- 學位論文
結合健康風險評估與能源流分析探討台灣燃煤發電規劃之健康衝擊
Combining Energy Flow Analysis and Health Risk Assessment to Evaluate the Health Impact of Coal Fire Power Plants Development Strategy in Taiwan
摘要
根據能源局統計2007年台灣電力發電結構，燃煤發電占比為53.6%，由能源局公佈中長程電源開發計畫，至2025年，我國燃煤發電佔比為43.18%，在未來二十年內，燃煤發電仍為我國主要電力來源。而根據2007年重金屬排放清冊統計，燃煤發電為我國主要重金屬排放來源，因此本研究結合能源流分析與燃煤電廠風險評估，探討燃煤電廠供給電力所造成之健康風險。本研究探討燃煤電力現況與未來燃煤電源開發規劃兩個情境。 在風險評估結果的部分，現況-基線年燃煤電廠，致癌風險範圍在1.88E-09至7.80E-07之間，非致癌風險在3.45E-05至1.23E-02之間；電源開發規劃情境，致癌風險在8.05E-09至3.45E-06之間，非致癌風險在2.40E-04至2.23E-02之間。電源開發規劃情境，更新的各燃煤電廠之風險，因發電量的增加，而有增高的趨勢。各燃煤電廠致癌風險貢獻主要途徑為吸入，致癌風險貢獻主要污染物為砷；非致癌風險貢獻主要途徑為吸入；風險貢獻主要污染物為砷及汞。 以各燃煤電廠發電量及風險評估結果，估算單位發電量風險，基線年各電廠的單位發電量致癌風險以深澳電廠基隆市最高，為1.12E-17/度-年；電源開發情境單位發電量致癌風險以林口電廠桃園縣最高，為6.83E-18/度-年。單位發電量致癌風險越高之電廠，發電產生的環境衝擊越高，因此和平電廠與林口電廠發電會造成較高的環境衝擊。 最後結合電力流與單位發電量風險，估算額外風險承擔，基線年以和平電廠額外致癌風險承擔1.97E-07最高；電源開發情境以大林電廠額外致癌風險承擔最高為2.19E-07。燃煤電力規劃應避免較高的額外風險承擔。為了有效降低區域風險，在電力規劃上應減低大林電廠及和平電廠的電力供給。
並列摘要
According to the statistics and the development plan of Bureau of Energy in Taiwan, powering by coal is 53.6% in 2007 and 43.18% in 2025. Based on the results, generating by coal will still be the main power source in Taiwan in the next 20 years. Moreover, the main source of heavy metal is coal-fired power plant was confirmed by “The project of emission investigation and draft control strategy of air toxic pollutants from the stationary sources” in 2007. In order to quantify the harm from coal-fired power plant, energy flow analysis and risk assessment were combined in this study. Two scenarios were discussed in this study–coal-fired power development programming in the current and future scenarios. The results are showed as risks and hazard quotients(HQ). And the risks are between 1.61E-09 and 1.43E-06 and the hazard quotients are between 3.45E-05 and 1.94E-02 in current scenarios. Risks are between 1.61E-09 and 1.43E-06 and the hazard quotients are between 3.45E-05 and 1.94E-02 in future scenarios. The risks in the future scenarios are greater than in the current, that because the power generation in the future is higher than in the current. The major route is inhalation. And the major contaminations are Arsenic and Mercury. Based on the risks and HQ, the per power generation risk was calculated with power generation. In current scenarios, per power generation risk at Hoping power plant in Hulien is 1.12E-17/ KWH-Year; in future scenarios and he highest per power generation risk is 6.83E-18/ KWH-Year at Linkou power plant in Taoyuan .The environmental impact increases with the per power generation risk, so Hoping power plant and Linkou power plant make the greater environmental impacts. Finally, the extra-risk burden was estimated by electric flow analysis and per power generation risk. In current scenario, the extra- risk burden at Hoping power plant in Hulien is 1.97E-07 ; in future scenarios, the extra- risk burden in Dalin power plant in Kaohsiung is 2.19E-07.And the high extra-risk burden should be avoided in coal power development programming. In order to reduce the extra- risk burden efficiently, power supply from Hoping power plant and Dalin power plant should be decreased.