Wind energy in Malaysia: Past, present and future

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Wind energy in Malaysia: Past, present and future Lip-Wah Ho Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 29 March 2014 Received in revised form 19 July 2015 Accepted 24 August 2015

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 nonhydroelectric 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 development in Malaysia. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wind energy Energy policy Renewable energy (RE) Regulatory and Political framework Global wind energy Low wind speed region

Contents 1. 2.

3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past and present wind studies in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Previous wind energy studies in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Wind mapping for Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global wind energy development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. United Kingdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7. Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8. Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9. Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10. Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11. Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12. European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.054 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

280 283 283 286 286 287 287 287 288 288 288 288 288 289 289 289 289

280

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

3.13. United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14. Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15. Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16. Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17. Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.18. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.19. South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Political and regulatory support for RE in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Future of wind energy in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 difficult by a behemoth fossil fuelbased energy industry that profits and will continue to profit from the status quo. The economy and politics of fossil fuels, and in particular the influence of money and greed, seem to dictate the future of climate change via control over power generation. Committing to the long, slow process of educating those, who do not profit directly or financially 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 Kilowatthours (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 figure 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 Conference (UNCCC) (Conference Of the Parties, COP 15), the Prime Minister of Malaysia made a voluntary commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 40%, by 2020, relative to 2005 CO2 emissions levels 200

Unit (Million Metric Tons / Billion Kilowatt-hours)

180 160

Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Million Metric Tons) Net Electricity Consumption (Billion Kilowatt-hours)

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year Fig. 1. Malaysia: Yearly total Carbon Dioxide emissions from the consumption of energy (Million Metric Tons) and total net electricity consumption (Billion Kilowatt–hours). Source: United States Energy Information Administration.

289 289 290 290 290 290 290 290 290 292 293 293 294

[31]. This commitment further reinforced Malaysia's ratification of Kyoto Protocol in 2002. Since the 1990s, researchers and the government of Malaysia have carried out wind assessment studies. However, many previous 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 this topic and determined that many previous studies relied primarily on data collected at local meteorological stations that was unsuitable 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 regulatory 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, establishing underlying support through both the regulatory and political framework. Unfortunately, Malaysia currently relies on fossil fuels for over 90% of its power generation, a figure that is supported 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 sufficient to show the extent of the government’s commitment to maintain the Prime Minster of Malaysia's pledge. Section 2 of this paper discusses the past and present wind studies performed in Malaysia. Section 3 reviews the regulatory and political framework for global wind energy development. 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 in Section 5.

Table 1 Previous and on-going wind studies/development in Malaysia. Year

Type of study/ Source of Data development

1990s Onshore wind Malaysian power poten- meteorological stations tial study

Reviews

Mersing and Kuala Terengganu had the greatest wind power potential of all studied stations (annual mean power potential, 85.61 W/m2 and 32.50 W/m2, respectively)

Seven out of the ten stations are near/at an airport (Table 3). All are Class 1 wind. Wind data from meteorological stations near/at an airport (in low wind speed regions) should not be used for wind power potential analyses No record of the publication of the findings from the 2005 UKM study. The WTG has stopped working VOS data: high temporal and spatial variation. Insufficient data to analyse the wind energy potential of Malaysia offshore. Penang offshore was not in the study area Data shows seasonal variability during the monsoons Insufficient data to analyse the operation of the hybrid system. The WTGs have stopped working The testing was not carried out by IMPSA. However, identified sites were either highlands or coastal areas Station is 300 m from an airport runway. The required land might be lesser if higher wind

1995

In-situ testing Island wind hybrid system testing

One WTG was installed in Terumbu Layang–Layang (Swallow Reef), located at 7°22′30″ N and 113°49′30″ E

2003

Malaysia offshore 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

Megabang Telipot, Kuala Terengganu, 2005–2006 annual mean wind speed was 3.70 m/s

2007

Island wind hybrid system testing

In-situ anemometer measurements In-situ testing

2009

Onshore wind In-situ testing energy poten- (reported) tial study

Kota Kinabalu, Mersing, Kuala Terengganu and Langkawi Island (identified)

2010

Onshore wind Malaysian power poten- Meteorological Stations tial study

Tawau, Sabah. 5182 km2 land area required to install a 2740 MW capacity wind farm

Two WTGs (hybrid system) were installed at Small Perhentian Island, Terengganu, located at 5°55′35″ N and 102°43′12″ E

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

Findings and Results

281

282

Table 1 (continued ) Year

Type of study/ Source of Data development

Findings and Results

Onshore wind Malaysian power poten- Meteorological Stations tial study

Kudat and Labuan (maximum wind power density 67.40 W/m2 and 50.81 W/m2, respectively)

2011

Onshore wind NASA database hybrid system for Johor testing

Johor (hybrid system – potential to reduce 34.5% CO2 emissions)

2011

Onshore wind Malaysian energy poten- meteorological stations tial study

Mersing (relatively the most persistent wind speed with the most potential for onshore wind energy)

2011

Island wind power potential study

Malaysian Meteorological Stations

Penang Island (grid connected WTGs are not viable. A small-scale WTG system can be considered)

2011

nil

IMPSA and SIRIM to develop a wind energy programme

2011

Private and public sector collaboration Legislature

nil

Passing of renewable energy act of 2011

2011

Legislature

nil

2012

Onshore wind Department of energy poten- environment and Malaysian tial study meteorological stations

2012

Coastal wind energy study

2012

Solar Energy Research Institute, UKM Onshore wind In-situ anemometer mapping measurements (Malaysia)

speeds were used in the calculations Both stations in the close vicinity of an airport. Low wind power density found Data measured at 50 m above sea level, wind speeds ranged from1.9 m/ s to 4.0 m/s indicating low onshore wind speeds Seven out of the 10 stations are near/at an airport (Table 3). Mersing is a coastal station. The Bayan Lepas meteorological station is 700 m from an airport runway (Table 3). Very low wind power potential found The arrangement did not work out

Feed-in tariff mandated under this Act Passing of sustainable energy development authority act of 2011 Setting up of the SEDA Malaysia The northeast, northwest and southeast region of peninsular Malaysia and the southern region of Sabah to be investigated further for wind energy development The identified areas were mainly coastal areas except one inland spot, northwest of the peninsular Malaysia. Data from the MMD were used Estimated off-grid RE cost of USD 0.38–0.83 /kWh Data from the MMD were used SEDA called for RFP–Emergent Venture S/B to produce the onshore wind map by 2016

The purpose of the wind mapping exercise is to determine the feasibility of an onshore wind FiT. The study is

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

2010

Reviews

Penang Offshore, from 4° to 6°N and 99° to 100°30′ E: maximum wind speed 10.3 m/s, minimum wind speed 0.5 m/s Malaysia Meteorological Service (VOS, oilrigs and lighthouses) The present study (Penang offshore wind speed study)

2013

2013

2014

Coastal areas like Kota Belud, Kudat, Gebeng, Kerteh and Langkawi Island are the best sites for wind energy generation 3Tier mesoscale NWP modelling

NWP is limited by our knowledge of the physical phenomena and the availability of data at a fixed reference frame VOS data: high temporal and spatial variation validated. Insufficient data to analyse the wind energy potential of Penang offshore

Mersing, KualaTerengganu, Alor Setar, Chuping, Melaka and Bayan Lepas were studied Malaysian meteorological stations

Data from the MMD were used

SIRIM is studying the first solar and wind hybrid farm. Research outcome supposed to be available by June 2014

Onshore solar and wind hybrid study Coastal and onshore wind energy potential study [3] Coastal and Island wind energy potential study [44] 2012

nil

expected to be complete by 2016 The study is still in progress

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

283

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 Highlands and Melaka on the Malaysian peninsula; Kota Kinabalu, Tawau and Labuan in Sabah; and Kuching in Sarawak based on wind speed data for 1982–1991 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 flight 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 Layang–Layang (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. Unfortunately, there is no record of the publication of the findings 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 1985–2000 data were collected 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

284

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

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 on VOS 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 temporal and/or spatial data. The high spatial and temporal variability of the VOS observations suggest that they may not be representative 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 fill the gaps in missing data from the excluded Penang offshore area, the present study obtained a 20-year (1993–2013) offshore wind speed dataset for Latitudes from 4° to 6° north of Equator and Longitudes from 99° to 100°30′ east 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 difficult 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 insufficient to accurately describe wind conditions in ocean areas. This conclusion includes buoy observations as well, and, by implication, the NWP [44] analyses that rely on these data, using a fixed 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 significantly from season to season due to the monsoons.

Table 2 Wind classification. Source: [45]. Wind class

10 m

80 m 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

100 m 2

120 m 2

Density (W/m )

Speed (m/s)

Density (W/m )

Speed (m/s)

Density (W/m )

Speed (m/s)

Density (W/m2)

Speed (m/s)

o 100 100/150 150/200 200/250 250/300 300/400 4400

o 4.4 4.4/5.1 5.1/5.6 5.6/6.0 6.0/6.4 6.4/7.0 47.0

o 240 240/380 380/490 490/620 620/740 740/970 4 970

o 5.9 5.9/6.9 6.9/7.5 7.5/8.1 8.1/8.6 8.6/9.4 49.4

o 260 260/420 420/560 560/670 670/820 820/1060 4 1060

o 6.1 6.1/7.1 71./7.8 7.8/8.3 8.3/8.9 8.9/9.7 4 9.7

o 290 290/450 450/600 600/740 740/880 880/1160 4 1160

o 6.3 6.3/7.3 7.3/8.0 8.0/8.6 8.6/9.1 9.1/10.0 410.0

Table 3 The location and height of Malaysian Meteorological Stations used in the previous studies. Source: [33]. Location

Alor Setar Bayan Lepas Cameron Highlands Chuping Ipoh Kota Bharu Kota Kinabalu Kuala Terengganu Kuantan Kuching Kudat Labuan Melaka Mersing Petaling Jaya Tawau

Coordinate

Height above Mean Sea Level (m)

Remark

400 m from the airport runway 700 m from the airport runway Mountain station

Latitude °N

Longitude °E

6° 12′ 5° 18′ 4° 28′

100° 24′ 100° 16′ 101° 22′

4.0 3.0 1545.0

6° 4° 6° 5° 5° 3° 1° 6° 5° 2° 2° 3° 4°

100° 16′ 101° 06′ 102° 17′ 116° 03′ 103° 06′ 103° 13′ 110° 20′ 116° 50′ 115° 15′ 102° 15′ 103° 50′ 101° 39′ 117° 53′

22.0 39.0 4.6 2.0 5.0 15.0 26.0 3.0 29.0 9.0 43.6 45.7 32.8

29′ 35′ 10′ 56′ 23′ 47′ 29′ 55′ 18′ 16′ 27′ 06′ 16′

Inland station 1000 m from the airport runway At the airport At the airport 300 m from the airport runway 630 m from the airport runway 300 m from the airport runway 400 m from the airport runway At the airport 250 m from the airport runway Coastal station Inland station 300 m from the airport runway

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

Table 4 Average monthly wind speed for Megabang Telipot and Small Perhentian Island (2005). Source: [73,10]. Month

Wind speed (m/s) for Megabang Telipot

Wind speed (m/s) for Small Perhentian Island

January February March April May June July August September October November December

4.44 3.47 3.16 2.54 2.24 2.25 2.18 2.13 1.91 2.40 2.38 4.58

7.90 6.85 7.56 6.78 6.91 nil 6.63 7.16 6.88 7.12 7.57 7.88

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 produced by the hybrid system for one particular day, which is insufficient to determine the success or efficiency 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 (2003–2005) average monthly wind speed ranged from 6.63–9.31 m/s. Based on the recorded average monthly wind speed for that period and a solid understanding of the minimum and maximum wind speeds needed for power production, the most suitable WTG for that wind profile would have generated wind power almost all year long, in spite 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 profile 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 Perhentian Island site have stopped working, and according to unofficial records, they stopped barely a year after the official 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 planning and design efforts, as well as a waste of tax payers' money. In September 2009, the TNB signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Argentina's giant utility firm, Industrias Metalurgicas Pescarmona S.A. (IMPSA) to determine the wind energy potential in Malaysia [4,26,38]. The basis of this collaboration was to form an independent power producer (IPP) able to harness wind energy at the utility scale [4,32]. IMPSA identified Kota Kinabalu, Mersing, Kuala Terengganu and Langkawi Island as potential sites. For the first time, a meteorological mast 80 m high was considered to measure wind speed in Malaysia. This mast was

285

selected because IMPSA believed that available wind data from a 10 m mast was insufficient to determine the feasibility of wind as an energy source [20]. According to IMPSA, it costs between USD 1.8–2.5 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 with SIRIM (formerly known as the Standard and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia) Berhad to develop a wind energy programme 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 significant 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 flights 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 2006–2008 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 determine the most suitable hybrid system needed to reduce CO2 emissions from the southern peninsula of Malaysia [43]. The study concluded that a configuration of PV/wind/diesel/battery (80 kW PV, 8 unit WTGs and 50 unit batteries) has great potential to reduce the region's CO2 emissions from the stand alone diesel system in Johor by 34.5%. However, the proposed hybrid composition 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

286

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

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 windiest month 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 electrification [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 locations shown in [23]. The results indicated that the cost of RE production through the proposed system would be in the range of USD 0.38–0.83 /kWh (RM 1.43–3.11 /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 the 10 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 consistently 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 extrapolation 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 in Malaysia 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 production. 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 ambitious development of the first 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 and determine whether wind energy should be included in the FiT regime. The TOR mentions the scarcity of data related to specific wind power and notes the contradicting research findings regarding the wind power potential in Malaysia, though it concluded 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 located in each state—Kelantan, Terengganu, Perlis, Melaka, Sarawak and Sabah—with 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 findings from a twoyear study by Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT) on wind energy potential in Malaysia, which was based on data recorded from five 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

Africa and Middle East Europe Latin America and Caribbean North America Pacific Region Asia

a

Country

End 2003 New 2014 Total (end 2014) 1602 121,573 4777

934 12,858 3749

2535 134,007 8526

70,850 3874 PR China 91,413 India 20,150 Japan 2669 Taiwan 614 South Korea 561 Thailand 223 Pakistan 106 Philippines 66 Othera 167 Total Asia 115,968 World Total 318,644

7359 567 23,196 2315 130 18 47 – 150 150 – 26,007 51,473

78,124 4441 114,609 22,465 2789 633 609 223 256 216 167 141,964 369,597

Bangladesh, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam.

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

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 in a “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, weakened legislative frameworks and austerity measures implemented across Europe. Spain was affected by the volatility of the economic crisis, which has resulted in a significant 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 based on 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 first 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 0.08–0.10 /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 certification. 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 introduced 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 have interfered 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 efficiently. 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.

287

3.2. India India was the fifth 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 benefits. In 2008, India’s 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 benefits 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 first 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 projects 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 (2014–15). The government is also looking at drafting a National Wind Mission (NWM) related to both onshore and offshore 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 financial health of state level power sector utilities still makes it difficult for these organisations to comply with the RPOs. This is due to the high cost of finance, which is a challenge the government cannot afford to overlook. It will be difficult to tap into mass lower wind speed regions when financing is expensive. Moreover, the weak grid code together with noncompliance 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 significant interest in promoting wind energy, as well as other REs, many issues will remain until a coordinated and strong regulatory framework 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 programme is assessed on a yearly basis and is offered only for qualified projects, i.e., near Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval. This creates an element of uncertainty, as wind developers are not guaranteed a FiT, despite investing millions up-front. As a result, only those with a very solid financial background are normally willing to undertake such a risk. Not surprisingly, industry players have requested more certainty from the government. 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 development. A wind power generation forecasting system for Japan is also being prepared, which will inform the development of wind

288

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

power in years to come. Nevertheless, this progress is challenged by grid availability and connectivity. Robust regulatory and political supports will be key elements of future wind power expansion 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 Renewable Energy 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 40–45% RE share in the power generation mix by 2025, 55–60% 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 operational phase of wind farms, taking into consideration the efficiency of wind power production. Currently, onshore wind power receives an initial tariff of USD 0.10 /kWh for the first 5–20 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 also created 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 important 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 financially 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 specified portion of power supplied. Renewable Obligation Certificates (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 fulfil 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 available to UK firms in 2014. The UK is the world leader in installed capacity for offshore wind and generates just under 4.5 GW. This figure 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 first 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 first 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 defined by the winning bidder since 2012. A revision of the TOR for offshore tenders is currently under discussion. The revision aims to reduce offshore wind costs and development risks. Nevertheless, further improvements in grid connections for offshore 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 II” requires 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 simplify 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 consumption 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 (capped 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 maintained 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 firm political support, an uncertain regulatory framework 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 identification 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 Certificate System

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

(ECS) supports this goal. ECS is a trading tool as well as a measurement 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 political 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 premium (USD 0.04 /kWh for the first 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 first 6–8 years, depending largely on the WTG type and the wind resources available at the specific 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 certificates 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 certificate 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 purchase 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 uncertainty 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 five 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 provides an 85% discount for transmission and logistics on its land for the first 10 years of operation for new wind farms. The government has even opened up environmentally sensitive protected areas for

289

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 construction requirements. The Turkish Electric Transmission Company (TEİAŞ) determines the annual wind power capacity that can be connected to the regional grid system. Some barriers to wind power development include the fact that Turkey's gas and electric market are not fully developed, and therefore market prices are not easily predictable. Furthermore, the TEİAŞ annual determination of wind power capacity able to be added to the grid is difficult 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 sufficient 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 national targets. However, to achieve the EU's 40% CO2 emissions 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 regulatory frameworks are expected to be proposed soon. 3.13. United States of America Wind power in the US was sufficient 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 inflicted by the federal government has affected wind 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 first 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 connectivity, investment in storage and financing 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.

290

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

3.15. Mexico

3.18. Australia

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 framework opens the wind market to the private sector. Incentive schemes such as energy bank, fixed 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 framework will be more comprehensive. Mexico also faces challenges related to the mechanism for clean energy certificates, including the financing of projects, enforcement of penalty for failure to perform up to the binding targets, determining technological benefits, expansion of electricity grid for areas with the highest RE potential, and sound public consultations.

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 significantly depressed. New wind energy investment fell tremendously from AUD 1.5 billion in 2013 to AUD 240 million in 2014 due to the uncertainties. By the end of 2014, Australia had installed 3806 MW of wind power capacity.

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 flexible environmental licensing process, guaranteed grid connection 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 sufficient 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 conventional power plants. By the end of 2014, Chile's Energy Commission (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 importantly, the financing of wind projects.

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 first 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 government’s 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 socioeconomic (30%). The government intends to provide local benefits 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 development, grid connectivity and availability, and finance for the procurement programme.

4. Discussion 4.1. Political and regulatory support for RE in Malaysia Malaysia began its first 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 fifth fuel was studied; and in the same year, the Prime Minister of Malaysia announced that RE was the nation's fifth fuel. By April 2001, RE was incorporated into the 8th Malaysia Plan. The Malaysia Plan is a five-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 tariffs, the non-sustainability of fuel supplies (biomass), a lack of financing and insufficient 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 projects were reportedly supplying 65 MW to the grid, which was made possible by changes to the initial SREP programme. The development of RE in the first 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 (2006–2010), nonhydroelectric 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) 279–295

5.6%

1.8%

0.2%

36.5%

55.9%

Oil

Coal

Gas

Hydro

Others (Including RE)

Fig. 2. Malaysia: fuel mix in electricity generation, 2010. Source: Ninth Malaysia Plan.

hydroelectric dams should not be ignored. In addition, hydroelectric power is not totally clean or green, as there is a risk of producing CO2 and methane greenhouse gases if a large amount of vegetation is flooded 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 flooding of a forest. In 2010, the controversial 2400 MW Bakun hydroelectric dam in the state of Sarawak, eastern Malaysia flooded 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 environmental 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 serious challenge, particularly because the speed of RE development in Malaysia has been slow and has lacked sufficient commitment from the government [19]. Malaysia has attempted to develop REs since 1980; nevertheless, an incremental increase in CO2 emissions 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 governmental 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, or it 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 first 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 difficulties narrowing its fiscal deficit, 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

291

achieve the above aims. While subsidies are useful for many purposes, including the promotion of efficient, 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 importance as the goals mentioned earlier. To generate environmental gains, 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 efficiency. 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 interesting 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 diversified through greater utilisation of RE. The identified RE sources were palm oil biomass waste and palm oil mill effluents, mini-hydropower, solar power, solid waste and landfill gas. In addition, potential of wind, geothermal, waste and agricultural gases were studied [39]. These available resources indicate that Malaysia is undoubtedly blessed with significant RE potential, but its utilisation is still threatened by a disappointing and insufficient government commitment as highlighted in [19]. The deadline to fulfil 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 benefits; 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 rather acknowledges 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 are to be helped socially and economically, they should be given a first-class education and clean, off-grid utilities through government funding and support. The passing of Renewable Energy Act of 2011 (Act 725) allows for an improved FiT system [24,16] that will hopefully boost wind energy development in Malaysia. In fact, FiT is not a new RE support mechanism in Malaysia; it was first introduced in 2001 through SREP. However, it failed to produce significant increase in the share of RE in the power generation mix by 2010.

292

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

Worldwide, FiT is an effective policy mechanism designed to promote investment in RE technologies. It guarantees grid connection, and it secures a fixed power purchase period (typically 15–20 years), which is significant for initial technological investment. It also encourages gradual cost reductions for RE technologies. FiT has been successfully implemented over 40 countries [16] around the world, including in countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Thailand. In Malaysia, FiTs are claimed from a RE fund. The RE fund is made up of surcharges on residential, commercial and industrial electricity consumers [28]. Currently, TNB, the national power utility company, and Sabah Electricity Sdn. Bhd. charge all electricity consumers a 1.6% levy for the RE fund on behalf of SEDA, with the exception of domestic consumers whose electricity usage is less than 300 kWh/month [29]. The levy charge was met with opposition from consumers who questioned the passing off of the cost of RE development to consumers [28]. There are three major arguments here. First, relying only on funding from consumers is not an aggressive enough tactic to support the urgent and proper development of RE in Malaysia. Nevertheless, it indicated again the lack of strong political to develop RE, particularly when an estimated USD 7.9 billion [5] was spent by the government on total fossil fuel subsidies in 2013, but RE development required funding from levies charged to consumers at an estimated rate of MYR 625 million per annum [29]. Even in the latest subsidy reform exercise, the Prime Minister admitted that the main motivation behind the subsidy reform was related to Malaysia's rising national debt rather than environmental considerations [5]. This strong and sharp contrast between subsidising fossil fuels and not financially supporting REs greatly contradicts the voluntary pledge made by the Prime Minister in 2009. This sends the wrong message to the international community, which has been inspired by the voluntary pledge. The continued fossil fuel subsidies are aiding power generation from fossil fuels and impairs the relative cost competitiveness of RE. It also enhances the attractiveness of fossil fuel power generation and thus reduces investment in RE [6]. Second, a rational consumer would not pay for externalities whether they are positive (RE) or negative (fossil fuels). In this case, it appears that the development of RE has become an added burden to most consumers, especially commercial and industrial consumers who must pay the levy. Furthermore, it is a strange policy to punish consumers for positive externalities (from the development of RE) because levies are often perceived as a punishment. This gives RE a negative image when it should have a positive one. Under normal circumstances, consumers should be charged a levy when negative externalities are produced from the usage of a product or service, i.e., fossil fuels. Third, the “polluters pay” concept used by SEDA to justify the levy charge was not entirely suitable, as there is already a gradually increasing rate for current electricity charges, i.e., the more electricity one uses the higher the rate they must pay. Imagine a scenario where all domestic consumers use electricity at a rate of less than 300 kWh/ month and thus are excluded from contributing to the RE fund. In this scenario, an energy efficiency and wastage reduction may be achieved through domestic consumers; however, Malaysia would still be generating power with greater than 90% fossil fuel. In this case, the environmental problem remains while the RE fund contribution is reduced, affecting the FiT scheme and thus impairing RE development. In simple terms, this implies the lack of real funding to support RE development in Malaysia as a result of weak political support. In fact, TNB and all of the IPPs that rely on fossil fuel to generate electricity are the biggest polluters and contribute significantly to climate change. Therefore, the “polluters pay” concept should be equally applied to them. If there is no “polluted” supply, the “polluted” demand cannot be fulfilled; thus, polluters involve both

consumers and producers in pollution. As a result, these monopolistic utility companies should at the very least be accountable to pay for half of the pollution cost or RE fund. In the absence of carbon or pollution taxes to reflect negative externalities, fossil fuels are under-priced [37]. The externalities are thus transferred to society as pollution [54]. Furthermore, RE always seems more expensive due to the false impression that fossil fuels are cheap, especially when the negative externalities of fossil fuels are not factored in. Therefore, the government should impose a pollution or emissions tax on fossil fuels or, in lieu of that, solicit contributions to the RE fund that would be equivalent to such a tax. RE stems from fuel sources with prices that do not fluctuate according to the market, unlike fossil fuel. For example, neither the wind nor sunlight can become more expensive due to conflicts in the Middle East. A drastic switch to include RE as the dominant producer in the power generation mix in the country would immediately remove many economic/political/social considerations related to the need to cushion consumers from the fluctuation of the price of fossil fuel in the market. The right thing to do is to put a stop to the direct negotiation of IPPs' power generation deals [74]. Subsequently, when RE becomes the main electricity producer in the country, the monopoly of TNB should cease, as there would be no worry about the “raw material” or “fuel” for the RE generation requiring a price control mechanism to keep tariffs low or at a politically/socially acceptable level. The electricity tariff will fairer and better reflected in the market when there is no monopoly, but rather open tender and competition supported by proper regulation. In conclusion, positive externalities should be funded by the government, but negative externalities should be levied to consumers; in other words, the RE fund should be funded by the government and an emissions or pollution tax should be levied to the producers and consumers of power from fossil fuel. Linking the RE fund to pollution in the form of a levy is surely not the most suitable way to promote RE in Malaysia, particularly after 30 years of failure in RE development. Instead, the RE fund should be subsidised by a reduction in the fossil fuel subsidy. 4.2. Future of wind energy in Malaysia The failure of WTG demonstration projects at Swallow Reef and Small Perhentian Island serve as a warning that it is not easy to install wind power capacity in Malaysia, which is located in an Equatorial region with low wind speed, monsoons with seasonal variability and also inter-monsoon periods with limited wind coupled with high humidity. Previous studies have grossly and inaccurately estimated the wind potential in this region and have failed to include all areas, as commented by [44]. The NWP method used by [44] has demonstrated that wind energy is an underutilised RE in Malaysia, defying common beliefs that doldrums cannot produce wind power. The current wind mapping exercise by SEDA Malaysia to determine whether wind energy should be included in the FiT regime is in line with the Malaysia plan to include RE in the energy generation mix. However, as mentioned by IMPSA and [44], a proper wind resource assessment in Malaysia should consider mesoscale winds rather than macroscale winds. Therefore, the wind mast used in any study should be high enough to measure mesoscale winds. Recently, Brazil used advanced technology to measure wind speeds at 150 m height to unlock greater wind power potential. In light of the low wind speed situation at the macroscale, Malaysia should use masts higher than the current 60 m ones. Furthermore, installing taller masts has been a lengthy process since 2013, but the expected results by 2016, despite 12 months actual wind measurement duration. Regulatory support for RE in Malaysia is still very immature, though it has been 30 years of RE development. Compared to the

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

rest of the world, the only regulatory support for RE in Malaysia currently is through the newly introduced FiT. Since the FiT for wind energy is to be determined by the wind mapping exercise which is still in progress, it will not be discussed here. However, it would be interesting to know some of the regulatory framework from other countries that may be suitable to Malaysia's conditions, particularly for wind energy. In terms of the wind mapping exercise, SEDA should be given the authority to coordinate the wind mapping exercise among all the relevant parties, the federal government, state and also local governments to facilitate the consent for mast installation. Moreover, they should have the means, through coordinated efforts between relevant government agencies to provide site access, logistics to the equipment used in the mapping exercise, especially to hard-to-reach places for example, top of ridges, mountain, etc. Furthermore, tax exemption should be given for imported advanced equipment beneficial to the wind mapping exercise. On top of that, innovative incentives and grants should be created for innovation and high impact studies that are able to measure winds at mesoscale, accurately. At the same time, if Malaysia is really serious about utilising RE in its power generation mix, the study of grid connectivity and integration shall start immediately, especially for identified areas with high RE potential. In addition, there must be coordinated efforts from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment in terms of fast and accurate EIA approval for RE projects. On the other hand, the tax on coal implemented by India and the ROC used by the UK should be implemented to reflect the true environmental and socio cost of the fossil fuel power generation in Malaysia. Annual RE targets must be set to drive and measure the RE development effort properly. Last but not least, the RE industry in the country could not be possibly developed without a sufficient pool of RE expertise. Therefore, local talent must be nurtured and retained, coupled with the help of foreign experts and technology transfer to jump start the RE industry in Malaysia. The development of RE and its purpose relates very much to quality state education, something which Malaysia is still struggling with. However, above all, it is back to the question of political support and this is a serious issue for Malaysia. It is noteworthy that the IPPs supplying powers to TNB have power purchase agreements (PPAs) that are classified. The Malaysian opposition party has been trying to disclose that but it was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, it is generally known that TNB was forced to sign the lopsided PPAs [27,17]. The political interference in the PPAs is not without reason and the late TNB chairman who refused to sign the PPA at that time, mentioned that to obtain an IPP licence, 30% of the IPP must be owned by a Bumiputera (ethnic Malay and other indigenous populations) company [18]. Furthermore, before his recent passing he had questioned the actual ownership of the 30% IPP. Such political interference in the power sector cannot be solved easily and it remains a huge challenge for RE development in Malaysia. Even after the recent subsidy reform, the government will still subsidise electricity at MYR 2.4 billion annually. Moreover, the government has not reformed subsidies to IPPs where an estimated MYR 8–12 billion annually is at stake [5]. The nonreformed and continued fossil fuel subsidies to the IPPs are indicating that fossil fuel IPPs are here to stay and the power generation mix in Malaysia will remain approximately the same in the future. This is a huge entry barrier to RE development. Last but not least, RE power producers should receive FiT from the government in the same manner as IPPs or TNB receives fossil fuel subsidy from the government. The sharp contrast of treatment between subsidising the IPPs which are private companies and charging levies to the general public (and consumers) to fund RE development is really baffling. It only shows the government is insincere in developing RE or otherwise the CO2 emissions reduction pledge by the Prime Minister is not being heard by the

293

officials. By right, the RE fund should not be funded mainly from the people but the government. Further to that, the government should stop using tax payers' money to subsidise private companies which produce negative externalities. As mentioned earlier, China, the world’s largest wind power producer has to offer the highest FiT to develop wind power at lower wind speed regions. Apart from China, many countries in the world are using and trying sound and robust regulatory supports to develop wind energy, though they are from high wind speed regions. Therefore, a country such as Malaysia, which is sitting in the middle of the doldrums, has to do considerably more than that if the government is serious about developing wind energy. Malaysia is already lagging behind Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines in terms of installed wind power capacity. The Malaysian opposition parties are worried about the government's transparency and trust in the subsidy reform, particularly about corruption and wastage from maintaining white elephant projects [5]. In this case, any installed WTG that is not rotating can be considered white elephant. The debate remains and the future of wind energy in Malaysia remains vague, for now.

5. Conclusions Following conclusions can be drawn from this review:


Many previous wind energy studies in Malaysia are grossly inaccurate and are not sufficiently comprehensive.


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. The high spatial and temporal variability of the VOS observations suggest that they are not representative of the wind regime over a medium or large spatial area or a long time span. The current wind mapping by SEDA Malaysia should measure the mesoscale wind by using more advanced and higher wind mast. Review on global wind energy development found successful installation of wind power capacity depends very much on robust regulatory support and strong political will, something that Malaysia is still lacking and uncertain. The power generation in Malaysia is still heavily dependant on fossil fuels. Though the importance of RE has been long stressed but development is slow. Overall, based on current energy policies and implementation, fossil fuel will continue to dominate the power generation in Malaysia for a long time. This is especially true when there is continued political interference and strong support for the fossil fuel power generation. The government must sincerely fund RE development in an aggressive manner, with a sense of urgency and strong political will if it is serious in reducing CO2 emissions as pledged by the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Acknowledgements The author greatly appreciates the constructive comments from the anonymous reviewers and the editorial team. The author would also like to thank Ibrahim S. for going through the first draft of the paper, Che Omar C.M. for the encouragement related to the research, Abdullah A.M. for the brief supervision of the research, and those who have helped improve this paper.

294

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295

References [1] Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM). Sustainable energy options for electric power generation in Peninsula Malaysia to 2030; 2013. [2] Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for the sustainable development of power generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of Malaysia. Renew Energy 2014;63:458–66. [3] Akorede MF, Mohd Rashid MI, Sulaiman MH, Mohamed N, Ab Ghani S. Appraising the viability of wind energy conversion system in the Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Convers Manag 2013;76:801–10. [4] Ali R, Daut I, Taib. S. A review on existing and future energy sources for electrical power generation in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:4047–55. [5] Bridel A, Lontoh L. Lessons learned: Malaysia's 2013 fuel subsidy reform. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2014 March. [6] Bridle R, Kitson. L. The impact of fossil-fuel subsidies on renewable electricity generation. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development; 2014 December. [7] Carvalho D, Rocha A, Gomez-Gesteira M, Alvarez I, Silva Santos C. Comparison between CCMP, QuikSCAT and buoy winds along the Iberian Peninsula coast. Remote Sens Environ 2013;137:173–83. [8] Chiang EP, Zainal ZA, Aswatha Narayana PA, Seetharamu KN. Potential of renewable wave and offshore wind energy sources in Malaysia. In: marine technology seminar; 2003. [9] Chong WT, Poh SC, Fazlizan A, Yip SY, Koay MH, Hew WP. Exhaust air energy recovery system for electrical power generation in future green cities. Int J Precis Engand Manuf 2013;14(6):1029–35. [10] Darus ZM, Hashim NA, Manan SNA, Rahman MAA, Maulud KNA, Karim. OA. The development of hybrid integrated renewable energy system (wind and solar) for sustainable living at Perhentian Island, Malaysia. Eur J Social Sci 2009;9(4):557–63. [11] Emergent Ventures India. Emergent Ventures Malaysia: A few of EVI's projects in Malaysia; 2015. Available online: 〈http://emergent-ventures.com/coun trypages.aspx?id ¼2〉. Accessed June, 2015. [12] Gate SF. Dam the Dayaks dread/projects has displaced thousands of Borneo's indigenous people; 2001. Available online: 〈http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/ article/Dam-the-Dayaks-dread-Project-has-displaced-2918252.php〉. Accessed March, 2014. [13] Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Global Wind Report: Annual market update; 2014. Available online: 〈http://www.gwec.net/GWEC_Global_Wind_ 2014_Report_LR〉. Accessed May, 2015. [14] Governing the states and localities. Is hydropower a renewable energy or not? 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.governing.com/topics/transportationinfrastructure/gov-hydropower-renewable-energy.html〉. Accessed March, 2014. [15] Hamdan A, Mustapha F, Ahmad KA, Mohd Rafie. AS. A review on the micro energy harvester in structural health monitoring (SHM) of biocomposite material for vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT) system: a Malaysia perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;35:23–30. [16] Hashim H, Ho WS. Renewable energy policies and initiatives for a sustainable energy future in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4780–7. [17] Hisyam K. Ani Arope, the man who refused Mahathir; 29 December 2014. Available online: 〈http://www.kinibiz.com/story/corporate/130879/a-glimpseof-ani-arope.html〉. Accessed May, 2015. [18] Hisyam K. How Malaysia's first IPP was born; 7 July 2014. Available online: 〈http://www.kinibiz.com/story/issues/94381/how-malaysia%E2%80%99s-firstipp-was-born.html〉. Accessed May, 2015. [19] Hitoshi S. Overview of international renewable energy policies and comparison with Malaysia's domestic policy. United States: School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University; 2004. [20] IMPSA. Eyes more business in Asia. The Brunei Times; 8 June 2011. Available online: 〈http://www.bt.com.bn/business-asia/2011/06/08/impsa-eyes-morebusiness-asia〉. Accessed January, 2014. [21] Islam MR, Saidur R, Rahim NA. Assessment of wind energy potentiality at Kudat and Labuan, Malaysia using Weibull distribution function. Energy 2011;36:985–92. [22] Jacobsen HK. Energy intensities and the impact of high energy prices on producing and consuming sectors in Malaysia: an input-output assessment of the Malaysian economy and the vulnerability to energy price changes. Environ Develop Sustain 2009;11:137–60. [23] Khatib T, Sopian K, Mohamed A, Ibrahim MZ. Sizing of a wind charger at minimum cost for remote housing electrification: a case study for nine coastal sites in Malaysia. Energy Build 2012;51:185–90. [24] Khor CS, Lalchand G. A review on sustainable power generation in Malaysia to 2030: Historical perspective, current assessment, and future strategies. Renew Sustain Energy Reviews 2014;29:952–60. [25] Koh SL, Lim YS. Meeting energy demand in a developing economy without damaging the environment-A case study in Sabah Malaysia, from technical, environmental and economic perspectives. Energy Policy 2010;38:4719–28. [26] Kok C. Malaysia's green energy gap. The Star online. 31 October 2009. Available online: 〈http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file¼%2f2009%2f10% 2f31%2fbusiness%2f5011674&sec ¼ business〉. Accessed January, 2014. [27] Lee P. Government forced TNB to sign lopsided PPAs; 3 June 2011. Available online: 〈http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2011/06/03/ govt-forced-tnb-to-sign-lopsided-ppas/〉. Accessed May, 2015.

[28] LeongHY. Boost for RE fund. The Star online; 31 August 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2013/08/31/Boost-forRE-fund.aspx/〉. Accessed January, 2014. [29] LeongHY. RM325mil boost for renewable energy fund. The Star Online Business News; 10 February 2014. Available online: 〈http://www.thestar.com.my/ Business/Business-News/2014/02/10/RM325mil-boost-for-RE-fund-Increasecomes-about-after-surcharge-raised-to-16/?style¼biz〉. Accessed June, 2015. [30] Liu WT, Xie X. Space-based observation of offshore strong wind for electric power generation. In: wind energy conversion systems, green energy and technology, springer-verlag london limited; 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4471-2201-2_15. [31] Loo TG. Current status on carbon capture and storage initiatives in Malaysia. In: 4th IEA International CCS Regulatory Network Meeting. Paris, France; 9– 10th May 2012. [32] Malaysia: where wind energy power is already churning; 19 August 2010. Available online: 〈http://www.windfair.net/wind-energy/news/7870〉. Accessed January, 2014. [33] Malaysian Meteorological Stations Network. Available online: 〈http://www. met.gov.my/index.php?option¼ com_con tent&task¼ view&id ¼ 1311&Itemid¼ 1047〉. Accessed January, 2014. [34] Masseran N, Razali AM, Ibrahim K. An analysis of wind power density derived from several wind speed density functions: the regional assessment on wind power in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:6476–87. [35] Masseran N, Razali AM, Ibrahim K, Wan Zin WZ. Evaluating the wind speed persistence for several wind stations in Peninsular Malaysia. Energy 2012;37:649–56. [36] Mekhilef S, Barimani M, Safari A, Salam Z. Malaysia's renewable energy policies and programs with green aspects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:497–504. [37] Mendoza MNF. Chapter 4: The socioeconomic impact of energy security in southeast Asia. In: Energy and non-traditional security (nts) in Asia. Springer briefs in environment security, development and peace 1; 2012. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-29706-9_4. [38] Ministry of Energy. Green technology and water Malaysia. IMPSA fast emerging major player in Malaysia's renewable energy sector; 23 November 2009. Available online: o http://www3.kettha.gov.my/en/content/impsa-fast-emer ging-major-player-malaysias-renewable-energy-sector 4. Accessed January, 2014. [39] Ministry of Energy. Green technology and water Malaysia. National renewable energy policy and action plan; 2008. Available online: 〈http://seda.gov.my/? omaneg ¼00010100000001010101000100001000000000000000000000&s ¼ 31〉. Accessed January, 2014. [40] Mohamad AAS. FiT-current status and future trend in Malaysia: empowering green markets. In: Conjunction with IGEM; 2013. Sustainable Energy Development Authority Malaysia; 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.mgbc.org. my/resources/〉. Accessed March, 2014. [41] Najid SK, Zaharim A, Razali AM, Zainol MS, Ibrahim K, Sopian K. Analysing the East Coast Malaysia wind speed data. Int J Energy Environ 2009;2(3):53–60. [42] Newscientist. Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed; 2005. Available online: 〈http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powersdirty-secret-revealed.html#.Uy_NxYWPrYR〉. Accessed March, 2014. [43] Ngan MS, Tan CW. Assessment of economic viability for PV/wind/diesel hybrid energy system in southern Peninsular Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:634–47. [44] Nor KM, Shaaban M, Rahman HA. Feasibility assessment of wind energy resources in Malaysia based on NWP models. Renew Energy 2014;62:147–54. [45] Oh KY, Kim JY, Lee JS, Ryu KW. Wind resource assessment around Korean Peninsula for feasibility study on 100 MW class offshore wind farm. Renew Energy 2012;42:217–26. [46] Oh TH, Pang SY, Chua SC. Energy policy and alternative energy in Malaysia: issues and challenges for sustainable growth. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1241–52. [47] Ong HC, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki. HH. A review on energy scenario and sustainable energy in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:639–47. [48] PEMANDU. Economic Transformation Programme: A Roadmap For Malaysia. Chapter 6: Powering the Malaysia Economy with Oil, Gas and Energy; 2010. Available online: 〈http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/Download_Centre-@-Down load_Centre.aspx〉. Accessed May, 2015. [49] Pooi KC, Ramasamy M. Malaysia stresses no need to panic while cutting forecast; 20 January 2015. Available online: 〈http://www.bloomberg.com/ news/articles/2015-01-20/malaysia-sees-bigger-budget-deficit-cuts-growthforecast-on-oil〉. Accessed June, 2015. [50] Portabella M, Stoffelen A, Verhoef A, Verspeek J, Vogelzang J. Towards a highresolution gridded ocean forcing. In: EUMETSAT/AMS conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 24–28th September 2007. Available online: 〈http://www. knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id ¼ 5140〉. Accessed February, 2014. [51] Potter CW, Lew D, McCaa J, Cheng S, Eichelberger S, Grimit E. Creating the dataset for the Western wind and solar integration study (U.S.A.). Wind Eng 2008;32(4):325–38. [52] Potter JF. Time to stop subsidising environmental degradation. Environmentalist 1998;18:195–6. [53] Shafie SM, Mahlia TMI, Masjuki HH, Andriyana A. Current energy usage and sustainable energy in Malaysia: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4370–7.

L.-W. Ho / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 279–295 [54] Shen J, Luo C. Overall review of renewable energy subsidy policies in China – Contradictions of intentions and effects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:1478–88. [55] Sirim plans to expand renewable energy technology. The Star Online; 10 December 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Busi ness-News/2013/12/10/Sirim-plans-to-expand-renewable-energy-technology. aspx/〉. Accessed January, 2014. [56] Social watch. Development at the cost of sustainability: Malaysia; 2012. Available online: 〈http://www.socialwatch.org/node/14003〉. Accessed March, 2014. [57] Sopian K, Othman MY, Wirsat A. The wind energy potential of Malaysia. Renew Energy 1995;6(8):1005–16. [58] Sovacool BK, Bulan. LC. Behind an ambitious megaproject in Asia: the history and implications of the Bakun hydroelectric dam in Borneo. Energy Policy 2011;39:4842–59. [59] Sustainable Energy Development Authority Malaysia (SEDA). Available online: 〈http://seda.gov.my/〉. Accessed January, 2014. [60] Sustainable Energy Development Authority Malaysia (SEDA). Request for proposal – the development of wind map in Malaysia; 2012. [61] Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB). Annual Report 2011. Available online: 〈www. tnb.com.my〉. Accessed March, 2014. [62] Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB). Tariff rates. Available online: 〈http://www.tnb. com.my/residential/pricing-and-tariff.html〉. Accessed June, 2015. [63] The Borneo project. Bakun dam. Available online: 〈http://borneo.live.radi caldesigns.org/article.php?list ¼ type&type ¼ 11&all¼ 1〉. Accessed March, 2014. [64] Tiang TL, Ishak D. Technical review of wind energy potential as small-scale power generation sources in Penang island Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:3034–42. [65] TNB Energy Services Sdn. Bhd. Making it happen, getting it done. Available online: 〈http://www.tnbes.com.my/25%20sept%202007.htm〉. Accessed May, 2015. [66] United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). World water assessment programme: hydropower supplies about 20% of the

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73] [74]

295

world's electricity. Available online: 〈http://www.unesco.org/new/en/naturalsciences/environment/water/wwap/facts-and-figures/all-facts-wwdr3/fact-6hydropower/〉. Accessed March, 2014. United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA); 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm? tid¼ 2&pid ¼2&aid¼ 2&cid ¼MY,&syid ¼1980&eyid¼ 2011&unit ¼BKWH〉. Accessed October, 2014. United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA); 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid ¼ 2&pid ¼ 2&aid¼ 2&cid ¼ww,&syid¼ 1980&eyid¼2011&unit ¼ BKWH〉. Accessed October, 2014. United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA); 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid ¼ 90&pid¼ 44&aid¼ 8&cid ¼ MY,&syid¼ 1980&eyid¼2011&unit ¼ MMTCD〉. Accessed October, 2014. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Hydroelectricity: electricity from hydropower; 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.epa.gov/ cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/hydro.html〉. Accessed March, 2014. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Overview of greenhouse gases: methane emissions. Available online: 〈http://epa.gov/clima techange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html〉. Accessed March, 2014. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) global. Dam problems: environmental impacts. Available online: 〈http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/water/dams_ initiative/problems/environmental/〉. Accessed March, 2014. Zaharim A, Najid SK, Razali AM, Sopian K. Wind speed analysis in the east coast of Malaysia. Eur J Sci Res 2009;32(2):208–15. Zurairi AR. Time for IPP direct negotiations over, says TNB chairman. The Malay mail online. 16 September 2013. Available online: 〈http://www.thema laymailonline.com/money/article/time-for-ipp-direct-negotiations-over-saystnb-chairman〉. Accessed January, 2014.