加勒比海地區開發中國家發展風力發電之經濟評估：以聖文森的風力發電場計畫為例

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：17

、訪客IP：3.21.106.69

姓名

安德雷(Andre David Williams) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

國際永續發展碩士在職專班

論文名稱

加勒比海地區開發中國家發展風力發電之經濟評估：以聖文森的風力發電場計畫為例
(An Economic Evaluation of Wind Energy Development in the Developing Caribbean Region: A Case Study of a Proposed Wind Farm Project in St. Vincent)

相關論文

★ Study on Cleaner Production Opportunities for the Sugar Industry in Belize.	★ 聖薩爾瓦多都會區設置固體廢棄物資源回收廠可行性研究
★ The Study of Environmental Awareness and Waste Minimization Approaches for Hotel Management in Belize	★ Improvement of Solid Waste Management and Design of Biogas Recovery System in Tegucigalpa, Honduras
★ 宏都拉斯之德古西加巴市設置都市垃圾回收處理廠的可行性研究	★ 於貝里斯市進行移除簡易垃圾棄置場與興建衛生掩埋場的成本效益評估
★ 在低開發中國家廢物堆肥系統的設計和計畫建立-以甘比亞的Banjul和Kanifing的廢物推肥系統為例。	★ 宏都拉斯德古斯加巴市暴風雨災害引致固體廢棄物產生量之推估及緊急堆置場地遴選評估之研究
★ The Policy of PES (Payment for Environmental Services) in Indonesia. An Application Study for the Watershed Area Krueng Peusangan of Bireuen District in Aceh Province, Indonesia	★ 史瓦濟蘭於回收農業及林業殘料用以開發生質能源潛力研究
★ 史瓦濟南墨巴本市都市固體廢棄物源分離方法之開發	★ 封閉鉛礦場對於鄰近居民健康及環境之影響研究以泰國甘差那布里府之克里汐灣採礦場為例
★ 海地太子港都市區產生的城市固體廢物的能源潛力	★ Study of Establishing Composting System for Municipal Solid Waste in Petit-Goave City of Haiti
★ 貝里斯消費者購置電動汽車之經濟評估及消費者需求之研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

風能的利用年年激增,可以從例證：2000年的18.5億瓦（GW）到2010年199.5億瓦(GW)，得知它已成為今天增長最快的可再生能源的來(RES）。而負責這樣快速增長的催化驅動力，則主要是由於風力發電機組設計的技術進步和安裝成本的減少。風能的開發在已開發國家中被完全地協調與融合，它已成為其能源組成結構中的一個內在成分。然而，在加勒比海地區（CR）的小島嶼發展中國家，哪裡的條件極利於煽動風能的開發，其風能之利用卻是相當稀少。今日，在許多加勒比海地區（CR）的島嶼中，其中包括聖文森特和格林納丁斯（SVG），他們正在探索風能發展的前景。
本論文主旨在於評估：在聖文森特和格林納丁斯（SVG）風能發展的經濟和社會屬性。聖文森特和格林納丁斯（SVG）的政府的承諾之一則是在2015年時，電力部門的再生能源使用增加可達30％。因此，政府正計劃興建一座4兆瓦的風力電場，從而其經濟的評估則必須是重要傑出的，才能有利於評估其可行性。而該計畫方案中與經濟評估緊密相關的財務評估，就須採用成本效益分析的工具。此外，源自於此計畫中相較於傳統發電所獲得的更進一步的經濟利益，如：化石燃料的節省，溫室氣體排放的大幅銳減，操作和維護成本的降低等，都進行了評估。公眾對於風能開發的態度和接納，可能並不總是優先的：加上考量到SVG的面積狹小，這項研究仍然以風能開發的社會期望值為焦點。故為了激發民眾的喜好，並確定他們對於風力電場的支付意願（WTP），假設市場評價法應用於本研究。此外，還有一些無法測量比較的利益和成本，都是在考慮電能的來源決策時非常重要的；則採用多準則決策分析（MCDA）來合併評估。
該計畫的初始安裝成本估計在550萬美元，其淨現值為10.4900萬美元，而內部收益率為11％，則給任何一個開發商指引出一個可行的冒險投機企業。經濟評估顯示，目前的總成本價值達780萬美元，而擁有超過28年的漫長生命週期的這項計畫，其相稱的利益總額卻可達11億美元。或然估值分析法中指出，公眾對於風能的傾向是積極的，而且他們對於風力電場的接受度也很高。此外，所有支付卡的分析中結果顯示，受訪者都願意支付（WTP）電費1年中用每月11.50美元，來支付初始安裝成本。匯總到聖文森特和格林納丁斯（SVG）總戶數的價值收益可達530萬美元，與風力電場的初始安裝成本極為接近。為了進一步加強對風能開發的支持，多準則決策分析(MCDA)的加權總和法則指出，風能應作為首選的替代能源。

摘要(英)

The use of wind energy has ballooned over the year as exemplified by the accretion from 18.5 gigawatts (GW) in 2000 to 199.5 GW in 2010 making it one of the fastest growing renewable energy sources (RES) today. The main catalytic drivers responsible for this rapid growth are technological advances in wind turbine designs and reduction in the setup cost. Wind energy development is mainly concerted in the developed countries and it has become an intrinsic part of their energy mix. However, the use of wind energy is exiguous in small island developing states in the Caribbean region (CR) where conditions are conducive to foment wind energy development. Today, many of the islands in the CR, including Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG), are exploring the prospect of wind energy development.
This thesis aims to evaluate the economic and social attributes of wind energy development in SVG. One of the commitments by the Government of SVG is to increase the use of RES in the electricity sector to 30% by 2015. Consequently, the Government is planning to construct a 4 MW wind farm hence an economic evaluation is eminent to assess its viability. A financial assessment of the project is pertinent to the economic evaluation and hereof, the benefit-cost analysis tool was employed. In addition, further economic benefits to be derived from the project such as savings of fossil fuel, greenhouse gases abated, and the reduction in operation and maintenance cost compared to traditional power generation were evaluated. Public attitude and acceptance of wind energy development may not always be preferential and given the diminutive size of SVG, the research also focuses on the social desirability of wind energy development. To elicit the publics’ preferences and to ascertain their willingness to pay (WTP) for the wind farm, the Contingent Valuation Method was applied. Additionally, there are incommensurable benefits and cost which are vital to decision making when considering an energy source for electricity and the Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was adopted to amalgamate them in the appraisement.
The initial setup cost of the project is estimated at US$5.5 million, with a net present value of US$104,900 (2013) and an internal rate of return of 11%, which designate a viable venture for any developer. The economic evaluation revealed that the present value of the total costs amounted to US$7.8 million while the commensurable benefits totalled US$28.8 million over the 20-year lifespan of the project. The analysis of the contingent valuation suggests that the public disposition to wind energy is positive and their acceptance of the wind farm is high. Furthermore, the payment card analysis showed that the respondents are WTP US$11.50 and US$10.39 a month for 1 year on their monthly electricity bill via the non-parametric and parametric approach respectively. This is equivalent to a present value of US$0.40 per kilowatt hour which is higher than the current cost of electricity of US$0.36. To further strengthen the support of wind energy development, the weighted sum method of the MCDA pointed to wind energy as the preferred alternative.

關鍵字(中)

★ 支付意願
★ 成本效益分析
★ 假設市場評價法
★ 多準則決策分析
★ 風能

關鍵字(英)

★ Benefit-Cost analysis
★ Contingent valuation method
★ Multi-criteria decision analysis
★ Wind energy
★ Willingness to pay.

論文目次

Table of Contents
Abstract i
摘要 iii
Acknowledgement v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
List of Acronyms and symbols xii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview and appraisal of wind energy development 1
1.2 Wind energy development in the developing Caribbean 3
1.3 Research motivation and objectives 4
1.4 Research difficulties 6
1.5 Background of study area 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review 14
2.1 Economic evaluation of wind energy 14
2.2 Benefit – Cost principle and application 17
2.3 Public attitude and acceptance towards wind farm and wind energy 21
2.3.1 Public acceptance of wind farms 21
2.3.2 Public attitude towards wind farm 24
2.3.3 Public attitude and acceptance of wind energy 26
2.4 Willingness to Pay 27
2.4.1 Contingent valuation method 30
2.5 Sustainability assessment of power sources using multi-criteria decsion analysis 35
Chapter 3 Methodology 39
3.1 Estimation of economic costs and benefits of the wind energy project 40
3.1.1 Financial assessment of the proposed wind farm using RETScreen 41
3.1.2 Sensitivity analysis 51
3.1.3 Estimation of additional benefit 51
3.2 Investigation of public attitude & acceptance and measurement of WTP for the construction of the wind farm 53
2.2.1 Surveying tools 54
3.2.2 Survey development 56
2.2.3 Survey implementation process 60
2.2.4 Data analysis 60
3.3 Multi-criteria decision analysis of the proposed wind farm 64
3.3.1 Criteria selection 65
3.3.2 Assignments of weights 66
3.3.3 Score assignment 66
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 68
4.1 Financial appraisal of the proposed wind farm 68
4.1.1 Sensitivity Analysis 73
4.2 Economic assessment of the proposed wind farm 81
4.3 Public attitude and acceptance of wind energy development in SVG 87
4.3.1 Socio-economic characteristics 88
4.3.2 Attitude and concerns toward various energy source to produce electricity 89
4.3.3 Attitude and acceptance of wind power development 92
4.3.4 Awareness of wind power development in SVG 94
4.4 Willingness to pay for the construction of the wind farm 95
4.4.1 Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay 96
4.4.2 Expansion of Sample Estimates of WTP to Total Households in SVG 101
4.5 Multi-criteria decision analysis of the wind farm construction 102
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Recommendations 107
5.1 Conclusion 107
5.2 Recommendations 109
References 111
Appendix A 116
Appendix B 117
Appendix C 122

參考文獻

References
[1] Abu-Taha, R., 2011. Muti-criteria applications in renewable energy analysis: A literature review. IEEE.
[2] Accent, 2010. Review of stated preference and willingness to pay methods, London: Competion Commission.
[3] Aizaka, H. & Sato, N., 2008. Comparing consumers’’ valuation of good agricultural practice in the Tokyo Metropolitan area and Miyagi Prefecture: Application of the contingent valuation method. Japan, World conference on agricultural information and IT.
[4] Andersen, T., Bollerslev, T. & Diebold, F., 2005. Parametric and Non-Parametric Volatility Measurement, Amsterdam.
[5] Arrow, K. et al., 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, Issue 58, pp. 4602-4614.
[6] Atkinson, G., Healeyy, A. & Mouratoz, S., 2005. Valuing the costs of violent crime: a stated preference approach. Oxford economic Paper, Volume 57, p. 559–585.
[7] Baranzini, A., Faust, A. & Huberman, D., 2009. Tropical Forest Conservation: Attitude and Preferences, Geneve: CRAG.
[8] Bateman, I. et al., 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual, UK: Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
[9] Berrens, R., Bohara, A. & Kerkvliet, j., 1997. A Randomized Response Approach to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, 79(1), pp. 252-266.
[10] Bierman, H., 2009. Comparing net present value and internal rate of return, Prague: Qfinance.
[11] Bishop, R. & Heberlein, T., 1979. Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agriculture Economics, 61(5), pp. 926-30.
[12] Blanco, M. The economics of wind energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, pp. 1372-82.
[13] Boadway, R., 2000. The economic evaluation of projects. Queen’’s University, Kingston.
[14] Bonato, D., Nocera, S. & Telser, H., 2001. The contingent valuation method in health care: An economic evaluation of Alzheimer’s Disease. Zurich, University of Zurich.
[15] Boyle, K. & Bishop, R., 1988. Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70(1), pp. 20-28.
[16] Boyle, K., Bishop, R. & Welsh, M., 1985. Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games. Land Economics, 61(2), pp. 188-194.
[17] Cameron, T. & Huppert, D., 1991. Referendum contingent valuation estimates: Sensitivity to the assigment of offered values. American Statistical association, 86(416), pp. 910-918.
[18] Carson, R. & Mitchell, R., 1993. Issue and scope in contingent valuation stidies. Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, 75(5), pp. 1263-1267.
[19] CEF, 2010. Conserve energy future. [Online]
Available at: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/WindTurbinesImpact.php
[Accessed 22 Febuary 2012].
[20] CIA, 2012. The World Factbook. [Online]
Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vc.html
[Accessed 27th March 2012].
[21] Culzac-Wilson, L., 2003. Report to the Regional Consultation on SIDS Specific Issues, Kingstown: Government of SVG.
[22] Devine-Wright, P., 2005. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an Integrated Framework for Understanding Public Perceptions of Wind Energy. Wind Energy, Volume 8, pp. 125-139.
[23] DTLR, 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: Summary guide, London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
[24] Eberle, W. & Hayden, F., 1991. Cri ique of Cont ingent Valuation and Trave l Cost Methods for Valuing Natural Resources and Ecosystems. Journal of economic issues, 25(3), pp. 649-685.
[25] Farrel, A., Keith, D. & DeCarolis, J., 2002. Wind Power. Pittsburgh, The Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center.
[26] Garfi, M., Ferrer-Marti, L., Bonoli, A. & Tondelli, S., 2011. Multi-criteria analysis for improving stategic environmental assessment of water programmes. A case study in semi-arid region of Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 92, pp. 665-675.
[27] Gipe, P., 1995. Wind energy comes of age. USA: Wiley and son.
[28] GOSVG, 2009. Sustainable Energy for SVG: The Government’’s National Energy Policy, Kingstown: Government of SVG.
[29] GOSVG, 2010. Energy Action Plan for St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Kingstown: Government of SVG.
[30] Graber, C. 2010. Wind power in Spain. Spanish Institute for Foreign Trade, Madrid.
[31] Granat, J. & Makowski, M., 2006. Multicriteria methodology for the NEEDS project, Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
[32] Haab, T. & McConnell, K., 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resource: The econometrics of non-market valuation. Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
[33] Hanley, N., 2000. Cost-benefit analysis. In Folmer, H. And Landis Gabel, H., 2000.Principles of Environmental and Resource Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
[34] Hopkins, I., 2010. IRR - Internal rate of return explained, New South Wales: Finance & Property Research Pty Ltd.
[35] Howell, D., 2010. Statistical methods for psychologist. 8th ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
[36] Kennedy, S. Wind Power Planning: assessing long term costs and benefits. Energy Policy, Volume 33, pp. 1661-75.
[37] Kramer, R. & Mercer, D., 1997. Valuing a Global Environmental Good: U.S. Residents’’ Willingness to Pay to Protect Tropical Rain Forests. Land Economics, 73(2), pp. 196-210.
[38] Krohn, S. & Damborg, S., 1999. On Public Attitudes Towards Wind Power. Renewable Energy, Volume 16, pp. 954-960.
[39] Kuvlesky, W. et al., 2007. Wind energy development and wildlife Conservation: Challenges and opportunities. The journal of wildlife management, 71(8), pp. 2487-2498.
[40] Lawrence, G., Eastwood, A., Williams, J. & Lauterbach, V., 2012. Cadwalader. [Online]
Available at: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/172658/Waste+Management/EPA+Proposes+CO2+Emissions+Standards+For+New+Fossil+FuelFired+Power+Generators
[Accessed 23rd April 2012].
[41] Logan, J. & Kaplan, S., 2008. Wind Power in the United States:Technology, Economic, and Policy Issues, Washington: Congressional research service.
[42] MIRA, 2011. Summary ‘Updating the external cost of environmental damage (general for Flanders) in relation to air pollution and climate change’. Flanders, Belgium.
[43] Mitchell, R. & Carson, R., 1990. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Land Economics, 66(1), pp. 107-109.
[44] Mohamed, E., 2002. Substitution potential of wind energy in Egypt. Energy Policy, Volume 30, pp. 681-687.
[45] Morthorst, P., Awerbuch, S. & Krohn, S., 2009. The economics of wind energy. EWEA.
[46] National Environmental Advisory Board; Ministry of Health and the Environment, 2000. Initial National Communication on Climate Change, Kingstown: Government of SVG.
[47] Palmer, J., 1997. Public acceptance study of the Searsburg Wind Power Project: Year one post-construction, USA: Vermont Environmental Research Associates, Inc..
[48] Pasqualetti, M., 2000. Morality, Space, and the Power of Wind-Energy Landscapes. Geographical Review, 90(3), pp. 381-394.
[49] Pearce, D., 2004. Does European Union Policy Pass a Cost Benefit Test?. World Economics, Volume 5, pp. 115-137.
[50] Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. & Muroto, S., 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. OECD.
[51] Polatidis, H., Munda, G. & Vreeker, R., 2006. Selecting an Appropriate Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Technique for Renewable Energy Planning. Energy Sources, Volume 1, pp. 181-193.
[52] RETscreen, 2004. RETScreen Software: Wind Energy Project Model. Canada: Minister of Natural Resources.
[53] Riley, G., 2006. Tutor2u. [Online]
Available at: http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-micro-cost-benefit-analysis.html
[Accessed 13 Febuary 2012].
[54] Rossi, G., Cancelliere, A. & Giuliano, G., 2005. Case study: Multicriteria assessment of drought mitigation measures. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 131(6), pp. 449-457.
[55] Roth, I. & Ambs, L., 2004. Incorporating externalities into a full cost approach to electric power generation life-cycle costing. Energy, Issue 29, p. 2125–2144.
[56] Sousa de Oliveira, W. & Fernandes, A., 2011. Economic Feasibility Applied to Wind Energy Projects. Int. J. Emerg. Sci., 1(4), pp. 659-681.
[57] San Cristobal Mateo, J., 2012. The renewable energy industry and the need for a multi-criteria analysis. In: Multi-criteria analysis in the renewable energy industry. London: Springer, pp. 2-4.
[58] Shepard, D., 2010. Wind Turbine Noise and Health in the New Zealand Context, Auckland, New Zealand.
[59] Simmons & Associate Inc, 2000. National Biodiversity Stratergy and Action Plan for St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Kingstown: Government of SVG.
[60] Simon, A., 1996. A Summary of Research Conducted into Attitudes to Wind Power from 1990-1996. Lancashire, British wind energy association.
[61] Sousa de Oliveira, W. & Fernandes, A., 2011. Economic Feasibility Applied to Wind Energy Projects. Int. J. Emerg. Sci., 1(4), pp. 659-681.
[62] Spash, C. & Hanley, N., 1995. Preferences, Information and Biodiversity Preservation. Ecological Economics, Volume 12, pp. 191-208.
[63] StatSoft, 2011. StatSoft Electronic Statistic Textbook. [Online]
Available at: www.statsoft.com/textbook/.
[Accessed 6th March 2012].
[64] TP Wind, 2006. Wind Energy: A vision for Europe in 2030. European Wind Energy Technology Platform, Brussels.
[65] Turner, R., 2006. Limits to CBA in UK and European Environmental Policy: Retrospects & Future Prospects, Norwich, U.K: University of East Anglia.
[66] US Department of Energy (USDOE). 2011. 2010 Wind Technologies Market Report. NREL, Virginia.
[67] Vestas, 2011. Adress public acceptance. [Online]
Available at: http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/strategy/political-affairs/green-energy-race/public-acceptance/visual-impact-of-wind-turbines.aspx
[Accessed 22 Febuary 2012].
[68] VINLEC, 2012. VINLEC. [Online]
Available at: http://www.vinlec.com/index.asp?articleid=62&zoneid=40
[Accessed 27th March 2010].
[69] Walker, G., 1995. Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy, 12(1), pp. 49-59.
[70] Wedgewood, A. & Sanson, K., 2003. Willingness to pay surveys: A streamlined approach, Leicestershire: Loughborough University.
[71] Willig, R., 1976. Consumer Surplus without apology. American Economic Review, 66(4), pp. 589-597.
[72] Wolsink, M., 2007. Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 11, p. 1188–1207.
[73] Wright, R., 2001. Wind energy development in the Caribbean. Renewable Energy, 24(3-4), pp. 439-444.
[74] Wustenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. & Burer, M., 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, Volume 35, p. 2683–2691.
[75] Yoo, S. & Kwan, S., 2009. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Energy Policy, Volume 37, pp. 5408-5416.
[76] Zhongmin, X., Loomis, J., Zhiqiang, Z. & Hamamura, K., 2006. Evaluating the performance of different willingness to pay question format for valuing environmental restoration in rural China. Environment and Economics, Volume 11, pp. 585-601.

指導教授

廖萬里(Wan-li Liao)

審核日期

2012-7-5

推文