final group presentation 1

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


2/111

Feasibility of Ethanol in Thailand

Faculty Advisors:

1. Associate Dean PojanieKummongkol (KMUTT)

2. Aajarn SuthipongSthiannopakao (KMUTT)

3. Prof Richard Kamens (UNC-Ch)


3/111

Feasibility ofEthanol in

Thailand

Why ethanol?

National security Carbon-neutral fuel source

Trade deficit reduction

Domestic economic stimulus


4/111

Ethanol in Thailand

What constitutes feasibility?

- Economics

- Technology

- Land Availability/Distribution

- Environment- Society

- Sustainabilityinterrelated nature of these factors


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?


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


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


8/111

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


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


10/111

CURRENT GOVERNMENT POLICYand Ethanol Price Structures


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


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


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.




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.




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




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).




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


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.




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.




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.




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.




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 :




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.




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.




25/111

6.Other Support Measure

Other support measures proposed by the proponent can besubmitted for consideration.




26/111

Production Technology


27/111


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?


28/111


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


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.


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


31/111


A Concentrated Acid Example

*www.arkenol.com


32/111


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


33/111

Economic Trends

*Wyman, Charles. Biomass Ethanol: Technical Progress, Opportunities, and

Commercial Challenges. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1999.


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.


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


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


37/111

END USE TECHNOLOGY


38/111

1. ALCOHOL-GASOLINE BLENDING

2. ALCOHOL-DIESEL FUEL BLENDING

DIVIDED IN 2 PARTS


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


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)


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


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%


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


44/111

USING GASOHOL

advantage

do not need to extensmodify engine for usi


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


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)


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%


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


49/111

Land/Feedstock Availability andProduction Distribution


50/111

Feedstocks

Major Potential Feedstocks: Cassava

Sugarcane (molasses)

Future Possibilities (lignocellulosic

technology)

Agricultural ResiduesBiogases

Rice Husk

Industry biomass Waste


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)


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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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)


62/111

Ethanol and Society


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!!


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


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?


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


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


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??


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


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


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


72/111

Ethanol and Society

Conclusion: High potential for socio-economic

development and improvement in rural

agricultural regions


73/111

Environment:Ground-level Ozone


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


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?


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


77/111

Example ozone concentration graph fromOZIPW

O3

NO NO2

Time in hours

Con

c.p

pm


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)


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


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;


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


82/111

Bangkok

Example Diagram: Application of Wind

Data


83/111

Bangkok

1

2

3 4

5

6

Application of Wind Data

4


84/111

2

3

4

5

March 8, 200

6

6

March 12, 2000


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


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


87/111


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


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


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


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.


92/111

We then comparedthe model outputwith ambient NOxand O3 data

Comparison between PCD Graph data with


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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* =


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


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!


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.


108/111

Conclusion

FEASIBILITY of ethanol production anduse in Thailand: Conclusions can be divided into two

sections:SHORT-TERM

LONG-TERM


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


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


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

final group presentation 1

Documents