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 Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
with the help of Kenan Institute Asia
Feasibility of Ethanol in Thailand
Faculty Advisors:
1. Associate Dean Pojanie
Kummongkol (KMUTT)
3. Prof Richard Kamens (UNC-Ch)
2. Aajarn Suthipong
Sthiannopakao (KMUTT)
Feasibility of Ethanol in Thailand

Why ethanol?
–
–
–
–
National security
Carbon-neutral fuel source
Trade deficit reduction
Domestic economic stimulus
Ethanol in Thailand

What constitutes “feasibility”?
-
-
Economics
Technology
Land Availability/Distribution
-
Environment
Society
-
Sustainability  interrelated nature of these factors
-
Important Questions
1. What feedstocks fit Thailand? How does this inform
technology?
2. What system of distribution (production facilities
and land ownership among farmers) is best for
Thailand? How is this decision made? How will this
affect society?
3. Is ethanol an economic possibility? How does this
inform technology?
4. What are the possible social and environmental
negatives? How does this inform policy decisions?
Economics?
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
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
BACKGROUND
Pilot-scale Production of Power Alcohol from Cassava
was entrusted to the Thailand Institute of Scientific and
Technological Research by the Cabinet’s approval in
January 1981
1. In 1997,Thailand’s 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
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’ s
approval
CURRENT GOVERNMENT POLICY
and Ethanol Price Structures
The National Ethanol Committee relate
with other agencies
1.Raw Material Measure
Coordinate with the Ministry of Agriculture and cooperatives
to 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,
and molasses.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
Raw material cost per unit of ethanol production
raw material cost per kilogram
ethanol production per
Raw mat. Cost per liter
(baht/ton)
unit of raw mat. (liter/ton)
of ethanol (baht/liter)
molasses
1500
265
5.67
sugarcane*
600
70
8.57
cassava**
850
170
5
sorghum**
2900
70
41.43
corn**
3530
375
9.41
* 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
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
Cassava policy
•Cassava yield = 2600 kilograms per rai
•Dose not promote farmer to expand the planted area to
increase the quantity
•Support the use of new species with higher yields.
•The office of Agricultural Economics formulates cassava plan for
plantation year 2001/2002
•To stabilize the price of cassava throughout the season
•To promote and support production of new value added
products such as alcohol.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
Conclusion
•To stabilize the price of cassava will result in:
•the cost stabilization of ethanol produced from cassava
feedstock.
•the price of cassava in the world market will not affect ethanol
production business.
•To ensure a steady demand for farmer to produce adequate
amounts of cassava to meet investors’ requirement.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
2. Financial and Investment Measure
Tax 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
2.1 Tax and Price Measures
The National Ethanol Committee approves the excise tax
measure and gasohol price policy
a) Coordinate with the Ministry of Finance to exempt the
excise tax for fuel ethanol.
b) Regulate the ethanol fraction in gasohol at 10% and
reduces the gasohol excise tax by 10%.
c) Coordinate with NEPO to exempt or reduce the amount of
surcharge collected from Oil Fund and Energy Conservation Fund for
gasohol (ethanol price is lower than octane 95 gasoline 1 baht/liter).
Price structure of gasoline and gasohol
on March 8, 2000
(unit: baht/liter)
Gasohol 95
Items
ULG 95 R
ULG 91 R
Regular Condt.
Exempt Tax and
Surcharge Collected
Ex- 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***
Wholesale 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
Source: NEPO
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
d) The National Ethanol Committee will
consider the establishment of an Ethanol Price
Stabilization Fund
The Committee wants the ethanol price to be stable to
assure that
•the factory can produce ethanol
•to assure raw material price from the farmer.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
The Ethanol Price Stabilization fund
•MTBE price that is not stable, depends on the oil price in the
worlds market.
•When MTBE price is lower than ethanol price, the refinery
plant will not consider using ethanol.
•When ethanol price is lower than the price of MTBE, the
ethanol plant will receive a large profit without distribution of
that profit to farmers.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
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 of
ethanol never exceeds that of MTBE.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
2.2 The Other Measures
a) Coordinate with the Ministry of Finance to grant
permission to the investor to sale ethanol within domestic fuel
market.
b) Coordinate with the Ministry of Industry to instruct
Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) to consider co-investment
in production of fuel ethanol and also distribution and sale of
gasohol.
c) The Ministry of Finance urges the Thai Cabinet to cut
the tax on vehicles that run on alternative fuels such as ethanol.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
3.Privilege Measure
The investor will receive maximum privileges and
incentives 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 machinery
without 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
4.Usage Promotion Measure
Coordinate with government agencies and state
enterprises:
•To set the priority use of gasohol for all official cars,
•To run campaigns for general public to give information on
gasohol and promote the use of gasohol.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
5.Production Quality Measure
a) Coordinates with the Ministry of Industry to
review and update ethanol and gasohol standards.
b) Coordinates with the Ministry of Commerce to
•review the Ministry Announcement on Gasoline
Quality Definition
or
•add definition of gasohol quality in particular in order
to support the use of ethanol as fuel.
The National Ethanol Committee
relate with other agencies
6.Other Support Measure
Other support measures proposed by the proponent can be
submitted for consideration.
Production Technology
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?
Production Technology



Non-saccharine feedstocks must be saccharified to
fermentable sugars
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 or lignocellulosic material, various
technologies exist such as acid, steam disruption,
GMO’s
Saccharification of Feedstocks:
Conventional Technology

Starchy materials may be liquefied and
saccharified using mature enzyme
technology
Pretreatment
Liquefication
Saccharification
Fermentation
*Based on conventional conversion technology- Shreve’s Chemical
Process Industries. McGraw-Hill International Editions. 1984.
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
Saccharification of Feedstocks:
A Concentrated Acid Example
*www.arkenol.com
Saccharification of Feedstocks:
A Dilute Acid Example

BC International Corporation boasts a
simplified biomass to ethanol process
employing a marriage of dilute acid and
enzymatic technologies
Various ag.
residues, for
example rice
hulls
Dilute acid
treatment to
release sugars
*Flow diagram adapted from www.bcintlcorp.com
GMO, KO11
produces
alcohol
To
further
distillation
Economic Trends
*Wyman, Charles. Biomass Ethanol: Technical Progress, Opportunities, and
Commercial Challenges. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1999.
Economic Trends


The previous slide indicates that the cost of
ethanol has decreased consistently with
advances in enzyme technology
The greatest areas for cost reduction are
found in the initial processes of cellulose to
ethanol technology and these potential
reductions are significant-as low as $0.50/gal
to $0.34/gal as projected by Chem Systems
and NREL studies
*Wyman, Charles. Biomass Ethanol: Technical Progress, Opportunities, and
Commercial Challenges. Annu. Rev. Enerby Environ. 1999.
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 acid
processes respectively
However, the greatest reductions are still estimated
to come from implementation of completely
enzymatic processes
Conclusions




Thailand has the capability to produce ethanol using
conventional technologies
As the market expands and advanced technologies
mature, greater amounts of cheaper ethanol may be
produced
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 be implemented
END USE TECHNOLOGY
DIVIDED IN 2 PARTS
1. ALCOHOL-GASOLINE BLENDING
2. ALCOHOL-DIESEL FUEL BLENDING
1. ALCOHOL-GASOLINE BLENDING
• 10% ethanol blend doesn’t 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
Fuel mileage comparison between
Gasohol Vs Gasoline engine (Saengbangpla, 2001)
gasohol
gasoline
10.29
TOTAL
9.55
Km/L
8
9
10
11
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 of
fuel (octane 91 or 95)
Properties of Gasohol
% Ethanol
Heat J/Kg 106
Relative Calorific Value
Octane Number (FI)
A/F ration
Latent heat of evaporation cal/cc
Density Kg/liter
Temp. of Vapor Lock. F
0
41,880
1.0
95
15
54.5
0.7500
-
10
40,323
0.96
96.7
14.7
64.8
0.7530
112
20
38,363
0.92
14.2
75.8
0.7560
114
30
37,234
0.89
14.05
86.4
0.7590
116
Effect of using gasohol in engine
Exhaust gas %
% ethanol
Consumption fuel %
NOx
Acetad
ehyde
THC
CO
7.5 catalytic
converter
10.7
90.7
8.5
23.2
7.5 No catalytic
converter
13.4
133.1
-
-
15 catalytic
converter
15.2
231
6.2
39.1
15 No catalytic
converter
12.2
295.1
-
-
1.4
3.3
USING GASOHOL
advantage
disadvantage
 do not need to extensively
modify engine for using
 alcohol has an effect on rubber
plastic and color
 10% ethanol is the best
percentage for internal
combustion in spark-ignition
engines
 water absorption of alcohol
effect on separated of ethanol
and gasoline
 10% ethanol does not
significantly decrease power
of engine
 when increase % ethanol ,
increase consumption rate but
decrease power of engine
2. ALCOHOL-DIESEL FUEL BLENDING
• 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 ethanol
with diesel fuel...engines running on this blend suffered
noticeable quench and misfiring
2. ALCOHOL-DIESEL FUEL BLENDING (continue)
• 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)
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%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Catalytic Converter
CONCLUSION
• 10% ethanol is the best percentage
• Power when
%Ethanol
• Effect on some type of rubber and plastic equipment
• Emulsifier must be added when blending hydrated
ethanol with diesel fuel
• The exhaust gases will increase when the ethanol is
injected the feed process must be adjusted through
further research and development
Land/Feedstock Availability
and Production Distribution
Feedstocks

Major Potential Feedstocks:
–
–

Cassava
Sugarcane (molasses)
Future Possibilities (lignocellulosic
technology)
–
Agricultural Residues


–
Biogases
Rice Husk
Industry biomass Waste
Price of Possible Feedstocks
Selling Price of feedstocks at the farm
1200
1000
baht / ton
800
600
400
200
0
00
20
ne
Ju
ly
Ju
A
.
ug
Cassava
.
pt
Se
.
ct
O
v.
No
Sugar Cane
c.
n.
De 1 Ja
0
20
b.
Fe
c
ar
M
h
A
il
pr
ay
M
ne
Ju
Molasse (yearly average 2000)
Selling Price of Feedstocks at the Farm (data from 2000 Ministry of Industry)
Cassava


75% Exported (around 12 million tons)
environmentally Sustainable
–
–
–

Cassava Chips
–
–
–

Drought resistant
Small Scale farms (0.5-2 HA)
Low maintenance (pesticides/fertilizers)
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 4.64
million tons of cassava a year *
* Mark Jones, Ford Motors, personal email communication 2001
Cassava Production 1999
Railroads
1990 All weather hard surface roads
two or more lanes
1998 Cassava Production (tons)
0
1 - 10000
10001 - 50000
50001 - 100000
100001 - 200000
200001 - 400000
400001 - 600000
600001 - 800000
800001 - 1000000
1000001 - 1500000
Cassava Production 1999 (data from Office of Agricultural Statistics)
Sugar Cane/ Molasses




As agricultural markets are variable, a wise policy
would 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 to
produce, daily, 800,000 liters of ethanol per a day* and not
interfere with domestic market
facilities could easily be annexed to present sugar
cane production plants
* Sriroth, Kesestart University
Sugar Cane Production 98/99
Railroads
All weather hard surface roads,
two or more lanes
Sugar cane production 98/99 (tons)
0
1 - 200000
200001 - 400000
400001 - 600000
600001 - 800000
800001 - 1000000
1000001 - 2000000
2000001 - 3000000
3000001 - 4000000
4000001 - 5000000
5000001 - 100000000
Thailand Sugar Production 1998/99 (Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 1999)
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 to model locations of various possible
feedstocks, infrastructure, population, and
economic data
Best locations for future ethanol plants
based on Cassava Production and GPP
PHITSANULOK
NAKHON SAW AN
KALASIN
CHAIYAPHUM
KAMPAEN G PHET
KHON KAEN
UTHAI THANI
highest cassava producing
provinces with GPP below
70,000 baht/capita were
selected for each province
KANCHANABURI
CHAINAT
SA KAEO
LOPBU RI
RATCHABUR I
PHACHINBURI
CHANTHABURI
Railroads
Regional best locations
for plants
Good locations for plants
Economic Distribution 1998
Per Capita GPP (baht)
0 - 20000
20001 - 30000
30001 - 40000
40001 - 50000
50001 - 60000
60001 - 100000
100001 - 200000
200001 - 300000
300001 - 400000
then one province was selcted
based on casssava production
for a more centralized plant
location
Possible Plant Locations
North East
CHAIYAPHUM
LOEI
UDON THANI
SAKON NAKHON
KHON KAEN
MUKDAHAN
KALASIN
MAHA SARAKHAM
NAKHON RATCHASIMA
BURIRAM
Railroads
1998 Cassava P roduction (greater tahn 100,000 tons)
175955 - 211092
211093 - 323816
323817 - 383467
383468 - 798259
798260 - 1005898
Gross Provincial P roduct (baht/capita)
0 - 20000
20001 - 30000
30001 - 40000
40001 - 50000
50001 - 60000
60001 - 100000
100001 - 200000
200001 - 300000
300001 - 400000
Locations based on economics (GPP<30000),
Cassava and Sugar Cane Production
( each greater than 100,000 tons)
Provinces were
selected that had a
GPP 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
North East Plant Locations Sugar Cane Production 1998/99
5000000
UDON THANI
4500000
4000000
SAKON NAKHON
3500000
LOEI
3000000
KALASIN
2500000
MAHA SARAKHAM
2000000
1500000
MUKDAHAN
1000000
CHAIYAPHUM
500000
KHON KAEN
0
Province (tons)
Khon Kaen (cassava) and Udon Thani (Sugar Cane)
would be ideal locations for centralized plant due to
production and proximity to petrolium refineries
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
Conclusions

Distribution Throughout Thailand
–
–
–
–
heavily concentrated in the Northeast
95 % (anhydrous) decentralized plants to 100% centalized
plants
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)
Ethanol and Society
Ethanol and Society




Premise: improving the welfare of the rural
poor improves welfare of the country as a
whole (the converse is also true)
Ultimate goal: 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!!
Ethanol and Society
 Questions:
–
What is the current economic
status of the rural agricultural sector?
 rural
vs urban
 regional differences
–
What are the potential social
negatives?
 Rural
Displacement/Urban Migration
 Job Loss, Rural Poverty, Instability
Ethanol and Society

Questions:
–
Land constraints?
 little
room for growth without overtaking other
agricultural land?? – negative socially?
 will push Thailand in an agriculturally intensive
direction -- GOOD
–
How can Thailand assure economic
benefits flow to those who are most in
need?
Ethanol and Society

Thailand Demographics:
–
Income gaps and Economic divisions
 Rural
vs Urban
 Central vs North and Northeast
 Agriculture vs Industry
–
–
–
Past 20 years: gaps increasing rapidly
1997 Economic Crash
Lots of potential labor
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
Farm
Expense
23,817.55
39,369.48
102,223.45
37,626.74
40,721.20
Net Farm
Cash Income
14,996.42
24,189.78
61,254.57
43,230.46
27,937.86
Ethanol and Society

Three social imperatives
–
positive job creation of equal or greater value
than previous employment

–
Brazil
fair land distribution (decentralization)

Small-scale
–
LOCAL reinvestment
–
How does this inform policy decisions??
Ethanol and Society

Policy
–
–
–
Short-term financial insurance for
ethanol workers until diversity of
feedstocks is achieved
Protect against consolidation; ensure
job creation in spite of mechanization
Contract Farming and Cooperatives –
source of power for small farmers
Ethanol and Society

Policy
–
Federal taxes to be reinvested publicly into
rural agricultural areas contributing to ethanol
program:
 Tax
the net cassava and/or ethanol price
(between 1-5%)
 Reserve a percentage of the net savings in
trade balance
 Ethanol Price Stabilization Fund – tax ethanol
plant’s profit when ethanol price is low
–
Rural autonomy
Ethanol and Society

Local Parallels and Opportunities:
–
–
Small Power Producers (SPP) program
 Positive internal rate of return (IRR)
 Electricity and for ethanol program
 Extra income
Cooperatives: agricultural sector



–
Community voice for bargaining power
Ease transition into ethanol program
Help 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
Ethanol and Society

Conclusion:
–
High potential for socio-economic
development and improvement in rural
agricultural regions
Environment:
Ground-level Ozone
Environmental Impacts
Land 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 of smog
Questions

How 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 in
gauging these questions?
OZIPW (Ozone Isopleth plotting package –
Windows): Simple atmospheric trajectory
model:
sun
Mixing from
aloft
O3
O3
O3
O3
Mixing
Height
O3
O3
O3
O3
O3 O3
O3
O3
O3
Wind
direction
ions ernoon
s
s
i
Aft
x em
O
N
nd
a
s
VOC
ing
n
r
o
M
Example ozone concentration graph from
OZIPW
O3
NO
NO2
Time in hours 
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)
Basic Procedure…
1. 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 aldehyde emissions
– changes to other emissions due to ethanol use

Aldehyde chemistry represented in the model
already…
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 + FORM
1.000E-03 /R5;
Establish the model represents
Bangkok Atmoshpere

Composite graphs of ozone and NOx for
Bangkok atmosphere
–

One low-ozone day (March 8, 2000), one highozone day (March 12, 2000)
Ambient ground-level ozone and NOx in
Bangkok
–
–
–
Several stations located throughout the BMR
Wind data (direction and speed)
Map of BMR
Example Diagram: Application of Wind
Data…
Bangkok
Application of Wind Data…
6
Bangkok
4
3
5
1
2
3
6
March 12,
2000
4
5
March 8, 2000
6
2
1
Low Ozone Day Compilation Table – time
scale based on wind speed and direction
8-Mar-00
Station
Singhara
Thonburi
Huai Khwang
Chog Chai
Time
NO`
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
NO2
2
2
3
61
65
42
27
30
32
42
39
48
60
84
78
59
NOx
10
14
16
38
39
41
35
40
35
40
40
38
38
37
30
31
O3
12
16
18
99,
104,
83,
61,
70,
67,
83,
78,
87,
99,
121,
108,
89,
17
13
16
7
10
9
20
24
26
18
19
16
8
2
1
1
March 8, 2000 – low ozone day
Concentration 3-8-00 low ozone Northern
concentration in ppb
NO
90.00
80.00
NO2
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
O3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
time in hours
1700
1900
2100
2 per.
Mov.
Avg.
(O3)
March 12, 2000 – high ozone day
Concentration 3-12-00 High Ozone
120
concentration in ppb
NO
100
80
NO2
60
40
O3
20
0
-20
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
time in hours
1700
1900
2100
2 per.
Mov.
Avg.
(O3)
OZIPW graphs for comparison to
ambient data
NOx, VOC, and CO emissions
(kg/km2)
 Temperature, humidity, mixing
height
 Time data (extrapolate total
emissions into hourly)


Output Graphs
Table For Total BMR Vehicle VOC Emissions*
VOC emissions
Car
regular
diesel
Light Truck regular
diesel
Medium Truck regular
diesel
Heavy Truck regular
diesel
Tuk Tuk
regular
diesel
Motorcycle
regular
diesel
Taxi
regular
diesel
Bus
regular
diesel
# of cars
1230388
22033
116448
831442
1,672
88,986
5
33085
8,301
no info
1799801
390
62598
123
1323
37067
VOC/mile (g)
0.35
0.35
0.48
0.51
0.51
0.51
2.18
no info
6.18
no info
0.35
no info
no info
2.18
VOC/km (g)
0.21875
0.21875
0.3
0.31875
0.31875
0.31875
0
1.3625
mi/vehicle
34.95
34.94
48.24
55.08
44.43
55.08
49.89
km/vehicle
55.92
55.904
77.184
88.128
71.088
88.128
0
79.824
3.8625
12.26
19.616
0.21875
34.95
55.92
1.3625
49.89
79.824
Total VOC's by all transportation sources =
total VOC (g)
15050721.21
269441.557
2696376.73
23355870.93
37886.3496
2499687.929
0
3598331.217
no info
no info
136365162.4
no info
765730.035
no info
no info
143889.7446
184783098 grams
*Pollution Control Department
184783.098 kgrams
Meterological Data* was inputted into
the model: *Department of Meteorology
STATION: 455201 BANGKOK METROPOLIS YEAR, 2000
date
8-Mar
12-Mar
TIME
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
wind speed (knots)
13
14
8-Mar
TEMP(C)
TEMP(K)
27.9
300.9
29.1
302.1
30.1
303.1
32.2
305.2
32
305
33.5
306.5
33.7
306.7
33.5
306.5
33.6
306.6
33.6
306.6
32.9
305.9
31.7
304.7
30.2
303.2
29.3
302.3
wind speed (km/hr)
23.92
25.76
12-Mar
TEMP(C) TEMP(K)
25.8
298.8
26.1
299.1
29.4
302.4
31.2
304.2
32.4
305.4
33.4
306.4
34.4
307.4
35.3
308.3
35.7
308.7
35.7
308.7
35.4
308.4
33.4
306.4
31.1
304.1
29.9
302.9
wind direction (degrees)
200
260
Mixing Height
Initial (meters)
Mixing Height
Final (meters)
March 8,
2000
850
1030
March 12,
2000
100
610
Date
Emissions data extrapolated hourly
over the course of the day:
90% from all time: 07.00- time: 09.00- time: 16.00Emission kg/km2/day
day
09.00(17.22%) 16.00(55.40%) 19.00(27.38%)
VOC
CO
NOx
115.48944 103.9404926 17.89855283
545
490.5
84.999999 76.49999944
57.58303291
28.45890688
84.4641
271.737
134.2989
13.1732999
42.38099969
20.94569985
*This table shows time distribution of emissions data by hour according to
the Bureau of Land Transportation, and accounts for percent hourly emissions.
We then compared
the model output
with ambient NOx
and O3 data
Comparison between PCD Graph data with
OZIPW Graph data (Low Ozone day)
Concentration 3-8-00 low ozone Northern
concentration in ppb
NO
90.00
80.00
NO2
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
O3
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2 per.
Mov.
Avg.
(O3)
time in hours
At 3/8/00 Initial condition , Mec. CALCM.
0.09
NO2
Concentration (ppm)
0.08
NO
0.07
O3
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Comparison between PCD Graph data with
OZIPW Graph data (High Ozone day)
Concentration 3-12-00 High Ozone
120
concentration in ppb
NO
100
80
NO2
60
40
O3
20
0
-20
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
time in hours
2 per.
Mov.
Avg.
(O3)
At 3/12/00 Initial condition, Mec. CALCM.
0.35
Concentration (ppm)
NO2
0.30
NO
0.25
O3
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Next, OZIPW inputs were changed to
gauge the effect of ethanol on the BMR
atmosphere.

The following sets of trials were run:
–
–
–
–
Aldehydes were increased to represent
differences from ethanol use in the BMR.
VOCs increased and decreased
Comparisons between MTBE and ethanol
were made with respect to catalytic and
non-catalytic vehicles.*
Finally the different mechanism files were
changed to ensure continuity.
Thummarat Thummadetsak, et.al. (1999) “Effect of Gasoline Compositions and Properties
on Tailpipe Emissions of Currently Existing Vehicles in Thailand,” SAE International.
Comparison between initial condition with
adding ALD 20% of VOCs (Low Ozone day)
ppm
At 3/8/00 Initial condition , M ec. CALCM .
0.09
NO2
Concentration (ppm)
0.08
NO
0.07
O3
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Time (min)
ppm
At 3/8/00 add ALD 20% to Trial 1, Mec. CALCM.
0.45
Concentration (ppm)
0.40
0.35
0.30
NO2
0.25
NO
0.20
O3
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Comparison between initial condition with
adding ALD 20% of VOCs (High Ozone day)
At 3/12/00 Initial condition, Mec. CALCM.
0.35
Concentration (ppm)
NO2
0.30
NO
0.25
O3
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Time (min)
At 3/12/00 add ALD 20% of VOC, Mec. CALCM.
0.40
Concentration (ppm)
0.35
0.30
0.25
NO2
0.20
NO
0.15
O3
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Comparison between using EtOH 7.5 %(with
catalyts) with MTBE 7.5 % (Low Ozone Day)
At 3/8/00 add ALD 20% to Trial 1, Mec. CALCM.
0.45
Concentration (ppm)
0.40
0.35
0.30
NO2
0.25
NO
0.20
O3
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Time (min)
At 3/8/00 compa re used EtOH 7.5 w ith MTBE 7.5 (Catalyst - Equipped Vehicle)
, Mec.CALCM.
0.50
Concentration (ppm)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
NO2
0.25
NO
0.20
O3
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Comparison between using EtOH 7.5 %(with
catalyts) with MTBE 7.5 % (High Ozone day)
At 3/12/00 add ALD 20% of VOC, Mec. CALCM.
0.40
Concentration (ppm)
0.35
0.30
0.25
NO2
0.20
NO
0.15
O3
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Time (min)
At 3/12/00 compa re used EtOH 7.5% w ith MTBE 7.5%(Catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle), Mec. CALCM.
Concentration (ppm)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
NO2
0.20
NO
0.15
O3
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Comparison between using EtOH 15 %(with
catalyts) with MTBE 7.5 % (Low Ozone day)
At 3/8/00 add ALD 20% to Trial 1, Mec. CALCM.
0.45
Concentration (ppm)
0.40
0.35
0.30
NO2
0.25
NO
0.20
O3
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Time (min)
At 3/8/00 compare used EtOH 15% w ith MTBE 15% (Catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle) , Mec.CALCM.
Concentration (ppm)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
NO2
0.25
NO
0.20
O3
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Comparison between using EtOH 15 %(with
catalyts) with MTBE 7.5 % (High Ozone day)
At 3/12/00 add ALD 20% of VOC, Mec. CALCM.
0.40
Concentration (ppm)
0.35
0.30
0.25
NO2
0.20
NO
0.15
O3
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Time (min)
At 3/12/00 compa re used EtOH 15% w ith MTBE 15% (Catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle), Mec. CALCM.
Concentration (ppm)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
NO2
0.20
NO
0.15
O3
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Comparison between cat-car with non-catcar (EtOH 7.5% low ozone day)
At 3/8/00 compare used EtOH 7.5 w ith MTBE 7.5 (Catalyst - Equipped Vehicle)
, Mec.CALCM.
0.50
Concentration (ppm)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
NO2
0.25
NO
0.20
O3
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Time (min)
At 3/8/00 Compare used EtOH 7.5 w ith MTBE 7.5 (Non catalyst - Equipped
Vehicle) , Mec.CALCM.
0.50
Concentration (ppm)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
NO2
0.25
NO
0.20
O3
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Comparison between cat-car with noncat-car (EtOH 7.5% high ozone day)
At 3/12/00 compa re used EtOH 7.5% w ith MTBE 7.5%(Catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle), Mec. CALCM.
Concentration (ppm)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
NO2
0.20
NO
0.15
O3
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Time (min)
At 3/12/00 compa re used EtOH 7.5% w ith MTBE 7.5%(Non catalyst-Equipped
Vehicle), Mec. CALCM.
Concentration (ppm)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
NO2
0.20
NO
0.15
O3
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
Time (min)
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
Ideal table if all relevant information were
available – demonstrates possibilites:
Vehicle
Type
Total
catalyst
non-catalyst
regular
diesel
regular
diesel
regular
diesel
regular
diesel
regular
diesel
2-stroke
4-stroke
regular
diesel
regular
diesel
E-10
E-85
Neat
light
heavy
Car
Light Truck
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Tuk Tuk
Motorcycle
Taxi
Bus
Ethanol Vehicles
Biodiesel
Number of
Number of
Number of
Vehciles (total) Vehciles (per km2) km/vehicle
in BMR*
traveled
Emissions, all
(kg/km/vehicle)
Total* =
Emissions, all
(kg/km2)
General Conclusions:

By adding ethanol to the fuel there will be
increases in the amount of ground-level ozone
produced in the BMR 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
General Conclusions:

OZIPW is a viable modeling program to
simulate atmospheric conditions in the
BMR.
–

Basic policy questions specific to
ethanol and the BMR can be answered
by using this model.
Locally speaking, it is still unclear if
ethanol use will make the air cleaner
in Bangkok!
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 is
needed to more comprehensively predict changes in
ozone production.
Conclusion

FEASIBILITY of ethanol production and
use in Thailand:
–
Conclusions can be divided into two
sections:
 SHORT-TERM
 LONG-TERM
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 price
competitiveness
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 the
BMR
Conclusion

Long-term
–
–
–
–
Possible to increase 10 percent replacement value as
technology and feedstock diversity matures (i.e. significant
potential for growth without inflicting on society or the
environment)
Good investment due to increasing price trend of oil
Public reinvestment of revenues from the ethanol program
must occur in the rural areas responsible for its success
The OZIPW can provide an inexpensive and quick tool to
inform policy questions regarding atmospheric quality in the
BMR
Conclusion

SUSTAINABILITY  DESIRABILITY
–
–
–
–
Co-related
Combine economic/technolgic realities with social
and environmental necessities
Beyond definition of feasibility – is the ethanol
program desirable?
Sustainability: Ethanol program must sustain
needs of the current society without inflicting on
the needs future societies