館藏書目查詢 > 書目資料
借閱次數 :

我國農業生質能源發展策略評估.第1年/全程1年=Domestic agriculture biomass energy development strategy appraisal

  • 點閱:199
  • 評分:0
  • 評論:0
  • 引用:0
  • 轉寄:0


轉寄 列印
第1級人氣樹(0)
人氣指樹
  • 館藏
  • 簡介
  • 作者簡介
  • 推薦序文
  • 收藏(0)
  • 評論(0)
  • 評分(0)
  • 引用(0)

根據F.O. Licht公司估算2010年燃料酒精產量約8,690萬公秉,其中美國產量4,980萬公秉、巴西2,600萬公秉,巴西與美國產量合計佔全球86%。目前各國發展生質酒精中長程發展目標中,係以推廣第一代酒精為主,但美國是唯一強制規範第二代酒精使用量國家,其主要規範內容為2020年生質燃料使用量為360億加侖,其中傳統生質燃料使用量目標於2015年達到150億加侖後,即不再增加。根據IEA「2010年全球能源展望」報告評估,2009年各國政府對生質燃料補助約為200億美元,預估2010年至2020年每年補助平均將達450億美元,2021年至2035年年補助平均則將進一步提高至650億美元,顯示生質燃料已成為各國發展綠色低碳經濟重要選項之一。


以過去五年國產料源成本結構進行分析,以甘蔗酒精成本最具競爭力。若政府提供甘蔗能源作物每期作每公頃4.5萬元環境補貼,國產甘蔗酒精生產成本每公升約為25.7~28.8元,此時,農民年淨收益可以稻農相當,酒精工廠利潤率約為5%。此一國產酒精生產成本已較進口酒精成本每公升約29.0~35.2元具備競爭力。長期來看,當國際油價年均價達每桶80美元時以上,國產甘蔗酒精和進口酒精相較,已具有競爭力;若從國際機構對於國際油價走勢預估來看,2012年起,我國自產甘蔗酒精將比進口酒精更具成本優勢。隨著國際油價持續走揚,與國產甘蔗酒精生產成本之差距幅度將會擴大。顯示在國際原油價格與國際生質酒精交易價格不斷上升下,國內自產甘蔗酒精競爭力優勢亦將逐漸浮現。


此外,在外部效益方面,使用每公升台灣自產甘蔗酒精替代汽油,與汽油相較將可減少50%~75%二氧化碳,且投入一單位能源最高將可產出3.3單位能源。因此,推廣E3所需之酒精料源建議以CO2減量及能源轉化最具效率之甘蔗優先推廣。待第二代生質酒精生產技術成熟後,除蔗汁外,蔗渣及稻稈亦可作為纖維酒精所需料源。以稻稈及其他纖維料源,搭配休耕地種蔗,已可供應國內推動E10 (100萬公秉酒精)所需料源。


我國應循序導入生質酒精推動,考量不適用酒精汽油車輛汰換週期,建議於2015年起採雙軌制,全面供應95E3酒精汽油與95無鉛汽油,並透過油品使用端定價提供酒精汽油價格優惠,以進行市場滲透與導入,酒精使用量為10萬公秉,優先支持一座酒精工廠所需市場規模。中期建議於2020年開始強制所有汽油皆須添加E3,酒精使用量達30萬公秉。長期2030年起強制使用含10%之酒精汽油(即E10),市場規模約100萬公秉之酒精。


發展生質酒精除了可以提高我國能源自給率,亦可增加相關產業之就業人數,尤其是在農業就業帶動。假設政府提供等同休耕之環境補接每期作每公頃4.5萬元,推動使用30萬公秉酒精,與目前休耕政策相較,政府僅需額外投入新台幣9,900萬元,即可帶動約9,089人直接農業就業;若推動使用100萬公秉酒精,更可創造約12,307人直接農業就業,此一就業效果與2010年農業就業相較,已佔2.24%。此外,除了農業部門外,推動使用30萬公秉酒精,將可帶動工業就業約390人,推動100萬公秉則可帶動約1,150人就業。


當國內使用甘蔗酒精量達30萬公秉時,溫室氣體減量可達約42萬噸,換算成碳交易產值約可達,3億元;使用自產甘蔗酒精量達100萬公秉,溫室氣體減量更可達262萬噸,隱含碳交易產值約可達,32億元。此外,推動強制添加E3採用國產甘蔗酒精,將可替代原油進口0.41%,佔我國能源配比0.12%;長期推動強制添加E10採用國產酒精,將可替代原油進口1.38%,佔我國能源配比0.41%,對我國能源自主與能源多元化利用,有顯著效益。


在總體經濟效果帶動,首先為投資效果。以國內推動E10為例,包含油品配銷端之調整與酒精工廠投資,約可帶動約345億元之一次性投資。此外,每年尚可新增約555億元產值,包含農業產值190億元、酒精工業產值333億元;碳交易產值32億元。其中在農業次產業中,對於代耕產業將可創造每年約80億元產值,新增肥料產值約13億元、種苗業產值約8億元,及農藥產業產值約3億元,對於農村經濟活絡,將產生明顯助益。


According to the estimation by F.O. Licht, the output of fuel alcohol in 2010 was 86.9 million kl, including 49.8 million kl from the US and 26 million kl from Brazil. The total output from Brazil and the US combined was about 86% of the global output. Currently, the long-term development goals for bioethanol in most countries are promoting first-generation alcohol. The US is the only country having issued compulsory regulations on second-generation alcohol consumption. One of the main regulations is that the consumption in 2020 is limited to 36 billion gallons, including an upper limit of 15 billion gallons of bioethanol consumption in 2015, and no more bioethanol consumption after that. According to the estimations in the report of the 2010 World Energy Outlook held by IEA, in 2009, the average of all the governments’ subsidies for bioethanol was 20 billion US dollars. It was expected that the average will increase to 45 billion US dollars during 2010~2020, and 65 billion US dollars during 2021~2035, showing that biofuel has become one of the important choices for all the countries to develope green and low-carbon economics.


 


After analyzing the domestic material cost structure in the past 5 years, sugar cane alcohol was found to be the most competitive in the aspect of cost. If the government can offer an environment subsidy of 45 thousand dollars per hectare per harvest season, the cost of sugar cane alcohol can go down to 25.7~28.8 dollars per liter. If that happens, farmers’ annual net income can be the same as rice farmers, while alcohol factories’ profit is about 5%. This domestic alcohol production cost is more competitive than imported alcohol cost, which is 29.0~35.2 dollars per liter. In the long run, when the international oil price goes up to 80 US dollars per barrel, domestic sugar cane alcohol is much more competitive than imported alcohol. From the aspect of the predicted trend of international oil price by international institutes, since 2012, domestic sugar cane alcohol will be in an advantageous position compared with imported alcohol. With international oil price keeping rising, the cost difference with domestic sugar cane alcohol will increase. As long as international oil price and trade price of bioethanol continue to rise, the advantages in competitiveness of domestic sugar cane alcohol will gradually surface.


In addition, in the aspect of external effects, if gasoline is replaced with domestic sugar cane alcohol, for every liter replaced, about 50%~75% of carbon dioxide can be reduced. And with 1 unit of energy input, up to 3.3 units of energy can be output. Therefore, to promote alcohol material required by E3, it is suggested that sugar cane alcohol should be the first choice for its features of reducing carbon dioxide and high efficiency of energy conversion. Then after the second-generation bioethanol production technology is matured, bagasse and rice straws can be used besides sugar can juice as materials for cellulosic alcohol. If fallow lands can be arranged to grow sugar canes, then use rice straw and other cellulosic materials, there will be enough materials to promote E10 (1 million liters of alcohol) in Taiwan.


In Taiwan, promotion of bioethanol should be implemented step by step. As for when cars not compatible with alcohol gasoline should be replaced, it is suggested that in 2015 the double-track system of totally supplying 95E3 alcohol gasoline and 95 unleaded gasoline should be implemented. Through pricing on the business end, favorable prices of alcohol gasoline can be offered for market penetration and entry. Alcohol consumption is 100 thousand liters, first supporting the market size required by an alcohol factory. In the medium term, it is suggested that in 2020 E3 has to be added to all gasoline with no exception. Alcohol consumption is 300 thousand liters. In the long term, in 2030 people will be forced to use 10% alcohol gasoline (E10). The alcohol market size will reach 1 million liters.


Developing bioethanol can not only increase our self-sufficiency rate for energy, but also create more job opportunities in the related industries, especially the agriculture industry. If the government can offer an environment subsidy of 45 thousand dollars per hectare which equals to the fallow subsidy, only an extra cost of 99 million dallars is required to help about 9,089 people become employed in agriculture. If the government wishes to promote the goal of 1 million liters of alcohol, about 12,307 people can thus be employed in agriculture. This employment effect is about 2.24% of the employment in agriculture in 2010. In addition to agriculture, in case of promoting the goal of 300 thousand liters of alcohol, about 390 people can thus be employed in the industry, and 1,150 people if 1 million liters of alcohol.


When the sugar cane alcohol consumption in Taiwan reaches 300 thousand liters, about 420 thousand tons of greenhouse gas emission, which equals to a trade value of 0.3 billion dollars, can be reduced. While the sugar cane alcohol consumption in Taiwan reaches 1 million liters, about 2.62 million tons of greenhouse gas emission, which equals to a trade value of 3.2 billion dollars, can be reduced. In addition, promoting forced adoption of domestic E3 sugar cane alcohol will lead to 0.41% of crude oil import being replaced, which is 0.12% of the energy in Taiwan. In the long term, promoting forced adoption of domestic E10 sugar cane alcohol will lead to 1.38% of crude oil import being replaced, which is 0.41% of the energy in Taiwan. This is very helpful to the energy independency and energy diversification in Taiwan.


In the aspect of macroeconomics, the first effect occurs should be investment effect. Take promoting E10 in Taiwan for example, a lump sum investment of 34.5 billion dollars, including adjustment on the oil product distribution end and investment in alcohol factories, can be promoted. In addition, every year, output may increase by about 55.5 billion dollars, including 19 billion dollars of agriculture output, 33.3 billion dollars of alcohol industry output, and 3.2 billion dollars of carbon trade. As for the sub-industries of agriculture, 8 billion dollars of output in the fallow industry will be created, additional 1.3 billion dollars in the fertilizer industry, 0.8 billion dollars in the seed industry, and 0.3 billion dollars in the pesticide industry. This would be a great help to facilitate economics in rural areas.


內容簡介來源:

此功能為會員專屬功能請先登入
此功能為會員專屬功能請先登入
此功能為會員專屬功能請先登入
此功能為會員專屬功能請先登入


本文的引用網址: