Brazil vs Turkey: Electricity Compared
Brazil generated 764 TWh of electricity in 2025 and Turkey 354 TWh, according to Ember. Brazil's largest source was hydro (52.1%); Turkey's was coal (34.3%). Each kWh generated emitted 109 gCO2/kWh in Brazil and 476 gCO2/kWh in Turkey. These are Ember annual statistics for 2025, compiled from national sources; they are not real time.
Who is bigger and who is cleaner? Brazil is the bigger electricity producer, generating 2.2 times as much as Turkey in 2025 (764 TWh against 354 TWh). Brazil has the cleaner electricity by carbon intensity, at 109 gCO2/kWh against 476 gCO2/kWh in Turkey in 2025.
Why this comparison: both among the 20 largest electricity users.
Open this comparison in the interactive tool to add more countries or change the metric.
Key Facts
- Hydro supplied 52.1% of Brazil's electricity in 2025, against 16.2% in Turkey.
- Turkey's electricity was 4.4 times as carbon intensive as Brazil's in 2025, at 476 gCO2/kWh against 109 gCO2/kWh.
- Low carbon sources supplied 88.9% of Brazil's electricity in 2025 and 43.3% of Turkey's.
- Electricity demand in 2025 was 775 TWh in Brazil and 352 TWh in Turkey.
Key Figures, 2025
Ember annual statistics| Measure | Brazil | Turkey |
|---|---|---|
| Total generation | 764 TWh | 354 TWh |
| Electricity demand | 775 TWh | 352 TWh |
| Demand per person | 3.58 MWh | 4.01 MWh |
| Carbon intensity | 109 gCO2/kWh | 476 gCO2/kWh |
| Power sector emissions | 83.4 MtCO2 | 168 MtCO2 |
| Low carbon share | 88.9% | 43.3% |
| Largest source | Hydro 52.1% | Coal 34.3% |
Generation Mix, 2025
Share of generation| Source | Brazil | Turkey |
|---|---|---|
| Hydro | 52.1% | 16.2% |
| Coal | 2.1% | 34.3% |
| Gas | 7.8% | 22.1% |
| Wind | 15.2% | 11.1% |
| Solar | 11.5% | 10.5% |
| Bioenergy | 8.1% | 2.4% |
| Other renewables | 0.0% | 3.0% |
| Nuclear | 2.1% | 0.0% |
| Other fossil | 1.3% | 0.3% |
Carbon Intensity, 1985 to 2025
Ember annual statistics| Year | Brazil | Turkey |
|---|---|---|
| 1985 | 61 gCO2/kWh | n/a |
| 1986 | 85 gCO2/kWh | n/a |
| 1987 | 74 gCO2/kWh | n/a |
| 1988 | 66 gCO2/kWh | n/a |
| 1989 | 66 gCO2/kWh | n/a |
| 1990 | 60 gCO2/kWh | 526 gCO2/kWh |
| 1991 | 62 gCO2/kWh | 539 gCO2/kWh |
| 1992 | 63 gCO2/kWh | 539 gCO2/kWh |
| 1993 | 61 gCO2/kWh | 481 gCO2/kWh |
| 1994 | 61 gCO2/kWh | 537 gCO2/kWh |
| 1995 | 63 gCO2/kWh | 505 gCO2/kWh |
| 1996 | 68 gCO2/kWh | 496 gCO2/kWh |
| 1997 | 71 gCO2/kWh | 519 gCO2/kWh |
| 1998 | 71 gCO2/kWh | 519 gCO2/kWh |
| 1999 | 90 gCO2/kWh | 557 gCO2/kWh |
| 2000 | 89 gCO2/kWh | 574 gCO2/kWh |
| 2001 | 106 gCO2/kWh | 605 gCO2/kWh |
| 2002 | 97 gCO2/kWh | 536 gCO2/kWh |
| 2003 | 91 gCO2/kWh | 525 gCO2/kWh |
| 2004 | 102 gCO2/kWh | 494 gCO2/kWh |
| 2005 | 99 gCO2/kWh | 544 gCO2/kWh |
| 2006 | 96 gCO2/kWh | 538 gCO2/kWh |
| 2007 | 91 gCO2/kWh | 578 gCO2/kWh |
| 2008 | 114 gCO2/kWh | 593 gCO2/kWh |
| 2009 | 87 gCO2/kWh | 577 gCO2/kWh |
| 2010 | 114 gCO2/kWh | 525 gCO2/kWh |
| 2011 | 100 gCO2/kWh | 541 gCO2/kWh |
| 2012 | 128 gCO2/kWh | 528 gCO2/kWh |
| 2013 | 168 gCO2/kWh | 510 gCO2/kWh |
| 2014 | 193 gCO2/kWh | 567 gCO2/kWh |
| 2015 | 189 gCO2/kWh | 505 gCO2/kWh |
| 2016 | 150 gCO2/kWh | 523 gCO2/kWh |
| 2017 | 156 gCO2/kWh | 535 gCO2/kWh |
| 2018 | 137 gCO2/kWh | 543 gCO2/kWh |
| 2019 | 142 gCO2/kWh | 490 gCO2/kWh |
| 2020 | 133 gCO2/kWh | 484 gCO2/kWh |
| 2021 | 168 gCO2/kWh | 502 gCO2/kWh |
| 2022 | 103 gCO2/kWh | 489 gCO2/kWh |
| 2023 | 96 gCO2/kWh | 495 gCO2/kWh |
| 2024 | 106 gCO2/kWh | 471 gCO2/kWh |
| 2025 | 109 gCO2/kWh | 476 gCO2/kWh |
Demand per Person, 1985 to 2025
Ember annual statistics| Year | Brazil | Turkey |
|---|---|---|
| 1985 | n/a | n/a |
| 1986 | n/a | n/a |
| 1987 | n/a | n/a |
| 1988 | n/a | n/a |
| 1989 | n/a | n/a |
| 1990 | n/a | n/a |
| 1991 | n/a | n/a |
| 1992 | n/a | n/a |
| 1993 | n/a | n/a |
| 1994 | n/a | n/a |
| 1995 | n/a | n/a |
| 1996 | n/a | n/a |
| 1997 | n/a | n/a |
| 1998 | n/a | n/a |
| 1999 | n/a | n/a |
| 2000 | 2.25 MWh | 1.95 MWh |
| 2001 | 2.08 MWh | 1.91 MWh |
| 2002 | 2.14 MWh | 1.96 MWh |
| 2003 | 2.23 MWh | 2.07 MWh |
| 2004 | 2.33 MWh | 2.17 MWh |
| 2005 | 2.39 MWh | 2.32 MWh |
| 2006 | 2.47 MWh | 2.49 MWh |
| 2007 | 2.57 MWh | 2.69 MWh |
| 2008 | 2.66 MWh | 2.77 MWh |
| 2009 | 2.64 MWh | 2.68 MWh |
| 2010 | 2.84 MWh | 2.87 MWh |
| 2011 | 2.91 MWh | 3.10 MWh |
| 2012 | 3.01 MWh | 3.22 MWh |
| 2013 | 3.08 MWh | 3.22 MWh |
| 2014 | 3.12 MWh | 3.30 MWh |
| 2015 | 3.05 MWh | 3.32 MWh |
| 2016 | 3.05 MWh | 3.42 MWh |
| 2017 | 3.06 MWh | 3.57 MWh |
| 2018 | 3.09 MWh | 3.55 MWh |
| 2019 | 3.17 MWh | 3.51 MWh |
| 2020 | 3.13 MWh | 3.50 MWh |
| 2021 | 3.24 MWh | 3.76 MWh |
| 2022 | 3.28 MWh | 3.71 MWh |
| 2023 | 3.43 MWh | 3.71 MWh |
| 2024 | 3.57 MWh | 3.89 MWh |
| 2025 | 3.58 MWh | 4.01 MWh |
Brazil history · Turkey history
Source: Ember (ember-energy.org), licensed under CC BY 4.0. Data as of 2025.
Related
Cite this page
World Power Monitor. (2025). Brazil vs Turkey: Electricity Compared. https://worldpowermonitor.com/compare/brazil-vs-turkey/
World Power Monitor. Brazil vs Turkey: Electricity Compared. Data as of 2025. Data from Ember. https://worldpowermonitor.com/compare/brazil-vs-turkey/
@misc{wpm_compare_brazil_vs_turkey_2025,
title = {{Brazil vs Turkey: Electricity Compared}},
author = {{World Power Monitor}},
year = {2025},
note = {Data as of 2025. Data from Ember.},
url = {https://worldpowermonitor.com/compare/brazil-vs-turkey/}
} Permalink: https://worldpowermonitor.com/compare/brazil-vs-turkey/
The Copy buttons add today's date as the access date.