請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6108
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 闕蓓德(Pei-Te Chiueh) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Yun Hsieh | en |
dc.contributor.author | 謝佑昀 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-16T16:21:02Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2015-08-27 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-16T16:21:02Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2013-08-27 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-07-30 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Ahmad, A.L., N.H.M. Yasin, C.J.C. Derek and J.K. Lim, “Microalgae as a sustainable energy source for biodiesel production: A review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 584-593 (2011).
Bare, J., “Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 341-351 (2010). Bare, J., P. Hofstetter, D. Pennington and H. de Haes, “Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 319-326 (2000). Baumann, H., T. Ekvall, G. Svensson, T. Rydberg and A.M. Tillman, “Aggregation and operative units”, In: Anonymous (1992). Blonk, T.J., M. Davidson and M.C.C. Lafleur, “Feasibility of operationalization of depletion of abiotic resources in LCA via the key resources energy and land”, Final draft (1996). Borjesson, P. and L.M. Tufvesson, “Agricultural crop-based biofuels – resource efficiency and environmental performance including direct land use changes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, No. 2–3, pp. 108-120 (2011). Broch, A., S.K. Hoekman and S. Unnasch, “A review of variability in indirect land use change assessment and modeling in biofuel policy”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 29, No. 0, pp. 147-157 (2013). Chan, Y., R. Tan and H. Khoo, “Characterisation framework development for the SIMPASS (Singapore IMPact ASSessment) methodology”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 89-95 (2012). Cherubini, F. and S. Ulgiati, “Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems – A LCA case study”, Applied Energy, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp. 47-57 (2010). de Sa, S.A., C. Palmer and S. Di Falco, “Dynamics of indirect land-use change Empirical evidence from Brazil”, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 74 (2012). Dones, R., C. Bauer, R. Bolliger, B. Burger, M. Faist Emmenegger, R. Frischknecht, T. Heck, N. Jungbluth, A. Roder and M. Tuchschmid, “Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems”, ecoinvent report No. 5 (2007). Dreyer, L., A. Niemann and M. Hauschild, “Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 191-200 (2003). EC-JRC, “Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for life cycle assessment in European context - based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors”, ILCD Handbook EUR24571EN (2011). Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky and P. Hawthorne, “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”, Science, Vol. 319, No. 5867, pp. 1235-1238 (2008). Fritsche, U.R., K. Hennenberg and K. Hunecke, “The iLUC Factor as a Means to Hedge Risks of GHG Emissions from Indirect Land Use Change”, Working Paper (2010). Gnansounou, E., L. Panichelli, A. Dauriat and J.D. Villegas, “Accounting for indirect land-use changes in GHG balances of biofuels”, Working Paper REF.437.101 (2008). Goedkoop, M. and R. Spriensma, “The Eco-indicator 99 A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment”, Methodology Report 2nd Ed. (2000). Guinee, J.B., M. Gorree, R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, R. Kleijn, A.d. Koning, L.v. Oers, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, S. Suh, H.A. Udo de Haes, H.d. Bruijn, R.v. Duin and M.A.J. Huijbregts, “Life cycle assessment - An operational guide to the ISO-standards Part 3: Scientific background”, Final Report (2001). Guinee, J.B. and R. Heijungs, “A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment”, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 917-925 (1995). Haberl, H., “Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production as an Environmental Indicator: Implications for Sustainable Development”, Ambio, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 143-146 (1997). Haberl, H., K.-H. Erb and F. Krausmann, “Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP)”, Entry prepared for the Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics (2007). Hauschild, M., M. Goedkoop, J. Guinee, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, O. Jolliet, M. Margni, A. Schryver, S. Humbert, A. Laurent, S. Sala and R. Pant, “Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 683-697 (2013). Heijungs, R., J. Guinee and G. Huppes, “Impact categories for natural resources and land use”, CML report 138 (1997). Heijungs, R., J.B. Guinee, G. Huppes, R.M. Lankreijer, H.A. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A.M.M. Ansems, P.G. Eggels, R. van Duin and H.P. de Goede, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. I: Guide - October 1992. II: Backgrounds - October 1992, CML, Leiden (1992). Humbert, S., A. De Schryver, X. Bengoa, M. Margni and O. Jolliet, “IMPACT 2002+: User Guide”, Draft for version Q2.21 (2012). Humbert, S., M. Margni and O. Jolliet, “IMPACT 2002+: User Guide”, Draft for version 2.1 (2011). IEA-Bioenergy, “From 1st to 2nd Generation Biofuel Technologies - An overview of current industry and RD&D activities”, (2008). IEA-Bioenergy, “Bioenergy, Land Use Change and Climate Change Mitigation”, (2010). IEA, “Sustainable Production of Second-Generation Biofuels - Potential and perspectives in major economies and developing countries”, (2010). IEA, “Technology Roadmap - biofuels for Transport”, (2011). IPCC, “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ”, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (2006). ISO, “Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework”, ISO 14040 2nd Ed. ISO 14040:2006(E) (2006a). ISO, “Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines”, ISO 14044 1st Ed. ISO 14044:2006(E) (2006b). Itsubo, N. and A. Inaba, “A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 305-305 (2003). Johnson, E., “Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 165-168 (2009). Jolliet, O. and P. Crettaz, Critical Surface-Time 95: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology Including Fate and Exposure, EPFL, Lausanne (1996). Jolliet, O., M. Margni, R. Charles, S. Humbert, J. Payet, G. Rebitzer and R. Rosenbaum, “IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 324-330 (2003). Jungbluth, N., M. Chudacoff, A. Dauriat, F. Dinkel, G. Doka, M. Faist Emmenegger, E. Gnansounou, N. Kljun, K. Schleiss, M. Spielmann, C. Stettler and J. Sutter, “Life Cycle Inventories of Bioenergy”, ecoinvent report No. 17 (2007). Kohlheb, N. and F. Krausmann, “Land use change, biomass production and HANPP: The case of Hungary 1961–2005”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 292-300 (2009). Lieth, H., “Primary production: Terrestrial ecosystems”, Human Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 303-332 (1973). Lindeijer, E., “Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 313-319 (2000). Lindeijer, E., M. van Kampen, P. Fraanje, H. van Dobben, G.-J. Nabuurs, E. Schouwenberg, D. Prins, N. Dankers and M. Leopold, “Biodiversity and life support indicators for land use impacts in LCA”, W-DWW-98-059 (1998). Liska, A.J. and R.K. Perrin, “Indirect land use emissions in the life cycle of biofuels: regulations vs science”, Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 318-328 (2009). Nemecek, T. and T. Kagi, “Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems”, ecoinvent report No. 15 (2007). O’Neill, D., P. Tyedmers and K. Beazley, “Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in Nova Scotia, Canada”, Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-14 (2007). Pawelzik, P., M. Carus, J. Hotchkiss, R. Narayan, S. Selke, M. Wellisch, M. Weiss, B. Wicke and M.K. Patel, “Critical aspects in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based materials – Reviewing methodologies and deriving recommendations”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 73, No. 0, pp. 211-228 (2013). Pennington, D.W., J. Potting, G. Finnveden, E. Lindeijer, O. Jolliet, T. Rydberg and G. Rebitzer, “Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment practice”, Environment International, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 721-739 (2004). Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes and T.-H. Yu, “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change”, Science, Vol. 319, No. 5867, pp. 1238-1240 (2008). Sims, R.E.H., W. Mabee, J.N. Saddler and M. Taylor, “An overview of second generation biofuel technologies”, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 101, No. 6, pp. 1570-1580 (2010). Udo de Haes, H.A., M. Bovy, K. Christiansen, G. Finnveden, R. Frischknecht, J. Giegrich, M.Z. Hauschild, R. Heijungs, P. Hofstetter, A.A. Jensen, O. Jolliet, E. Lindeijer, R. Muller-Wenk, P. Nichols, J.M.B. Potting, H.W. Christensen and P. White, “Discussion of general principles and guidelines for practical use”, In: Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment, Brussels, Belgium (1996). Udo de Haes, H.A., O. Jolliet, G. Finnveden, M. Hauschild, W. Krewitt and R. Muller-Wenk, “Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 66-74 (1999). Vitousek, P.M., P.R. Ehrlich, A.H. Ehrlich and P.A. Matson, “Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis”, BioScience, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 368-373 (1986). Wright, D.H., “Human Impacts on Energy Flow through Natural Ecosystems, and Implications for Species Endangerment”, Ambio, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 189-194 (1990). Yang, S.-S., C.-M. Liu, C.-M. Lai and Y.-L. Liu, “Estimation of methane and nitrous oxide emission from paddy fields and uplands during 1990–2000 in Taiwan”, Chemosphere, Vol. 52, No. 8, pp. 1295-1305 (2003). 台灣肥料公司,2012,農友牌肥料產品系列及主要作物施肥手冊。 行政院農業委員會,2008,97年農業統計年報。 吳文政、林國清,2001,水稻育苗介質之研發,台南區農業專訊,第36期,14-16。 吳富春、房志懿,2004,水田生態環境微氣候及二氧化碳流通量模式分析,行政院農業委員會專題研究計畫,93農發-8.2-利-01。 林再遷、吳榮華、朱明昭、鄒若齊、張士桐、李輝隆、伏和中、童遷祥、陳逸偵、申永輝、廖峻德、唐自標、陳志恒、魏稽生、胡毅、賴錦文、溫紹炳、林景崎,2012,中華民國100年台灣鑛冶工業之進展(下),鑛冶:中國鑛冶工程學會會刊,第53期,第3卷,89-120。 馬鴻文、洪明龍、趙家緯、蘇俊賓、陳起鳳、張宇欣,2007,台灣永續廢棄物管理決策支援系統之建立─物質流、生命週期評估與環境風險評估之整合研究,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫,95-2621-Z-002-013。 許富翔,2011,稻稈焙燒產製生質煤炭之生命週期評估,碩士論文,臺灣大學環境工程學研究所,臺北,臺灣。 陳朝圳、陳建璋、魏浚紘,建立台灣主要造林樹種之碳儲存推估系統,2011,台灣林業第37期,第2卷,10-15。 陳詩評,2008,評估臺灣以甘蔗製造之酒精燃料的溫室氣體排放,碩士論文,成功大學環境工程學系,臺南,臺灣。 黃建中,2005,生命週期衝擊評估之客觀權重方法,博士論文,臺灣大學環境工程學研究所,臺北,臺灣。 經濟部水利署,2010,99年農業用水量統計年報。 經濟部能源局,2011,100年能源統計手冊。 潘瀅如,2008,台灣地區稻米生產之生命週期評估,碩士論文,臺北大學自然資源與環境管理研究所,臺北,臺灣。 蔣在文,2012,區域性水資源耗用之生命週期衝擊評估,碩士論文,臺灣大學環境工程學研究所,臺北,臺灣。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6108 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 現行生命週期衝擊評估方法大多以生態相關指標來表示土地利用產生的衝擊,但有文獻指出土地利用亦會產生其他面向的影響,例如生質燃料在其生命週期中會直接及間接佔用土地並改變地表型態,從而導致所佔用土地之固定碳素總量或是溫室氣體排放量改變,進一步產生額外的溫室氣體排放;或是例如土地佔用使得地表植被覆蓋率及生長之植物種類產生變化,減少了土地的生物質,導致耗用額外的可用天然資源量。由於目前生命週期衝擊評估方法對於土地利用造成環境衝擊層面考慮的不足,本研究以近年應用生命週期評估經常被選用的衝擊評估方法IMPACT 2002+衝擊評估方法為基礎,加入土地利用產生的相關衝擊,新增三個中間點衝擊類別包含直接土地利用變遷排放、間接土地利用變遷排放以及土地覆蓋變遷,建立加入土地利用衝擊之評估方法,並分別以產製酒精汽油及生質炭為案例進行生命週期評估,透過使用IMPACT 2002+以及本研究修正的土地利用衝擊評估方法分別進行案例的衝擊評估,以瞭解增加土地利用衝擊對於生質燃料產生的環境衝擊以及溫室氣體減量效果之影響程度。
產製酒精汽油案例分析結果顯示,當以溫室氣體減量為評估目的,並且不考慮土地利用可能產生的氣候變遷影響,生質酒精確實比起車用汽油產生的溫室氣體排放來得略少,酒精汽油則介於兩者之間;但在增加土地利用產生的氣候變遷影響後,環境衝擊順序出現反轉,變成以車用汽油的溫室氣體排放量為最少,酒精汽油次之,生質酒精的排放量甚至較原衝擊增加約73倍。產製生質炭案例分析結果則顯示同樣以溫室氣體減量為評估目的時,當不考慮土地利用可能產生的氣候變遷影響,生質炭的溫室氣體排放量已較燃煤要高出4倍;而在增加土地利用產生的氣候變遷影響後,生質炭和燃煤的環境衝擊順序依然不變。以上結果均顯示出土地資源對於生質燃料為關鍵影響因素,雖可以提供更多的能源並減少資源損害,但同時也可能造成更多溫室氣體排放量,因此資源損害與氣候變遷損害分別為天平的兩端,如何平衡及取捨必須經由決策者和利害關係人充分討論。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Land use is a human activity and widely exists in the life cycle of many products. Previous studies have indicated that land use has caused considerable environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, change in carbon stock, and the reduction of net primary production. Existing life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods can be used to quantify the environmental impact of land use. However, the characterization models for land-use in most existing methods reflect only loss of biodiversity and exclude the effect of land use on other essential environmental considerations such as climate change and net primary production. Thus, in this study, we adopted IMPACT 2002+ as a foundational methodology, accompanied by other relevant environmental aspects of land use. In addition, we used the life cycle assessment (LCA) software SimaPro 7 for modeling. The LCIA method we revised is called IMPACT 2002+ wLU, increasing three midpoint impact categories, i.e. direct land-use change, indirect land-use change and land cover change. Furthermore, we used IMPACT 2002+ and IMPACT 2002+ wLU to compare the impact difference between two methods in case studies on biofuel and fossil reference systems. These case studies have established that bioethanol produced using sugarcane and biocoal produced using rice straw represent first- and second-generation biofuels, respectively, and that the fossil reference systems correspond to the production of gasoline and the import of hard coal.
These case studies have also indicated that land-use change is a key factor in the use of bioethanol. In assessing the endpoint damage of climate change, the IMPACT 2002+ results revealed that greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions from gasoline were slightly higher than those of gasohol and bioethanol, whereas the emissions which assessed by IMPACT 2002+ wLU were in reverse order, with bioethanol emissions exhibiting the highest effect, namely 73 times more than the original emissions. The effects of land-use change on climate change and resource depletion are limited for biocoal, and biocoal emissions are higher than those of hard coal, regardless of land-use change. In addition, production of first-generation biofuels has occupied large amounts of land to supply energy, while causing increasingly more GHG emissions. Therefore, based on our results, land-use change is a key factor in the use of bioethanol indeed. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-16T16:21:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R00541210-1.pdf: 7566789 bytes, checksum: 75d483511e495b9075ba751a27432ebb (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機與目的 1 1.2 研究流程 3 第二章 文獻回顧 5 2.1 土地利用的環境衝擊 5 2.1.1 生態系統衝擊 7 2.1.2 資源耗用衝擊 8 2.1.3 氣候變遷衝擊 10 2.2 生命週期評估與衝擊評估方法 11 2.2.1 不確定性與地區特性 14 2.2.2 衝擊評估方法與土地利用衝擊特徵化模式 15 2.3 生質燃料的土地利用衝擊 24 第三章 研究方法 27 3.1 研究對象 27 3.2 土地利用衝擊特徵化模式 29 3.2.1資源耗用衝擊特徵化模式 30 3.2.2氣候變遷衝擊特徵化模式 33 3.2.3 生命週期評估軟體 36 3.3 研究案例 37 3.3.1 範疇界定 39 3.3.2 盤查分析 42 第四章 結果與討論 55 4.1生命週期衝擊評估方法 55 4.1.1 特徵因子之建立 56 4.1.2 標準化因子之建立 69 4.1.3 衝擊評估方法模組化 73 4.2 案例分析 73 4.2.1 增加土地利用衝擊對生質燃料之影響 74 4.2.2 敏感度分析 94 第五章 結論與建議 97 參考文獻 101 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 土地利用之生命週期衝擊評估工具開發 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Development of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Tools for Land Use | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李公哲(Kung-Cheh Li),馬鴻文(Hwong-Wen Ma) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 土地利用,生命週期衝擊評估,生質燃料,土地利用變遷排放, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Land use,Life cycle impact assessment,Biofuel,Land use change, | en |
dc.relation.page | 106 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-07-31 | |
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-102-1.pdf | 7.39 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。