carbon dioxide (CO2, 25e50%) and some trace gases such
as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2) and carbon
monoxide (CO), that can be converted into electricity with internal
combustion generators, turbines, fuel cells, and some other power

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.052
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 €
B. Ozer / Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152 1145

generation facilities [9]. assessed potential would provide data for considering biogas in the
Biogas has the advantage of not having geographical limitations energy planning and rural development policy measures in Turkey.
or requiring new technology for producing energy to the other The findings of this study are expected to guide policy makers
renewable energy sources [10,11]. Besides, biogas technology also especially to the local administrators and the investors to utilize the
offers meeting local energy needs, solution to odour problem of the bioenergy potential of the city; those would be a good opportunity
waste, decrease of pathogens and the treated manure can be used for rural and economic development of the city.
as organic fertilizer instead of chemical ones which improves the
quality and structure of the soil. Bioenergy is the only direct
1.1. Animal and agricultural wealth of Ardahan province
alternative to fossil fuels, where oil, gas and coal can be replaced
with biofuels, biogas and biomass, respectively [6].
Ardahan is located in the north-eastern of Turkey, frontier with
Turkey has significant biomass potential to be evaluated as an
Erzurum, Kars and Artvin cities of Turkey where Turkey borders
energy source. “The annual and total recoverable biomass energy
with Georgia and Armenia, with latitude of 41
60 46.6200 N and
potential of Turkey is estimated as 32.6 and 17.2 Mtoe, respectively”
longitude of 42
420 8.2100 E. The population of Ardahan is 102,872
[12]. In the same study approximately 72 million tons of annual
and the socio-economic structure of the city is mainly based on the
animal manure is estimated from animal husbandry. Most of the
agriculture and livestock farming. The urbanization ratio of the city
animal manure is stored uncontrolled or combusted directly only
is about 35% which is significantly below both the average of The
for heating purposes in rural areas in Turkey, those result the
Level II Region called TRA2 (that is approximately 50%) in which
quality decrease of the manure, loss of the most of the energy, and
within Ardahan exists and the Turkey’s average (that is above 75%).
various environmental problems such as: odour and visual prob-
In the center of Ardahan the number of agricultural enterprises are
lems, soil and water pollution and related health problems [13].
approximately 20,000 and 95% of them are polycultural those have
Moreover, uncontrolled storage of the animal waste causes
both agricultural and livestock production [20]. Animal population
methane, which has 21 times the global warming potential of
and agricultural crop wealth of Ardahan in 2015 according to the
carbon dioxide, release to the atmosphere. Therefore, biomass
types by districts are obtained from Turkish Statistical Institute
utilization is significant for sustainable energy supply, energy se-
(TurkStat) data given with Tables 1 and 2, respectively [21].
curity concerns, mitigation of CO2 emissions, and waste manage-
Cattle are the major animal species in Ardahan, which is fol-
ment of Turkey. Accordingly, local potential evaluation is essential
lowed by poultry and sheep while horse and goat have the lowest
due to the feedstock and the transportation costs those are
population (Fig. 1).
affecting the biogas power system costs.
Turkey is an energy importer country by importing above 70% of
her energy, enhancement of renewable energy sources in the 2. Materials and methods
electricity generation is one of the main current energy policy is-
sues [14]. The policies include incentives for RES, and at least 30% of The approach of this study is to consider the energy potential of
the total electricity supply is aimed to be obtained from RES by the animal manure and agricultural residue in Ardahan city, converting
year 2023 [15]. One of the recent studies on Turkey’s biogas po- biogas to electricity using standard combustion system, and cor-
tential indicate that Turkey has 9.5 GW installed capacity of responding GHG mitigation potential due to replacing coal and
biomass power plant to be evaluated [16]. On the other hand Erdil manure. In this study livestock is categorized by cattle, small
and Erbıyık [17] mentioned in their studies, biomass wealth of ruminant (sheep and goat), horse and poultry. Initial data including
Turkey needs assessment and user support. Besides, biomass exists the population of livestock and harvested area by cereal types per
well enough to reduce the country’s dependency. In this context, districts are determined using TurkStat data for the year 2015. The
utilization of regional biogas energy potential and increasing its quality and quantity of the livestock manure is varied depending on
share in the electricity generation are essential in terms of energy the type of animal, type of feed, size of animal body, type of
supply security, reducing dependency on external sources and breeding, ratio of total and volatile solids, seasonal keeping time,
climate change measures of Turkey which is also mentioned in the and living environment of the animals affecting the availability of
study of Bilgen et al. [18]. However, biogas production is not under
control to be able to evaluate as energy source in Turkey especially
Table 1
due to the insufficient management of local biogas sources.
The number of animals in Ardahan [21].
Therefore, providing more information about local biogas sources is
important. This situation is also similar in other developing coun- Districts Cattle Sheep Goat Horse Poultry Total
tries like Vietnam as mentioned in the study of Cu et al. [19]. In Centre 104,880 10,550 990 1600 86,700 204,720
Turkey, 84 biogas power plants those are spread throughout all the € le
Go 87,700 1469 178 4240 79,990 173,577
regions with about 500 MW total capacity are in operation and Hanak 39,087 3270 196 836 14,650 58,039
Damal 18,253 0 0 169 3817 22,239
have 0.6% contribution to the whole installed power capacity. As F. Posof 14,610 682 59 188 14,900 30,439
Al-Mansour et al. [2] mentioned supporting small size biogas plants Çıldır 32,610 34,150 428 977 15,600 83,765
using animal husbandry and agricultural wastes will enable new Total 297,140 50,121 1851 8010 215,657 572,779
investments.
The aim of this analysis is to obtain a top-level data for the
anaerobic digestion potential for converting the livestock manure Table 2
and agricultural residue into biogas to provide energy and mitigate Annual harvested area (HA) for cereals in Ardahan, decare (da), [21].
GHG emissions in Ardahan city of Turkey. Animal husbandry and Districts Wheat Barley Rye Oat Triticale Corn Total
agricultural residue are the major biogas resources in the city and
Center 13,230 33,300 7 3500 e e 50,037
have not been considered yet. The management of organic wastes Çıldır 16,538 34,500 18 1200 e e 52,256
and local biogas production of the city will contribute to energy Damal 2819 11,100 9775 56 e e 23,750
supply security, reducing dependency especially to the natural gas, € le
Go 2715 2000 3750 4350 e e 12,815
increasing use of renewable energy that is one of the major policies Hanak 12,492 19,126 542 188 10 e 32,358
Posof 5171 2067 550 30 10 32 7860
in Turkey and solving socio-economic problems of the region. The
1146 €
B. Ozer / Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152

Table 4
Total manure productions [24e28].

Species Unit manure coefficient (UMC) Collection rates

tons/animal-year

Cattle 13.69 41%

Sheep 0.73 41%
Poultry Goat 0.73 41%
38% Cattle Horse 9.23 33%
Poultry 0.05 99%
52%

Table 5
Horse Unit agricultural residue generation [24,29].
1.40% Sheep
Cereal type kg/da
9%
Wheat 325
Barley 200
Goat Rye 450
0.32% Oat 434
Corn 1480
Triticale 738
Fig. 1. Distribution of animal species in Ardahan.

Table 3 obtain the ultimate composite manure sample to analyse. Whole

Unit manure production coefficient for different animals [1,22e27].
sampling procedure was pursuant to the Turkish Manure Regula-
kg manure per animal per day tion [30]. Typical farm, sampling, and laboratory studies can be seen
Cattle sheep poultry horse in Figs. 2 and 3. Laboratory analysis could only be done for cattle and
poultry manure since there was not any opportunity to take sam-
Abdeshahian et al. [1] 22.5 1.6 0.045 e
lu and Türker [22]
Avcıog 10e20 2 0.08e0.1 e
ples for sheep, goat and horse manure from a suitable farm.
Noorollahi et al. [23] 6.1 0.644 0.019e0.031 e The amount of biogas that can be produced per unit of biomass
DBFZ, 2011 [24] 37.5 e 0.137 e is referred to as the biochemical methane potential (BMP). The BMP
lu [25]
Berkes and Kışlalıog e 2 e e of the manure was determined with “VDI (Verein Deutscher
Yurtseven [26], ASABE [27] e e e 25.3
Ingenieure) method”, (VDI 4630, 2006) that is German standard
procedure, as methane yield, liter CH4 per kg volatile solids (L CH4/
kg VS). CH4 contents were measured using gas chromatograph (GC)
the waste [22]. Therefore, there can be differences on the produc- equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD). And the
tion amounts of manure, biogas and methane. The unit manure analytical precision in determination of total solids (TS) and volatile
production coefficient values used in the various studies are sum- solids (VS) was tested by TMECC 03.09 and TMECC 03.02, methods
marized in Table 3: respectively (TMECC: Test Methods for the Examination of Com-
In this study the quantity of the animal manure was calculated posting and Compost).
per annum on the basis of population, unit manure production The results of the laboratory analysis including total and volatile
coefficient (UMC) and collection rates those are taken from solid ratios (TSR, VSR), CH4 yield (MY) (m3 CH4/ton VS) and CH4
different sources in the scientific literature and given in Table 4 contents are given in Table 6. The results of CH4 yield are in the
[24e28]. The CH4 generation was calculated based on the amount range given with the Refs. [22,23] (for small ruminants 100e310 m3
of collectable organic part of animal waste including total solids CH4/ton VS, average value for cattle is 246 m3 CH4/ton VS).
(TSR) and volatile organic solids ratios (VSR) of the manure per The total solid ratio values obtained in this study are in the range
annum. with the similar studies from the literature those are given with
Moreover, agricultural residues were obtained from unit residue Table 7.
generation of harvested area per annum. Concerning the CH4 po- The values for small ruminants were taken from a similar study
tential, straw of cereals including wheat, barley, rye, oat, corn and report for Aydın city of Turkey [31]. TSR and VSR were assumed 28%
triticale were focused on. The residue yields by cereals are obtained and 80%, respectively whereas MY was selected 200 m3 CH4/ton VS.
from Refs. [24,29] and given with Table 5. The detailed calculations For horse although there are limited studies in the literature, they
are presented in the following sections. were also considered in this study with the assumptions of TSR,
VSR and MY were selected from MoA [28] as 19%, 90%, 210 m3 CH4/
2.1. Laboratory studies ton VS respectively.

Each manure type has different energy potential basing on 2.2. Calculation of the methane production potential from animal
physical and chemical specifications. Thus the methane potentials manure
of different types of the manure are determined basing on the
laboratory analysis. The manure samples were collected from four According to the values obtained from the analysis given in
different farms in Ardahan with the same procedure. Samples were Table 6, cumulative theoretical CH4 generation potential from the
taken with a shovel into a wheelbarrow from several locations in available animal manure for all animal types has been calculated
the manure pile after mixing in order to obtain representative with the Eqs. (1)e(2) per annum.
composite sample and collected in a 20 L clean and dry plastic
X
sample bag. The samples were transported immediately to the TMG ¼ NAi  UMCi (1)
accredited laboratory in Istanbul Technical University. All the
samples from the same animal type were mixed in the laboratory to
 €
B. Ozer / Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152 1147

Typical farm in Ardahan Sampling of animal waste

Fig. 2. Sampling of animal waste.

poultry and given in Table 6, values for horse and sheep are
taken from literature [28,31]. This methodology is very similar
to some of the studies in the References [1,23], those were
_
biogas potential from livestock manure in Malaysia and Iran.

2.3. Calculation of the methane production from agricultural

residue

For the calculation of CH4 potential of agricultural crops, unit

Fig. 3. Laboratory studies for biogas potential.
CH4 potential (m3 CH4/ton) according to the cereals given with
Table 8 were taken into consideration [24,28]. Cumulative CH4
Table 6 production potential from agricultural residue was calculated with
Laboratory analysis results for animal manure. the Eq. (3) and (4).
No Samples Total solids Volatile solids CH4 yield (MY) CH4 X
ratio, ratio, (m3 CH4/ton VS) Content AR ¼ HAj  URGj  103 (3)
TSR VSR

1 Cattle 19% 90% 220 %61.8 where AR denotes cumulative agricultural residue, ton/year, j is
2 Poultry 44% 89% 256 %57.6 type of cereal

HAj is annual harvested area, da for cereal type j, given in

Table 7 Table 2. [21]
The range of solids in animal manure. and URGj is unit residue generation kg/da for cereal type j given
TSR, % VSR, % in Table 5 [24,29].
cattle sheep poultry cattle sheep poultry X
TMPar ¼ ARj  UMPjar (4)
Abdeshahian et al. [1] 25e30 18e25 10e29 e e e
lu and Türker [22]
Avcıog 5e25 30 10e90 75e85 20 70e80
TMPar denotes cumulative CH4 potential of agricultural residue, m3/
year, and UMPjar is unit CH4 potential of agricultural residue, m3
CH4/ton, for cereal type j, given in Table 8 [24,28]
where TMG denotes total manure generation for all types of animal,
ton/year,
2.4. Calculation of the electricity generation potential from
i is the type of the animal, NAi is the number of animals for type methane
i, and UMCi is unit manure coefficient by animal type i, tons/
animal-year given in Table 4, taken from different References Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the degradation of organic
[24e28].
X Table 8
TMPm ¼ TMGi  CRi  TSRi  VSRi  MYim (2) Unit CH4 potential of agricultural residue (UMPar) by
cereal in Ardahan [24,28].
where TMPm is cumulative CH4 generation potential of animal Cereal type m3 CH4/ton
manure, m3/year;
Wheat 295.2
Barley 351.9
CRi is collection rate, % given in Table 4 [28]; TSRi is total solid Rye 273.6
ratio, %; and VSRi represents volatile solid ratio, % and MYim is Oat 290.5
CH4 yield of manure, m3 CH4/ton VS for animal type i. TSR, VSR Corn 250.9
Triticale 280
and MYm are obtained from the laboratory analysis for cattle and
1148 €
B. Ozer / Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152

substances to simple compounds such as biomass and biogas, by

microbial activity in the absence of oxygen. Biogas is mostly
comprised of methane (50e75%) and carbon dioxide (25e50%). AD BAD CO2 is CO2 emission from electricity produced from biogas,
has been largely used as a biological process for the transformation kg
of organic wastes to energy sources. AD of organic wastes has the
outcomes of sustainable energy source as biogas, high quality fer- 0.8 is CO2 emission factor, in kg of CO2 per kWh of electricity
tilizer, reduction of pathogens and odours [1,9]. produced from CH4 [32].
The electricity generation potential of the methane was calcu-
lated according to the total CH4 potential of biomass including both Ecoal ¼ ebio/0.33 (11)
animal manure and agricultural residue with Eqs. (5)e(7):

TMPt ¼ TMPm þ TMPar (5)

Ecoal is energy needed from coal to produce same amount of
TMPt is total CH4 potential, m3 CH4/year. electricity with methane, kWh/year.

ebio ¼ Ebio  ɳ (6) 0.33 is conversion efficiency of the coal to the electricity, [32,37]

where ebio is the amount of possible electricity generation from C CO2 ¼ Ecoal  EFcoal (12)
methane, kWh/year, where Ebio denotes unconverted energy po-
tential in the methane, kWh/year, and ɳ is electricity conversion
efficiency. The value of ɳ depends on the power generation plants. It
is considered 34e40% and 25% in the power plants with large C CO2 is CO2 emissions from the electricity produced from coal,
turbines and small generators, respectively [3,32e34]. In this study, kg
the ɳ value was assumed as 40%.
EFcoal is CO2 emission factor for Turkish coal is assumed as 1 kg
Ebio ¼ ECbio  TMPt (7) of CO2 per kWh of electricity produced [38].

ECbio: energy content of methane, 10 kWh/m3 CH4 is assumed ac- Total emissions from uncontrolled storage, TB CO2, kg is calcu-
cording to Ref. [1]. lated as the sum of CO2 emission if biogas is directly released to the
atmosphere and the CO2 emissions come from coal combustion to
obtain same amount of electricity when used methane with Eq.
2.5. Calculation of the CO2 emissions from the electricity generation (13).
by biogas
TB CO2: BdCO2 þ C CO2 (13)
The CO2 emissions from biogas-fired electricity generation are
calculated in this study. 1 m3 of biogas causes 9.19 kg of CO2 Emission reduction from electricity generation, ERel kg/year is
emission if it is released directly to the atmosphere [35,36]. The CO2 calculated from the difference of CO2 emissions would occur using
emission factor, in kg of CO2 per kWh of electricity produced from coal and methane with Eq. (14).
methane is taken 0.8 according to the assumption of 40% electricity
generation efficiency and 55.5% of the CH4 content of the occurred ERel ¼ C CO2  BAD CO2 (14)
biogas. The conversion efficiency of the coal to the electricity was
assumed 33% for determining the amount of the coal to produce the Total emission reduction, kg in case of biogas combustion power
same amount of electricity, [33,37] which is also acceptable for coal plant exists is calculated with Eq. (15).
fired power plants in Turkey. Besides, the CO2 emission from coal
was assumed 1 kg of CO2 per kWh electricity produced from TER ¼ TB CO2  BAD CO2 (15)
Turkish coal [38]. The CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity
generation are also calculated to determine the emission reduction.
CO2 emissions calculations were made by using Eqs. (8)e(15).
3. Results and discussion
BP ¼ TMPt/(55.5%) (8)
3.1. Methane production potential from animal manure and
agricultural residue

BP is biogas potential, m3 The amount of total collectable manure and methane produc-
tion potential by livestock animals according to 2015 data are given
BdCO2 ¼ BP  9.19 (kg/m3 biogas) (9) with Table 9 whereas, CH4 and electricity generation potentials of
livestock manure by districts of Ardahan are given with Table 10
(Eqs. (1) and (2)).
Fig. 4 illustrates the contribution of the animal types to the CH4
BdCO2: emissions from directly released biogas, kg, production potential of livestock manure. As seen from the distri-
bution, the vast majority of methane generation in Ardahan a rate
9.19 is CO2 emission factor of biogas if directly release to at- of 96% is of cattle origin (with about 63 million m3 per annum)
mosphere [35,36]. related to the highest population in the city, followed by poultry
(2%), small ruminants (1%) and horse (1%). Cattle have significantly
BAD CO2: ebio  0.8 (10) higher contribution to methane production than its contribution to
 €
B. Ozer / Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152 1149

Table 9 Table 11
Animal manure values in Ardahan. Agricultural residue and CH4 Potential in Ardahan, by districts ton/year.

Species Total Manure Total Collectable Total volatile CH4 Potential Districts Wheat Barley Rye Oat Triticale Corn CH4 Potential,
Production, (TMPm) Manure solids, (TVS) m3 CH4/year m3/year
tons/year ton/year ton/year
Centre 4300 6660 3 1519 e e 4,055,072
Cattle 4,067,847 1,667,817 285,197 62,743,280 Çıldır 5375 6900 8 521 e e 4,168,274
Sheep 36,588 15,001 3360 672,054 Damal 916 2220 4399 24 e e 2,262,231
Goat 1351 554 124 24,819 € le
Go 882 400 1688 1888 e e 1,411,372
Horse 73,932 24,398 4172 876,120 Hanak 4060 3825 244 82 7 e 2,637,070
Poultry 10,783 10,675 4180 1,070,167 Posof 1681 413 248 13 8 47 727,029

the animal wealth in Ardahan (52%, Fig. 1), which is due to the 10,811,165) Small ruminants 10% (number of animals: 26,877,793)
highest unit manure coefficient. This indicates the cattle wealth and poultry 86% (number of animals: 234,082,206). The distribu-
should be supported not only for the economic development of the €
tion of animal types in the study of Ozcan et al. [39] is: cattle 4.4%
city but also biogas utilization of its manure as a renewable energy
(number of animals: 12,483,969) Small ruminats 11.3% (number of
source.
animals: 32,309,518) and poultry 84.3% (number of animals:
Poultry, especially goose population is also significant in the city,
241,498,538).
that has also second highest contribution (sharing with the sum of
lu and Türker [22] two of the other eastern
In the study of Avciog
small ruminants and horse) to the biogas potential. Besides horse,
cities of Turkey, Erzurum and Kars those have similar socio-
which is not generally included in the most of the biogas potential
economic structure to Ardahan have also similar biogas potential
studies, is another noteworthy biogas source in the city, although
distribution. In Erzurum the distribution of animal waste biogas
its population is not as high as poultry, even less than small ru-
potential is 95%, 4% and 1% cattle, small ruminants and poultry,
minants wealth of the city. These indicate horse manure should
respectively. Similarly, in Kars 95% of biogas potential is cattle
also be taken into consideration as biogas source.
origin, 3% small ruminants and 2% poultry origin. In all the results
lu and Türker [22] found that in Turkey the potential of
Avciog
mentioned above cattle have the highest contribution to the biogas
biogas produced from cattle manure contributed to 68% of total
production due to the highest manure yield.
biogas potential whereas small ruminants and poultry accounted
The highest amount of methane comes from Centre of Ardahan,
for 5% and 27%, respectively. In another similar study for Turkey
which has the greatest number of animals in province. Go €le, Hanak,
€
Ozcan et. Al [39] indicated that bovines including cattle and buffalo Çıldır, Damal and Posof Districts come after Central District
contributed to 79.8% of animal manure sourced biogas potential, respectively. Additionally, agricultural residue and corresponding
small ruminants and poultry have contribution of 6.6% and 13.6%, CH4 potential by cereal types in districts of Ardahan are given with
respectively. In both of the studies the animal numbers are contrary Table 11 (Eqs. (3) and (4)).
to the biogas potentials. The distribution of animal types in the Major methane potential source in Ardahan is livestock manure
study of Avcioglu and Türker [22] is: cattle 4% (number of animals: with 81% as given with Fig. 5. Because of adverse climatic condi-
tions, crop production is very low in terms of yield, except for feed
Table 10 plants. Most of the enterprises are polycultural, those have agri-
Total CH4 and energy potential of animal manure by districts of Ardahan. cultural production due to livestock farming. 4% of the total en-
Districts Methane potential, Electricity generation terprises are only vegetable producers whereas 1% of them are only
m3 CH4/year potential, million kwh/year animal producers. Although agricultural residue has minor contri-
Centre 22,906,155 91.6
bution to the methane potential in Ardahan, co-digestion of animal
€le
Go 19,401,282 77.6 manure with crop residues has an increasing effect on the biogas
Hanak 8,464,118 33.9 production [40e42].
Damal 3,891,680 15.6 Transportation of animal wastes is an important problem for the
Posof 3,189,446 12.8
utilization of the manure today. One of the major problems to be
Çıldır 7,533,759 30.1
encountered in implementing animal waste disposal methods is
that the livestock manure can not be economically delivered to the
central units in sufficient quantities. On the other hand, not being
Horse Poultry transported in accordance with the appropriate conditions, odour
1% 2% and hygiene problems may occur during transport. Besides, trans-
Small port type and distances are also important issues for economic
Ruminant evaluation of the manure [28,32].
1% The most economically acceptable transport distances of
different types of manure are given in the Table 12 [43]. Since
agricultural wastes are durable to long term transportation condi-
tions, livestock manure is determinant in terms of transport period
and distances. As it can be seen from Table 12 transportation dis-
tance of cattle and small ruminant manure is limiting. Therefore
Cattle separate plants may be suggested in every district according to the
96% distances given in Table 13. Basing on their capacities as given with
Table 15.

3.2. Total electricity generation potential

Fig. 4. The contribution of the livestock manure to the potential of CH4 production in
Ardahan estimated for 2015. Finally total methane potential amounts has been converted and
1150 €
B. Ozer / Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152

Agricultural
residue
19%

Livestock
manure
81%
Fig. 5. The share of wastes in the methane production potential.

Table 12 Table 15
Suggested transportation distances for animal manure [43]. Installed capacity potential by districts, MW.

Manure Type Transportation distance (km) Animal manure Agricultural residue Total

Cattle and small ruminants 10 Center 10.46 1.85 12.31

Poultry 40 € le
Go 8.86 0.64 9.5
Çıldır 3.44 1.90 5.34
Hanak 3.86 1.20 5.07
Damal 1.78 1.03 2.81
Table 13 Posof 1.46 0.33 1.79
Distances of the districts to the Center and time of arrival.

Districts km Time of arrival, minutes

€le
Go 45 44 determined under 3.5 years as revealed in similar studies
Hanak 24 36 [28,43,44] which should be evaluated by the investors.
Damal 45 51
Posof 81 92
Çıldır 45 50
3.3. CO2 emissions reduction potential

The power generation in Turkey heavily depends on the im-

evaluated as electrical energy. According to the Eq. (5) the total
methane potential is calculated about 81 million m3 CH4/year. In
accordance with electricity generation, total installed capacity po-
tentials of the power plants have been determined and given with
Table 14. This amount of methane could potentially generate an
electrical energy of 323 GWh per year (Eq. (6) and (7)).
Total power installed capacity potentials by districts are given
with Table 15. In line with the largest capacity of animal waste
Center of Ardahan has the largest biogas energy potential with
about 12 MW installed capacity, Go €le and Çıldır comes after in turn
with 9.5 MW and 5.3 MW capacities, respectively. Hanak, Damal
and Posof come in turn.
When evaluating the feasibility of these biogas power plants
electricity generation and fertilizer incomes can be evaluated while
carbon saving credits can be defined as additional benefit. The heat
outcome of the system can be ignored due to the heat would be
utilized for the system’s own heating requirement and drying of the
manure. The current Renewable Energy Law in Turkey provides
maximum feed-in tariffs to biomass power plants pricing with 13.3
US dollar cents per kWh. Accordingly, the payback period is
ported natural gas. Accordingly, in the current energy policies,
domestic and renewable energy sources have priorities. On the
other hand, CO2 emissions are increasing dramatically due to the
fossil fuel based power generation. The highest contribution to total
CO2 emissions in Turkey comes from energy sector with about 85%
[45]. This is another significant occasion for all the renewable en-
ergy potential of Turkey should be utilized.
Biogas utilization with AD for organic waste, particularly the
animal manure contributes to the mitigation of GHG emissions via
CH4 emission offset by converting manure into biogas displacing
with coal [33]. If these organic waste (approximately 1.77 Mton)
were stored uncontrolled in Ardahan 1.34 million tons of CO2
equivalent emissions would be released to the atmosphere (Eq.(8)
and (9)). Besides, the total emissions from coal electricity genera-
tion that would be offset by 322.6 GWh of biogas electricity is 977.5
thousand tons of CO2 (Eqs. (11) and (12)). In total 2313 thousand
tons of CO2 emission occurs (Eq. (13)) if organic waste is not utilized
as an energy source and coal is the energy source for producing
electricity. However if the same amount of CH4 is utilized by a
biogas power plant to produce electricity the annual emissions

Table 14
Total electricity generation potential.

Waste Types Total Methane Potential Total Energy Potential Electircity generation potential Installed Capacity
m3 CH4/year MWh/year MWh/year MW

Animal Waste 65,386,440 653,864 261,546 30

Agricultural residue 15,261,048 152,611 61,044 7
Total 80,647,488 806,475 322,590 37
 €
B. Ozer / Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152
Table 16
Total annual CO2 emissions from organic waste, ton CO2.
Directly release of the biogas, BdCO2 1,335,406
Electricity generation from coal combustion, CCO2 977,545
Total emissions from uncontrolled storage, TB CO2 2,312,951
Biogas power plant, BAD CO2 258,072
Emission reduction from electricity generation, ERel 719,473
Total Emission Reduction in case of biogas combustion 2,054,879
power plant exists, TER
would be 258 thousand tons of CO2 (Eq. (10)), that indicates 2055
thousand tons of possible annual CO2 mitigation (Eq. (15)). In this
case organic waste-originated emissions are avoided and CO2 is
assumed to be emitted only from biogas-fired electricity generation
which indicates 89% of CO2 mitigation is possible utilizing both
animal and agricultural waste by biogas fired power plant. The
results are summarized in Table 16.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the opportunity of converting organic waste
including animal manure and agricultural residue into biogas for
electricity generation and accordingly the CO2 emission mitigation
potential of Ardahan city of Turkey is evaluated. This study is novel
since it is one of the initial studies determining the benefits of AD as
converting organic waste from a GHG emission source into a
renewable energy source as a substitute for coal. Many studies have
been performed to evaluate regional and general biogas generation
potential of Turkey. However, these studies focused on the energy
potential of various biogas sources. According to the author’s
knowledge there is no study revealed bioenergy and corresponding
GHG emission mitigation potential of Turkey, particularly Ardahan
even other eastern cities whose economies are mainly based on
agriculture and livestock farming. This study contains the field-
specific research and calculations.
Energy potential of animal and agricultural waste was deter-
mined for all districts by statistical data of 2015. Particularly, for
livestock manure taking into consideration of the various signifi-
cant factors such as: biochemical methane potential (BMP), total
solids and volatile solids ratios basing on laboratory analysis, and
collection ratios. For agricultural waste the calculations were based
on the unit methane potential of the harvested area for cereals per
districts of the City. Power plant potentials have also been assessed
in detail on a district basis. Apart from these, CO2 emission miti-
gation potential of converting animal manure to biogas is deter-
mined as biogas replacing both manure and coal, those are
significant GHG emission sources.
As a result, total accessible quantity of waste inputs has been
calculated for animals approximately 1.72 Mtons and for agricul-
tural residue as approximately 48 thousand tons per year.
Accordingly, total methane potential was calculated about 81
million m3/year, which has net energy equivalence of 323 GWh/
year. Finally, it is calculated that within these investments annually
2.055 Mtons of CO2 emissions may be reduced, which corresponds
89% of CO2 mitigation potential. These results indicate converting
organic waste to methane has significant contributions for reducing
CO2 emissions in Ardahan. Since the socio-economic structure of
Ardahan city is mainly based on the agriculture and livestock
farming, manure and agricultural waste are easily accessible and
available. Therefore, the continuity of biomass supply is
sustainable.
Turkey has a target of reducing GHG emissions up to 21%
compared to reference scenario by 2030 [46]. Accordingly all the
actions taking on the reducing GHG emissions will contribute to the
1151
target. This biogas energy potential will be a good opportunity to be
able to achieve the CO2 emission reduction and renewable energy
use targets of Turkey. Moreover, this study would also have
contribution to the aim of increased share of renewable energy
sources in all over the world, implementation of the 100% renew-
able energy strategy by 2050, as mentioned in the Ref. [5] more
research is needed especially from the most of the developing
countries.
Consequently, the results of this study will contribute to the
development of the regional animal husbandry and agriculture,
sustainable regional development through the increasing use of
renewable energy sources as well as protection of the environment,
particularly reducing GHG emissions. It is expected that the outputs
of this study will shed light on the decision-making process of the
investments. The results could be utilized by especially local policy
makers and the investors considering biogas production in a sus-
tainable way with a low cost option and reducing GHG emissions
via organic waste. On the other hand the maximum incentive from
the government to the biomass generated electricity would be
another driving force for the biogas power plants investments in
the city.
Acknowledgements and/or disclaimers
This research was funded by SERKA Development Agency. The
author would like to thank Ardahan Municipality, Murat Cem
Ertürk and Gürkan Soyak for their kind supports to this study and
the reviewers contributed the improvement of the manuscript.
References
[1] Abdeshahian P, Lim JS, Ho WS, Hashim H, Lee CT. Potential of biogas pro-
duction from farm animal waste in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;60:714e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.117.
[2] Al-Mansour F, Sucic B, Pusnik M. Challenges and prospects of electricity
production from renewable energy sources in Slovenia. Energy 2014;77:
73e81.
[3] Szarka N, Scholwin F, Trommler M, Jacobi HF, Eichhorn M, Ortwein A, et al.
A novel role for bioenergy: a flexible, demand-oriented power supply. Energy
2013;61:18e26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.12.053.
[4] Olabi AG. Energy quadrilemma and the future of renewable energy. Editor
Energy 2016;108:1e6.
[5] Olabi AG. 100% sustainable energy. Editor Energy 2014;77:1e5.
[6] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV. Smart Energy Europe: the technical and
economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the
European Union. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60:1634e53.
[7] Ekpeni LEN, Benyounis KY, Ekpeni FN, Stokes J, Olabi AG. Energy diversity
through renewable energy source (RES) e a case study of biomass. Energy
Procedia 2014;61:1740e7.
[8] Dai J, Chen B, Hayat T, Alsaedi A, Ahmad B. Sustainability-based economic and
ecological evaluation of a rural biogas-linked agro-ecosystem. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;41:347e55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.043.
[9] Maghanaki MM, Ghobadian B, Najafia G, Galogah RJ. Potential of biogas pro-
duction in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;28:702e14.
[10] Balat M, Balat H. Biogas as a renewable energy source. Energy Resour 2009:
1280e93.
[11] Taleghani G, Kia AS. Technical-economical analysis of the Saveh biogas power
plant.Renew. Energy 2005;30:441e6.
[12] Ozturk M, Yuksel YE. Energy structure of Turkey for sustainable development.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1259e72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.09.087.
€
[13] Ozer B. Biogas potential of animal wastes for electricity generation in Ardahan
city of Turkey. Causes, impacts and solutions to global warming. New York:
Springer; 2013. p. 697e707. 978-1-4614-7588-0.
[14] MENR, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. Elec-
tricity energy market and supply security strategy paper. Ankara: Republic of
Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources; 2009.
[15] MENR, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. National
renewable energy action plan for Turkey. Ankara: NREAP; 2014.
[16] Ozcan M, Oztürk S, Oguz Y. Potential evaluation of biomass-based energy
sources for Turkey. Eng Sci Technol, Int J 2015;18:178e84. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jestch.2014.10.003.
[17] Erdil A, Erbıyık H. Renewable energy sources of Turkey and assessment of
sustainability. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2015;207:669e79.
[18] Bilgen S, Keleş S, Sarıkaya I,_ Kaygusuz K. A perspective for potential and
1152 €
B. Ozer / Energy 139 (2017) 1144e1152

technology of bioenergy in Turkey: present case and future view. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48:228e39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.03.096.
[19] Cu TTT, Nguyen TX, Triolo1 JM, Pedersen L, Le VD, Le PD, et al. Biogas pro-
duction from Vietnamese animal manure, plant residues and organic waste:
influence of biomass composition on methane yield, Asian Australas. J Anim
Sci 2015;28(No. 2):280e9.
[20] DAA, Directorate of Ardahan Agriculture. Inventory report of Ardahan Argi-
culture. Ardahan: Ardahan Provincial Directorate of Food, Agriculture and
Animal Husbandry; 2012.
[21] TurkStat (Turkish statistical Institute). 2016. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/
hayvancilikapp/hayvancilik.zul. [Accessed 16 July 2016].
[22] Avciog lu AO, Türker U. Status and potential of biogas energy from animal
wastes in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1557e61.
[23] Noorollahi Y, Kheirrouz M, Asl HF, Yousefi H, Hajinezhad A. Biogas production
potential from livestock manure in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:
748e54.
[24] DBFZ (Deutsches BiomasseForschungsZentrum gemeinnützige GmbH).
Resource efficient and climate friendly use of animal waste through biogas
production in Turkey, assessment of actual framework conditions and po-
tentials for biogas investments in Turkey Turkish-German biogas project.
Ankara: Ministry of Envrionment and Urbanization of Turkish Republic; 2011.
[25] Berkes F, Kışlalıog _
lu M. Envrionment and ecology. Istanbul: Remzi Bookstore;
1993.
[26] Yurtseven S. Final product of farming: manure and potential of gas production
in Turkish. KSÜ J Nat Sci 2013;16(1):62e9.
[27] ASABE. Manure production and characteristics. ASAE standard D384.2. St.
Joseph, Michigan, USA: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engi-
neers; 2005.
[28] MoA TC. Municipality of Ardahan, feasibility report on researching of biogas
and energy potential of Ardahan in Turkish. SERKA Development Agency;
2013.
[29] Teknodan. Biogas potential study by Teknodan company. 2009.
[30] Official gazette No: 28956 regulation for supervision of manure. 29.03.2014.
1:arastirma.tarim.gov.tr/toprakgubre/Belgeler/Numune%20Alinmasi/GUBRE.
docx.
[31] ADSYB, Association of Cattle Breeders of Aydın. Feasibility report of biogas
potential of Aydın. Aydın: South Aegean Development Agency; 2011.
[32] Cue llar AD, Webber ME. Cow power: the energy and emissions benefits of
converting manure to biogas. Environ Res Lett 2008;3(3):34002. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034002.
[33] Nielsen P H 2002 Heat and Power Production from Pig Manure available from:
http://www.lcafood.dk/processes/energyconversion/
heatandpowerfrommanure.htm (cited 19 June 2007).
[34] Tafdrup S. Viable energy production and waste recycling from anaerobic
digestion of manure and other biomass materials. Biomass Bioenergy 1995;9:
303e14.
[35] Sabuncu O,C. Technical, economical and environmental analysis of biogas
production. in Turkish MSc. Thesis. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University;
2010.
[36] Murphy JD, McKeogh E, Kiely G. Technical/economic/environmental analysis
of biogas utilisation. Appl Energy 2004;77:407e27.
[37] Virginia Energy Patterns and Trends available from: http://www.energy.vt.
edu/vept/energyover/thermalconv.asp (cited 13 June 2007.
[38] €
Ozer B. The scenario analysis on CO2 emission mitigation potential in Turkish
_
electricity sector. PhD Thesis. Istanbul, Turkey: Institute of Science and
_
Technology, Istanbul Technical University; 2012.
[39] €
Ozcan €
M, Oztürk S, Oguz Y. Potential evaluation of biomass-based energy
sources for Turkey. Eng Sci Technol, Int J 2015;18:178e84.
[40] Hills DJ, Roberts DW. Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure and field crop
residues. Agric Wastes 1981;3(Issue 3):179e89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0141-4607(81)90026-3.
[41] Lehtom€ aki A, Huttunen S, Rintala JA. Laboratory investigations on co-digestion
of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production:
effect of crop to manure ratio. Resources, Conserv Recycl 2007;51:591e609.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.11.004.
[42] Cavinato C, Fatone F, Bolzonella D, Pavan P. Thermophilic anaerobic co-
digestion of cattle manure with agro-wastes and energy crops: comparison
of pilot and full scale experiences. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(Issue 2):
545e50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.08.043.
[43] Esçae Tübitak-Mam. Recovery and disposal of poultry and barn fertilizers
project report. in Turkish. 2001 [Gebze, Kocaeli,Turkey].
[44] Perendeci, NA, Çıg gın AS, Karışlı H. Biogas power generation from agricultural
and animal wastes in Çukurova region, in Turkish 2014, Industrial symbiosis
conference, Ankara,Turkey.
[45] TURKSTAT. Greenhouse gas emissions inventory 2014. 2016.
[46] Republic of Turkey, intended nationally determined contribution (INDC), the
INDC of Turkey. 2015.