Yenilenebilir enerji odaklı sürdürülebilir tedarik zinciri ağ tasarımı: biyoetanol üretim endüstrisinde bir uygulama

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin yenilenebilir enerji sektöründe henüz ticari girişimlerin bulunmadığı bir alan olan biyoetanol üretimi için sürdürülebilir tedarik zinciri modeli sunmaktadır. Çalışmada iki senaryo değerlendirilmiştir: tarımsal atıklar ve endüstriyel atık gazlardan biyoetanol üretimi. Yaşam Döngüsü Değerlendirmesi (Life Cycle Assessment – LCA) gerçekleştirilmiş ve en uygun tesis konumu, İdeal Çözüme Benzerliğe Göre Sıralama Tercihi Tekniği (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution – TOPSIS) yöntemi kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Maliyet, lojistik ve çevresel performansın optimizasyonu için GAMS ortamında Karma Tamsayılı Doğrusal Programlama (Mixed-Integer Linear Programming – MILP) modeli uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, endüstriyel atık gazlardan biyoetanol üretiminin, tarımsal artıklara dayalı üretime kıyasla önemli ölçüde daha düşük CO₂ emisyonu sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır. Üretim maliyetinin toplam sistem maliyetinin en büyük bölümünü oluşturduğu, lojistik ve depo tahsis kararlarının da sistem maliyeti ve tedarik zinciri yapısı üzerinde önemli bir rol oynadığı belirlenmiştir. Verimlilik iyileştirmelerinin toplam maliyet üzerindeki etkisinin ise sınırlı olduğu görülmüştür. Duyarlılık analizi, kapasite ve talep artışının maliyetleri yükselttiğini göstermekte ve lojistik planlamanın önemini vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin gelişmekte olan yenilenebilir enerji tedarik zincirlerine yönelik bölgeye özgü içgörüler sunmakta; şirketlerin maliyet etkinliğini artırabileceğini, emisyonları azaltabileceğini ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları (SKA’lar) ile uyum sağlayabileceğini ortaya koyarak, sürdürülebilir enerji dönüşüm stratejilerine hem akademik hem de pratik katkılar sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Biyoetanol tedarik zinciri
• karma-tamsayılı doğrusal programlama
• tedarik zinciri ağ tasarımı
• sürdürülebilirlik.

Renewable energy-focused sustainable supply chain network design: an application in the bioethanol production industry

Abstract

This study presents a sustainable supply chain model for bioethanol production, an area of Türkiye’s renewable energy sector in which commercial initiatives have not yet been established. Two scenarios were evaluated: bioethanol from agricultural residues and industrial waste gases. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was performed, and the most suitable plant location was identified using the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. A Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model was applied in GAMS to optimize cost, logistics, and environmental performance. Findings reveal that bioethanol production from industrial waste gases yields significantly lower CO₂ emissions than production from agricultural residues. It has been determined that production costs constitute the largest share of total system costs, and that logistics and warehouse allocation decisions play a significant role in system costs and supply chain structure. Conversely, the impact of efficiency improvements on total costs was found to be limited. Sensitivity analysis indicates that increased capacity and demand drive cost escalation, underscoring the importance of logistics planning. This study offers region-specific insights into Türkiye’s developing renewable energy supply chains, demonstrating that companies can enhance cost efficiency, reduce emissions, and align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), providing both scholarly and practical contributions to sustainable energy transition strategies.

Keywords

• Bioethanol supply chain
• mixed-integer linear programming
• supply chain network design
• sustainability.

References

1. Salehi, S., Mehrjerdi, Y.Z., Sadegheih, A. and Hosseini-Nasab, H., Designing a resilient and sustainable biomass supply chain network through the optimization approach under uncertainty and the disruption, Journal of Cleaner Production, 359, 131741, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131741
2. Şengül, Ü., Eren, M., Shiraz, S.E., Gezder, V. and Şengül, A.B., Fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking renewable energy supply systems in Türkiye, Renewable Energy, 75, 617-625, (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.045
3. Guang Shi, V., Lenny Koh, S.C., Baldwin, J. and Cucchiella, F., Natural resource based green supply chain management, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17 (1), 54-67, (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211212203
4. Schubert, C., Can biofuels finally take center stage?, Nature Biotechnology, 24 (7), 777-784, (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0706-777
5. Hoover Jr, W.E., Eloranta, E., Holmström, J. and Huttunen, K., Managing the demand-supply chain: Value innovations for customer satisfaction, John Wiley & Sons, (2002).
6. Höhne, N., Kuramochi, T., Warnecke, C., Röser, F., Fekete, H., Hagemann, M., . and Gonzales, S., The Paris Agreement: resolving the inconsistency between global goals and national contributions, In Climate Policy after the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, 30-46, Routledge, (2021). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003191582
7. Andiappan, V., Ko, A.S., Lau, V.W., Ng, L.Y., Ng, R.T., Chemmangattuvalappil, N.G. and Ng, D.K., Synthesis of sustainable integrated biorefinery via reaction pathway synthesis: economic, incremental environmental burden and energy assessment with multiobjective optimization, AIChE Journal, 61 (1), 132-146, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.14616
8. Kollar, A.J., Bridging the gap between agriculture and climate: Mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers, Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 42 (2), (2023). https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.14069

9. Mahato, N., Ansari, M.O. and Cho, M.H., Production of utilizable energy from renewable resources: Mechanism, machinery and effect on environment, Advanced Materials Research, 1116, 1-32, (2015). https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1116.1
10. Farahani, R.Z., Rezapour, S., Drezner, T. and Fallah, S., Competitive supply chain network design: An overview of classifications, models, solution techniques, and applications, Omega (United Kingdom), 45, 92-118, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2013.08.006
11. Schneeweiss, C., Distributed decision-making in supply chain management, International Journal of Production Economics, 84 (1), 71-83, (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00381-X
12. Joshi, S., A review on sustainable supply chain network design: Dimensions, paradigms, concepts, framework, and future directions, Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 136-148, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.001
13. Babazadeh, R., Razmi, J. and Ghodsi, R., A sustainable second-generation biodiesel supply chain network design problem under risk, Omega, 66, 258-277, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.010
14. Ghaderi, H., Moini, A. and Pishvaee, M.S., A multi-objective robust possibilistic programming approach to sustainable switchgrass-based bioethanol supply chain network design, Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 368-406, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.218
15. Ayvaz, B., Kuşakçı, A.O., Öztürk, F. and Sırakaya, M., Biyodizel tedarik zinciri ağ tasarımı için çok amaçlı karma tam sayılı doğrusal programlama modeli önerisi, Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, 23 (4), 55-70, (2018). https://doi.org/10.17482/uumfd.455307
16. Safaei, M., Al Dawsari, S. and Yahya, K., Optimizing multi-channel green supply chain dynamics with renewable energy integration and emissions reduction, Sustainability, 16 (22), 9710, (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229710
17. Blair, M.J., Gagnon, B., Klain, A. and Kulišić, B., Contribution of biomass supply chains for bioenergy to sustainable development goals, Land, 10 (2), 181, (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020181
18. Gital Durmaz, Y. and Bilgen, B., Multi-objective optimization of sustainable biomass supply chain network design, Applied Energy, 272, 115-259, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115259
19. Şenocak, A.A., Biyokütle tedarik zinciri için bir karar destek sistemi tasarımı, Doktora tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Denizli, (2022).
20. Benjaafar, S., Li, Y. and Daskin, M., Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: Insights from simple models, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 10 (1), 99-116, (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2012.2203304
21. Li, D. and O’Brien, C., Integrated decision modeling of supply chain efficiency, International Journal of Production Economics, 59 (1), 147-157, (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00097-8
22. Mota, B., Gomes, M.I., Carvalho, A. and Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P., Sustainable supply chains: An integrated modelling approach under uncertainty, Omega, 77, 32-57, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2017.05.006
23. Dias, L.S. and Ierapetritou, M.G., From process control to supply chain management: An overview of integrated decision-making strategies, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 106, 826-835, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.02.006
24. Devarapalli, M. and Atiyeh, H.K., A review of conversion processes for bioethanol production with a focus on syngas fermentation, Biofuel Research Journal, 2 (3), 268-280, (2015). https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2015.2.3.5
25. Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H., Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research, 156 (2), 445-455, (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
26. Madanchian, M. and Taherdoost, H., A comprehensive guide to the TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making, Sustainable Social Development, 1 (1), 2220, (2023). https://doi.org/10.54517/ssd.v1i1.2220
27. Afsordegan, A., Sánchez, M., Agell, N., Zahedi, S. and Cremades, L.V., Decision making under uncertainty using a qualitative TOPSIS method for selecting sustainable energy alternatives, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 13 (6), 1419-1432, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0982-7
28. Topaloğlu, F., Development of a new hybrid method for multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach: a case study for facility location selection, Operational Research, 24 (4), 60, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-024-00871-4
29. Ayyildiz, E. and Erdogan, M., Literature analysis of the location selection studies related to the waste facilities within MCDM approaches, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 32 (32), 19574-19595, (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34370-y
30. Kheybari, S., Kazemi, M. and Rezaei, J., Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method, Applied Energy, 242, 612-623, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.054
31. Martinkus, N., Latta, G., Brandt, K. and Wolcott, M., A multi-criteria decision analysis approach to facility siting in a wood-based depot-and-biorefinery supply chain model, Frontiers in Energy Research, 6, 124, (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00124
32. Emeksiz, C. and Yüksel, A., A suitable site selection for sustainable bioenergy production facility by using hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach, case study: Turkey, Fuel, 315, 123214, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123214
33. Kahraman, C., Ruan, D. and Doǧan, I., Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection, Information Sciences, 157, 135-153, (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00183-X
34. Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), The Results of Address Based Population Registration System, https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/en/press/53783, accessed 12 December 2025, (2024).
35. Organized Industrial Zones Supreme Organization (OSBÜK), Organized Industrial Zones Statistics, https://osbuk.org/view/sayilarlaosb/osbliste.php, accessed 20 April 2026, (n.d.).
36. Ege Region Chamber of Industry, Organized Industrial Zones, EBSO, https://www.ebso.org.tr/tr/organize-sanayi-bolgeleri, accessed 20 April 2026, (n.d.).
37. European Environment Agency, Trends and projections in the EU-ETS in 2025: The EU Emissions Trading System in numbers, https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cm/products/etc-cm-report-2025-06/@@download/file/ETS-Report_2025_final.pdf, accessed 10 April 2026, (2025).
38. Mihalcea, C., Burton, F., Conrado, R. and Simpson, S., R&D&I and industry examples: LanzaTech’s gas fermentation, In: Kircher, M. and Schwarz, T. (eds.), CO2 and CO as Feedstock, Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, Cham, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27811-2_27
39. Fackler, N., Heijstra, B.D., Rasor, B.J., Brown, H., Martin, J., Ni, Z., ... and Köpke, M., Stepping on the gas to a circular economy: accelerating development of carbon-negative chemical production from gas fermentation, Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 12, 439-470, (2021).
40. Handler, R.M., Shonnard, D.R., Griffing, E.M., Lai, A. and Palou-Rivera, I., Life cycle assessments of ethanol production via gas fermentation: anticipated greenhouse gas emissions for cellulosic and waste gas feedstocks, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 55 (12), 3253-3261, (2016).
41. İş Müfettişleri Derneği, Akaryakıt İstasyonlarında Alınması Gerekli İSG Önlemleri, https://ismufder.org/mevzuatlar/is-sagligi-ve-guvenligi-onlemleri/akaryakit-istasyonlarinda-alinmasi-gerekli-isg-onlemleri/, accessed 15 April 2026, (n.d.).
42. National Transport Commission (NTC), Carbon Dioxide Emissions Intensity for New Australian Light Vehicles 2018, https://www.ntc.gov.au/sites/default/files/assets/files/Carbon%20dioxide%20emissions%20intensity%20for%20new%20Australian%20light%20vehicles%202018.pdf, accessed 15 April 2026, (2019).
43. International Energy Agency Bioenergy (IEA Bioenergy), Advanced Biofuels-Potential for Cost Reduction, https://www.ieabioenergy.com/blog/publications/new-publication-advanced-biofuels-potential-for-cost-reduction/, accessed 15 April 2026, (2020).
44. Milewski, D. and Milewska, B., Efficiency of the consumption of energy in the road transport of goods in the context of the energy crisis, Energies, 16 (3), 1257, (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031257
45. Govindan, K., Jafarian, A. and Nourbakhsh, V., Designing a sustainable supply chain network integrated with vehicle routing: A comparison of hybrid swarm intelligence metaheuristics, Computers & Operations Research, 110, 220-235, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.11.013
46. Handler, R.M., Shonnard, D.R., Griffing, E.M., Lai, A. and Palou-Rivera, I., Life cycle assessments of ethanol production via gas fermentation: anticipated greenhouse gas emissions for cellulosic and waste gas feedstocks, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 55 (12), 3253-3261, (2016). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03215
47. Zhang, L., Shen, Q., Pang, C.H., Chao, W., Tong, S., Kow, K.W., ... and Wei, W., Life cycle assessment of bio-fermentation ethanol production and its influence in China's steeling industry, Journal of Cleaner Production, 397, 136492, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136492
48. Jeswani, H.K., Chilvers, A. and Azapagic, A., Environmental sustainability of biofuels: a review, Proceedings of The Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 476 (2243), (2020). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351
49. Benavides, P.T., Balchandani, S. and Gracida-Alvarez, U.R., Environmental analysis of biotechnologies for biofuels, bioplastics, and bioproducts: a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions review, Biotechnology for the Environment, 1 (1), 10, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44314-024-00010-5
50. Malladi, K.T. and Sowlati, T., Biomass logistics: A review of important features, optimization modeling and the new trends, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 587-599, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.052
51. Stellingwerf, H.M., Guo, X., Annevelink, E. and Behdani, B., Logistics and supply chain modelling for the biobased economy: a systematic literature review and research agenda, Frontiers in Chemical Engineering, 4, 778315, (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fceng.2022.778315
52. Gültekin, S. and Deste, M., Tedarik Zinciri Yönetiminde Sürdürülebilirlik Uygulamaları ve Malatya İli Örneği, Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 4 (2), 321-342, (2021). https://doi.org/10.33712/mana.958669
53. Öztürk, F., Kuşakcı, A.O., Ayvaz, B. and Sırakaya Karakoç, M., Biyoyakit Tedarik Zinciri Ağ Tasarimi Çalişmalari İçin Öz Düzenleyici Haritalar, Mühendislik Bilimleri Ve Tasarım Dergisi, 8 (2), 345-356, (2020). https://doi.org/10.21923/jesd.509079
54. Uludağ, A.S. and Erol, İ., Tedarik zinciri ağ tasarımı ve bir uygulama, İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 23 (267), 89-115, (2008). https://doi.org/10.3848/iif.2008.267.8548