請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21738
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 游以德 | |
dc.contributor.author | Chia-Feng Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張家鳳 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:44:40Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-04-11 | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-03-18 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Carlsson Reich, Marcus. (2005). Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(3), 253-263.
Ekvall, T., Backman, P. (2001). Assessing external and indirect costs and benefits of recycling. Workshop on System Studies of Integrated Solid Waste Management & Research. Flanagan, R., Norman, G. (1983). Life Cycle Costing for Construction. Quantity Surveyors Division of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London. Kim, Mi-Hyung, Song, Yul-Eum, Song, Han-Byul, Kim, Jung-Wk, & Hwang, Sun-Jin. (2011). Evaluation of food waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: Jungnang case, South Korea. Waste management, 31(9), 2112-2120. Kleyner, Andre, & Sandborn, Peter. (2008). Minimizing life cycle cost by managing product reliability via validation plan and warranty return cost. International journal of production economics, 112(2), 796-807. Krozer, Yoram. (2008). Life cycle costing for innovations in product chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(3), 310-321. Mearing, T., Coffee, N., Morgan, M. (1999). Life Cycle Cost Analysis Handbook. Department of Education and Early Development, Alaska. Murphy, D., McKeogh, E., Kiely, G. (2004). Technical/economic/environmental analysis of biogas utilization. Applied Energy. Rhee, Seung, and Cherrill Spencer. (2009). Life Cost Based FMEA Manual: A step by step guide to carrying out a cost-based failure modes and effects analysis. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). US, DOE (Department of Energy). (1997). Cost Estimating Guide. Life Cycle Cost Estimate. Vipulanandan, C. (2008). Lifecycle Cost Model for Water, Wastewater Systems. Underground construction. Weimer, David L, & Vining, Aidan R. (2005). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Woodward, David G. (1997). Life cycle costing—theory, information acquisition and application. International Journal of Project Management, 15(6), 335-344. Zhang, H, Keoleian, GA, & Lepech, MD. (2008). An integrated life cycle assessment and life cycle analysis model for pavement overlay systems. Paper presented at the Proc., 1st Int. Symp. on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering. 行政院環境保護署「廚餘回收再利用操作管理參考手冊」. (2008). 林盛隆、紀子文 江舟峰. (1999). 成本法在生命週期衝擊評估上之應用研究. 張四明. (2001). 成本效益分析在政府決策上的應用與限制. 政策分析的理論與實務研討會,世新大學行政管理學系主辦. 陳中本. (2002). 從壽命週期成本觀點探討武器系統作業維持成本影響因素之研究.國防管理學院資源管理研究所. 郭昱瑩. (2005). 決策幫手: 成本效益分析之概念與實務. T&D 飛訊(30), 1-4. 陳筱薇. (2012). 福岡機場國際航班轉移至北九州機場之成本效益分析. 交通大學. Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database. (2012年) 楊萬發、馬鴻文、楊盛行、鄭正勇、陳文卿、洪明龍. (2002). 「廚餘及堆肥成品中有害成分調查、肥力及土壤列管評估計畫」暨「廚餘資源化設施、產品品質標準建制及市場開發近、中程策略規劃」. 臺北市政府環境保護局. 劉豪輝. (2000). 大型系統╱產品引進之壽期成本分析研究. 大葉大學資訊管理研究所,碩士論文. 蕭代基. (2002). 環境保護之成本效益分析: 理論, 方法與應用: 俊傑. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21738 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 近年來隨著物質普遍大眾化,導致大量消費、浪費的情形,根據環保署統計資料顯示,國民日常生活產生的垃圾中,廚餘約佔一般家庭垃圾量的20~30%。
經過研究顯示,廚餘含水份高,且鹽份也高,並不適合焚化處理。若送到掩埋場,將可能造成臭味及滲出水污染問題,也不合適。而另一方面,既然廚餘含有豐富的有機成份,若能回收再利用,不但可減輕垃圾處理壓力,達成「零廢棄」之永續發展願景,還能降低對環境的衝擊。 本研究主要以新北市樹林焚化廠的服務範圍為研究對象,利用生命週期成本分析法 (Life cycle cost analysis, LCCA) 估算各階段投入成本,並計算各再生方式所得之效益,最後比較益本比,藉由分析處理過程中每個階段的成本和最後的效益,幫助執行者能有效掌握和改善,進而提升台灣整體廚餘再利用效率,以期對後續廚餘再生發展有所貢獻。 成本及效益研究結果之益本比大小為養豬>自行堆肥>厭氧共消化,處理每公噸所耗費之總成本之大小為委外堆肥>厭氧共消化>自行堆肥>養豬,每公噸之廚餘再生可得之效益大小為養豬>自行堆肥>厭氧共消化。廚餘養豬為低成本且高效益之方法,但有防疫問題,另外廚餘自行堆肥受限於場地大小,未來要擴大發展之可能性低,因此厭氧共消化是值得發展的廚餘再生方式。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | With the changes in our diet, there is more food wastes produced around us. According to the data from environmental protection administration (EPA) in Taiwan, food wastes take up 20 to 30% of our general household wastes. In particular, the amount of food wastes in New Taipei City is twice more than other areas in Taiwan. And the government conducts the projection about anaerobic digestion of food waste in New Taipei City recently, the projection promotes transporting food wastes to Bali sewage plant to do the anaerobic digestion. Based on the above, New Taipei City is the major object in this study.
Based on the composition analysis, food wastes is not suitable for incineration due to their high salt and water content. Disposing via landfill is also inappropriate because the odor and the leachate can cause pollution and problems. On the other hand, food wastes contain rich organic ingredients. If we can recycle and reuse it properly, not only can we reduce the burden of waste disposal and accomplish the vision of sustainable development and zero-waste, but we can also reduce our impacts on the environment. In this study, costs will be analyzed using the life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) approach, and benefits will be analyzed by market price of each by-product from each approach. In the end of this study, I will compare the cost-benefit ratio of each food-waste recycling systems, in the hope to contribute to the food-waste recycling development in Taiwan. Based on the result of this study, the benefit-cost ratio is pig feeding > self-composting > anaerobic co-digestion. The total cost of the treatment cost per tone of food waste is outsourcing composting > anaerobic co-digestion > self-composting > pig feeding. The total benefit of the treatment cost per tone of food waste is pig feeding > self-composting > anaerobic co-digestion. It shows that pig feeding with food waste scrapes is the approach with lowest cost and highest benefit, but it would cause epidemic problem. Self-composting of food waste is limited by the size of the venue, so the potential to expand in the future is low. Above all, anaerobic co-digestion of food waste is worth to develop in the future. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:44:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-R01541102-1.pdf: 2101124 bytes, checksum: 3e82297c534e286cae3382a4eadcd70f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 論文口試委員會審定書 i
誌謝 ii 摘要 iii Abstract iv 目錄 vi 圖目錄 viii 表目錄 ix 第一章 前言 1 1.1 研究背景與目的 1 1.2 研究架構 2 1.3 研究限制 2 第二章 文獻回顧 3 2.1 廚餘的性質及分類方式 3 2.2 廚餘再利用方式 4 2.2.1. 廚餘飼料化之再利用 4 2.2.2. 廚餘堆肥之再利用 5 2.2.3. 廚餘厭氧發酵之再利用 6 2.3 成本效益分析法 ( Benefit Cost Analysis, BCA ) 7 2.3.1 成本效益分析之發展 7 2.3.2 成本效益之概念 8 2.3.3 成本效益分析計算方式 11 2.3.4 成本效益分析之應用 12 2.4 生命週期成本分析 (Life Cycle Cost, LCC) 12 2.4.1 生命週期成本之發展 12 2.4.2 生命週期成本之概念 13 2.4.3 生命週期成本之應用 13 第三章 新北市背景資料 14 3.1 新北市行政分區及人口數量 14 3.2 新北市廚餘回收成效分析 15 3.3 新北市廚餘再利用方式 19 3.3.1 養豬 19 3.3.2 堆肥 20 3.3.1 厭氧共消化 21 第四章 研究方法 26 4.1 研究步驟 26 4.2 廚餘處理方式之成本效益分析 26 4.2.1 養豬處理之成本效益計算方式 28 4.2.2 堆肥處理成本效益計算方式 30 4.2.3 厭氧共消化處理成本效益計算方式 34 第五章 研究結果 38 5.1. 各行政區之廚餘回收現況 38 5.2. 廚餘再生之成本效益分析 39 5.2.1 養豬處理之成本效益分析 39 5.2.2 堆肥處理之成本效益分析 41 5.2.3 厭氧共消化處理之成本效益分析 45 5.3. 廚餘再生之成本效益分析比較 48 第六章 結論與建議 49 6.1 結論 49 6.2 建議 49 參考文獻 50 附件 52 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 廚餘再生方法之經濟效益評估-以樹林焚化廠服務範圍為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Food-Waste Recycling : Shulin Refuse Incineration Service Area case, New Taipei City, Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林鎮洋,羅煌木 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 廚餘,養豬,堆肥,厭氧共消化,生命週期成本分析, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | food waste,pig feeding,composting,anaerobic co-digestion,the life cycle cost analysis (LCCA), | en |
dc.relation.page | 52 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900653 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-03-19 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 環境工程學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 環境工程學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-103-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.05 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。