請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72256
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 闕蓓德 | |
dc.contributor.author | En-Ting Liu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 劉恩廷 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:31:41Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-08-21 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-16 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Baker, J. W., & Lepech, M. D. (2009) Treatment of uncertainties in life cycle assessment. Paper presented at the Intl. Congress on Structral Safety and Reliability.
Birol, F., (2017) Key world energy statistics. IEA Publications, International Energy Agency, rue de la Federation, Paris, France. CDM, (2006) Annex 18 Definition of Renewable Biomass. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board. Cherubini, F., Stromman, A.H. (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology 102, 437-451. Hofstetter, P. (1998) Perfection of the Framework. In Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Springer, Boston, MA., 359-373 Hosseini and Wahid. (2014) Utilization of palm solid residue as a source of renewable and sustainable energy in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 40, 621–632 Huang, Y.F., Syu, F.S., Chiueh, P.T., Lo, S.L. (2013) Life cycle assessment of biochar cofiring with coal. Bioresource Technology 131, 166-171. Humbert, S., Margni, M., Jolliet, O. (2012) IMPACT 2002+: user guide. Draft for version 2.15. ISO. (1993) Guide of the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. International Organization for Standardization. ISO, (2006a) ISO 14040 Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization. ISO, (2006b) ISO 14044 Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization. James, A. K., Thring, R. W., Helle, S., & Ghuman, H. S. (2012) Ash management review—applications of biomass bottom ash. Energies, 5(10), 3856-3873. Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G. and Rosenbaum, R. (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8(6), 324. Kalt, G., & Kranzl, L. (2011) Assessing the economic efficiency of bioenergy technologies in climate mitigation and fossil fuel replacement in Austria using a techno-economic approach. Applied Energy, 88(11), 3665-3684. Kargbo, F. R., Xing, J., & Zhang, Y. (2009) Pretreatment for energy use of rice straw: A review. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(11), 1560-1565. Krey V., O.M., G. Blanford, T. Bruckner, R. Cooke, K. Fisher-Vanden, H. Haberl, E. Hertwich, E. Kriegler, D. Mueller, S. Paltsev, L. Price, S. Schlömer, D. ÜrgeVorsatz, D. van Vuuren, and T. Zwickel, (2014) Annex II: Metrics & Methodology. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Leksell L. and Rabl A. (2001) Air Pollution and Mortality: Quantification and Valuation of Years of Life Lost, Risk Analysis 21(5), 843-857. Mafakheri, F., Nasiri, F. (2014) Modeling of biomass-to-energy supply chain operations: Applications, challenges and research directions. Energy Policy 67, 116-126. McGartland, A., Revesz, R., Axelrad, D. A., Dockins, C., Sutton, P., & Woodruff, T. J. (2017) Estimating the health benefits of environmental regulations. Science, 357(6350), 457-458. Metropolis, N.; Ulam, S. (1949) The Monte Carlo method. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, 335-341. National Research Council. (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academies Press. NEEDS. (2009) External costs from emerging electricity generation technologies. New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability, Project no: 502687, 6-50. Petrov, O., Bi, X., & Lau, A. (2017) Impact assessment of biomass-based district heating systems in densely populated communities. Part II: Would the replacement of fossil fuels improve ambient air quality and human health?. Atmospheric environment, 161, 191-199. Proskurina, S., Sikkema, R., Heinimö, J., & Vakkilainen, E. (2016) Five years left–How are the EU member states contributing to the 20% target for EU's renewable energy consumption; the role of woody biomass. Biomass and bioenergy, 95, 64-77. Prüss-Üstün, A., & Neira, M. (2016) Preventing disease through healthy environments: a global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks. World Health Organization. Rabl A. (2001) Reference database of concentration-response functions for health impacts of air pollution, International Atomic Energy Agency; Vienna. Schmidt, J., Leduc, S., Dotzauer, E., Kindermann, G., & Schmid, E. (2010) Cost-effective CO2 emission reduction through heat, power and biofuel production from woody biomass: A spatially explicit comparison of conversion technologies. Applied Energy, 87(7), 2128-2141. Seyboth, K., Sverrisson, F., Appavou, F., Brown, A., Epp, B., Leidreiter, A., & Farrell, T. C. (2016) Renewables 2016 Global Status Report. REN21: Paris, France Sikkema, R., Junginger, M., Pichler, W., Hayes, S., & Faaij, A. P. (2010) The international logistics of wood pellets for heating and power production in Europe: Costs, energy‐input and greenhouse gas balances of pellet consumption in Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 4(2), 132-153. Smith, K.R., Frumkin, H., Balakrishnan, K., Butler, C.D., Chafe, Z.A., Fairlie, I., Kinney, P., Kjellstrom, T., Mauzerall, D.L., McKone, T.E., McMichael, A.J., Schneider, M. (2013) Energy and human health. Annu Rev Public Health 34, 159-188. Spadaro, J.V. (2003) RISKPOLL explosure response functions. Available: http://www.arirabl.org/ software Steubing, B., Zah, R., Ludwig, C. (2012) Heat, electricity, or transportation? The optimal use of residual and waste biomass in Europe from an environmental perspective. Environ Sci Technol 46, 164-171. Thrän, D., Peetz, D., Schaubach, K., Backéus, S., Benedetti, L., & Bruce, L. (2017) Global wood pellet industry and trade study 2017. IEA Bioenergy Task 40. Tilman, D., Socolow, R., Foley, J.A., Hill, J., Larson, E., Lynd, L., Pacala, S., Reilly, J., Searchinger, T., Somerville, C. (2009) Beneficial biofuels—the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325, 270-271. USEPA. (2006) User's guide for the AERMOD terrain preprocessor. USEPA, North Carolina, 1-20. Uslu, A., Faaij, A. P., & Bergman, P. C. (2008) Pre-treatment technologies, and their effect on international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic evaluation of torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation. Energy, 33(8), 1206-1223. IARC. (2010) Household use of solid fuels. World Health Organization. Yin, C., Rosendahl, L.A., Kær, S.K. (2008) Grate-firing of biomass for heat and power production. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34, 725-754. 行政院環境保護署,2016,臺灣空氣污染排放量[TEDS9]。 行政院環境保護署,2018,空氣品質監測網空氣品質指標各項污染物。https://taqm.epa.gov.tw/taqm/tw/b0202.aspx 行政院環境保護署,2018,模式支援中心。https://aqmc.epa.gov.tw/ 張哲銘、花建佑、張雁婷、李淑娟、楊為凱、張哲銘、花建佑、張雁婷、李淑娟、楊為凱,2017,生質能暨環保產業推動計畫-第一年,經濟部工業局。 經濟部能源局,2016,燃料煤進口來源。 經濟部能源局,2017,能源統計年報。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72256 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 能源使用造成環境污染並危害人體健康,成為現今國際社會必須面對的重要議題。以殘餘生物質為原料的固態生質燃料可取代高污染的燃煤,不僅可滿足能源需求、減少環境污染,亦可解決生質廢棄物過多的環境問題。然而,由於生質原料分布分散、品質不穩定且加工與使用方式多元,各個階段的差異皆會影響整體環境表現,使得生質能的永續性具有不確定性。必須確認整體生產過程符合環境永續,發展生質能才能確實降低環境衝擊,達到環境永續目標。
本研究評估生質燃料替代燃煤之環境影響。首先以生命週期評估方法,評估桃園市工業鍋爐產熱之環境衝擊,分析棕櫚殼、木顆粒及稻稈顆粒三種生質燃料使用情境,並與使用煤之基線情境比較。再以健康風險評估方法,分析工廠使用煤以及木顆粒燃料兩種情境下,桃園市污染物質NOX、SOX、PM10及PM2.5之年平均濃度,並進一步比較桃園市民眾之吸入性健康風險差異,將健康風險貨幣化。 生命週期評估結果顯示,使用生質燃料可減少46~76%的環境衝擊,可降低人體健康、氣候變遷及資源等類別衝擊,在生態品質的衝擊則增加。在四種燃料中棕櫚殼的衝擊最低,顯示燃料熱值是整體環境表現中影響最大的因子。健康風險評估結果顯示,使用生質能可大幅降低SOX濃度,進而降低民眾的吸入性健康風險。貨幣化結果顯示,健康成本較燃煤情境少926.79百萬元,與增加的生質燃料成本132.28百萬元比較,使用生質燃料可降低整體社會成本。綜合兩種評估結果,使用生質能取代煤對於整體環境、健康及社會都是有益的。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Residue-to-energy is a sustainable way to simultaneously produce energy and reuse bio-waste. Industrial and agriculture residues are potential alternatives to fossil fuels for Taiwan. However, it is worth noting that not all biofuels are sustainable. There are some disadvantages of residue-based biofuels, such as containing low heat value, requiring energy-intensive pretreatment, requiring long distance transportation, as well as generation of airborne pollutants from bioenergy combustion.
In this study, life cycle assessment is used to evaluate the life-cycle environmental impact of four energy scenarios for industrial heating boilers in Taoyuan City: (a) palm kernel shells; (b) wood pellets; (c) rice straw pellets; and (d) coal (business as usual). Similarly, health risk assessment is used to evaluate the potential reduction in inhalation health risk and monetary valuation from using biofuel as an alternative to coal. The LCA results showed that the environmental impacts of three biofuel scenarios had 46-76% lower impacts than those of coal scenario. The palm kernel shells scenario had the lowest environmental impacts, suggesting that the heat value of a bioenergy product was the most important factor in life cycle environmental performance. For the health risk assessment, the results indicated a significant reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from biofuels scenarios, which consequently decreased the health risk for the local population. The monetary valuation was 926.79 million NTD lower than coal scenario, comparing to fuel cost 132.28 million, biofuel was shown to be a better fuel for Social cost. In conclusion, using biofuel to replace coal is beneficial to the environment, human health and society. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:31:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R05541211-1.pdf: 10020686 bytes, checksum: 032760aca7e2ecf4e6b1edbca43a3560 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 I
Abstract II 圖目錄 V 表目錄 VI 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究動機 1 1.2 研究目標 3 第二章 文獻回顧 4 2.1 能源與環境 4 2.1.1 能源使用及再生能源發展概況 4 2.1.2 能源造成之環境污染及健康危害 5 2.2 生質能 7 2.2.1 永續生質能源 8 2.2.2 固態生質燃料 9 2.2.3 臺灣潛在之固態生質燃料 11 2.3 生命週期評估 15 2.3.1 生命週期評估方法 15 2.3.2 衝擊評估模式 18 2.3.3 生質能之生命週期評估 22 2.4 健康風險評估 25 2.4.1 空氣污染與管制 26 2.4.2 桃園市工業鍋爐造成之空氣污染 27 2.4.3 健康風險評估方法 28 2.4.4 空氣污染物傳輸模式AERMOD 31 第三章 研究方法 33 3.1 生命週期評估 33 3.2.1 目標與範疇定義 33 3.2.2 系統邊界、情境及盤查清單 34 3.2.3 敏感性分析 40 3.2.4 不確定性分析 41 3.2 健康風險評估 42 3.3.1 研究案例 42 3.3.2 空氣污染物傳輸模式AERMOD 44 3.3.3 健康風險評估 46 3.3.4 健康效益評估 49 第四章 結果與討論 51 4.1 生命週期評估結果 51 4.1.1 環境損害單項得點 51 4.1.2 環境衝擊與衝擊熱點 53 4.1.3 敏感性分析 55 4.1.4 不確定性分析 57 4.2 健康風險評估 60 4.2.1 空氣污染物質傳輸模擬結果 60 4.2.2 健康風險與成本 65 4.3 綜合討論 70 4.3.1 臺灣固態生質能發展 71 4.3.2 政策之應用與挑戰 72 第五章 結論與建議 74 5.1 結論 74 5.2 建議 75 參考文獻 77 附錄 82 1. 輸入清單 82 2. 環境衝擊熱點與來源 84 3. 敏感性分析結果 99 4. 不確定性分析結果 100 5. AERMOD模式資料 105 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 以殘餘生質物料替代燃煤之生命週期與健康風險評估 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Life Cycle and Health Risk Assessment of Residue-based Bioenergy | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 馬鴻文,羅時芳 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 環境衝擊,空氣污染,固態生質燃料,健康風險,乾淨能源, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Environmental impact,Air pollution,Solid biofuel,Health risk,Clean energy, | en |
dc.relation.page | 107 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803525 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-16 | |
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-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 9.79 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。