當前臺灣能源政策的一大難題乃是如何以環保為基調來解決因應產業發展之需求與氣候暖化所導致的缺電問題，而世界趨勢皆以太陽能、風能等再生能源為新的電力來源，然而臺灣夏季需電孔急卻颱風頻仍，風電潛力最高的東北季風由10月才開始，無法因應夏季用電高峰之需求。為了找尋更加穩定的電力來源且又能同時解決污水排放所造成的環境污染的問題，政府規劃於民國106年至民國109年間補助養豬戶安裝沼氣發電系統，希望能鼓勵業者發展沼氣發電，此政策除能提供業者自行發電之誘因外，發電時所產生的廢熱還能為豬場提供冬季時所需的暖氣以降低豬隻生病的機率，並提高仔豬的育成率，還可確保業者依照排放水標準排放，有效降低養豬廢水對環境的影響，但目前涵蓋在政府補助內的養豬戶數僅占全台的16%，為了加強未納入補助的84%中小型養豬戶安裝發電系統的意願，我們以下述三種情境來探討：
情境一：利用發電機規模設計補助款額度，並保留原法規中免繳水污費的規定，探討補助款對安裝發電設備成本回收年限的影響。
情境二：接續情境一的補助款，提高現行法規之水污費收費價格，以比較調漲收費價格時補助款對回收年限之影響。
情境三：若政府在河川及排水渠道下游裝設水質監控系統，並增加現行法規中缺乏之連坐罰則，探討不同查緝與罰則之設計對回收年限之影響。
綜合上述情境對回收年限之影響，我們發現補助可縮短養豬戶的平均回收年限約3年，其中以小型戶的縮短幅度最為明顯，同時政府也可試行階段性調漲水污費逐步增加養豬戶的安裝意願。若政府僅依照現行補助辦法施行補助，可試行於河川安裝水質監控系統，並將連坐罰則加入現行法規中，藉由安裝監控系統提高養豬戶排放超標之被取締率，利用罰款促使養豬戶安裝沼氣系統。

Now a day Taiwan’s government faced energy crisis, consider environment protection while solving power shortage. Renewable energy such as solar power and wind turbine were one of the way to solve these problems. However, wind turbine couldn’t help Taiwan conquer the electricity peak during summer because of monsoon were started on October. In order to increased Taiwan’s renewable energy supply while solved the wastewater excessive discharge. Taiwan’s government encouraged pig farmers to install biogas system, except energy supply biogas system but supply heat as heating system costs down the treatment of pigs during winter, also solve wastewater excessive discharge. However, there were only 16% of pig farmer covered by government’s subsidy plants. Our purpose were to increase the incentive of install biogas system for those 84% of pig farmer, who weren’t covered by government. We used three difference scenarios below to discuss:
Scenario I: Use the scale of generator to design the subsidy amount, and retain the provisions of the original regulations that were free of wastewater charges, discuss the impact of the subsidy on cost recovery period of installing power generation equipment.
Scenario II: Continued the subsidy of Scenario I, increased the waste ware pollution fee of original regulations, compare whether subsidy impact the cost recovery period while the fee were increased.
Scenario III: If government installed a water quality monitoring system downstream of rivers and drainage channels, and increased the number of consecutive penalties that were not covered by the current regulations, discussed the impact of different types of investigation and penalties on the recovery period.
Based on the impact of above scenarios of recovery period, we found that subsidy can shorten the average recovery period about 3 years, which impacted the smallest farmers the most, and government could try to gradually increase the water pollution fee in the same time to increase the willingness of installed power generation equipment. If the government only supply subsidies with current regulation, it can try to install water quality monitoring system in the river, and add the penalty to the current regulations. By installed monitoring system to increase the banned rate of pig farmer’s excessive discharge, the fines were used to encourage pig farmers to install the biogas system.

第一章 前言 1
1.1 研究目的 1
1.2 研究動機 3
第二章 文獻探討 5
第三章 情境分析之結構說明 9
3.1 臺灣目前養豬業現況 11
3.2 沼氣發電現況 12
3.3 情境分析之結構 14
3.3.1 情境一 政府對未達標準的中型養豬戶給予補助 14
3.3.2 情境二 調高水污費之收費費率 17
3.3.4 情境三 裝設水質監控系統 20
3.3.4.1 固定查緝機率，比較提高單位罰金對平均回收年限之影響 22
3.3.4.2 固定單位罰金，比較查緝機率提高對平均回收年限之影響 23
3.3.4.3 同時提高查緝機率與單位罰金 24
3.3.4.4 提高查緝機率並降低單位罰金 24
第四章 結論 27
第五章 未來展望 31
參考文獻 33
附錄 35

1. 臺灣電力公司，資訊揭露
2. 行政院農業委員會，2016，「各直轄市、縣(市)畜牧場沼氣發電概況調查表」 (2016年6月24日)
3. 行政院農業委員會，2018，「107年度養豬產業振興發展計畫–推動養豬場沼氣在利用(發電)計畫之獎勵及補助申請說明」(2018年6月21日)
4. 行政院農業委員會，2019，「108年度養豬產業振興發展計畫–推動養豬場沼氣在利用(發電)計畫之獎勵及補助申請說明」(2019年3月6日)
5. 行政院農業委員會沼氣發電推動計畫辦公室，財團法人工業技術研究院中分院，沼氣發電推動網
6. 行政院農業委員會畜牧場登記管理系統
7. 行政院環境保護署，2018，「事業及污水下水道系統水污染防治費收費辦法」(2018年12月26日)
8. 洪宗良、徐英綺、李志杰，林依杏，2018，「沼氣生質能再利用技術推廣」，特種機械設備安全期刊53(4)：3-15
9.洪嘉謨、雷鵬魁，2002，豬糞尿淨化與資源化處理技術，環佑實業有限公司
10. 馮誠萬，2019，2017臺灣養豬統計手冊，2017財團法人中央畜產會
11. 蘇忠楨，2009，「畜牧業沼氣生物脫硫系統開發及世界沼氣工廠市場評估」，農業科技產業季刊(16)：60-72
12. Gebrezgabher S.A., M.P.M. Meuwissen, B.A.M. Prins, A.G.J.M.O. Lansink(2010),Economic analysis of anaerobic digestion—A case of Green power biogas plant in The Netherlands, NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 109-115
13. Lantz M., M. Svensson, P. Börjesson(2007),The prospects for an expansion of biogas systems in Sweden—Incentives, barriers and potentials, Energy Policy, 1830-1843
14. Maeng H., H. Lund and F. Hvelplund(1999),Biogas plants in Denmark: technological and economice developments, Applied Energy 64,195-206
15. Raven R.P.J.M. and K.H. Gregersen(2007),Biogas plants in Denmark: successes and setbacks, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 166-132
16. Zhu X., Y. Yue, W.H. Wong, Y. Zhang, H. Ding(2019),Desiging an Optimized Water Quality Monitoring Network with Reserved Monitoring Locations, MDPI-Water