wind energy in malaysia
Post on 20-Feb-2018
230 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
1/17
Wind energy in Malaysia: Past, present and future
Lip-Wah Ho
Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 29 March 2014
Received in revised form
19 July 2015
Accepted 24 August 2015
Keywords:
Wind energy
Energy policy
Renewable energy (RE)
Regulatory and Political framework
Global wind energy
Low wind speed region
a b s t r a c t
In recent years, the Malaysian government has attempted to develop renewable energy (RE) through
newly introduced regulatory supports after 30 years of failure to achieve a greater than one percent non-
hydroelectric RE share in the total power mix. The government is currently assessing the onshore wind
energy potential in Malaysia to determine the possibility of including wind energy in its FiT scheme.
However, wind energy development in this low-energy location is not as straightforward as it would
seem. Many previous wind studies in Malaysia have relied on poor data and simplistic or inadequate
methodologies, resulting in grossly inaccurate estimates of wind potential. Moreover, two wind turbine
generator demonstration projects executed by the government have failed. However, above all, the
greatest factor impairing the progress of RE development in Malaysia is the weak and uncertain political
support of these efforts. This lack of robust support is particularly true where fossil fuels are still heavily
subsidised amid the subsidy reform in 2013. A review of global wind energy development shows that
successful projects depend heavily on a sound and robust regulatory framework supported by strong and
consistent political will. This dependence is not observed in Malaysia, where the government continues
to subsidise private independent fossil fuel power producers but levies taxes on electricity consumers to
fund RE development. These levies do not effectively support RE development, given the magnitude of
the RE fund compared to fossil fuel subsidies. In the absence of strong and sincere political will, the
progress of RE development in Malaysia has been notably slow. As a result, the prospect of wind energy
development in Malaysia currently remains vague. This paper discusses the above issues in detail and
recommends selected regulatory mechanisms based on the global experience of supporting RE devel-
opment in Malaysia.& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
2. Past and present wind studies in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
2.1. Previous wind energy studies in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
2.2. Wind mapping for Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
3. Global wind energy development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
3.1. China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
3.2. India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
3.3. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
3.4. Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2883.5. United Kingdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
3.6. France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
3.7. Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
3.8. Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
3.9. Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
3.10. Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
3.11. Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
3.12. European Union. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Contents lists available atScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054
1364-0321/&2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E-mail address: holipwah@gmail.com
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13640321http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rserhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054mailto:holipwah@gmail.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054mailto:holipwah@gmail.comhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054&domain=pdfhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054&domain=pdfhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054&domain=pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rserhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13640321 -
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
2/17
3.13. United States of America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
3.14. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
3.15. Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.16. Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.17. Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.18. Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.19. South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
4.1. Political and regulatory support for RE in Malaysia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
4.2. Future of wind energy in Malaysia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2925. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
1. Introduction
The best way to halt or lessen the impact of power generation on
climate change is through divestment from fossil fuel-related
businesses or drastic reduction in electricity usage. However, such
actions seem impossible without practical alternative sources of
energy and are purposely made difcult by a behemoth fossil fuel-
based energy industry that prots and will continue to prot from
the status quo. The economy and politics of fossil fuels, and in
particular the inuence of money and greed, seem to dictate the
future of climate change via control over power generation. Com-
mitting to the long, slow process of educating those, who do not
prot directly or nancially from fossil fuel power generation may
encourage some resistance to the status quo, at least where energy
demand is concerned; however, this seems unlikely given that net
world electricity consumption rose from 7,323.36 billion Kilowatt-
hours (kWh) in 1980 to 19,396.64 billion kWh in 2011[68].
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy usage in Malaysia
have been on the rise since the 1980's [69]. Consequently, Malaysia
has one of the world's fastest growing CO2 emissions rates [48].
The United States Energy Information Administration (2013)reported that in 1980, 26.330 million metric tons of CO2 was
released as a result of energy consumption in Malaysia (Fig.1). This
gure climbed to 195.701 million metric tons in 2011 [69]. A
concomitant rise in net electricity consumption from 9.363 billion
kWh to 115.338 billion kWh (Fig. 1) also occurred over the same
period [67]. At the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Con-
ference (UNCCC) (Conference Of the Parties, COP 15), the Prime
Minister of Malaysia made a voluntary commitment to reduce CO2emissions by 40%, by 2020, relative to 2005 CO2 emissions levels
[31]. This commitment further reinforced Malaysia's ratication of
Kyoto Protocol in 2002.
Since the 1990s, researchers and the government of Malaysia
have carried out wind assessment studies. However, many pre-
vious studies and demonstration projects have failed to prove the
feasibility of utilising wind energy in the doldrums that envelop
the country. Recent studies have reviewed past research into thistopic and determined that many previous studies relied primarily
on data collected at local meteorological stations that was unsui-
table for assessing wind energy feasibility in a low wind speed
region. Currently, the Sustainable Energy Development Authority
(SEDA) of Malaysia is conducting a comprehensive onshore wind
mapping effort. SEDA Malaysia is a statutory body formed under
the Sustainable Energy Development Authority Act of 2011. One of
the key roles of the SEDA is to administer and manage the
implementation of the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) mechanism, including a
RE fund mandated under the Renewable Energy Act of 2011 [59].
The RE fund was created to support the FiT scheme. The current
onshore wind mapping exercise will determine whether wind
energy should be included in the FiT regime. In addition to FiTs,
countries around the world have executed sound and robust reg-ulatory frameworks that support the development of wind energy,
all based on strong, consistent political buy-in. Even with such
support, countries in high to middle wind speed regions face
constant challenges in the process. Malaysia is situated in a low
wind speed region and therefore faces greater challenges in
developing wind energy. These challenges not only involve
selecting the most suitable Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) to take
advantage of existing wind speeds but, more importantly, estab-
lishing underlying support through both the regulatory and poli-
tical framework. Unfortunately, Malaysia currently relies on fossil
fuels for over 90% of its power generation, a gure that is sup-
ported by fossil fuel subsidies that have remained even after the
2013 fuel subsidy reforms instituted by the Malaysian government.
Those fossil fuel subsidies are politically motivated and remain the
greatest challenge and entry barrier to RE development in
Malaysia, including wind energy. Likewise, the magnitude of the
RE fund and FiT implementation is sufcient to show the extent of
the governments commitment to maintain the Prime Minster of
Malaysia's pledge. Section 2of this paper discusses the past and
present wind studies performed in Malaysia.Section 3reviews the
regulatory and political framework for global wind energy devel-
opment. Section 4 discusses the issues and problems related to
fossil fuel power generation and RE development in Malaysia, with
a particular focus on the regulatory and political context. It also
reviews the prospect of wind energy development in Malaysia
and suggests possible regulatory supports based on the global
experience. The conclusions are presented inSection 5.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Unit(MillionMetricTon
s/
BillionKilowatt-hours
)
Year
Carbon Dioxide Emissions(Million Metric Tons)
Net Electricity Consumption
(Billion Kilowatt-hours)
Fig. 1. Malaysia: Yearly total Carbon Dioxide emissions from the consumption of
energy (Million Metric Tons) and total net electricity consumption (Billion Kilo-
watthours).
Source: United States Energy Information Administration.
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295280
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
3/17
Table 1
Previous and on-going wind studies/development in Malaysia.
Year Type of study/
development
Source of Data Findings and Results
1990s Onshore wind
power poten-
tial study
Malaysian
meteorological
stations
Mersing and Kuala Terengganu had the greatest wind power potential of all studied stations (annual mean power potential, 85.
respectively)
1995 Island wind
hybrid system
testing
In-situ testing One WTG was installed in Terumbu LayangLayang (Swallow Reef), located at 72230 N and 1134930 E
2003 Malaysia off-
shore wind
speed study
Malaysia
meteorological
service (VOS,
oilrigs and
lighthouses)
Kelantan and Terengganu offshore received the highest annual wind speed (4.1 m/s)
2006 Coastal wind
speed study
In-situ anem-
ometer
measurements
Megabang Telipot, Kuala Terengganu, 20052006 annual mean wind speed was 3.70 m/s
2007 Island wind
hybrid system
testing
In-situ testing Two WTGs (hybrid system) were installed at Small Perhentian Island, Terengganu, located at 55535N and 1024312 E
2009 Onshore wind
energy poten-
tial study
In-situ testing
(reported)
Kota Kinabalu, Mersing, Kuala Terengganu and Langkawi Island (identied)
2010 Onshore wind
power poten-
tial study
Malaysian
Meteorological
Stations
Tawau, Sabah. 5182 km2 land area required to install a 2740 MW capacity wind farm
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
4/17
Table 1 (continued )
Year Type of study/
development
Source of Data Findings and Results
2010 Onshore wind
power poten-
tial study
Malaysian
Meteorological
Stations
Kudat and Labuan (maximum wind power density 67.40 W/m2 and 50.81 W/m2, respectively)
2011 Onshore wind
hybrid system
testing
NASA database
for Johor
Johor (hybrid system potential to reduce 34.5% CO2emissions)
2011 Onshore wind
energy poten-
tial study
Malaysian
meteorological
stations
Mersing (relatively the most persistent wind speed with the most potential for onshore wind energy)
2011 Island wind
power poten-
tial study
Malaysian
Meteorological
Stations
Penang Island (grid connected WTGs are not viable. A small-scale WTG system can be considered)
2011 Private and
public sector
collaboration
nil IMPSA and SIRIM to develop a wind energy programme
2011 Legislature nil Passing of renewable energy act of 2011
2011 Legislature nil Passing of sustainable energy development authority act of 2011
2012 Onshore wind
energy poten-
tial study
Department of
environment
and Malaysian
meteorological
stations
The northeast, northwest and southeast region of peninsular Malaysia and the southern region of Sabah to be investigated furthe
2012 Coastal wind
energy study
Solar Energy
Research Insti-
tute, UKM
Estimated off-grid RE cost of USD 0.380.83 /kWh
2012 Onshore wind
mapping
(Malaysia)
In-situ anem-
ometer
measurements
SEDA called for RFPEmergent Venture S/B to produce the onshore wind map by 2016
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
5/17
2. Past and present wind studies in Malaysia
2.1. Previous wind energy studies in Malaysia
Table 1 outlines previous and on-going wind energy studies
and development that have occurred in Malaysia. In the early
1990s, a wind energy potential study was conducted for Mersing,
Kuala Terengganu, Alor Setar, Petaling Jaya, the Cameron High-
lands and Melaka on the Malaysian peninsula; Kota Kinabalu,Tawau and Labuan in Sabah; and Kuching in Sarawak based on
wind speed data for 19821991 collected from Malaysian
meteorological service stations located at the above cities [57]. The
wind speeds for the study were all corrected to a standard height
of 10 m due to variation in the anemometer height at every
meteorological station. The study concluded that Mersing and
Kuala Terengganu had the greatest wind power potential of all
studied stations, with annual mean power (W/m2) potentials of
85.61 and 32.50, respectively. According to Table 2, wind power
potential less than 100 W/m2 at 10 m indicates a Class 1 wind,
which is not suitable for wind power generation. However, Table 3
shows that seven out of the ten stations used in the above study
were situated near or at an airport, with the furthest station
located approximately 400 m from an airport. It is noteworthy that
airports are intentionally built in low wind speed locations [51].
The 10-year dataset is attractive; however, wind speed data from
or near airports should not be used for wind power potential
analyses, particularly if the data come from low wind speed
regions. Moreover, data from stations near or at airports are only
valid at close range; any consideration given to the placement of
wind turbines near an airport, even if there is wind power
potential, would be complicated by risks associated with ight
paths and the taking off and landing of aircrafts. Regardless of
these factors, however, [3]disagreed with the conclusions of the
above study because it failed to adequately determine the wind
power potential of the region.
In November 1995, TNB (Tenaga Nasional Berhad) Research
Sdn. Bhd. constructed and installed a 150 kW WTG hybrid system
at Terumbu LayangLayang (Swallow Reef)[61]. Numerous studies
[46,53,9,41,47,4,34] have quoted a 2005 Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM) study highlighting the successful operation of the
WTG. The WTG was installed to generate wind power and pump
water. Some researchers [41,15]have even claimed that Swallow
Reef has the highest wind energy potential in Malaysia. Unfortu-
nately, there is no record of the publication of the ndings from
the 2005 UKM study. The above studies appear to have repeated
the notion that the WTG operation at Swallow Reef was successful,
not based on their own research, but based on an earlier report of
success[41]. In reality, however, the WTG appears to have stopped
rotating altogether; and resort operators in Swallow Reef currently
rely on private generators for power.
In 2003, data from the Malaysia meteorological service were
used to assess wind speeds offshore[8].The 19852000 data werecollected from oilrigs, lighthouses, and ships that participated in
the World Meteorological Organisation Voluntary Observing Ship
(VOS) Scheme. The data were presented in monthly charts with a
resolution of 2-degrees latitude by 2-degrees longitude. An
assessment of the data found that the annual offshore wind speed
off the Malaysian coast ranged from 1.2 m/s (Straits of Malacca and
Selangor) to 4.1 m/s (South China Sea, Kelantan and Terengganu).
It would be impossible to measure offshore wind for the entire
ocean surface using anemometers; such a task would be too costly
and time consuming. Nevertheless, attempts have been made. A
few decades ago, offshore wind measurements were taken from
merchant ships participating in the VOS scheme; however, the
VOS data had an inconsistent geographical distribution and varied
in quality. Currently, Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models
expectedtobe
completeby2016
2012
Onshoresolar
andwind
hybridstudy
nil
SIRIM
isstudyingtherstsolarandwindhybridfarm
.Researchoutcomesupposedtobeavailableby
June2014
Thestudyisstillin
progress
2013
Coastaland
onshorewind
energypoten-
tialstudy[3]
Malaysian
meteorological
stations
Mersing,KualaTerengganu,
AlorSetar,Chuping,Melak
aandBayanLepaswerestudied
Datafromthe
MMDwereused
2013
Coastaland
Islandwind
energypoten-
tialstudy[44]
3Tiermesoscale
NWPmodelling
Coast
alareaslikeKotaBelud,
Kudat,
Gebeng,Kerteha
ndLangkawiIslandarethebestsitesforwinde
nergygeneration
NWPislimitedby
ourknowledgeof
thephysicalphe-
nomenaandthe
availabilityofdata
ataxedreference
frame
2014
Thepresent
study(Penang
offshorewind
speedstudy)
Malaysia
Meteorological
Service(VOS,
oilrigsand
lighthouses)
PenangOffshore,from4
to6Nand99
to10030
E:maximumwindspeed10.3m/s,minimumwindspeed0.5m/s
VOSdata:high
temporalandspa-
tialvariationvali-
dated.
Insufcient
datatoanalysethe
windenergy
potentialof
Penangoffshore
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295 283
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
6/17
can produce wind information from numerical models but are
limited by our knowledge of the physical phenomena affecting
weather and the availability of data[30].
Malaysia has the 29th longest coastline in the world, totalling
4675 km [2]. Previous studies and reports on Malaysia have
focused on onshore or coastal winds except for one study [8],
which explored the offshore wind potential in Malaysia based on
the VOS data. However, it is important to note that the authors of
that study counselled caution with respect to relying primarily onVOS data and acknowledged the implications data errors would
have. Furthermore, the study excluded a portion of the Penang
offshore region. It is also important to note that the measurements
taken from ships contributing to the VOS data were not taken at
WTG hub height. Nevertheless, the greatest issues with this study
were the locations where the wind measurements were taken and
the times at which measurements were taken. There were no
consistent locations linked to times when readings were taken
from ships. Therefore, the best image the VOS data can provide is a
composite of momentary glimpses of wind speed scattered across
shipping lanes, often with very sparse or long periods of no tem-
poral and/or spatial data. The high spatial and temporal variability
of the VOS observations suggest that they may not be repre-
sentative of the wind regime over a medium or large spatial area
or a long time span [7].
In an attempt to validate the above conclusions and ll the gaps
in missing data from the excluded Penang offshore area, the pre-
sent study obtained a 20-year (19932013) offshore wind speed
dataset for Latitudes from 4to 6north of Equator and Longitudes
from 99to 10030east of Greenwich. The data were provided by
the Malaysia Meteorological Department (MMD), are VOS wind
speed data, and show that the Penang offshore area is subject to a
maximum wind speed of 10.3 m/s and a minimum wind speed of
0.5 m/s. However, the lack of consistency in reporting by VOS
participants makes it difcult to analyse and estimate energy
production based on these data. At most, the analysis indicated, as
previous VOS-based studies have, the presence of a strong wind at
a particular time and location. This proves that observational data
are insufcient to accurately describe wind conditions in oceanareas. This conclusion includes buoy observations as well, and, by
implication, the NWP[44]analyses that rely on these data, using a
xed reference frame[50]. Now more than ever, it is essential that
alternative ocean surface wind databases are developed.
In 2006, a wind speed study was conducted based on 2005
2006 data obtained from Megabang Telipot, Kuala Terangganu, near
the coast of the South China Sea[73]. A cup anemometer at a height
of 18 m from ground level was used to capture the data. Wind
speeds were taken every 10 s and averaged over 5 min before being
stored in a data logger. Subsequently, the 5 min averaged data were
averaged over an hour. These hourly mean wind speeds were used
in the analysis. The results indicated that the mean wind speed over
the two years of the study was 3.70 m/s, with a monthly maximum
mean of 6.54 m/s and a monthly minimum mean of 2.04 m/s. The
data showed that the fastest mean wind speeds measured occurred
in January and February, with a peak during the northeast monsoon
season. They also indicated that the wind speeds on the east coast
of peninsular Malaysia vary signicantly from season to season due
to the monsoons.
Table 2
Wind classication.
Source:[45].
Wind class 10 m 80 m 100 m 120 m
Density (W/m2) Speed (m/ s) Density (W/m2) Spee d (m/s) De nsity (W/m2) Speed (m/s) Density (W/m2) Speed (m/s)
1 o 100 o 4.4 o 240 o 5.9 o 260 o 6.1 o 290 o 6.32 100/150 4.4/5.1 240/380 5.9/6.9 260/420 6.1/7.1 290/450 6.3/7.3
3 150/200 5.1/5.6 380/490 6.9/7.5 420/560 71./7.8 450/600 7.3/8.0
4 200/250 5.6/6.0 490/620 7.5/8.1 560/670 7.8/8.3 600/740 8.0/8.6
5 250/300 6.0/6.4 620/740 8.1/8.6 670/820 8.3/8.9 740/880 8.6/9.1
6 300/400 6.4/7.0 740/970 8.6/9.4 820/1060 8.9/9.7 880/1160 9.1/10.0
7 4400 47.0 4970 49.4 41060 4 9.7 41160 410.0
Table 3
The location and height of Malaysian Meteorological Stations used in the previous studies.
Source:[33].
Location Coordinate Height above Mean Sea Level (m) Remark
Latitude N Longitude E
Alor Setar 6 12 10024 4.0 400 m from the airport runway
Bayan Lepas 5 18 10016 3.0 700 m from the airport runway
Cameron
Highlands
4 28 10122 1545.0 Mountain station
Chuping 6 29 10016 22.0 Inland station
Ipoh 4 35 10106 39.0 1000 m from the airport runway
Kota Bharu 6 10 10217 4.6 At the airport
Kota Kinabalu 5 56 11603 2.0 At the airport
Kuala Terengganu 5 23 10306 5.0 300 m from the airport runway
Kuantan 3 47 10313 15.0 630 m from the airport runway
Kuching 1 29 11020 26.0 300 m from the airport runway
Kudat 6 55 11650 3.0 400 m from the airport runway
Labuan 5 18 11515 29.0 At the airport
Melaka 2 16 10215 9.0 250 m from the airport runway
Mersing 2 27 10350 43.6 Coastal station
Petaling Jaya 3 06 10139 45.7 Inland station
Tawau 4 16 117 53 32.8 300 m from the airport runway
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295284
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
7/17
In 2007, the Malaysian government and TNB initiated a MYR
12.6 million[65]hybrid system consisting of two units of 100 kW
WTG (NPS 100 by Northern Power System), a 100 kW PV array, a
single 100 kW diesel generator set, a 240 V DC 480 kWh battery
bank and a hybrid control system on Small Perhentian Island,
Terengganu. The hybrid system prioritised wind and solar as the
primary energy sources, while the diesel generator was used as a
backup. [10] presents a simple calculation of wind power pro-
duced by the hybrid system for one particular day, which is
insufcient to determine the success or efciency of the system.
Interestingly, the wind speed data provided in [10], which was
gathered prior to the installation of the hybrid system, shows
minimum monthly wind speeds near 5.0 m/s and maximum wind
speeds near 15.0 m/s. Furthermore, the 3-year (20032005) aver-
age monthly wind speed ranged from 6.639.31 m/s. Based on the
recorded average monthly wind speed for that period and a solid
understanding of the minimum and maximum wind speeds nee-
ded for power production, the most suitable WTG for that wind
prole would have generated wind power almost all year long, inspite of the monsoons' seasonal variability. Moreover, these data
are in direct contrast with the 2005 wind speed data from
Megabang Telipot[73], a site 65 km away and oriented toward the
same northeast monsoon system, which shows a clear seasonal
variability (Table 4). Unfortunately, the mast height and method
for recording wind speeds at Small Perhentian Island during that
period were not provided in[10], making it impossible to compare
the wind speed data in that study with the data from Megabang
Telipot to develop a clearer wind prole for the area. Furthermore,
the development of wind power in a low wind speed region
demands more energy than development in a moderate to high
wind speed region, and therefore the selection of the proper WTG
is very important. Unfortunately, the WTGs at the Small Perhen-
tian Island site have stopped working, and according to unofcialrecords, they stopped barely a year after the ofcial launch of the
test project in 2007. If this report is true, the Small Perhentian
Island WTG would be a humiliating disappointment in Malaysia,
representing the failure of both the government and TNB's plan-
ning and design efforts, as well as a waste of tax payers' money.
In September 2009, the TNB signed a memorandum of under-
standing (MOU) with Argentina's giant utility rm, Industrias
Metalurgicas Pescarmona S.A. (IMPSA) to determine the wind
energy potential in Malaysia [4,26,38]. The basis of this colla-
boration was to form an independent power producer (IPP) able to
harness wind energy at the utility scale [4,32]. IMPSA identied
Kota Kinabalu, Mersing, Kuala Terengganu and Langkawi Island as
potential sites. For the rst time, a meteorological mast 80 m high
was considered to measure wind speed in Malaysia. This mast was
selected because IMPSA believed that available wind data from a
10 m mast was insufcient to determine the feasibility of wind as
an energy source[20]. According to IMPSA, it costs between USD
1.82.5 million to generate one megawatt (MW) of wind power,
and they estimated that Malaysia has the capacity to generate
between 500 and 2000 MW of power from wind energy[4,32]. For
a short time, the IMPSA became part of a committee formed by the
Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation tasked
with mapping wind potential in Malaysia and began working withSIRIM (formerly known as the Standard and Industrial Research
Institute of Malaysia) Berhad to develop a wind energy pro-
gramme in Malaysia[20]. Unfortunately, the arrangement did not
work out, and the wind programme never materialised. An
important opportunity was wasted, as the 80 m meteorological
mast would have been able to gauge wind speeds near the WTG's
hub height. Moreover, the proposed cost of the project would have
been cheaper than the MYR 12.6 million spent by the government
for the 200 kW hybrid system developed at Small Perhentian
Island.
In 2010, data for Tawau, Sabah [57] were used to represent
typical wind conditions on the east coast of eastern Malaysia[25].
The new study concluded that a total land area of 5182 km2 was
required to install a 2740 MW capacity wind farm. Assuming the
calculations in that study are accurate, the generation of wind
power using such a large amount of land is questionable, even if
technically feasible. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, Tawau
station is only 300 m from an airport runway, and therefore the
wind speed data should not be used for wind power analyses,
unless signicant reports exist that aircrafts there face constant
high speed winds during take-off or landing, which is extremely
rare in low wind speed regions. To date, there are no reports of any
high speed winds disrupting ights at any airport in Malaysia. Also
in 2010, the wind energy potential at Kudat and Labuan, Malaysia
were assessed using the Weibull distribution function [21]. The
wind speed data for 20062008 were taken from the MMD. A
10 m meteorological mast with cup anemometer, hygrometer and
thermometer were used to collect the data, which were later
extrapolated to a higher height for analysis. The highest average
diurnal wind speeds were observed at 3 p.m., with a maximum of
5.55 m/s for Kudat and 4.75 m/s for Labuan. The maximum wind
power density for Kudat and Labuan were 67.40 W/m2 and
50.81 W/m2, respectively. These are Class 1 winds; however, again,
the data for these sites were obtained from stations 400 m from
the airport runway and at an airport for Kudat and Labuan,
respectively. Additionally, though the data were extrapolated to a
higher mast height, the initial collection height was 10 m.
In 2011, HOMER (hybrid optimisation model for electric
renewable) simulation software was used to analyse and deter-
mine the most suitable hybrid system needed to reduce CO2emissions from the southern peninsula of Malaysia[43]. The study
concluded that a conguration of PV/wind/diesel/battery (80 kW
PV, 8 unit WTGs and 50 unit batteries) has great potential toreduce the region's CO2 emissions from the stand alone diesel
system in Johor by 34.5%. However, the proposed hybrid compo-
sition is similar to that of the Small Perhentian Island hybrid
system, though with different units; and the selection of a WTG
will be crucial to the successful generation of wind power in this
low wind speed region. Also in 2011, the persistence of wind
speeds in peninsular Malaysia was studied using MMD data[35].
Ten stations were selected: Alor Setar, Bayan Lepas, the Cameron
Highlands, Chuping, Ipoh, Kota Bharu, Kuantan, Melaka, Mersing
and Kuala Terengganu Airport. Hourly wind speed data from
1 January 2007 to 30 November 2009 were used in the study. Of
the studied sites, the most persistent wind speeds with the
greatest potential for energy production were found in Mersing.
Again, this result is no surprise because seven out of the ten
Table 4
Average monthly wind speed for Megabang Telipot and Small Perhentian Island
(2005).
Source:[73,10].
Month Wind speed (m/s) for Mega-
bang Telipot
Wind speed (m/s) for Small
Perhentian Island
January 4.44 7.90
February 3.47 6.85
March 3.16 7.56April 2.54 6.78
May 2.24 6.91
June 2.25 nil
July 2.18 6.63
August 2.13 7.16
September 1.91 6.88
October 2.40 7.12
November 2.38 7.57
December 4.58 7.88
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295 285
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
8/17
stations are near or at an airport, while the Cameron Highlands
station is on a mountain and Chuping station is inland. Mersing is
the only coastal station in the study.
A technical review of the wind energy potential on Penang
Island, Malaysia was also conducted in 2011 using data from the
Bayan Lepas Meteorological station [64]. The station employs a
cup anemometer at a mast height of 12.5 m above the ground, or
15.3 m above sea level. 12 Months of hourly wind speed data from
January to December 2008 were used in the study. The windiestmonth was found to be December (wind speed of 3.2 m/s), while
the calmest month was in May (1.9 m/s). The mean annual wind
power density was estimated at 24.54 W/m2. Low wind speeds
and power density were again expected because the Bayan Lepas
station is just 700 m from an airport runway and the mast height
is low.
The following year, another study suggested that several
regions such as the northeast, the northwest and the southeast
region of peninsular Malaysia, and the southern region of Sabah
should be investigated further for wind energy development,
based on a map of mean power density over Malaysia [34]. The
data used in that study were obtained from the Department of
Environment and the MMD. Meanwhile, a separate study looked
into the feasibility of using small wind chargers (less than 500 W)for remote housing electrication [23]. Nine coastal sites were
selected, including Bintulu, Kota Kinabalu, Kuala Terengganu,
Kuching, Kudat, Mersing, Sandakan, Tawau and Langkawi Island.
The wind speed data were obtained from the MMD for the loca-
tions shown in [23]. The results indicated that the cost of RE
production through the proposed system would be in the range of
USD 0.380.83 /kWh (RM 1.433.11 /kWh). Given that these are
isolated, off-grid setups in remote areas, the chargeable cost is still
debatable (especially from a social aspect), as grid-connected users
are currently charged a tariff of RM 0.218 a month for electricity
usage up to 200 kWh [62] and are provided subsidies from the
federal government.
In Ref.[44]criticised some of the published studies [57,3,21,35]
that have used data from the MMD. The paper questioned the10 m height of each measuring mast (as IMPSA did, earlier) and
the locations of the towers near airports (as discussed earlier in
this paper), ports and populated areas. The paper argues against
the use of data from MMD stations in low-lying locations, in spite
of the low wind speed conditions in Malaysia. Moreover, it was
argued that such MMD stations would record macroscale winds
but not strong mesoscale winds, which would result in the con-
sistently reported, unequivocally slow wind speeds. Therefore, the
reliance on wind data from MMD stations has led to an inaccurate
assessment of Malaysian wind resources. In addition, the extra-
polation of wind speed data based on a constant wind shear may
lead to critical errors in wind energy assessment. Based on the
published studies and reports, Ref. [44] even concluded that the
wind energy research initiatives that have been conducted inMalaysia have not been inclusive enough. Around the same time,
another study published a similar conclusion [3]. [44] found that
many studies used average wind speed to estimate energy pro-
duction. However, wind power has been found to be proportional
to the cube of wind speed, and WTGs operate within a certain
capacity factor; therefore, energy yield is a better estimation of
wind energy potential than average wind speed.
Finally, SIRIM Berhad recently announced plans to expand its
RE technology to large scale commercialization through an ambi-
tious development of the rst hybrid solar and wind farm in the
country, as well as in Asia. SIRIM was positive that the move would
help reduce CO2 emissions by up to 40% by 2020 compared to
2005 levels, as pledged by the Prime Minister of Malaysia at the
2009 UNCCC in Copenhagen [31]. Unfortunately, the research
results for the proposed project have yet to be published, though
they were initially supposed to be available by June 2014[55].
2.2. Wind mapping for Malaysia
In 2012, SEDA Malaysia released a request for proposals (RFP)
to develop a wind map of Malaysia. The term of reference (TOR)
highlights the need to develop a comprehensive wind map for
Malaysia to identify the wind power generation potential anddetermine whether wind energy should be included in the FiT
regime. The TOR mentions the scarcity of data related to specic
wind power and notes the contradicting research ndings
regarding the wind power potential in Malaysia, though it con-
cluded that there were enough locations with good wind power
generating potential to support the RFP. Importantly, the TOR
requires the installation of wind masts at a minimum height of
50 m to record wind data and necessitates at least 12 months of
full data collection for any study it funds [60].
The SEDA appointed Emergent Venture Sdn. Bhd. (a subsidiary
of Emergent Ventures India, EVI) to conduct the wind mapping
exercise in Malaysia[11]. According to SEDA, seven onshore sites
were selected instead of the original ten mentioned in the TOR,
and a 60 m meteorological mast was used. One station was locatedin each stateKelantan, Terengganu, Perlis, Melaka, Sarawak and
Sabahwith an additional station added in Sabah. The masts will
measure wind data for 12 months and the data will be used to
assess the onshore wind energy potential in Malaysia. Prior to this
development, EVI had explored the initial ndings from a two-
year study by Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT) on wind
energy potential in Malaysia, which was based on data recorded
from ve masts installed by UMT. SEDA signed a MOU with UMT
on this matter. SEDA's wind mapping study is expected to be
complete by 2016.
3. Global wind energy development
By the end of 2014, 369,597 MW of wind power capacity had
been installed around the world (Table 5). Approximately 38% of
the global installed capacity is in Asia, and 80% of that can be
found in China. Asia has been the largest regional market in the
world for seven years in a row [13]. In fact, China has the most
installed wind power capacity (114,609 MW) in the world. This is
Table 5
Global installed wind power capacity (MW) by regional distribution.
Source:[13].
Region Country End 2003 New 2014 Total (end
2014)
Africa and Middle East 1602 934 2535
Europe 121,573 12,858 134,007
Latin America and
Caribbean
4777 3749 8526
North America 70,850 7359 78,124
Pacic Region 3874 567 4441
Asia PR China 91,413 23,196 114,609
India 20,150 2315 22,465
Japan 2669 130 2789
Taiwan 614 18 633
South Korea 561 47 609
Thailand 223 223
Pakistan 106 150 256
Philippines 66 150 216
Othera 167 167
Total Asia 115,968 26,007 141,964
World Total 318,644 51,473 369,597
a
Bangladesh, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam.
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295286
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
9/17
followed by countries such as the US (65,879 MW), Germany
(39,165 MW), Spain (22,987 MW), India (22,465 MW) and the UK
(12,440 MW). The progress and development of wind power in
these countries would not have been possible without strong
political and regulatory support. China aims to almost double its
wind power capacity to 200 GW by the end of 2020, and it is
trying to develop wind power in lower wind speed areas closer to
load centres. On the other hand, the wind industry in the US has
been affected by uncertain federal policies that have developed ina boom and bust cycle. Despite such issues, however, the US still
has the second largest installed wind power capacity in the world.
Germany's wind sector is progressing well, with a total installed
capacity greater than 39 GW despite the economic crisis, wea-
kened legislative frameworks and austerity measures imple-
mented across Europe. Spain was affected by the volatility of the
economic crisis, which has resulted in a signicant slowdown of
installations there. India, on the other hand, is aiming to develop
60 GW of wind capacity by 2022 and a 15% RE share of the energy
mix in the next decade. However, unaffected by the European
economic crises, the UK stands out as the world's largest offshore
wind market, providing 4494 MW of offshore wind capacity,
which is over half of the world's offshore market.
Countries around the world have installed wind capacity basedon sound and robust regulatory frameworks, and backed by strong
political will and support. A comprehensive report of the latest
wind energy developments around the world can be found in [13].
This paper looks at how the regulatory and political frameworks of
relevant countries have supported wind power development.
3.1. China
China is the rst country in the world to have installed more
than 100 GW of wind power capacity. One reason for this can be
found in the air pollution crisis affecting nearly all of China's cities.
China relies primarily on an onshore wind FiT and a recently
introduced offshore wind FiT to ensure the rapid development of
wind power capacity. China's wind capacity is divided into
4 zones, and the current FiT is based on a sliding scale that sets the
highest tariffs for low wind areas and the lowest tariffs for high
wind areas (USD 0.080.10 /kWh). The intention of introducing
such tariffs is clear: to increase the installation of wind power
capacity in lower wind speed regions. Apart from that, a new
regulation has been introduced to control the quality of WTGs
installed through compulsory certication. The National Energy
Administration (NEA) has introduced a system to report turbine
faults and incidents related to quality and performance issues of
the wind energy market. A new regulation has also been intro-
duced to improve transparency in the tendering process, i.e., to
eliminate disruptions to the planning of the central wind energy
project by local governments. Since 2009, local governments haveinterfered in the local bidding process by requiring the purchase of
WTGs manufactured in the province; however, this is no longer
the case. The regulation also addresses issues related to dispute
settlements and the disclosure of information for warranties.
Apart from this sound regulatory system, the NEA, State Grid
and Southern Grid are working to improve transmission lines to
enable better electricity distribution. This is designed to enable
wind power to reach load centres more efciently. The Chinese
government is also looking at an Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standard (RPS) to prioritise RE access to the grid. An RPS would be
able to compel grid companies to give priority access to electricity
generated from REs. When enacted, this will be the strongest
policy measure in terms of RE development in China; and it
demonstrates the strong political will and support for RE in China.
3.2. India
India was the fth largest wind market globally and second
largest in Asia in 2014, with 60,000 MW total wind power planned
for installation by 2022. Though ambitious, this goal is feasible
because of existing regulatory supports, cost competitiveness and
generation-based incentive benets. In 2008, Indias National
Action Plan for Climate Change clearly outlined a minimum
Renewables Purchase Obligation (RPO) target of 15% by 2020.However, weak enforcement and non-compliance with the RPO
initially pushed the country off-track from this target. Fortunately,
the new Indian government is keen to promote wind energy and
has introduced associated benets and incentives, including a
penalty for non-compliance with RPOs. At the state level, wind
industry is supported by preferential FiTs, site availability, rolling
charges on the state-owned grid and the banking of excess energy.
Furthermore, a tax-based Accelerated Depreciation incentive (80%
depreciation for the rst year of installation) or a Generation Based
Incentive (INR 0.5 /kWh) can be used for a minimum of four years
and a maximum of ten years to support the construction of wind
projects. The tax on coal was also increased to support the
National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF), which funds innovative pro-
jects and research into clean energy technologies. Moreover, wind
projects will be given preferential clearance in addition to full duty
exemption for parts and components used in the manufacturing of
WTGs (201415). The government is also looking at drafting a
National Wind Mission (NWM) related to both onshore and off-
shore wind power. In particular, offshore wind will be given more
attention through demonstration projects and EU's Facilitating
Offshore Wind in India (FOWIND) consultation.
However, poor nancial health of state level power sector uti-
lities still makes it difcult for these organisations to comply with
the RPOs. This is due to the high cost ofnance, which is a chal-
lenge the government cannot afford to overlook. It will be difcult
to tap into mass lower wind speed regions when nancing is
expensive. Moreover, the weak grid code together with non-
compliance by grid operators and producers has made matters
worse. The government needs to ensure a better balance in the
supply chain through proper import duties administration. Finally,
there are logistical challenges that must be overcome, including
the creation of better routes and means of transportation for
WTGs. Though the new Indian government has shown signicant
interest in promoting wind energy, as well as other REs, many
issues will remain until a coordinated and strong regulatory fra-
mework is established.
3.3. Japan
Japan installed 2788.5 MW (0.5% of the total power supply) of
wind power capacity in 2014. FiT in Japan have remained steady at
USD 0.185 /kWh and were recently increased to USD 0.30 /kWh for
offshore wind projects that use jack-up vessels. The FiT pro-gramme is assessed on a yearly basis and is offered only for qua-
lied projects, i.e., near Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
approval. This creates an element of uncertainty, as wind devel-
opers are not guaranteed a FiT, despite investing millions up-front.
As a result, only those with a very solid nancial background are
normally willing to undertake such a risk. Not surprisingly,
industry players have requested more certainty from the govern-
ment. In response, the government has sped up the EIA process to
two years instead of the usual four, and it bears 50% of the EIA cost.
The government also created the Act for the Promotion of
Renewable Energy in Rural Districts(APRERD) in 2014. APRERD is
designed to help free up agricultural land for wind farm devel-
opment. A wind power generation forecasting system for Japan is
also being prepared, which will inform the development of wind
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295 287
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
10/17
power in years to come. Nevertheless, this progress is challenged
by grid availability and connectivity. Robust regulatory and poli-
tical supports will be key elements of future wind power expan-
sion in the country, and the government must look into them.
3.4. Germany
Germany was the largest wind market in the EU in 2014. The
country's wind sector is supported by the revised RenewableEnergy Sources Act (EEG) for both onshore and offshore wind. The
act sets clear objectives for meeting RE targets by lowering costs
and diversifying the market players. At the same time, it sets a goal
of 4045% RE share in the power generation mix by 2025, 5560%
by 2035 and at least 80% by 2050. To achieve these goals, a new
target of 2500 MW annual onshore and 6500 MW cumulative
offshore wind energy by 2020 was set. Moreover the country has
developed an incentive scheme to support the initial and opera-
tional phase of wind farms, taking into consideration the efciency
of wind power production. Currently, onshore wind power
receives an initial tariff of USD 0.10 /kWh for the rst 520 years
(depending on site conditions) and subsequently receives a basic
tariff of USD 0.055 /kWh (depending on installed capacity, from
2016 onwards). An incentive-based
acceleration model
was alsocreated to spur offshore wind development by 2019. Most
importantly, there is legislation that has obliged RE producers to
sell directly to the market and receive a sliding FiT through a
market premium.
However, wind energy development in Germany does faces
challenges related to grid expansion and system optimisation,
particularly related to offshore wind; and regulatory uncertainty
and administrative barriers will remain some of the most impor-
tant issues moving forward.
3.5. United Kingdom
The UK has set a goal of 15% RE share by 2020 and reached 9%
in 2014. At present, wind energy is nancially supported by the
Renewables Obligation (RO) for projects over 5 MW and FiT for
smaller projects. The RO obligates power suppliers to utilise RE for
a specied portion of power supplied. Renewable Obligation Cer-
ticates (ROCs) are given to renewable power producers for every
MWh generated. Presently, onshore wind receives 0.9 ROC/MWh,
while the offshore wind receives 2 ROC/MWh. Power suppliers can
purchase ROCs to full their obligation. In addition, the Energy Act
was passed in December 2013, paving the ways for future RE
support. Offshore wind development has been emphasised by the
creation of related organisations and research grants made avail-
able to UK rms in 2014. The UK is the world leader in installed
capacity for offshore wind and generates just under 4.5 GW. This
gure is likely to double by 2020. The Contracts for Difference
(Levy framework) will ensure that future offshore wind expands
by setting lower costs from 2017 onwards. On the other hand,onshore wind faces challenges, mainly from development consent
received from the Secretary of State or the relevant local planning
authority, depending on the capacity of the wind farm. The former
processes wind farm planning over 50 MW. The most worrying
factor concerning the development of RE, particularly related to
onshore wind in the UK, is political interference. Nevertheless, if
the UK is able to provide a clear long term market framework and
maintain its competitiveness, the offshore wind market will
prosper.
3.6. France
Wind power in France was responsible for 4% of total electricity
consumption in 2014 due to positive political support. The country
has set targets of 19 GW of onshore and 6 GW of offshore wind
power by 2020. A FiT supports the development of wind energy in
France. For the rst ten years of operation, the FiT for onshore
wind is USD 0.092 /kWh and subsequently becomes EUR 8.2
2.8 cent/kWh based on production during the rst ten years. The
European Commission approved the FiT for onshore wind energy
in April 2014, paving the way for uninterrupted FiT support for
years to come. On the other hand, the FiT for offshore wind has
been dened by the winning bidder since 2012. A revision of theTOR for offshore tenders is currently under discussion. The revi-
sion aims to reduce offshore wind costs and development risks.
Nevertheless, further improvements in grid connections for off-
shore wind farms, including a new premium, are underway
through the Energy Transition Law (ETL). The ETL sets a goal of
32% share of energy from renewables by the end of 2015. Apart
from that, France's environmental law Grenelle IIrequires REs to
be grid connected through a grid development programme for
each region. Wind energy development consent in France comes
in the form of administrative permits, i.e., at least one building
permit and an operating permit. At the same time, ways to sim-
plify and speed up the long permitting process are currently being
tested. In addition, wind development in France faces challenges
in terms of radar and aviation regulations, as well as long waiting
times for litigation results.
3.7. Italy
Wind power in Italy (8663 MW installed capacity) produced 15
TWh, or approximately 5% of total national electricity consump-
tion in 2014. Italy enjoyed a steady wind energy development up
until 2013, when regulatory changes reduced support for RE. The
changes led to complex legislation, with uncertain rules and an
annual quota for RE, despite the EU's Renewable Energy Directive,
which requires over 17% share of energy from renewable sources
by 2020. Nevertheless, Italy aims to install 12,680 MW of wind
power capacity by 2020. Italy passed a new incentive system for
onshore and offshore wind farms consisting of a FiT for plants up
to 1 MW, a feed-in-premium for onshore wind up to 5 MW (cap-
ped at 60 MW annually) and a reverse auction system for anything
over 5 MW (capped at 500 MW onshore wind annually). The
country has an overall aggregate annual spending cap of 5.8 billion
euro for the RE sector, after which the allocation stops. Typically,
wind projects need planning and construction approval; but in
Italy an added bond of 10% of the project value must be main-
tained until the wind farm is commissioned to qualify the project
for the reverse auction system (for projects that produce 500
650 MW onshore wind). Furthermore, there is a base price for the
reverse auction and a timeframe of 28 months to build the project
if it is accepted. This comes with a possible extension of 24 months
and a tariff penalty of 0.5% for each delayed month. This is not a
long-term framework investors can rely on and therefore has
added to the uncertainties of wind energy development in Italy.Italy also faces barriers to wind energy development because of
the lack of rm political support, an uncertain regulatory frame-
work and long permitting procedures.
3.8. Sweden
In 2014, Sweden generated approximately 8% of total electricity
consumption through wind power (5425 MW installed capacity).
Wind power production in Sweden has increased from 3.5 TWh in
2010 to 11.5 TWh in 2014. This was supported by the identication
of load centres and the provision of connections to the grid via the
Swedish Transmission System Operator (TSO). In January 2012,
both Sweden and Norway set a joint target of 26.4 TWh annual RE
production by 2020. A trade-based Electricity Certicate System
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295288
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
11/17
(ECS) supports this goal. ECS is a trading tool as well as a mea-
surement of the wind markets within the two countries. Technical
quota adjustments to balance the system can also be performed
based on the RE target. Nevertheless, Sweden must look into
continental grid integration within the EU to ensure long-term
wind power sustainability.
3.9. Denmark
As of 2014, Denmark had high wind power penetration of the
country's total power generation, with 4883 MW installed wind
power capacity (39.1%). The government has shown strong poli-
tical support by setting a target of 50% electricity from wind by
2020. The installation of new WTGs will take place while old
WTGs need to be decommissioned. Denmark uses a feed-in pre-
mium (USD 0.04 /kWh for the rst 24,000 full load hours, a ceiling
of USD 0.09 for the sum of market price and premium, 1:1
reduction if the market price exceeds USD 0.05 /kWh) to support
onshore wind energy development for the rst 68 years,
depending largely on the WTG type and the wind resources
available at the specic location. A tendering system drives the
offshore tariff, which goes to the lowest bid for 50,000 full load
hours. The challenge for Denmark lies in properly regulating the
utilisation of 50% wind power in its power mix, as well as in its
technical capacity to sustainably integrate wind power into the
greater energy system via the grid.
3.10. Poland
Wind provided 4.59% (3834 MW installed capacity, generating
7.184 TWh) of all power generation in Poland in 2014. Wind
energy is the largest source of RE in Poland, accounting for
approximately 50% of all RE capacity. The wind capacity in Poland
depends very much on IPPs. Up until 2015, tradable green certi-
cates and the obligation to purchase electricity from RE sources
has supported RE development. The EU Renewables Directive
target requires Poland to have a 15% RE share in its total energy
portfolio. Based on that, the government has set a target of 15.5%
RE share by 2020 and is working on developing full regulatory
support for this effort. To do so, the tradable certicate system will
be replaced by an auction based system that offers support for 15
years to the lowest bidders. There will be an annual energy pur-
chase from eligible projects depending on demand for RE sources
and a cap on support. Investors will be required to obtain local
zoning approval in addition to any other approval required by the
law. Poland is at an early stage in the development of offshore
wind power, even though it has the highest potential in the Baltic
Sea region. This potential must be followed by regulatory support
related to maritime areas and grid connection. Delays and uncer-
tainty in regulatory support could easily create an investment
barrier and affect the RE share target negatively.
3.11. Turkey
Turkey had 3763 MW of installed wind power capacity in 2014. It
is estimated to achieve 10.5 GW by 2025, double that if the right
regulatory framework is present. Turkey's Renewable Energy Law
sets its wind energy FiT at USD 0.073 /kWh for 10 years, which is
applicable for wind farms online before 1st January 2016. A bonus of
up to USD 0.037 cents for up to ve years is allowed for using locally
manufactured components. The law allows wind power producers
to either enter into bilateral power purchase agreements or sell
electricity to the national power pool. Nevertheless, the State pro-
vides an 85% discount for transmission and logistics on its land for
therst 10 years of operation for new wind farms. The government
has even opened up environmentally sensitive protected areas for
RE construction, provided the Ministry of Environment and the
relevant authorities approve the projects. This is one example of
extreme support for the development of wind power capacity. In
terms of development consent, applicants are given 24 months (and
a maximum of 36 months) to comply with all planning and con-
struction requirements. The Turkish Electric Transmission Company(TEA) determines the annual wind power capacity that can beconnected to the regional grid system.
Some barriers to wind power development include the fact thatTurkey's gas and electric market are not fully developed, and
therefore market prices are not easily predictable. Furthermore,the TEAannual determination of wind power capacity able to beadded to the grid is difcult to predict. Last but not least, the long
administrative procedures from the central and local authorities
remain a challenge to the industry.
3.12. European Union
The EU had installed 129 GW of wind energy capacity by the
end of 2014. This is sufcient to account for 10.2% of the EU's total
electricity consumption for the same year. In 2009, the Renewable
Energy Directive set a target of 20% RE share of total electricity
consumption at the EU level. The Directive consists of 28 nationaltargets. However, to achieve the EU's 40% CO2emissions reduction
target, the European Commission calculated that at least 27% of
total energy consumed would need to be RE-based in the context
of the 2030 Climate and Energy package and thus currently binds
the EU's states to this goal. However, the Heads of state have
agreed to abandon the binding national targets, and new reg-
ulatory frameworks are expected to be proposed soon.
3.13. United States of America
Wind power in the US was sufcient to power approximately
18 million average American homes in 2014. Though the cost of
wind power has dropped remarkably in recent years, the boom
and bust cycle inicted by the federal government has affectedwind energy development. The US enjoyed stable wind power
development up until 2012, when the federal Production Tax
Credit (PTC) expired. The period between 2005 and 2012 saw an
800% growth in wind power, with total investments reaching USD
105 billion. The PTC, which provides an initial tax relief of USD
0.023 /kWh for the rst 10 years of a project, has been allowed to
expire several times by the US Congress. Despite that, the US
Department of Energy's Wind Vision Report and Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed carbon regulations are indications
that the US hopes to continue developing wind power in the
future.
3.14. Canada
By the end of 2014, Canada had installed 9694 MW of wind
power capacity, which is equal to 5% of Canada's electricity
demand. The development of wind power in Canada was initially
spearheaded by the federal government and later by the provinces.
A series of sectorial Green House Gas (GHG) emission regulations
were introduced by the federal government, and it may continue
to support further wind power development indirectly. To do so,
the federal government is looking at transmission, grid con-
nectivity, investment in storage and nancing for wind projects. At
the same time, other wind project supporters focus on provincial
regulatory provisions for developing wind power. The wind
industry in Canada is in a good position to capture additional
market share available from the expiration of several coal and
nuclear power plants.
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295 289
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
12/17
3.15. Mexico
Mexico had installed 2551 MW of wind power capacity by the
end of 2014. It is expected to install up to 9500 MW (8% of the
total generation) by 2018. The Mexican Renewable Energy Law
(LAERFTE) aims to achieve 35% of electricity from RE sources by
2024. In addition, the Mexican General Climate Change Law aims
to mitigate 30% CO2 emissions by 2020. The latest regulatory fra-
mework opens the wind market to the private sector. Incentiveschemes such as energy bank, xed transmission and distribution
prices per MWh were introduced in line with the set targets. If
Mexico is able to set annual targets that allow better planning,
monitoring and commissioning of projects, the regulatory frame-
work will be more comprehensive. Mexico also faces challenges
related to the mechanism for clean energy certicates, including
the nancing of projects, enforcement of penalty for failure to
perform up to the binding targets, determining technological
benets, expansion of electricity grid for areas with the highest RE
potential, and sound public consultations.
3.16. Brazil
Brazil had 5.9 GW (4.3% of total national electricity capacity) of
installed wind power capacity in 2014. The Brazilian government
aims to utilise wind power at approximately 12% of the national
generation capacity by 2023. In addition to the maturing supply
chain, regulated energy auctions provide the competition to push
for rapid wind energy expansion. This is also supported by the
expansion of transmission lines and a tax exemption scheme for
certain parts of the WTG. On the other hand, a new wind atlas of
Rio Grande do Sul was produced. It includes more advanced wind
resource assessment method to measure wind speeds at 150 m
height, and it indicated that Rio Grande do Sul has 240 GW of wind
power potential for areas receiving wind speeds over 7.0 m/s. The
latest Mexican regulatory framework addresses issues such as
exible environmental licensing process, guaranteed grid con-
nection and tax exemption for some WTG components. However,
Brazil faces challenges in terms of transportation and logistics
related to the installation of wind farms. Furthermore, the supply
chain is threatened by the ability to sustain sufcient number of
energy auctions.
3.17. Chile
Chile had installed 836 MW (2.03% of the country's electricity
demand) of wind power capacity at the end of 2014 though the
Chilean Ministry of Energy reported there are approximately
37 GW of wind power remains untapped. The Chilean government
supports RE development by allowing variable energy sources to
compete equally. RE is able to secure 30% of the total contracts, at
an average price of USD 8 /MWh lower than contracts for con-
ventional power plants. By the end of 2014, Chile's Energy Com-
mission (CNE) introduced block hours into the supply tenders.
There are three blocks according to the time of the day and they
range from 11 pm to 8 am, 8 am to 6 pm and 6 pm to 11 pm (peak
demand). The passing of 2025 Energy Law in 2013 will ensure 70%
of new energy capacity installed from 2015 to 2018, shall from
renewable sources. On the other hand, the Chilean government
must addresses issues such as adaptability of conventional power
plants in light of the rising RE, transmission and grid connectivity
as well as its management, the cap of the RE targets, and impor-
tantly, the nancing of wind projects.
3.18. Australia
Since 2009, Australia set an Renewable Energy Target (RET) to
have 20% of RE power generation by 2020. However, the current
Australian Government under Prime Minister Tony Abbott does
not support RE. By turning the tide, wind industry in Australia will
be signicantly depressed. New wind energy investment fell tre-
mendously from AUD 1.5 billion in 2013 to AUD 240 million in
2014 due to the uncertainties. By the end of 2014, Australia hadinstalled 3806 MW of wind power capacity.
3.19. South Africa
South Africa had installed 560 MW of wind power capacity in
2014. Previously, it took them 10 years to install the rst 10 MW of
wind power capacity. The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) aims
8400 MW new capacity by 2030. Wind power development in
South Africa is conducted through biddings under the govern-
ments RE Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme
(REIPPPP). The procurement for wind power is competitive, at USD
5.5 cent compared to unsubsidised coal-based power at USD
9 cent. The biddings allow the successful wind producers to sell
electricity to the national utility for 20 years, with dispatch
priority. It also considers factors related to price (70%) and socio-
economic (30%). The government intends to provide local benets
such as jobs and community development through REIPPPP. On
the other hand, wind power development in South Africa faces
barriers such as logistical challenges, uncertainty of RE develop-
ment, grid connectivity and availability, and nance for the pro-
curement programme.
4. Discussion
4.1. Political and regulatory support for RE in Malaysia
Malaysia began its rst RE initiative in the 1980s to provide
non-grid solar photovoltaic electricity to remote areas and rural
communities[39]. In 1999, a strategy for RE as the fth fuel was
studied; and in the same year, the Prime Minister of Malaysia
announced that RE was the nation's fth fuel. By April 2001, RE
was incorporated into the 8th Malaysia Plan. The Malaysia Plan is a
ve-year periodic development planning system that has been
implemented in Malaysia since 1966 (First Malaysia Plan: 1966 to
1970). In May 2001, a Small Renewable Energy Power (SREP)
programme (10 MW capacity) was announced that allowed RE
producers to sell electricity to electricity suppliers. However, the
SREP faced many barriers that caused it to fail, including low tar-
iffs, the non-sustainability of fuel supplies (biomass), a lack of
nancing and insufcient incentives from the government, and
unattractive terms for investors. Wind energy was not included in
the initial SREP. However, by the end of 2010 several RE projectswere reportedly supplying 65 MW to the grid, which was made
possible by changes to the initial SREP programme. The develop-
ment of RE in the rst decade after it was set as a goal was slow
and suffered from the lack of a proper regulatory framework and
strong political support.
At the end of the Ninth Malaysia Plan (20062010), non-
hydroelectric RE was relatively non-existent compared to the total
power generation fuel mix, a mere less than 1.0% [61,40](Fig. 2).
Notwithstanding this small share of the fuel mix at the end of 2010,
Malaysia aimed to have RE contribute 11.0%[31,39,40]to its energy
mix by 2020. This may be achieved by including hydroelectric
power (5.8% as of 2010[61]) in the fuel mix, but the controversial
environmental [14,42,72,70,66,1,58,56] and social [66,1,58,71,56,
63,12] impacts associated with the construction and operation of
L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279295290
-
7/24/2019 Wind Energy in Malaysia
13/17
hydroelectric dams should not be ignored. In addition, hydroelectric
power is not totally clean or green, as there is a risk of producing
CO2and methane greenhouse gases if a large amount of vegetation
is ooded when the dam is complete [42,72,70,58]. The impact of
methane on climate change is over 20 times greater than that of
CO2 over a hundred-year period [71]. Therefore, hydroelectricity
does not help mitigate climate change if it results in the ooding of
a forest. In 2010, the controversial 2400 MW Bakun hydroelectric
dam in the state of Sarawak, eastern Malaysia ooded an immense
tropical rainforest approximately 695 km2 (equivalent to the size of
Singapore) [58,56,63,12]. In the US, hydroelectricity is no longer
considered a RE in most states, or by the US federal government
when referring to hydroelectric projects/dams with high environ-
mental impacts[42].
Considering the exclusion of hydroelectricity from the RE
generation mix in Malaysia, the Malaysian government's recent
commitment to drastically increase the share of RE in the power
generation mix and greatly reduce CO2 emissions remains a ser-ious challenge, particularly because the speed of RE development
in Malaysia has been slow and has lacked sufcient commitment
from the government[19]. Malaysia has attempted to develop REs
since 1980; nevertheless, an incremental increase in CO2emissions
from energy consumption has occurred. After 30 years of RE
development, the less than 1.0% share of non-hydroelectric REs to
the power generation mix appears to be a failure of policies,
programmes, and implementation mechanisms at the govern-
mental level. Given that it has taken 30 years [39]to develop less
than 1.0% non-hydroelectric RE share and CO2 emissions have
increased 627% in that time[69], the government's commitment to
develop an energy portfolio with 11.0% RE in only 10 years and
reduce CO2 emissions by 40% in 15 years [31] can be perceived
either positively, as an extremely aggressive act of political will, orit can be perceived negatively, raising extremely serious doubts
about the veracity and realistic nature of the aims and political
promises given.
There are two major goals of the energy policy of Malaysia. The
rst aim relates to the economic gain that comes from providing
cheap and reliable energy for development and the attraction of
foreign investments. This is evidenced in a recent comment from
the Prime Minister that, even as Malaysia has faced difculties
narrowing its scal decit, the government is delaying electricity
tariff increases for the sake of businesses[49]. The second goal of
Malaysia's energy policy relates to the social and political gains
that come from providing cheap energy to the entire population,
particularly the poor and those in isolated locations [22]. The
federal government has subsidised fossil fuels as the easiest way to
achieve the above aims. While subsidies are useful for many pur-
poses, including the promotion of efcient, readily available
energy, is common around the world; their damaging effects to
the environment often go unnoticed[52]. In the case of Malaysia,
subsidies are used to achieve the two aims above at the expense of
the environment.
If a third aim for Malaysia's energy policy is to be developed, it
should target environmental gains and be given the same impor-
tance as the goals mentioned earlier. To generate environmentalgains, electricity should be expensive whether it is generated from
renewable or non-renewable sources so the cost of development is
clear; costs should be put in place to protect the earth's resources,
to curb wasteful behaviour and to increase energy efciency. It is
common knowledge that fossil fuels are not environmental
friendly; and we can only rely on RE for truly environmentally
friendly energy sources. After 30 years of failure to increase the
targeted RE share in Malaysia's power mix, a sense of urgency
must exist to aggressively develop RE. The only fast track
mechanism available in Malaysia is through strong political will
coupled with proper regulatory mechanisms. All major utilities
and mega projects in Malaysia, such as the Bakun Dam and the
development at Putrajaya, so far have been initiated by the federal
government. By the same token, the development of RE would be
more successful if the government makes it a priority. It is inter-
esting to note that the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) and the
Implementation and Coordination Unit (ICU), which are under the
direct control of the Prime Minister, supervise the energy policies
in Malaysia[36].
The Ninth Malaysia Plan states that fuel sources for power
generation will be diversied through greater utilisation of RE. The
identied RE sources were palm oil biomass waste and palm oil
mill efuents, mini-hydropower, solar power, solid waste and
landll gas. In addition, potential of wind, geothermal, waste and
agricultural gases were studied [39]. These available resources
indicate that Malaysia is undoubtedly blessed with signicant RE
potential, but its utilisation is still threatened by a disappointing
and insufcient government commitment as highlighted in [19].
The deadline to full the Prime Minister's RE pledge is 2020,
meaning that there are only about four and a half years left to
achieve its goal. This creates an urgent and pressing need to
develop all types of RE in Malaysia. This development is essential
to the creation of a better environment and sound economic
performance where energy consumption is concern.
The government should consider positive externalities and
fund or subsidise RE development. A rational consumer would not
pay for externalities, even if they were to result in added public
benets; therefore, the government, who is supposed to support
the public interest, must take charge. The government should
make every effort to reduce the share of fossil fuels in the power
generation mix by ending subsidies that result in negative
externalities to the environment. This is not to suggest that the
government abandon its social responsibility, but ratheracknowledges that it requires more than cheap energy to actually
improve the socio-economic well-being of the poor and isolated.
Energy should not be produced cheaply to the detriment of the
global climate, as this would create ever more dire situations for
the poor and isolated as climate changes. If the poor and isolated
top related