本文研究四種不同型態的電動機車，包括甲醇水蒸氣重組產氫之氫能機車、蒸氣甲烷改質法之純氫機車、油電混合機車與充電式電動機車，相對於現今使用的內燃機引擎機車之碳排放減量效果；並且評估此五種機車的生命週期成本，另外亦評估課徵碳稅後，將機車排放之外部成本內部化後之生命週期成本，搭配成本之評估，以客觀評估各種機車之成本效益；並研究氫能機車車體成本變動以及石油價格變動，對於使用氫能機車成本效益之敏感度分析。
研究結果顯示：(1)蒸氣甲烷改質法之純氫機車每延人公里碳足跡(0.0115 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e))最小，最具有減排效益，排放量僅約為內燃機引擎機車的8%，其次為甲醇水蒸氣重組產氫之氫能機車(0.0117 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e))、充電式電動機車(0.0189 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e))、油電混合機車(0.0614 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e))與內燃機引擎機車(0.1378 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e))； (2)生命週期總成本，不包含碳稅，由高至低排序為甲醇水蒸氣重組產氫之氫能機車、蒸氣甲烷改質法之純氫機車、油電混合機車、內燃機引擎機車與充電式純電動機車，總成本分別為21,219美元、19,305美元、6,701美元、6,508美元以及5,284美元；(3)加入碳稅後之生命週期成本，由高至低依序為甲醇水蒸氣重組產氫之氫能機車(21,349美元)、蒸氣甲烷改質法之純氫機車(19,433美元)、內燃機引擎機車(8,046美元)、油電混合機車(7,386美元)與充電式純電動機車(5,495美元)；(4)就環境效益之觀點，純氫機車具有發展效益；(5)敏感度分析結果得知氫能機車車體成本為影響氫能機車成本效益之關鍵因素。

The research results are as follow: (1) SMR has the smallest carbon footprint (0.0115 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e)), followed by on-board SMR (0.0117 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e)), PEV (0.0189 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e)), hybrid scooter (0.0614 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e)) and ICE (0.1378 kg 〖CO〗_(2,e)); the percentage of carbon emissions relative to ICE by each scooter in order, are 8%, 8%, 14% and 45%; (2) according to regulation of ISO14067, capital good(fix costs) cannot accounting into total life cycle costs, total life cycle costs excluding fix costs in descending order, are SMR ($6,632), ICE ($4,233), on-board SMR($3,643) , hybrid scooter ($3,368) and PEV ($2,824); (3) the variation of fuel price is the key factor of using hydrogen scooters. In this study we set that scooters are for commuter use, it belongs short cruising range. As for results, it is more economical to use PEVs scooter.

中文文獻
工業技術研究院，產業經濟與趨勢研究中心 (2007) 。二次電池發展現況與趨
勢。2014年7月12日，取自：http://iekweb3.iek.org.tw/iekppt/pptsearch/default.aspx?domain=40
中華民國交通部 (2011)。機車使用狀況調查報告。2014年7月15日，取自：
http://www.motc.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=56&parentpath=0,6&mcustomize=statistics101.jsp
中華民國交通部 (2014)。機車使用狀況調查報告。2015年5月17日，取自：
http://www.motc.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=64&parentpath=0,6
市川勝(2009)。圖解氫能源。台北市：世茂。
行政院環境保護署(2015)。環境品質資料倉儲系統。2015年4月17日，取自：
http://edw.epa.gov.tw/reportStatistic.aspx?StatDataId=45
交通部運輸研究所(2013)。運輸政策白皮書。2014年7月25日，取自：file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/user/My%20Documents/Downloads/1010101439b.pdf
行政院環境保護署(2013)。統計分析。2014年7月28日，取自：
http://www.epa.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=31141&CtUnit=1195&BaseDSD=7&mp=epa
行政院環境保護署(2013)。台灣產品碳足跡資訊網。2014年9月6日，取自：http://cfp.epa.gov.tw/carbon/ezCFM/Function/PlatformInfo/FLFootProduct/LifeCycleAppraisal.aspx
林弘毅(2011)。燃料與鋰鐵電池混合供電系統之分析與研製。國立成功大學電
機工程學系研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
張智勝(2013)。以質性研究方法探究大學生使用機車與大眾運輸工具之態度－
以高雄師範大學為例。國立成功大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文，未出版，
台南市。
經濟部能源局(2014)。能源產業溫室氣體減量資訊網。我國燃料燃燒CO_2排放統計與分析。2015年5月17日，取自：http://verity.erl.itri.org.tw/EIGIC/images/_energy/knowledge/co2-trend-100.pdf
陳泓政(2002)。燃料電池用之甲醇重組器氫氣產生研究。國立成功大學航空太
空工程研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
英文文獻
Amjad, S., Rudramoorthy, R. & Neelakrishnan, S. (2010). Assessment of petroleum
saving and greenhouse gas emission reduction from two-wheeler
segment: 2011–2021. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 16(3), 265–269.
Ally, J. & Pryor, T. (2007). Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and
hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems. Journal of Power Sources, 170(2), 401–411.
Bhandari, K., Parida, P. & Singh, P. (2013). Estimation of Carbon Footprint of Fuel
Loss Due to Idling of Vehicles at Signalised Intersection in Delhi. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences. 104, 1168–1177.
British Standard Institute (2011). PAS 2050:2008 Specification for the assessment
of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services.
British Standard Institute (2011). Guide to PAS 2050: How to assess the carbon
footprint of goods and services.
Cuda, P., Dincer, I. & Naterer, G.F. (2012). Hydrogen utilization in various
transportation modes with emissions comparisons for Ontario, Canada.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 37, 634–643.
Colella, W.G., Jacobson, M.Z. & Golden, D.M. (2005). Switching to a U.S.
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle fleet: The resultant change in emissions, energy use, and greenhouse gases. Journal of Power Sources, 150, 150–181.
Das, L.M. and Dutta, V. (2015). Hydrogen energy activities in India. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 40(11), 4280–4283.
Dominguez, I., Contreras, A., Posso, F. & Varela, F. (2015). Simulation of the
operation of a fleet of materials handling and transport vehicles, powered by
fuel cells. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
Fuel Cell Today (2014). The Fuel Cell Industry Review 2014. Retrieved from page 16, Retrieved date July 16, 2014, http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/1889744/fct_review_2013.pdf
Greene, D.L., Lin, Z. & Dong, J. (2013). Analyzing the sensitivity of hydrogen
vehicle sales to consumers’ preferences. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 38(36), 15857–15867.
Goedecke, M., Therdthianwong, S. & Gheewala, S.H. (2006). Life cycle cost
analysis of alternative vehicles and fuels in Thailand. Energy Policy, 35(6), 3236–3246.
Hwang, J.J. (2012). Review on development and demonstration of hydrogen fuel
cell scooters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3803–3815.
Hwang, J.J. & Chang, W.R. (2010). Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emission
and energy efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell scooters. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, 35, 11947–11956.
International Energy Agency (2014). IEA Statistics. CO_2 emission from fuel
combustion highlights 2014 edition. Retrieved date May 8, 2015,
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/co2emissionsfromfuelcombustionhighlights2014.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). The Fifth Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2013. Retrieved date May 13, 2015, http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Lajunen, A. (2014). Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and
electric city buses. Transportation Research Part C, 38, 1–15.
Lin, C.Y. & Huang, T.H. (2012). Cost–benefit evaluation of using biodiesel as an
alternative fuel for fishing boats in Taiwan. Marine Policy, 36, 103–107.
McKenzie, E.C. & Durango-Cohen, P.L. (2012). Environmental life-cycle
assessment of transit buses with alternative fuel technology. Transportation Research Part D, 17, 39–47.
Noel, L. & McCormack, R. (2014). A cost benefit analysis of a V2G-capable electric school bus compared to a traditional diesel school bus. Applied Energy, 126, 246–255.
Ogden, J.M., Williams, R.H. & Larson, E.D. (2004). Societal lifecycle costs of cars
with alternative fuels/engines. Energy Policy, 32(1), 7–27.
Shih, N.C., Lin, C.L., Chang, C.C. & Wang, D.Y. (2013). Experimental tests of an
air-cooling hydrogen fuel cell hybrid electric scooter. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 38(25), 11144–11148.
Thengane, S.K., Hoadley, A., Bhattacharya, S., Mitra, S. & Bandyopadhyay, S.
(2014). Cost-benefit analysis of different hydrogen production technologies using AHP and Fuzzy AHP. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39(28), 15293–15306.
Tittle, D., & Qu, J. (2013). The implications of using hydrocarbon fuels to generate
electricity for hydrogen fuel powered automobiles on electrical capital, hydrocarbon consumption, and anthropogenic emissions. Transportation Research Part D, 18, 25–30.
Wang, G., Ogden, J.M. & Sperling, D. (2008). Comparing air quality impacts of
hydrogen and gasoline. Transportation Research Part D, 13, 436–448.
Zardini, A.A., Platt, S.M., Clairotte, M., Haddad, I.E., Temime-Roussel, B.,
Marchand, N., Jezek, I., Drinove, L., Mocnik, G., Slowik, J.G., Manfredi, U., Prévôt, A.S.H., Baltensperger, U. & Astorga, C. (2014). Effects of alkylate fuel on exhaust emissions and secondary aerosol formation of a 2-stroke and a 4-stroke scooter. Atmospheric Environment, 94, 307–315.
Zubelzu, S. & Álvarez, R. (2015). Urban planning and industry in Spain: A novel
methodology for calculating industrial carbon footprints. Energy Policy, 83, 57–68.