wind energy in malaysia

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: [email protected]

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:[email protected]://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:[email protected]://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


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


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


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


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


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



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



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.



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



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



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.



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



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

wind energy in malaysia

Documents