有鑑於為減少二氧化碳排放、分散能源風險之目的,各國內外開始推廣使用低公害運具,而在先進運具技術及相關設備發展未完全時,兼具傳統燃料運具與先進運具之優點的雙燃料系統與混合式系統車成為市場最具商機及發展潛力之車款。 為評估政府推廣低公害車之適宜性,本研究以簡易式生命週期評估方法,針對我國目前推動油氣雙燃料與油電混合車進行使用與廢棄回收階段之生命週期盤查分析,並與傳統汽油小客車作比較,從環境與能源角度比較三者之優異。並以油氣雙燃料車為例,利用系統動態軟體建構台灣地區小客車需求系統動態模型,設計五種情境進行模擬。分別為(1)基本情境(零成長情境):未來低公害車佔比為零成長;(2)情境一(低度成長情境):低公害車佔比每年以0.03%之成長速度增加;(3)情境二(中度成長情境):未來於2012年之低公害車使用量達15萬輛;(4)情境三(高度成長情境):未來2012年之低公害車使用佔比為10%;以及(5)情境四:燃油效率提升。 本研究藉由生命週期盤查分析方法,結果得知油電車不論在能源面或環境面都是最佳之車款。而經過情境模擬結果,以情境四-3(高度成長情境且提升新車燃料效率標準)之二氧化碳減量與汽油節省效果最佳;然而,以低公害車減少二氧化碳排放相對節省汽油之目的,所得到的效果相對有限。此外,燃油效率提升會分散低公害車補貼政策之效益,同時,當社會已呈現高度使用低公害車時,本研究不建議繼續補貼。
In order to mitigate carbon dioxide emission and reduce energy risk, ultralow-emission vehicle has been popularized worldwide. Before advanced technology and relevant equipment have developed completely, dual fuel vehicles and hybrid vehicles that have the advantage of conventional vehicles and advanced vehicles become the most commercial potential vehicles. This study aims at evaluating whether promotion policy about the ultralow-emission vehicle is appropriate by using lifecycle inventory analysis, and to compare LPG vehicle and hybrid electric vehicle with conventional gasoline vehicles in the use and disposal stage. Additionally, according to the system dynamics model of Taiwan’s passenger car demand, this study designs five scenarios: (1) Business as usual. (ultralow-emission vehicle demand is zero in the future.); (2) Scenario 1(ultralow-emission vehicle demand is grow up slowly.); (3) Scenario 2(ultralow-emission vehicle demand is medium grow up.); (4) Scenario 3(ultralow-emission vehicle demand is grow up fast.); (5) Scenario 4(arising fuel efficiency.). The results indicate that, the hybrid electric vehicle is the best car, but when taking into account the replacement of Ni-MH battery, LPG vehicle is better than hybrid electric vehicle. Furthermore, when ultralow-emission vehicle demand is grow up fast and fuel efficiency arise, i.e. scenario 4-3, the effect of carbon dioxide emission and gasoline saving are the best. However, arising fuel efficiency will separate the effective from the subsidy policy.