final group presentation 1
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
1/111
Feasibility of Ethanol in Thailand
Presented by: CEP-KMUTT Research Group An academic exchange between the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
and King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi with the help of Kenan
Institute Asia
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
2/111
Feasibility of Ethanol in Thailand
Faculty Advisors:
1. Associate Dean PojanieKummongkol (KMUTT)
2. Aajarn SuthipongSthiannopakao (KMUTT)
3. Prof Richard Kamens (UNC-Ch)
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
3/111
Feasibility ofEthanol in
Thailand
Why ethanol?
National security Carbon-neutral fuel source
Trade deficit reduction
Domestic economic stimulus
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
4/111
Ethanol in Thailand
What constitutes feasibility?
- Economics
- Technology
- Land Availability/Distribution
- Environment- Society
- Sustainabilityinterrelated nature of these factors
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
5/111
Important Questions
1. What feedstocks fit Thailand? How does this informtechnology?
2. What system ofdistribution (production facilitiesand land ownership among farmers) is best forThailand? How is this decision made? How will thisaffect society?
3. Is ethanol an economic possibility? How does thisinform technology?
4. What are the possible social and environmentalnegatives? How does this inform policy decisions?Economics?
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
6/111
Format of Presentation
Background
Current Government Policy and Price Structure Production Technology
End-Use Technology
Land/Feedstock Availability and Production
Distribution (GIS) Social Implications
Ground-level ozone production in Bangkok (OZIPW)
Conclusions
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
7/111
BACKGROUND
In 1977, the federal government set up the Ethanol
Production from Sugarcane Committee
In 1978, the government changed the name of this
committee to the Ethanol Production from Agricultural
Residue Committee
In 1980, the Ministry of Industry announced the policy to
produce ethanol as a fuel by regulating the standards
used to determine the establishment of ethanol plant
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
8/111
Pilot-scale Production of Power Alcohol from Cassava was
entrusted to the Thailand Institute of Scientific and
Technological Research by the Cabinets approval inJanuary 1981
1. In 1997,Thailands economy crashed and OPEC
decreased their production of oil causing the retail price of
gasoline began to increase.
2. In 1999, Thailand lost money to imported oil- more than
1,680 million baht
ethanol production project on September 19, 1999
BACKGROUND
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
9/111
The government considered to solve these problem
by setting up the ethanol production project on 19
September 1999
The ministry of Industry was entrusted to set up the
National Ethanol Committee by the Thai Cabinet sapproval
BACKGROUND
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
10/111
CURRENT GOVERNMENT POLICYand Ethanol Price Structures
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
11/111
1.Raw Material Measure
Coordinate with the Ministry of Agriculture and cooperativesto determine the production plan of raw material supply
Raw materials must be: stable price
Produced to export
The possible raw materials for Thailand are cassava, sugarcane,cassava, sugarcane,and molasses.molasses.
The National Ethanol Committee relate
with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
12/111
Raw material cost per unit of ethanol production
* Average cost all Kingdom at farm, plantation year 1999/2000** Average cost all Kingdom at farm, plantation year 1998/1999
Office of Agricultural Economics and office of Committee on Sugarcane and Cane Sugar
ra w m a te r ia lc o s t p e r k i lo g r a me th a n o l p r o d u c t i o n p e r R a w m a t . C o s t p e r
(b a h t/to n ) u n i t o f ra w m a t . ( li te r /to n )o f e th a n o l ( b a h t /li t
m o la s s e s 1 5 0 0 2 6 5 5 .6 7
s u g a rc a n e * 6 0 0 7 0 8 .5 7
c a s s a v a * * 8 5 0 1 7 0 5
s o rg h u m * * 2 9 0 0 7 0 4 1 .4 3
c o r n * * 3 5 3 0 3 7 5 9 .4 1
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
13/111
Cassava policy
Cassava yield = 2600 kilograms per rai
Dose notDose not promote farmer to expand the planted area toincrease the quantity
Support the use ofnew speciesnew species with higher yieldshigher yields.
The office of Agricultural Economics formulates cassava plan forplantation year 2001/2002
To stabilize the price of cassava throughout the seasonTo promote and support production of new value added
products such as alcohol.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
14/111
Conclusion
To stabilize the price of cassava will result in:
the cost stabilization of ethanol produced from cassavafeedstock.
the price of cassava in the world market will not affect ethanolproduction business.
To ensure a steady demand for farmer to produce adequateamounts of cassava to meet investors requirement.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
15/111
2. Financial and Investment Measure
Tax and the amount of surcharge collected structureTax and the amount of surcharge collected structure
I) An excise tax of fuel alcohol = 0.05 baht/liter
II) The excise tax of octane 95 and octane 91 unleaded gasoline =3.685 baht per liter
III) Municipal tax collected is 10% of excise tax
IV) Oil Fund has been 0.5 baht/liter for octane 95 and 0.3 baht/liter for octane 91.Energy Conservation Fund equal to 0.04 baht per liter for
octane 95 and octane 91 unleaded gasoline
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
16/111
2.1 Tax and Price Measures
The National Ethanol Committee approves the excise taxmeasure and gasohol price policy
a) Coordinate with the Ministry of Finance to exempt theexcise tax for fuel ethanol.
b) Regulate the ethanol fraction in gasohol at 10% andreduces the gasohol excise tax by 10%.
c) Coordinate with NEPO to exempt or reduce the amount ofsurcharge collected from Oil Fund and Energy Conservation Fund for
gasohol (ethanol price is lower than octane 95 gasoline 1 baht/liter).
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
17/111
Price structure of gasoline and gasohol
on March 8, 2000 (unit: baht/liter)
Source: NEPO
Items ULG 95 R ULG 91 R Regular Condt. Exempt Tax and
Surcharge CollectedEx- Refin.(Avg) 9.0265 8.6151 8.8591* 8.8536**
Excise Tax 3.685 3.685 3.685 3.3165
Municipal Tax 0.3865 0.3685 0.3685 0.3317
Oil Fund 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.27***
En. Consv.Fund 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.036***
holesale price(WS 13.8 13.0086 13.4526 12.8078
VAT 0.966 0.9106 0.9417 0.8965
WS+VAT 14.766 13.9192 14.3943 13.7043
Marketing Margin 1.4243 1.2811 1.2811 1.482
VAT 0.0997 0.0897 0.0897 0.1037
Retail Price 16.29 15.29 15.77 15.29
Gasohol 95
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
18/111
d) The National Ethanol Committee willconsider the establishment of an Ethanol Price
Stabilization Fund
The Committee wants the ethanol price to be stable toassure that
the factory can produce ethanol
to assure raw material price from the farmer.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
19/111
The Ethanol Price Stabilization fund
MTBE price that is not stable, depends on the oil price in theworlds market.
When MTBE price is lower than ethanol price, the refineryplant will not consider using ethanol.
When ethanol price is lower than the price of MTBE, theethanol plant will receive a large profit without distribution ofthat profit to farmers.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
20/111
The Ethanol Price Stabilization fund (cont..)
To solve these problem by
collecting extra profit that arise from such conditions
pay the ethanol plant when the price of ethanol is higher than
the price of MTBE.
The stability that this policy will provide will ensure that the price ofethanol never exceeds that of MTBE.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
21/111
2.2 The Other Measures
a) Coordinate with the Ministry of Finance to grantpermission to the investor to sale ethanol within domestic fuelmarket.
b) Coordinate with the Ministry of Industry to instruct
Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) to consider co-investmentin production of fuel ethanol and also distribution and sale ofgasohol.
c) The Ministry of Finance urges the Thai Cabinet to cutthe tax on vehicles that run on alternative fuels such as ethanol.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
22/111
3.Privilege Measure
The investor will receive maximum privileges andincentives provided by Board of Investment (BOI)
Under the Priority Activities Program:1) ethanol companies will be allowed an eight-year
corporate tax holiday,regardless of location
2) will be able to import ethanol plant machinerywithout paying duties, regardless of location
For a newly establishment projects, the Companies must
have a ratio of liabilities : registered capitals not excess of 3 :
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
23/111
4.Usage Promotion Measure
Coordinate with government agencies and stateenterprises:
To set the priority use of gasohol for all official cars,
To run campaigns for general public to give information ongasohol and promote the use of gasohol.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
24/111
5.Production Quality Measure
a) Coordinates with the Ministry of Industry toreview and update ethanol and gasohol standards.
b) Coordinates with the Ministry of Commerce to
review the Ministry Announcement on GasolineQuality Definitionor
add definition of gasohol quality in particular in orderto support the use of ethanol as fuel.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
25/111
6.Other Support Measure
Other support measures proposed by the proponent can besubmitted for consideration.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
26/111
Production Technology
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
27/111
Production Technology
Ethanol can be produced from simple sugars
by fermentation Ethanol via fermentation can utilize a variety
of feedstocks- sugar, starch, biomass
How do feedstocks inform technology?
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
28/111
Production Technology
Non-saccharine feedstocks must be saccharified to fermentablesugars
Starch feedstocks
-rely on mature, conventional technology
-has been researched and is currently used in Thailand
Biomass feedstocks
-require advanced technology for hydrolysis of cellulosic orlignocellulosic material, various technologies exist such as acid,
steam disruption, GMOs
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
29/111
Saccharification of Feedstocks:
Conventional Technology
Starchy materials may be liquefied and
saccharified using mature enzymetechnology
Pretreatment Liquefication Saccharification Fermentation
*Based on conventional conversion technology- Shreves Chemical Process
Industries. McGraw-Hill International Editions. 1984.
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
30/111
Advanced Technology
Biomass conversion Refined use of acid hydrolysis
-dilute processes-concentrated processes
Intense research and ever-increasing use of enzyme developments
-Genetically engineered bacteria and fungi and enzyme production Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation, SSF
Simultaneous Saccharification and Co-Fermentation, SSCF Such technologies have yet to achieve widespread commercialization
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
31/111
Saccharification of Feedstocks:
A Concentrated Acid Example
*www.arkenol.com
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
32/111
Saccharification of Feedstocks:
A Dilute Acid Example
BC International Corporation boasts asimplified biomass to ethanol processemploying a marriage of dilute acid andenzymatic technologies
Various ag.residues, forexample rice
hulls
Dilute acidtreatment to
release sugars
GMO, KO11producesalcohol
Tofurther
distillation
*Flow diagram adapted from www.bcintlcorp.com
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
33/111
Economic Trends
*Wyman, Charles. Biomass Ethanol: Technical Progress, Opportunities, and
Commercial Challenges. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1999.
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
34/111
Economic Trends
The previous slide indicates that the cost ofethanol has decreased consistently with advances
in enzyme technology The greatest areas for cost reduction are found in
the initial processes of cellulose to ethanoltechnology and these potential reductions are
significant-as low as $0.50/gal to $0.34/gal asprojected by Chem Systems and NREL studies
*Wyman, Charles. Biomass Ethanol: Technical Progress, Opportunities, andCommercial Challenges. Annu. Rev. Enerby Environ. 1999.
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
35/111
Technology in the Future and
Projected Cost Reductions
Completely enzymatic processes-no acid or explosion treatment, only hot water and
enzymes NREL estimates potential $0.14/gal and $0.19/gal
reductions for concentrated and dilute acidprocesses respectively
However, the greatest reductions are still estimated
to come from implementation of completelyenzymatic processes
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
36/111
Conclusions
Thailand has the capability to produce ethanol usingconventional technologies
As the market expands and advanced technologiesmature, greater amounts of cheaper ethanol may beproduced
The suggestion given here is for foresight, flexibility, and
diversity. Ultimately, specific analyses will have to be performed to
determine when and where newer technology may beimplemented
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
37/111
END USE TECHNOLOGY
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
38/111
1. ALCOHOL-GASOLINE BLENDING
2. ALCOHOL-DIESEL FUEL BLENDING
DIVIDED IN 2 PARTS
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
39/111
10% ethanol blend doesnt change significantly properties of gasoline.
Above 15% by volume, negative effects begin to appear(found in a fleet test conducted of motor cars in Thailand)
Hydrated ethanol (95% to 96% purity) has a cost advantage over
the anhydrous ethanol (purity 99% and higher)
Hydrous ethanol causes corrosive effects
The blended fuel tends to separate into 2 layers when a small content of
ethanol and if the ambient temperature drops towards the freezing point
1. ALCOHOL-GASOLINE BLENDING
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
40/111
9.55
10.29
8 9 10 11
TOTAL
Km/L
gasohol
gasoline
Fuel mileage comparison betweenGasohol Vs Gasoline engine (Saengbangpla, 2001)
Total in graph is summarized in size, age, used or un-used catalytic converter,brand name, European or Japanese,injection or carburetor engine and type offuel (octane 91 or 95)
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
41/111
% Ethanol 0 10 20 30
Heat J/Kg 10
6
41,880 40,323 38,363 37,234Relative Calorific Value 1.0 0.96 0.92 0.89
Octane Number (FI) 95 96.7 - -
A/F ration 15 14.7 14.2 14.05Latent heat of evaporation cal/cc 54.5 64.8 75.8 86.4
Density Kg/liter 0.7500 0.7530 0.7560 0.7590
Temp. of Vapor Lock. F - 112 114 116
Properties of Gasohol
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
42/111
Gasohol use by various vehicles in Thailand(Saengbangpla, 2001). This shows that there are many
different potential consumers of gasohol.
1300 cc
9.9% 1500 cc
14.3%
1600 cc
28.6%1800 cc
13.2%
2000 cc
16.5%
>2300 cc
7.7%
other
9.9%
OCTANE
95
66.3%
OCTANE
91
33.7%
Carburetor
31.5%
Injection
68.5%
Catalytic
Convertor
70.9%
No
Catalytic
Convertor
29.1%
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
43/111
Effect of using gasohol in engine
Exhaust gas %% ethanol
NOx Acetad
ehyde
THC CO
Consumption fuel %
7.5 catalyticconverter 10.7 90.7 8.5 23.2
7.5 No catalytic
converter13.4 133.1 - -
1.4
15 catalytic
converter
15.2 231 6.2 39.1
15 No catalytic
converter12.2 295.1 - -
3.3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
44/111
USING GASOHOL
advantage
do not need to extensmodify engine for usi
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
45/111
Diesel fuel blend containing up to 20% anhydrous ethanol
can be used to run unmodified diesel engines.
Higher ethanol conc. tend to delay ignition by compression
QUENCH EFFECT
An emulsifier was added when blending hydrated ethanolwith diesel fuel...engines running on this blend suffered
noticeable quench and misfiring
2. ALCOHOL-DIESEL FUEL BLENDING
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
46/111
This level blend attacks incompatible parts of fuel system
and causes considerable changes in fuel characteristics
Must use a high compression ratio or ignition improver
Must modify diesel-engine alcohol-engine
Add some equipment for feed process (feed ethanol)
2. ALCOHOL-DIESEL FUEL BLENDING (continue)
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
47/111
Effect of using Diesohol in engine
Exhaust gas%15 % ethanol
Smoke Dust THC CO
Direct Injection 76.9% 93.5% 383.8% 130%
Indirect Injection(No Elective Pump)
30.8% 526.9% 479.2% 206.4%
Indirect Injection
(Elective Pump)26.8% 8.5% 25% 12%
Catalytic Converter 50% 50% 50% 50%
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
48/111
10% ethanol is the best percentage
Power when %Ethanol
Effect on some type of rubber and plastic equipment
Emulsifier must be added when blending hydratedethanol with diesel fuel
The exhaust gases will increase when the ethanol is
injected the feed process must be adjusted through
further research and development
CONCLUSION
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
49/111
Land/Feedstock Availability andProduction Distribution
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
50/111
Feedstocks
Major Potential Feedstocks: Cassava
Sugarcane (molasses)
Future Possibilities (lignocellulosic
technology)
Agricultural ResiduesBiogases
Rice Husk
Industry biomass Waste
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
51/111
Price of Possible Feedstocks
Selling Price of feedstocks at the farm
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2000
June July Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
2001
Jan.
Feb.
March April
May June
baht/ton
Cassava Sugar Cane Molasse (yearly average 2000)
Selling Price of Feedstocks at the Farm (data from 2000 Ministry ofIndustry)
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
52/111
Cassava
75% Exported (around 12 million tons) environmentally Sustainable
Drought resistant Small Scale farms (0.5-2 HA) Low maintenance (pesticides/fertilizers)
Cassava Chips Chips produced in high season and stored (low price)
Drying Process-Environmental Impacts 50% inmprovement/government loans Converting 10% of Thailand petrol consumption
to ethanol would require approximately 4.64million tons of cassava a year *
* Mark Jones, Ford Motors, personal email communication 2001
Cassava Production
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
53/111
Cassava Production
1998 Cassava Produ0
1 - 1000010001 - 5000050001 - 100000100001 - 20000200001 - 40000400001 - 60000600001 - 80000800001 - 100001000001 - 1500
1990 All weathetwo or more lan
Railroads
Cassava Production 1999 (data from Office of Agricultural Statistics)
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
54/111
Sugar Cane/ Molasses
As agricultural markets are variable, a wise policywould rely on more than one feedstock
molasses (supplementary feedstock) seasonal (Nov. to March) 50% of the molasses exported
easily converted to ethanol production
this surplus (around 1 million liters) would be sufficient toproduce, daily, 800,000 liters of ethanol per a day* and notinterfere with domestic market
facilities could easily be annexed to present sugarcane production plants
* Sriroth, Kesestart University
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
55/111
Sugar cane production 98/99 (tons)01 - 200000
200001 - 400000400001 - 600000
600001 - 800000800001 - 10000001000001 - 20000002000001 - 30000003000001 - 40000004000001 - 50000005000001 - 100000000
All weather hard surface roads,
two or more lanes
Railroads
Thailand Sugar Production 1998/99 (Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 1999)
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
56/111
Distribution (GIS)
Plant location can have significant economic, social,
and environmental consequences. North Eastern Thailand
Centralized vs. Decentralized
A GIS (Geographic Information System) was used tomodel locations of various possible feedstocks,
infrastructure, population, and economic data
Best locations for f t re ethanol plants
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
57/111
KAMPAENG PHET
KALASINCHAIYAPHUM
PHITSANULOK
KHON KAEN
SA KAEO
PHACHINBURI
CHANTHABURI
UTHAI THANI
NAKHON SAWAN
KANCHANABURI
CHAINAT
LOPBURI
RATCHABURI
Economic Distribution 1998Per Capita GPP (baht)
0 - 2000020001 - 3000030001 - 4000040001 - 5000050001 - 6000060001 - 100000100001 - 200000
Good locations for plant
Regional best locations
for plants
Railroads
Best locations for future ethanol plantsbased on Cassava Production and GPP
highest cassava producingprovinces with GPP below70,000 baht/capita wereselected for each province
then one province was selctedbased on casssava productionfor a more centralized plantlocation
Possible Plant Locations
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
58/111
BURIRAM
CHAIYAPHUM LOEI UDON THANI
KHON KAEN
MAHA SARAKHAM
MUKDAHAN
KALASIN
NAKHON RATCHASIMA
SAKON NAKHON
Possible Plant LocationsNorth East
Gross Provincial Product (baht/capita)
0 - 2000020001 - 3000030001 - 4000040001 - 5000050001 - 6000060001 - 100000100001 - 200000200001 - 300000
-
1998 Cassava Production (greater tahn 100,000 tons)175955 - 211092211093 - 323816323817 - 383467383468 - 798259798260 - 1005898
Railroads
Provinces were
selected that had aGPP less than 30,000
baht/year and at least
100,000 tons of Sugar
Cane and Cassava
produced a year
Kalasin, Khon Kaen,
and Chaiyaphum top
provinces
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
59/111
5000000
4500000
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
Province (tons)
North East Plant Locations Sugar Cane Production 1998/99
UDON THANI
SAKON NAKHON
LOEI
KALASIN
MAHA SARAKHAM
MUKDAHAN
CHAIYAPHUM
KHON KAEN
Khon Kaen (cassava) and Udon Thani (Sugar Cane)
would be ideal locations for centralized plant due to
production and proximity to petrolium refineries
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
60/111
Impacts
North Eastern Thailand very impoverished
average annual per capita GPP of less than 30,000 baht Ethanol production
increased local employment increassed infastructure higher personal incomes
potential for future industrial growth
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
61/111
Conclusions
Distribution Throughout Thailand heavily concentrated in the Northeast
95 % (anhydrous) decentralized plants to 100% centalizedplants Regional Centralized Facilities located near petrolium
refineries Ideal size 10,000 gallons of ethanol a day
common selling commercial plant size) easily regulated (black Market Ethanol sales
(Klanarong Sriroth 2001)
Sustainable Transportation (biodeisel/ neat ethanol trucks)
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
62/111
Ethanol and Society
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
63/111
Ethanol and Society
Premise: improving the welfare of the rural poorimproves welfare of the country as a whole (the
converse is also true)Ultimategoal: ensure that welfare of this sector of
society does not depreciate (and ideally appreciates)
How to assess potential social effects?
Brazilian and local experiences
A guide to policy!!
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
64/111
Ethanol and Society
Questions:
What is the current economic status ofthe rural agricultural sector?rural vs urbanregional differences
What are the potential social negatives?Rural Displacement/Urban MigrationJob Loss, Rural Poverty, Instability
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
65/111
Ethanol and Society
Questions: Land constraints?
little room for growth without overtaking otheragricultural land?? negative socially?will push Thailand in an agriculturally intensive
direction -- GOOD
How can Thailand assure economic benefitsflow to those who are most in need?
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
66/111
Ethanol and Society
Thailand Demographics:
Income gaps and Economic divisionsRural vs UrbanCentral vs North and NortheastAgriculture vs Industry
Past 20 years: gaps increasing rapidly 1997 Economic Crash
Lots of potential labor
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
67/111
Ethanol and Society Farm Incomes by Region(Agricultural Statistics of Thailand,
2000):
Region:
Item
Northeast North Central South Kingdom
Average
Farm Income 38,813.97 63,559.25 163,478.02 80,857.49 68,659.05
FarmExpense 23,817.55 39,369.48 102,223.45 37,626.74 40,721.20
Net FarmCash Income
14,996.42 24,189.78 61,254.57 43,230.46 27,937.86
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
68/111
Ethanol and Society
Three social imperatives
positive job creation of equal or greater valuethan previous employmentBrazil
fair land distribution (decentralization)Small-scale
LOCAL reinvestment
How does this inform policy decisions??
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
69/111
Ethanol and Society
Policy
Short-term financial insurance for ethanolworkers until diversity of feedstocks is
achieved
Protect againstconsolidation; ensure job
creation in spite ofmechanization Contract Farming and Cooperatives
source of power for small farmers
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
70/111
Ethanol and Society
Policy Federal taxes to be reinvestedpubliclyinto
rural agricultural areas contributing to ethanolprogram:Tax the net cassava and/or ethanol price
(between 1-5%)
Reserve a percentage of the net savings intrade balance
Ethanol Price Stabilization Fund tax ethanolplants profit when ethanol price is low
Rural autonomy
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
71/111
Ethanol and Society
Local Parallels and Opportunities: Small Power Producers (SPP) program
Positive internal rate of return (IRR)Electricity and for ethanol programExtra income
Cooperatives: agricultural sectorCommunity voice for bargaining power
Ease transition into ethanol programHelp maintain the small-scale structure already in place(especially with cassava)
Biodiesel production in the South Fuel ethanol transportation trucks Improve carbon balance
Include the South in the ethanol program
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
72/111
Ethanol and Society
Conclusion: High potential for socio-economic
development and improvement in rural
agricultural regions
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
73/111
Environment:Ground-level Ozone
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
74/111
Environmental ImpactsLand Degradation
Ethanol Spill
Atmosphere Ethanol in fuel will add additional aldehyde to the
atmosphere O3 GROUND-LEVEL OZONE
Associated with numerous health effects in humans and plants
A primary constituent ofsmog
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
75/111
QuestionsHow will increased ethanol use affect ground-
level ozone concentrations in the BMR
(Bangkok Metropolitan Region)?
How will other compounds (i.e. VOCs, NOx)affect ozone production in the BMR?
How effective a tool is OZIPW for the BMR ingauging these questions?
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
76/111
OZIPW (Ozone Isopleth plotting package Windows): Simple atmospheric trajectorymodel:
Wind
direction
Mixing
Height
Mornin
g
Aftern
oon
VOCs
andNO
xemiss
ions
Mixing from
aloft
sun
O3O3
O3 O3O3
O3O3
O3O3
O3O3
O3
O3
Wind
direction
Mixing
Height
Mornin
g
Aftern
oon
VOCs
andNO
xemiss
ions
Mixing from
aloft
sun
O3O3
O3 O3O3
O3O3
O3O3
O3O3
O3
O3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
77/111
Example ozone concentration graph fromOZIPW
O3
NO NO2
Time in hours
Con
c.p
pm
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
78/111
Localize the model to the BMR
NOx, VOC, CO, and aldehyde emissions
(kg/km2)
Temperature, humidity, mixing height Wind speed and direction Motor vehicle fleet breakdown (i.e. types of
vehicles and their emissions)
Ambient ground-level ozone levels
Uses different photochemical mechanisms(CALCM, CB4CM)
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
79/111
Basic Procedure1. Is OZIPW sufficiently representing the BMR
atmosphere? Run OZIPW with local emissions and meteorological data
and obtain graph Make composite graph of real ozone data Compare ambient data with OZIPW output with no
changes made
2. Gauging effects of O3 formation from ethanol use:
add localized atmospheric and ambient data add additional aldehydeemissions changes to other emissions due to ethanol use
Aldehyde chemistry represented in the model already
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
80/111
Acetaldehyde Chemistry in CB4
ALD2 + O. C2O3 +OH 1.739E+04 @ 986
ALD2 + OH C2O3 1.037E+04 @-250
ALD2 +NO3 C2O3+HNO3 3.700 E+00
ALD2 XO2 + 2*HO2 + CO + FORM1.000E-03 /R5;
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
81/111
Establish the model represents
Bangkok Atmoshpere
Composite graphs of ozone and NOx for
Bangkok atmosphere One low-ozone day (March 8, 2000), one high-
ozone day (March 12, 2000)
Ambient ground-level ozone and NOx inBangkok Several stations located throughout the BMR
Wind data (direction and speed)
Map of BMR
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
82/111
Bangkok
Example Diagram: Application of Wind
Data
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
83/111
Bangkok
1
2
3 4
5
6
Application of Wind Data
4
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
84/111
2
3
4
5
March 8, 200
6
6
March 12, 2000
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
85/111
Low Ozone Day Compilation Table timescale based on wind speed and direction
8-Mar-00
Station Time NO` NO2 NOx O3
Singhara 600 2 10 12 17
700 2 14 16 13800 3 16 18 16
Thonburi 900 61 38 99, 7
1000 65 39 104, 10
1100 42 41 83, 9
1200 27 35 61, 20
Huai Khwang 1300 30 40 70, 24
Chog Chai 1400 32 35 67, 261500 42 40 83, 18
1600 39 40 78, 19
1700 48 38 87, 16
1800 60 38 99, 8
1900 84 37 121, 2
2000 78 30 108, 1
2100 59 31 89, 1
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
86/111
March 8, 2000 low ozone dayConcentration 3-8-00 low ozone Norther
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100
concentra
tion
in
ppb
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
87/111
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
88/111
OZIPW graphs for comparison to
ambient data
NOx, VOC, and CO emissions
(kg/km2)Temperature, humidity, mixing
heightTime data (extrapolate total
emissions into hourly)
Output Graphs
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
89/111
Table For Total BMR Vehicle VOC Emissions*
VOC emissions
# of cars VOC/mile (g) VOC/km (g) mi/vehicle km/vehicle total VOC (g)
Car regular 1230388 0.35 0.21875 34.95 55.92 15050721.21
diesel 22033 0.35 0.21875 34.94 55.904 269441.557
Light Truck regular 116448 0.48 0.3 48.24 77.184 2696376.73
diesel 831442 0.51 0.31875 55.08 88.128 23355870.93Medium Truckregular 1,672 0.51 0.31875 44.43 71.088 37886.3496
diesel 88,986 0.51 0.31875 55.08 88.128 2499687.929
Heavy Truck regular 5 0 0 0
diesel 33085 2.18 1.3625 49.89 79.824 3598331.217
Tuk Tuk regular 8,301 no info no info
diesel no info no info
Motorcycle regular 1799801 6.18 3.8625 12.26 19.616 136365162.4
diesel 390 no info no infoTaxi regular 62598 0.35 0.21875 34.95 55.92 765730.035
diesel 123 no info no info
Bus regular 1323 no info no info
diesel 37067 2.18 1.3625 49.89 79.824 143889.7446
Total VOC's by all transportation sources = 184783098grams
184783.098kgrams*Pollution Control Department
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
90/111
Meterological Data* was inputted into
the model:
STATION: 455201 BANGKOK METROPOLIS YEAR,
date wind speed (knots) wind speed (km/hr) wind direction (degrees)
8-Mar 13 23.92 200
12-Mar 14 25.76 260
TEMP(C) TEMP(K) TEMP(C) TEMP(K)
7 27.9 300.9 25.8 298.8
8 29.1 302.1 26.1 299.1
9 30.1 303.1 29.4 302.4
10 32.2 305.2 31.2 304.2
11 32 305 32.4 305.4
12 33.5 306.5 33.4 306.4
13 33.7 306.7 34.4 307.4
14 33.5 306.5 35.3 308.3
15 33.6 306.6 35.7 308.7
16 33.6 306.6 35.7 308.7
17 32.9 305.9 35.4 308.4
18 31.7 304.7 33.4 306.4
19 30.2 303.2 31.1 304.1
20 29.3 302.3 29.9 302.9
8-Mar 12-Mar
TIME
DateMixing HeightInitial (meters)
Mixing HeightFinal (meters)
March 8, 2000 850 1030
March 12, 2000 100 610
*Department of Meteorology
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
91/111
Emissions data extrapolated hourly
over the course of the day:
E m i s s i o nk g / k m 2 / d
9
*This table shows time distribution of emissions data by hour according tothe Bureau of Land Transportation, and accounts for percent hourly emissions.
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
92/111
We then comparedthe model outputwith ambient NOxand O3 data
Comparison between PCD Graph data with
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
93/111
OZIPW Graph data (Low Ozone day)
Concentration 3-8-00 lowozone Northern
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100
time in hours
concentratio
At 3/8/00 Initial condition , Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Concentratio
Comparison between PCD Graph data with
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
94/111
OZIPW Graph data (High Ozone day)
Concentration 3-12-00 High Ozone
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100
time in hours
concentrationi
At 3/12/00 Initial condition, Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentra
tio
NO2NO
O3
Next OZIPW inputs were changed to
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
95/111
Next, OZIPW inputs were changed togauge the effect of ethanol on the BMR
atmosphere.
The following sets of trials were run:
Aldehydes were increased to representdifferences from ethanol use in the BMR. VOCs increased and decreased Comparisons between MTBE and ethanol
were made with respect to catalytic andnon-catalytic vehicles.* Finally the different mechanism files were
changed to ensure continuity.Thummarat Thummadetsak, et.al. (1999) Effect of Gasoline Compositions and Propertieson Tailpipe Emissions of Currently Existing Vehicles in Thailand, SAE International.
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
96/111
Comparison between initial condition withadding ALD 20% of VOCs (Low Ozone day)
At 3/8/00 Initial condition , Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.
Time(min)
Concentrati
At 3/8/00addALD20%toTrial 1, Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentrati
NO2
NO
O3
ppm
ppm
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
97/111
Comparison between initial condition withadding ALD 20% of VOCs (High Ozone day)
At 3/12/00Initial condition, Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentrati
NO2
NO
O3
At 3/12/00addALD20%of VOC, Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentrati
NO2
NO
O3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
98/111
Comparison between using EtOH 7.5 %(withcatalyts) with MTBE 7.5 % (Low Ozone Day)
At 3/8/00 addALD20%toTrial 1, Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Conc
entrati
NO2
NO
O3
At 3/8/00compare usedEtOH7.5withMTBE7.5(Catalyst - EquippedVehicle)
, Mec.CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentrati
NO2
NO
O3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
99/111
Comparison between using EtOH 7.5 %(withcatalyts) with MTBE 7.5 % (High Ozone day)
At 3/12/00 addALD20%of VOC, Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Conc
entrati
NO2
NO
O3
At 3/12/00compare usedEtOH7.5%withMTBE7.5%(Catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle), Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentrati
NO2
NO
O3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
100/111
Comparison between using EtOH 15 %(withcatalyts) with MTBE 7.5 % (Low Ozone day)
At 3/8/00 add ALD20%to Trial 1, Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Conc
entratio
NO2
NO
O3
At 3/8/00compare usedEtOH15%withMTBE15%(Catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle) , Mec.CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.450.50
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentratio
NO2
NO
O3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
101/111
Comparison between using EtOH 15 %(withcatalyts) with MTBE 7.5 % (High Ozone day)
At 3/12/00 addALD20%of VOC, Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Conc
entrati
NO2
NO
O3
At 3/12/00compare usedEtOH15%withMTBE15%(Catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle), Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentrati
NO2
NO
O3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
102/111
Comparison between cat-car with non-cat-car (EtOH 7.5% low ozone day)
At 3/8/00 compare usedEtOH7.5withMTBE7.5 (Catalyst - EquippedVehicle)
, Mec.CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentratio
NO2
NO
O3
At 3/8/00Compare usedEtOH7.5withMTBE7.5(Noncatalyst - Equipped
Vehicle) , Mec.CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentratio
NO2
NO
O3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
103/111
Comparison between cat-car with non-cat-car (EtOH 7.5% high ozone day)
At 3/12/00compare usedEtOH7.5%withMTBE7.5%(Catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle), Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Conc
entrati
NO2
NO
O3
At 3/12/00compare usedEtOH7.5%withMTBE7.5%(Noncatalyst-Equipped
Vehicle), Mec. CALCM.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
Time (min)
Concentrati
NO2
NO
O3
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
104/111
Ideal table if all relevant information were
available demonstratespossibilites:
Vehicle Type Number of Number of Number of Emissions, all Emissions, all
Vehciles (total) Vehciles (per km2) km/vehicle (kg/km/vehicle) (kg/km2)
in BMR* traveled
Total catalyst
non-catalyst
Car regular
dieselLight Truck regular
diesel
Medium Truck regular
diesel
Heavy Truck regular
diesel
Tuk Tuk regular
diesel
Motorcycle 2-stroke
4-stroke
Taxi regular
diesel
Bus regular
diesel
Ethanol Vehicles E-10
E-85
Neat
Biodiesel light
heavy
Total* =
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
105/111
General Conclusions:
By adding ethanol to the fuel there will be increases inthe amount of ground-level ozone produced in theBMR due to the additional aldehyde emissions.
Decrease in VOC will increase ozone further
Low ozone days will experience greater increases in
ozone than high ozone days.
Little difference between catalytic and non-catalytic cars
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
106/111
General Conclusions:
OZIPW is a viable modeling program tosimulate atmospheric conditions in the BMR.
Basic policy questions specific to ethanoland the BMR can be answered by usingthis model.
Locally speaking, it is still unclear if
ethanol use will make the air cleaner inBangkok!
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
107/111
Ideas For Further Study:
The relationship between NOx and ground-level
ozone production: ethanol vehicles will increase
NOx potentially more ozone
Effect ethanol will have on increasing
Peroxyacetylnitrate (PAN): a source of NO2
drive O3 formation reactions.
Accurate and detailed data from the BMR isneeded to more comprehensively predict changes in
ozone production.
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
108/111
Conclusion
FEASIBILITY of ethanol production anduse in Thailand: Conclusions can be divided into two
sections:SHORT-TERM
LONG-TERM
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
109/111
Conclusion
Short-Term Can provide 10 percent substitution from the amount of
cassava exported Limited to conventional technologies
Need a government support program to ensure pricecompetitiveness
Can provide net increase in jobs (of equal or better quality)
in rural agricultural areas Production facility distribution should be mid to large size
Land-ownership distribution should remain decentralized
Will likely increase ground-level ozone concentrations in theBMR
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
110/111
Conclusion
Long-term Possible to increase 10 percent replacement value as technology
and feedstock diversity matures (i.e. significant potential for growthwithout inflicting on society or the environment)
Good investment due to increasing price trend of oil
Public reinvestment of revenues from the ethanol program mustoccur in the rural areas responsible for its success
The OZIPW can provide an inexpensive and quick tool to informpolicy questions regarding atmospheric quality in the BMR
-
8/8/2019 Final Group Presentation 1
111/111
Conclusion
SUSTAINABILITY DESIRABILITY Co-related
Combine economic/technolgic realities with socialand environmental necessities
Beyond definition of feasibility is the ethanolprogram desirable?
Sustainability: Ethanol program must sustainneeds of the current society without inflicting onthe needs future societies