Malaysia Power Analysis

Technische Universitt Mnchen
Lehrstuhl fr Energiewirtschaft und Anwendungstechnik

Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Thomas Hamacher
Masters Thesis
Analysis of the Power System of Malaysia
Melanie Maria Theresia Mannhart

Matr.No. 03635605
Supervisors:
Dr.-Ing. Tobias Massier
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Thomas Hamacher
Abstract
With its growing economy, the demand for electricity in Malaysia is expected to triple in 2035
as compared to 2012. Meeting this high electricity demand sustainably and environmentalfriendly is a future challenge. This thesis analyses the actual and future power system in
Malaysia, regarding not only the rapidly increasing electricity demand but also environment
and reliability aspects as well as total costs of the power system.
Data about the actual power system from literature are implemented into the model URBS.
These include the electricity demand, the transmission power grid and economic parameters
of the energy market. By using this time step based model to find the most cost-effective
structure of the future power system, impacts of intermittent energy sources on the power
system are investigated. Moreover, the influence of reducing CO2 emissions and the expansion
of the 2012 power grid in Malaysia are examined. A sensitivity analysis of fuel prices is
presented by varying gas prices.
In all cases, the expansion of transmission lines reduces the overall costs of the power system.
As the potential of renewable energies (RE) and the demand for electricity are unequally
distributed, the construction of new transmission lines has a positive effect on the utilisation
of RE, particularly on the exploitation of hydro power potential. The higher the CO2 emission
limit, the higher the installed and used capacity of RE. However, due to the use of RE, backup capacity has to be installed which results in higher investment costs. Considering lower
gas prices, CO2 emissions are reduced by using cost-effective and low-emission gas-fired power
stations. Subsidies to fossil fuels restrain the development of RE. Hence, one can consider
to diminish these subsidies while incentivising renewable energies to obtain a sustainable and
reliable energy supply.
Statement of Academic Integrity
I,
Last name: Mannhart
First name: Melanie Maria Theresia
Matr.No.: 03635605
hereby confirm that the attached thesis,
Analysis of the power system of Malaysia
was written independently by me without the use of any sources or aids beyond those cited,
and all passages and ideas taken from other sources are indicated in the text and given the
corresponding citation.
Tools provided by the institute and its stuff, such as models or programs, are also listed.
These tools are property of the institute or of the individual staff member. I will not use them
for any work beyond the attached thesis or make them available to third parties.
I agree to the further use of my work and its results (including programs produced and
methods used) for research and instructional purposes.
I have not previously submitted this thesis for academic credit.
Singapore, 01/04/2014
.................................................
(Author: Mannhart, Melanie Maria Theresia)
Contents
1 Motivation
2 Data Research
12
2.1
Regional Distribution of Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2
Climate in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3
Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4
Demand for Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5
Power Stations and their Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6
CO2 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7
Power Grid in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 Implementation of Data into the Model URBS
28
3.1
The Model URBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2
Definition of Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3
Spatial Resolution of Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4
Classification of Model Input Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.5
Demand for Electricity by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.6
Distribution of Potential of RE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.7
Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.8
Further Assumptions Concerning Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.9
Excel Macro filling table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 Scenarios
39
4.1
Definition of Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2
Proofing the Model by Evaluating the 2012 Reference Scenario . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3
Investigation of Future Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.3.1
Verifying Political Targets by 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3.2
Long-Term View in 2035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.3.3
Impact of Gas Price and CO2 Emission Restrictions in 2035 . . . . . . . 54
5 Conclusion and Outlook
58
Appendix
61
Contents
Acronyms and Symbols
90
List of Figures
92
List of Tables
93
Bibliography
96
II
1 Motivation
With endorsing the Bangkok Declaration on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was built by 5 founding members, namely
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. They declared to establish an Association for Regional Cooperation among the countries of South-East Asia to be known as the
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in which they agreed on common objectives and purposes [ASEAN.1967]. Furthermore, the Bangkok Declaration takes care of the
way of accomplishing these aims. There are four institutions and organs founded which are the
Annual Meeting of Foreign Ministers (referred to as ASEAN Ministerial Meeting), a Standing
Committee which execute the work of ASEAN between ASEAN Ministerial Meetings, AdHoc Committees and Permanent Committees of specialists and officials on specific subjects
and a National Secretariat in each member country which is responsible for the work of the
Association on behalf of each member [ASEAN.1967]. Moreover, in the Bangkok Declaration
is implied that the Association is open for participation to all States in the South-East Asian
Region subscribing to the aforementioned aims, principles and purposes. [ASEAN.1967].
For the time being, ASEAN includes ten member countries in South-East Asia (SEA) which
are Brunei Darussalam (since 1984), Cambodia (since 1999), Indonesia, Lao PDR (since 1997),
Malaysia, Myanmar (since 1997), Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam (since 1995)
[ASEAN.2014].
Due to the diverse structure of countries, there are differences in the stage of development.
This includes the variety of energy use in every country concerning the dimension and patterns
of the energy consumption. Moreover, related to the different energy uses and the endowments
of energy sources, there are differences both in the economic growth as well as the growth of the
energy demand. According to [IEA.2013], Indonesia used the largest amount of primary energy
with 36 % of the total demand, followed by Thailand as the second-largest user with 21 %
in 2011. Moreover, Indonesia also consumed over 50 times more than Brunei Darussalam
which consumes the minimal amount of energy of ASEAN. In total, the consumed energy
per capita is 0.9 toe in SEA in 2011 which is relatively low compared to developed countries.
Additionally, the growth rate of the primary energy demand varies by 2.3 % to 3.5 % per year
until 2035 [IEA.2013]. The prospective per-capita energy consumption is 1.4 toe/capita in
2035.
1 Motivation
Table 1.1: Primary energy consumption of ASEAN by county in 2011 [IEA.2013].

Share of primary energy consumption
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines
Thailand
Rest of ASEAN
35.7 %
13.5 %
7.3 %
21.5 %
21.7 %
Total ASEAN
549 Mtoe
The previously mentioned diversity affects the demand for electricity.

One of the key indicator of the electricity demand which is calculated as the per-capita electricity demand varies by around 1,000 kWh/capita in Cambodia to around 9,000 kWh/capita
in Brunei Darussalam. The total consumption of electricity in SEA came to 712 TWh in 2011
with an annual growth rate of 4.2 % by 2035 [IEA.2013].
Another indicator of the demand for electricity is the share of population without access to
electricity. It diversifies widely between the South East Asian region. The electrification rate
in Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand came to almost 100 %, whereas a
share of 66 % of the population in Cambodia had no access to electricity. This was the lowest
rate of ASEAN in 2011. In Myanmar, about one out of two lacked access to electricity. Although the electrification rate is still low and below the ASEAN average of 78 %, Indonesia
achieved to extend the share of population with access to electricity from 53 % in 2002 to 73 %
in 2011 [IEA.2013].
Regarding this widely spectrum of features in the particular countries and the high economic
growth, it is likely that the electricity demand will increase rapidly. For the previous mentioned
reasons, the focus on the overall energy consumption will shift from the already developed
countries towards Asia.
Thus, future challenges resulting from the rapidly growth have to be analysed and examined,
especially regarding meeting the highly increasing demand for energy and electricity of the
emerging countries in SEA. In the following, Malaysia as a developing country of the founding
countries of ASEAN is considered more in detail.
1 Motivation
Profile of Malaysia
Malaysia, located in the middle of SEA, consists of two regions which are separated by the
South China Sea, namely Peninsular Malaysia and Malaysian Borneo. Whereas Peninsular
Malaysia is situated in the south of the Asian continent and at the boarder to Thailand,
Malaysian Borneo is located in the north western area of the largest island of Asia. This
island is called Borneo, which itself is located in the east of Peninsular Malaysia. It consists
of three different countries, which are Brunei Darussalam, Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan which
belongs to Malaysia, and Indonesian Kalimantan.
The total area of Malaysia comes to around 330,290 km2 [JPMy.2012] and consists of 58 %
lowland and 42 % highland areas with high differences in altitude [Hussein.2010]. The lowest
point of Malaysia is the Indian Ocean at sea level, whereas the highest point is the Mount
Kinabalu at a height of 4,100 m in Sabah [CIA.2014]. Furthermore, Malaysia holds the 29th
longest coast line in the world with a total length of around 4,675 km [Ahmad.2014b]. The
distribution of the total Malaysian area is listed in Table 2.1. It shows that around 60 % of
the Malaysian area is part of Borneo, although 80 % of the population is living in Peninsular
Malaysia [JPMy.2012].
The Malaysian country is politically subdivided as follows: There are 13 federal states
and three federal territories, whose eleven states and two federal territories are in Peninsular
Malaysia as well as two federal states and one federal territory in Malaysian Borneo, respectively. The capital Kuala Lumpur is in Peninsular Malaysia, which is one federal territory,
although the seat of government is located in Putrajaya which is the second federal territory
in Peninsular Malaysia.
The total arable land came to a share of 5.44 % [CIA.2014]. Given by [JPMy.2012], the
cultivated area for main crops comes to 6,758.4 thousand hectares whose largest share was
oil palms with 74 %. According to [DOA.2012], 97,275.19 hectares of the total land were idle
land in 2012. It consisted of inland and paddy fields which has potential for cultivating but
were not planted for three years uninterruptedly. Thus, this land is considered as possible
locations of, for instance, commercial solar farms without conflicts with the food industry.
Table 2.1 gives the population density and the population distribution by state. It is
obvious that the two countries situated in Borneo, namely Sabah and Sarawak, have one of
the lowest population density/km2 in overall Malaysia. In total, the Malaysian population
comes to 29.34 Million in 2012 [JPMy.2012]. The labour force comes to 12.5 million people
in 2012 from which there are distributed to the sectors with 52.7 % to the service, 36.2 % to
the industry and 11.1 % in the agriculture sector [EPU.2012]. The unemployment rate comes
to 3.2 % which is relatively low [EPU.2012].
The structure of the production as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
in 2012 was composed of the largest share of the service sector with 54.6 %. Additionally, the
1 Motivation
second largest share was contributed by the manufacturing sector with 24.9 % and followed
by the mining sector and the agriculture sector with 8.4 % and 7.3 %, respectively. The
construction sector added 3.5 % to the GDP in 2012 [JPMy.2013].
In total, the GDP in Malaysia came to 239.9 billion US$ [EPU.2012] at 2012 Purchasing Power
Parity (PPP)-prices. Prospective outlooks predict an annual increase of the GDP by 5.0 %
until 2020 and by 3.4 % from 2020 until 2035, respectively [IEA.2013]. The economic growth
amounted to 5.6 % in 2012 [JPMy.2013].
According to [Tang.2013], there is a causality between the electricity consumption and
the economic growth in Malaysia in the short-run as well as in the long term. The real
income affects the consumption positively, whereas the energy price and the technology innovations contributes to it negatively. For instance, better developed products by technology
innovations will increase the efficiency of the electricity utilisation and therefore reduce the
electricity consumption. Hence, one of the key findings of [Tang.2013] is that Malaysia is an
energy-dependent country.. Accordingly, the energy sector is a key indicator for the countrys
economy and in the following it will be examined particularly.
National Energy Policy

With the oil crises in the 1970s, the awareness of limited resources of fossil fuels raised.
Hence, the actual government launched the National Petroleum Policy in 1975 to guarantee
optimal use of petroleum resources by controlling the industry regarding economic, social
and environmental coverage. In view of the global oil crises in 1973 and 1978, the economic
growth was rigorously influenced by the increasing prices of oil. As Malaysias former energy
mix relied mostly on oil, the negative effects of the oil crises affected the Malaysian economy as
well. Thus, according to [Khor.2013] and [ASM.2013] which are literally identical in parts, the
National Energy Policy was framed in 1979 with the aim of providing energy cost-effectively
both from fossil and renewable sources. Furthermore, the use of energy was to be efficient and
productive as well. Additionally, the negative impact of the energy sector on the environment
was to be reduced.
In 1980 the National Depletion Policy was formulated to prevent the limited energy resources from over-exploitation. Thus, the daily production of crude oil and natural gas was
restricted to 630,000 barrels and 2,000 MMscf, respectively, to extend the time frame of possible future exploitation [Khor.2013].
Followed by the Four-Fuel Diversification Policy in 1981, the dependence on the main
energy resource oil was to reduce further. The aim was to diversify the energy sources for the
electricity generation into oil, gas, hydro power and coal.
In 1990, the Electricity Supply Act (ESA) was adopted to administrate the Malaysian
Electricity Supply Industry (MESI) [HAPUA.2013].
1 Motivation
With the local mining of fossil resources to ensure supply security, the National Mineral
Policy was launched in 1998. This set of regulations formulated guidelines for the efficient
mining of local coal resources by enhanced underground mining methods, advanced machinery
and computerisation of the maintenance and administration of the mining companies.
In 2000, the Four-Fuel Diversification Policy was extended by renewable energies (RE) as
a fifth energy source to the Five-Fuel Diversification Policy. This was a step forward into a
sustainable energy policy since RE were admitted as a possible fuel in addition to oil, gas,
coal and hydro power.
When the ESA from 1990 had been completed with the Energy Commission Act (ECA) in
2001, the Energy Commission (Suruhanjaya Tenaga) was enacted as the regulator of the MESI
for Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah. Particularly, the ESA and ECA authorise the Energy
Commission to govern the electricity tariff to the customers. However, the energy supply
industry in Sarawak is controlled by the local utility according to the Sarawak Electricity
Supply Ordinance of 1992 which stays in contrast to the idea of an overall regulating authority
in Malaysia [HAPUA.2013].
With the growing recognition of RE, the programme of the Small Renewable Energy
Power (SREP) was launched in 2001. In the Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (REPPA) the utilisation of RE as a source to generate power was approved. With
signing this agreement, the national power utilities consent to purchase the generated electricity by RE from independent Power Producers (IPP) for the upcoming 21 years in the
national power grid. Thereby, electricity which is generated by biomass, biogas (results from
waste of palm oil mills and municipal landfills) as well as solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind is
applicable. However, capacity of those small power stations is restricted to 10 MW. Thus, the
target of RE capacity of 350 MW could not be obtained as only less than 4 % of this particular
amount was installed.
Regarding this failure, there were four different reasons. On the one hand, there were still
relatively high subsidies to fossil fuels which compensate the small incentives of the SREP
by far. On the other hand, the high investment costs of RE power stations combined with
the low incentives result in a long pay-off time and make investments unattractive. Furthermore, long negotiations were conducted to sign REPPAs with strictly terms. Uncertainty of
the price and the future availability of biomass as a energy source enhanced the reluctance
of investments as well. Nevertheless, the SREP reinforced the governments pledge of the
developing role of RE in the generation mix.
In addition, a further project in the Malaysian Palm Oil Industry, called Biomass-based
Power Generation & Co-generation (BioGen), was adopted in 2002 until 2010 to promote the
implementation of RE, which was also supported by the Global Environment Facility of the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP-GEF). Moreover, the Malaysian Building
Integrated Photovoltaic (MBIPV) in 2005 completed these initiatives which was to reduce the
1 Motivation
investment costs of solar PV. Furthermore, the installed capacity of solar PV utilisations in
buildings was to enlarge.
Followed by the National Green Technology Policy in 2009, the utilisation of environmentalfriendly technologies was enacted. Related to this programme, the introduction of co-generation
technologies which are based on biomass and the promotion of power generated by RE were
accomplished. This also included the production and application of environmental-friendly
manufactures. Additionally, new markets were opened up by the favourable opportunities of
green products, buildings and the overall environmental management [Khor.2013].
In 2010, the New Energy Policy completed the energy-related political framework so far
and reaffirmed the governments encouraging of the utilisation of RE for electricity generation.
This programme considered economic efficiency, environmental and social aspects, especially
to amplify the supply security by using RE. To accomplish this, five strategic key approaches
were defined. Firstly, the programme was been proactive to ensure and conduct an energy
supply which is sustainable and solid. Additionally, there were measures in order to enhance
the role of RE and the implementation of a energy pricing which is based on current market
prices. Moreover, the controlling and management were to reinforce and finally to bring off
the policy shift [Khor.2013]. A further target was that 5.5 % of the produced electricity is
generated by RE by 2015 [Gan.2013].
The next step was to launch the Renewable Energy Act in 2011 to increase further the
development of RE. It contains the scheme of Feed-In Tariff (FiT) for RE-based electricity.
At the same time, the National Biomass Strategy 2020 was enacted to accredit the utilisation
of biomass for the generation of biofuels [Khor.2013].
Additionally to those legislative frameworks, there are National Development Plans, called
Malaysia Plan (MP) which are defined every five years. These plans aim for enhancing the
national economic development and the rural electrification by implementing infrastructure
Sustainable Energy Options for Electric Power Generation in Peninsular Malaysia to 2030
5
Figure 1. Timeline of energy-related policies and initiatives in Malaysia (19792015).
Figure 1.1: Overview of selected political frameworks from 1975 to 2015 [Khor.2013].
1 Motivation
development which are covering energy policies, strategies and initiatives. Thus, they are to
enlarge the coverage of basic needs of people with deprived backgrounds. In every MP, specific
targets have been defined which are related to the lately adopted policies. In addition, Figure 1.1 gives an overview of the policies and development plans from 1975 to 2015, according
to [Khor.2013].
Structure of the Energy Sector in Malaysia

The composition of the power supply which is related to the analysis of the power system and
the energy sector is examined in the following.
In Figure 1.2, the development of the primary energy supply in Malaysia is depicted from
1980 until 2010 based on the periods of the MP [MEIH.2012b]. It is observed that the
different policies influence the primary energy supply considerably. The shift from crude oil
and petroleum products to natural gas and coal is obvious. Solely, the development of other
RE is obscured.
100%
Share of energy sources

in primary energy supply
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1980
Coal and Coke
1985
1990
1995
Crude Oil and Petroleum Products
2000
Hydro Power
2005
2010
Natural Gas
Figure 1.2: Primary energy supply in Malaysia in time steps based on the 5-year Malaysia
Plans (MP) [MEIH.2012b].
Additionally, the primary energy supply in 2012 is shown in Figure 1.3 [MEIH.2012b]. It
depicts the high dependency on fossil fuels -formerly on oil, nowadays on natural gas and coalas the main component of the primary energy supply. Natural gas contributed the largest
share of 46 % to the primary energy supply. Followed by crude oil and coal with a share of 32 %
and 19 %, respectively. Moreover, the primary energy supply consisted of 3 % of hydro power.
Biogas and biomass were still negligible.
Furthermore, the final energy demand per capita came to 1.59 toe in Malaysia in 2012.
According to [IEA.2013], the per-capita energy consumption is estimated at 61 % and will
increase up to 83 % of the OECD average in 2035. The total amount of the final energy
demand was 46,710 ktoe [MEIH.2012d, JPMy.2012]. Figure 1.4 depicts the distribution of the
1 Motivation
Natural Gas
Hydro Power
Crude Oil
Primary Energy
Supply (ktoe)
Coal and Coke

Biomass
Biogas
10000
30000 ktoe
20000
40000
Figure 1.3: Primary energy supply in 2012 in ktoe [MEIH.2012b].

final energy demand by fuel type in 2012. Natural gas as the largest share contributed 33 %,
the second-largest parts are electricity and oil (both with a share of 21 %), followed by diesel
with 19 %. Coal and coke added only 4 % of the final energy demand in 2012, although they
made a relatively huge part in the primary energy supply [MEIH.2012d]. Thus, the share of
coal was already taken in account to the electricity share. Compared with the share of natural
gas in the primary energy supply as well, it is obvious that the generation of electricity is
mainly based on fossil fuels.
21%
19%
4%
21%
33%
2%
Coal and Coke
Diesel
Electricity
Gas
Non-Energy
Oil
Figure 1.4: Final energy demand (in total 46,710 ktoe) by fuel type in 2012 [MEIH.2012d].
In Figure 1.5, the electricity consumption by sector is depicted in 2012. Thereby, the industrial sector held the largest share of 45 % of the total electricity consumption (10,011 ktoe).
This was followed by the commercial sector with 33 % and the residential sector with 21 %,
respectively. The agricultural and the transport sector made up a merely small part of final
electricity consumption with 30 ktoe and 21 ktoe, respectively [MEIH.2012c].
1 Motivation
4,509 ktoe
2,126 ktoe
21 ktoe
3,325 ktoe
Agriculture
Commercial
Industrial
30 ktoe
Residential
Transport
Figure 1.5: Electricity consumption in Malaysia by sector in 2012 [MEIH.2012c].

As illustrated in Figure 1.6, the actual Malaysian generation mix of electricity in 2012 (in
total 122,535.6 GWh [JPMy.2012a]) was based on fossil fuels which resulted in high energyrelated CO2 emissions [EPU.2012]. The mix was dominated by electricity of gas-fired power
stations with a share of 52.7 %. Furthermore, the amount of electricity which was generated
by coal-fired power stations contributed the second largest share to the mix (38.9 %). Hydro
power stations generated a share of 7.3 % of the total electricity, followed by a share of 1.0 %
of power stations fired by oil and petrochemicals. Generated electricity from other RE like
solar PV and wind was 0.2 % in 2012.
38.9%
52.7%
7.3%
0.2%
1.0%
Coal
Gas
Hydro Power
Oil and Petrochemicals
Other RE
Figure 1.6: Electricity generation of 122.5 TWh in Malaysia in 2012 [EPU.2012].

With its growing economy, the energy demand is also increasing in future. Due to the
growing demand for electricity there will be future challenges. As already mentioned, the
demand for electricity will grow by 4.2 % in Malaysia [IEA.2013]. Due to the combustion
of fossil fuels to generate the needed electricity, the CO2 emissions related to the power
generation will keep on rising in the near future in Malaysia unless the generation mix will
change.
At the 15th United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) in Copenhagen in December 2009 (COP 15), the Malaysian
1 Motivation
government undertook voluntarily a 40 % reduction of the emission intensity of 2005 by 2020,
according to [ASM.2013]. This parameter is defined by the total CO2 emissions related to the
GDP. Hence, there is a urgent need for acting.
Objective of This Thesis

The aim of this thesis is to analyse the power system of Malaysia particularly. It is to
be clarified how each part of the power system is linked to each other, namely the energy
consumption and demand situation, power generation, power transmission and distribution as
well as the energy market with respect to economic aspects. By means of a time-based model,
the hourly coverage of the demand side and the supply side is considered by certain constraints.
Hence, hourly time steps are regarded in which the demand for electricity has to meet by the
generated electricity. One advantage of this approach over studies so far is that intermittent
energy sources and hourly load curves with possible peaks are taken into account. The used
model is based on a cost minimising algorithm with linear optimisation. Transferred to the
power system it is possible to simulate the future power station fleet and calculate the annual
total costs of the power system to cover the future demand. Furthermore, energy-related CO2
emissions are derived and restricted. By limiting the energy-related CO2 emissions, the fleet
of power stations has to be adjusted to power generating processes which are mostly lowemission processes. This is where renewable energy sources come in as electricity generation
by RE is emission-free and a possible and sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-fired power
stations.
There are a few studies regarding the Malaysian power system so far. Most of them pick
up just a part of the power system as e.g. the impact of RE on the power system. For instance, Ahmad and Mat Tahar [Ahmad.2014b] focus on selected RE for the development of a
sustainable electricity generation system in Malaysia. They use a analytic hierarchy process
to make decision analysis based on multi-criteria. This approach is common in the energy
sector. The main criteria are technical, economical, social and environmental. They come
to the conclusion that Malaysia is endowed with potential of RE but its exploitation is also
limited. Furthermore, the feed-in tariff, the efficiency and the lifetime of power stations affect
the future power system the most. They suggest to put the main stress on hydro power,
biomass and solar PV as technologies to develop and generate electricity in Malaysia.
Moreover, Koh and Lim [Koh.2010] did a case study in Sabah in 2010. In this paper they
evaluate alternative options to a planed coal-fired power station to meet the future demand
in Sabah. They focus on solar PV, hydro power, biomass, wind turbines and ocean energy as
well as the construction of new transmission lines to Sarawak. These evaluations are based on
technical, economic and environmental aspects compared to a 300 MW coal-fired power station. They found out that there are feasible options to the coal-fired power station which are
10
1 Motivation
hydro power, biomass and the construction of new transmission lines to Sarawak. Additionally, these alternatives are lower in CO2 emissions and therefore more environmental-friendly.
Khor and Lalchand [Khor.2013] give recommendations on possible policies for a sustainable
electricity generation. Their results are based on the political framework and the economic
and environmental development in Malaysia. The results are not model-based, even less time
step based. They conclude that there are a few strategical points to achieve a sustainable
electricity generation. Firstly, they suggest to enhance the supply security of coal as the generation mix is mainly based on this energy resource. At the same time, subsidies to natural
gas are to reduce. Furthermore, RE are to promote more intensively and measures regarding energy efficiency has to be employed on. Additionally, Malaysia needs a common official
framework for coordinating the energy sector, according to [Khor.2013].
Gan, Komiyama et al. [Gan.2013] did an analysis of the actual energy sector as well as of the
future power system with low emissions in their paper about A Low Carbon Society Outlook
for Malaysia to 2035. Their approach was to develop a model using the ordinary least squares
(OLS) method based on historical data. By means of an econometric model combined with a
macroeconomic sub-model and an energy-environment sub-model, they reached the result of
a macroeconomic and energy outlook in Malaysia to 2035. Using different scenarios like the
reference and technologically advanced scenarios, they are able to predict the development of
the economy and the energy sector on an econometrically basis. They find out that countermeasures have to be implemented to reduce the unsustainable development of fossil fuels
across all sectors. However, their approach is not based on time steps as well.
Modelling a time step based tool to analyse power systems has been done in other regions and
countries so far. Huber et al. [Huber.2012] gave results of a techno-economic model which optimised the power system in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (EUMENA) in 2050.
The used model is based on hourly time steps and minimises the total annual costs of the
power system. In their study they also implemented a reduction of CO2 emissions as well as
possible extensions of the power grid between Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Also
the impact of intermittent energy sources were examined. They define four main scenarios in
which they investigate the future power system in EUMENA under different constraints. This
study results in the high potential of interconnected power grid regarding the minimising of
the total system costs and offshore wind as the dominating renewable source for the electricty
generation in future. Their work is the basis of the model which is used in this thesis.
The structure of this thesis is as follows. The current situation of the power system of
Malaysia is examined by literature research on available data regarding the energy sector.
Additionally, economic data are taken into account as the used model solves the optimisation
problem under the main constraint of minimal total costs. These studies are described in
Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, the processing of those data and the implementation into the model
are shown. The actual generation mix in 2012 is modelled and future scenarios will be defined
and examined in Chapter 4, based on the results of the linear optimisations calculated by the
model. Chapter 5 completes this thesis.
11
2 Data Research
2.1 Regional Distribution of Malaysia
Malaysia consists of two main regions. Separated by the South China Sea, there are Peninsular Malaysia and Malaysian Borneo. The country is political divided into 13 federal states
of which 11 states are located in Peninsular Malaysia and 2 states in Malaysian Borneo.
Moreover, three federal territories exist which are W.P. Kuala Lumpur, W.P. Putrajaya in
Peninsular Malaysia and W.P. Labuan in Borneo. The division by federal states and federal
territories is depcited in Figure 2.1. Most of the available information and data refers to that
classification of the country.
The distribution of the total area of Malaysia is listed by regions in Table 2.1. Additionally,
the population as well as the population density in 2012 are registered. The share of GDP
in 2012 is shown in the fifth column of the table, related to a total GDP of 239.9 billion US$
at 2012 PPP-prices.
Figure 2.1: Political map of Malaysia: Division into 13 federal states and 3 federal territories,
namely Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan.
12
2.2 Climate in Malaysia
Table 2.1: Distribution of area [JPMy.2012], population and share of GDP by regions [JPMy.2013].
Regions
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah1
Sarawak
Selangor2
Terengganu
Total
1
2
Area
[km2 ]
Population
(000)
Population Density
[/km2 ]
Share of GDP
[%]
19,016
9,425
15,105
243
1,652
6,657
35,965
1,031
21,022
795
73,951
124,450
8,022
12,956
3,439.6
1,996.8
1,640.4
1,713.4
842.5
1,056.3
1,548.4
1,611.1
2,416.7
239.4
3,463.3
2,545.8
5,730.2
1,092.9
180.88
211.86
108.60
7,051.03
509.99
158.68
43.05
1,562.66
114.96
301.13
46.83
20.46
714.31
84.35
9.2
3.4
1.8
15.2
2.9
3.7
4.1
7.0
5.3
0.5
6.3
9.6
23.5
2.6
330,290
29,336.8
239.9 billion US$
including W.P. Labuan

including W.P. Putrajaya

Due to the close position of Malaysia to the equator line (at 1 - 7 North latitude and 100 120 East longitude [Mekhilef.2012]), it is characterised by an equatorial climate. High temperatures which are likely uniform the whole year, high humidity, relatively moderate winds
and abundant rainfall throughout the year are characteristics for this kind of climate.
The range of temperatures comes to a minimal average of 22 C - 24 C per month and
a maximum average of 29 C - 33 C. At the same time, the temperature does not change
throughout the year (merely differences around 2 C) but it varies instead daily by a range
between 5 C - 10 C in coastal areas and 8 C - 12 C inland, respectively [McGinley.2011].
A further effect of the geographical location and topographical nature of Malaysia results
in seasonal monsoon winds. Although they are generally light, there are some regular changes
during the year. Based on these, it is possible to categorise four different types of seasons,
namely south-west monsoon season, north-east monsoon season and two inter-monsoon seasons. The south-west monsoon season appears around end of May until September, whereas
the north-east monsoon season lasts from the beginning of November to March. According to [MMD.2014], the south-west monsoon causes south-western and moderate winds under 7 m s1 . On the other hand, north-east monsoon winds are continually blowing from
eastern or north-eastern with a scale of around 5 m s1 to 10 m s1 . However, they can
reach 15 m s1 in the east coast states of Peninsular Malaysia at times of squally winds of
13

cold air from the north. Between these two seasons, the inter-monsoon seasons usually bring
gentle and variable winds. Additionally, due to the maritime climate, there are sea breezes
(usually on bright sunny afternoons) and land breezes (generally on clear nights) over the
coastal area [MMD.2014].
According to [MMD.2014], the seasonal wind patterns linked to the local topographical
nature define the rainfall distribution in Malaysia, while one distinguished between Peninsular
Malaysia and Malaysian Borneo. The rainfall distribution in Peninsular is specified by three
different rainfall patterns, whereas there are five different scheme types in Borneo. The main
differences between the patterns are the monthly distribution of minimal and maximal rainfall.
In Peninsular, the rainfall distribution of the east coast area is specified by a period with a
maximum rainfall in November to January and and with a minimum rainfall in June and July.
In the rest of Peninsular there are usually two maxima (October to November and April to
May) and two minima (June to July and February) of rainfall throughout the year. However,
one minimum and one maximum of rainfall occur in the south-western coast area. That is
because this coastal area is normally affected by lines of thunderstorms during early morning,
called Sumatras, from May to August. Compared with the distribution in the east coast
area, the months of maximum and minimum rainfall are shifted to October and November
(maximum) and February (minimum).
In Borneo, five different patterns are diversified as follows:
The coastal areas of Sarawak and north-east areas of Sabah are characterised by rainfall
with one maximum and one minimum throughout the year. The maximal amount of rain is
observed in January. However, the months with the lowest rain vary in these to areas (for
Sarawak in June and July, for Sabah in April).
The inland of Sarawak features almost homogeneously distributed rainfall with a annual
amount of more than 5,000 mm.
The southern area of Sabah bears a resemblance to the pattern of the distribution of rainfall
of the inland of Sarawak but there is usually less rainfall from February to April.
Moreover, the central area of Sabah is also similar to the previously mentioned patterns
but two minima and two maxima are observed. May and October are the months with
maximal rainfall, whereas a minimum amount of rain is received during February and August.
Nevertheless, the total amount of rainfall in this area is below the rainfall in the rest of
Malaysia.
Furthermore, the north-west coastal area in Sabah resembles to the central area of this part of
Borneo. Differences occur in characteristic of the second minimum in August. The amount of
rainfall there is significantly higher than in the primary minimum. In some areas, the amount
comes to the fourfold compared to the minimal rainfall in August.
Caused by the equatorial location, the humidity is relatively high and lies between 70 %
to 90 % [McGinley.2011]. It does not alter annually rather throughout the day time -like the
14
2.3 Energy Sources

temperature curve [McGinley.2011]. Additionally, complete days with an entirely clear sky are
extremely rare [MMD.2014]. Thus, solar radiation fluctuates, especially during the monsoon
seasons due to clouds which absorb sunshine and reduce the insolation. The daily average
of solar radiation comes to 4,500 kWh/m2 but it is generally lower during the south-west
monsoon and higher over the period of the north-east monsoon [Shafie.2011, Mekhilef.2012].
Moreover, the daily average amount of hours with sunshine comes to six hours in Malaysia,
but it is also dependent on the seasons and the location. It varies from an average of five
hours a day in Kuching, Malaysian Borneo, to seven hours a day in Alor Setar, Peninsular
Malaysia [MMD.2014].
2.3 Energy Sources

To analyse the power system of Malaysia, information on the available energy sources for
the electricity generation are needed. As already mentioned in Chapter 1, the generation of
electricity is based on fossil fuels, namely natural gas and coal. Oil and petrochemicals only
play a minor role in the power generation. Due to this dependence, the fuel price is an important input which affects the electricity generation costs directly and significantly. Although
there might be a slight chance of occurring shortages in the supply of these commodities, it
is assumed in the following that they are on stock.
Malaysia is endowed with fossil fuels. As natural gas dominated the energy mix in 2012, it
is analysed initially.
In total, Malaysia holds gas reserves of 7.3 trillion cubic meter in end-2012 which is a share
of 23.5 % of ASEANs total gas resources [IEA.2013, p. 83]. Although this means the second
largest amount of gas reserves after Indonesia in SEA, there are geographical imbalances,
related to the location of gas reserves and the demand, as well as shortages in the supply
of natural gas in the energy sector. Power stations fired by more expensive fuels as oil
and diesel fill in these supply lacks and also imported (and more expensive) LNG is used
to keep gas-fired power stations going. As a consequence of subsidies to natural gas by
the government, differences in the gas price are obvious. One agreed on an adjustment of
the local gas price to market prices by 2016. Therefore, the gas price in 2012 is set to
the local price of 4.57 US$/MMBtu which is 15.59 US$/MWh, according to [Maybank.2012].
Related to the discussed policy, the future gas price in Malaysia is based on the market price
of 12.21 US$/MMBtu (41.66 US$/MWh) in 2016, according to [Maybank.2012]. The annual
growth rate of the gas price is set to 2.0 % in the time period from 2011 to 2040 [EIA.2013d].
Beside gas, coal is the second basis of the generation of electricity. Malaysias coal reserves come to 1,843 million tons [ASM.2013]. Nevertheless, coal is a totally imported energy resource. Imports mostly consist of Indonesian and Australian coal [OECD.2013, p.
245]. Compared to the local fuel price of gas which is subsidised, the unsubsidised coal price
15
2.3 Energy Sources

comes to 103.6 US$/metric ton, according to [TNB.2012]. Converted to the price per MWh,
the fuel price amounts to 16.20 US$/MWh, assuming a country specific net calorific value
of 5,500 kcal/metric ton. Thus, the price for coal in Malaysia was higher than the local gas
price in 2012. The share of coal in the generation mix was lower than the share of gas in 2012.
With an annual growth rate of 1.0 %, the coal price will increase moderately [EIA.2013d].
Consequently, the future coal price will be lower than the gas price due to the future market
price of gas from 2016 on. Hence, the share of coal in the generation mix will increase.
Although the capacity of power stations fired by oil and petrochemicals (mainly refer to
diesel) is relatively high and the share of oil and diesel as a fossil fuel in the energy sector was
leading in the past, petrochemicals do not matter to the energy sector any more. The reason
for the high installed generation capacity lies in the fact that Malaysia was abundant in oil. For
the time being, Malaysia holds 17.9 billion barrels of oil resources but the production of crude
oil suffices only until 2020, when Malaysias role of an exporter of oil will change to an net importer [IEA.2013, p. 75], [Ali.2012]. Moreover, the consumption of oil and diesel in the energy
sector conflicts with the use in the transportation sector. The price for one barrel of crude oil in
Malaysia comes to 111.26 US$/barrel and to 63.84 US$/MWh, respectively [EIA.2013d]. The
local diesel price amounts to 0.59 US$/liter (converted to 60.24 US$/MWh) [WorldBank.2014].
Contrary to the extinction of oil from the generation mix, diesel will play an alternative option, due to the use for generation sets e.g. with respect to off-grid solutions in rural areas.
The overall availability of diesel at petrol stations is a remarkable advantage and is the reason
for making diesel the favoured fuel particularly for generation sets. Prices of oil and diesel
will grow by an annual growth rate of 1.1 % [EIA.2013d].
Biomass, biogas and landfill gas as renewable energy sources are also on stock and there are
no temporal fluctuations of these energy sources. The price for biomass is 3.41 US$/MWh,
according to 1.00 US$/MBtu from [Lazard.2013]. The higher production costs of gasification
of biomass to biogas is taken into account thus the price of an unit biogas is assumed to
be 10.00 US$/MWh. The same applies to landfill gas, which is produced by municipal solid
waste (MSW), and the price is adopted to 10.00 US$/MWh as well. Although biomass and
biogas are RE, the potential of them is limited due to the restricted area under cultivation
and the conflict with the food industry. In total, the potential of these energy sources comes
to 1,340 MW of biomass and 410 MW of biogas. The potential of landfill gas increases with
the population growth. By the year 2020, there will be approximately 9 million tons MSW
per year with a heat content of around 2,200 kcal/kg [Ali.2012]. Based on this assumption the
potential of MSW amounts to 400 MW by 2022 [ASM.2013].
As previously mentioned, Malaysia has coastal plains which are rising to commonly arboreous hills and mountains often covered by rainforests as well. Combining this fact with an
annual average rainfall of about 3,540 mm, Malaysias abundance of around 189 named rivers
with a total length of 57,300 km is explained [Shafie.2011, Ahmad.2014b]. These steams originate in the mountainous areas in the country and flow to lower areas. Plenty of water and
16
2.3 Energy Sources

suitable terrain are advantageous for the potential of hydro power. Due to the fact that the
annual rainfall in Borneo is almost twice the annual amount of rainfall in Peninsular Malaysia
(5,080 mm and 2,500 mm, respectively), the potential in Borneo is higher than in Peninsular
Malaysia [Mekhilef.2012]. Hydro power is by far the most important renewable energy source
in Malaysia. Regarding the fluctuation of fuel prices, the costs of electricity which is generated by hydroelectric power stations are less affected, as hydro power is a non-cost energy
source. Thus, the costs of hydro electric power are only based on the construction and the
maintenance costs. Nevertheless these costs can be relatively high. Regarding the difficile
exploitation of hydro potential, higher construction costs of new hydroelectric power stations
are a problem as well. Building and utilisation of hydro power might frequently be a massive
impairment of the nature such that the construction of more large-scale hydroelectric power
stations with an extensive dam is limited. Despite these problematic issues, micro-hydro stations will become more attractive in future. However, investment costs are high, while the
impairment of the nature is moderate. The total potential of hydro is divided into large-scale
and micro-hydro power stations. It comes to 22,000 MW and 500 MW, respectively.
Further energy sources are RE, whose availability depends on weather conditions and seasonal variations. In case of intermittent sources the annual full-load hours and the normalised
hourly time series are important. Combining those two, it is possible to calculate the available energy in every time step. The full-load hours as well as the time series are provided by
NASA weather data and were prepared and edited by Karl Janker [Rienecker.2011]. There
are historical data sets from 2000 to 2012 for all regions of solar PV, wind onshore and wind
offshore. Thus, the data situation regarding intermittent renewable energies is very good and
in great detail.
Table 2.2: Prices of fuels with giving respective references. The annual growth rates of fuels
are taken from [EIA.2013d].
Fuels
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Landfill gas
Oil
Price
[US$/MWh]
Reference
10.00
3.41
16.20
60.24
15.59
10.00
63.84
Assumption
[Lazard.2013]
[TNB.2012]
[WorldBank.2014]
[Maybank.2012]
Assumption
[EIA.2013d]
17
Annual growth rate

[%]
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.1
2.0
0.0
1.1
2.4 Demand for Electricity

After launching a massive development project of the government called Rural Electrification
Programme to provide access to electricity in rural and isolated areas in the 1980s, Malaysias
electrification rate of 99.4 % was one of the highest rates in ASEAN in 2012 [OECD.2013,
pp. 244, 246] and [APEC.2013]. Consequently, the demand per capita is relatively high and
overlies the average of other ASEAN. The demand for electricity is also fluctuating, according
to regional and country-specific load curves. It depends on the time of the day as well as
on seasonal variations. Moreover, public holidays affect the consumption of electricity. Daily
planned unit commitment schedules of Peninsular Malaysia are provided by the Malaysian
Energy Commission (Suruhanjaya Tenaga). These figures reflect the load curve of the electricity demand and are available in half hourly format on the website [SurTen.2012a]. However,
a resolution of those data is not available by region.
Load curve
Hourly Load in Peninsular Malaysia
16,000 MW
14,000 MW
12,000 MW
10,000 MW
8,000 MW
6,000 MW
4,000 MW
2,000 MW
18:00:00
6:00:00
12:00:00
0:00:00
18:00:00
6:00:00
12:00:00
0:00:00
18:00:00
6:00:00
12:00:00
0:00:00
18:00:00
6:00:00
12:00:00
0:00:00
18:00:00
12:00:00
6:00:00
0:00:00
18:00:00
12:00:00
6:00:00
0:00:00
18:00:00
12:00:00
6:00:00
0:00:00
0 MW
Week: 27/02/2012-04/03/2012
Figure 2.2: Hourly load curve of Peninsular Malaysia [SurTen.2012a].

There were illogical data about the absolute figure of the total consumed electricity in literature in 2012 thus data of the Department of Statistics in Malaysia are used. Those data
fit in the overall picture of the demand situation and are proven by other literature such
as [EPU.2012].
Evaluating the data situation according to [JPMy.2012a], the actual demand for electricity was 109,294 GWh in 2012, which was split into 97,243 GWh in Peninsular Malaysia,
into 4,450 GWh in Sabah and into 7,595 GWh in Sarawak. In Malaysia, the industrial consumers held the largest share of 43.40 % of the demand for electricity, followed by the commercial sector with 34.01 % and the residential sector with a share of 21.34 %. The sector of
public lighting consumed 1.25 % of the overall amount in 2012 [JPMy.2012a].
18
es Peninsular Malaysia
Sabah
Sarawak
al 20301.4
1436
1584.1
cial 33218.1
1923
2026
l
42488.7
1038
3912.1
hting 1234.7
59
73
Peninsular Malaysia
Sabah
Sarawak
1%
2%
1%
21%
23%
21%
32%
44%
51%
27%
34%
43%
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public lighting
Figure 2.3: Share of electricity consumption in Malaysia by region in 2012 [JPMy.2012a].

Figure 2.3 depicts the distribution of the total demand for electricity by sector and the
regions Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. It is remarkable that households in Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak held the same share of the respective demand for electricity. The
industrial sector of these both regions possessed the largest share of 44 % and 51 %, respectively. They differed by only 7 % which applied also to the commercial sectors. However, the
commercial sectors in Sabah held the largest share of electricity consumption, followed by the
residential (32 %) and the industrial sector with a share of 23 %. The sector of public lighting
in all three regions had only a share of 1 % and 2 %, respectively [JPMy.2012a].
Due to a continual economic growth with an annual growth rate of GDP of 4.0 % until 2035 [IEA.2013] and a higher urbanisation, the demand for electricity will grow increasingly [OECD.2013]. The future growth of the demand for electricity comes to 4.2 % per year
in the period until 2040 and the total amount will almost double by 2030 [IEA.2013, p. 60].
19
2.5 Power Stations and their Characteristics
Figure 2.4: Demand for electricity in Malayisa in 2012, prepared by the means of [JPMy.2012a]
and [JPMy.2013].

In Malaysia, there are three public energy utilities, namely Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB),
Sabah Electricity Sendirian Berhad (SESB) and Sarawak Energy Berhad (SEB). Supported by
Independent Power Producers (IPPs), those operators of power stations ensure the electricity
supply in the respective regions. As a regulator Suruhanjaya Tenaga (Energy Commission
of Malaysia) was established in 2001 by the Malaysian government. Its aim is to advance
the potential of the energy supply industry. It warrants the dependable, reliable, safe and
cost-effective supply of electricity and of piped gas, especially in Peninsular Malaysia and
Sabah [SurTen.2014].
Thus, one of the most relevant information which defines a power system are data about
power stations. A power station simply converts input energy sources to electricity. There
are different technologies of generating electricity which also differ in their specific characteristics. Not only the capacity but also the specific type of power generation is crucial to make
statements about the power system.
The database of the World Electric Power Plants (WEPP) of [Platts.2010] is used to specify
the fleet of power stations in Malaysia. This database gives a detailed list of all (known) power
stations in Malaysia and it provides the basis for the analysis of the fleet of power stations.
The data of power stations are listed by region and itemised by technology which defines the
20

type of electricity generation. In detail, the provided data of the power stations are the unit,
the name and the operator of the power stations. The operators are mostly the local utilities
and IPPs, as already mentioned. The relative capacity in MW for each unit which can be
used for generating electricity is listed as well. Moreover, it is specified by which (alternative)
fuels the power station is fired. The actual status of the station is registered as well as the
year of construction, year of retire and year of coming on line, respectively. Furthermore, the
manufacturer of the turbine and generator is listed. Last, the data set is completed by the
information of the location of the power station, regarding the city, country, area and the
geo-location ID.
Research on investment costs have also been conducted. Moreover, operational costs of
power stations are researched. These consist of fixed and variable costs. Seven different
references -in this case [BV.2012, Chang.2013, EIA.2013c, IEA.2010, IEA.2013, Lazard.2013,
Schaber.2012]- are analysed and listed in Table 2.3. However, none of the references covers
the required information of the power stations in Malaysia completely. Thus, a combination
of sources which are properly combinable and complementary are inevitable to complete data
about costs of the electricity generation technologies.
Table 2.3: Analysis of References: Decision making.
Reference
[Chang.2013]
Data for SEA related to linear optimisation
Quoted literature from 2008 and 2005

partly, not explicable
[EIA.2013c]
Latest data from 2013, nearly complete
World prices (referred to U.S. market)
[IEA.2013]
Costs explicit for SEA
Only 5 different technologies
[IEA.2010]
Regional costs of power stations
Not complete, in combination with

other reference
[Lazard.2013]
Almost every technology, for each complete data, on an unsubsidised basis
Referred to U.S. prices and power stations
[Schaber.2012]
Data related to linear optimisation
Explicit for Europe in Euro; no data

e.g. for diesel generator sets
[BV.2012]
Projected data for 2015
Related to U.S. market, not complete
According to [IEA.2010], future investment costs are set to the given investment costs of India which are adapted to 2012. Costs of technologies which are not considered in this reference
are provided by [EIA.2013c]. Fixed and variable costs are mainly given by [EIA.2013c] and
completed by [Lazard.2013]. A development of the investment costs is given by [IEA.2010]
in time steps of 2020 and 2035, whereas the development of the fixed and variable costs are
not considered. An overview of investment costs as well as fixed and variable costs is listed
in Table 2.4.
21
Table 2.4: Overview of investment costs in 2012, 2020 and 2035 of selected electricity generation technologies by [IEA.2010], [EIA.2013c] and [Lazard.2013]. All costs refer
to 2012 US$.
Generation technology
Biogas engine
Biomass
Supercritical coal
Gas turbine
CCGT
OCGT
Hydro
Micro-Hydro
Solar PV
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
Investment costs [US$/MW]

2012
2020
2035
500,000
2,263,778
1,579,380
421,168
737,030
973,000
1,968,960
3,137,702
2,737,592
2,695,475
1,526,734
500,000
2,169,015
1,579,380
421,168
737,030
973,000
2,105,840
3,169,289
1,968,960
1,895,256
1,505,676
500,000
2,053,194
1,579,380
421,168
737,030
973,000
2,190,074
3,221,935
1,495,146
1,768,906
1,484,617
Fixed costs
[US$/MW/yr]
15,000
105,630
31,180
7,040
15,370
7,340
14,130
14,130
24,690
74,000
39,550
Variable costs
[US$/MWh/yr]
0
5.26
4.47
10.37
3.27
15.45
0
0
0
0
0
Additionally, it is important to know how much of an energy source is needed to generate

electricity. Thus, the efficiency has to be stated. Losses of energy conversion from an input
source to electricity are dependent on the process which are specified by [Platts.2010]. These
losses are taken into account by the efficiency of power stations. Data about the efficiency
of generation units are not provided by [Platts.2010]. Thus, references have to be combined.
Information especially about fossil fuel-fired power stations are provided by the annual report of the Energy Commission in Malaysia [SurTen.2012b]. It gives the efficiency of power
stations operated by TNB and IPPs. The average efficiency of those generation technologies
are listed in Table 2.5. However, there are missing data about power stations which are fired
by MSW and biogas. Those figures are provided by [Zahoransky.2013]. Moreover, efficiencies
of generator sets which are fired by gas and oil have to be added by [EIA.2013e]. Additionally, [Kaltschmitt.2009] gives the efficiency of generation units powered by biomass. These
data are also listed in Table 2.5.
Moreover, [IEA.2010] provides data about future efficiencies of energy conversion technologies. In this reference, the data are given by different regions in the world. Future data about
the efficiencies of Indian power stations are chosen. Those information are filled up by data
given by [EIA.2013e]. Table 2.6 lists the information about future efficiencies in Malaysia.
The lifetime of the technical equipment is a further parameter of power stations. The lifetime affects the period of depreciation. Thus, it is a significant information for calculating
annual investment costs of power stations. Those data are given by [Lazard.2013]. As there
is no lifetime of hydro power stations given, an assumption about the depreciation period
has to be made. Although hydro power stations might be on line for more than 50 years, the
depreciation period is assumed to be 30 years.
22
Table 2.5: Overview of 2012 efficiencies of electricity generation technologies given by different
references.
Efficiency [%]
[SurTen.2012b]
Coal thermal power station
Conventional thermal power stations
Diesel engine
CCGT
OCGT
35.2
29.5
33.0
44.2
26.5
[Zahoransky.2013]
Biogas engine
MSW
25.0
25.0
[EIA.2013e]
Gas engine
Oil engine
30.0
34.0
[Kaltschmitt.2009]
Biomass
15.0
Furthermore, [TNB.2012] provides data about the Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF)
of power stations which are operated by this utility. There are four different generation
technologies which are specified and listed in Table 2.7. Open Circle Gas Turbines (OCGT)
have the highest availability to generate electricity. Their factor is almost 97 % per year.
Combined Circle Gas Turbines (CCGT) are 88 % of a year on line, whereas coal-fired power
stations have an availability of 83 % per year. Conventional thermal power stations which
are powered by oil or gas possess an annual availability of only 81 %. Information about the
remaining power stations and their availability are unpublished.
In March 2011, an earthquake shook Japan and ended in a nuclear disaster due to radiation leakages of the nuclear power station Fukushima Daiichi [Khor.2013]. This nuclear
catastrophe showed the disadvantages of nuclear power evidently. Thus, the undertaking of
building nuclear power stations in 2020 in Malaysia was deferred by the government indefinitely, according to [EIA.2013b, p.17] and [Ali.2012]. Although the utilisation of nuclear
power seems to be an option to cover the increasing electricity demand cost-effectively and
emission-freely, the social, economical and environmental issues prevail. Hence, constructing
nuclear power stations is not in the scope of this thesis.
23
2.6 CO2 Emissions
Table 2.6: Overview of future efficiencies of electricity generation technologies given by different references.
Efficiency [%]
[IEA.2010]
Biomass
Biogas engine
Supercritical coal
CCGT
Gas turbine
MSW
35.0
30.0
39.0
60.0
40.0
30.0
[EIA.2013e]
Diesel engine
Gas engine
Oil engine
36.0
30.0
36.0
Table 2.7: Availability of specified power stations [TNB.2012].

EAF [%]
CCGT
OCGT
Coal thermal power station
Conventional thermal power stations
87.6
96.6
83.0
80.8
2.6 CO2 Emissions

Energy-related emissions as CO2 are a significant criterion of the power system as it represents the environmental sustainability of a power system. Hence, the electricity-specific CO2
emission factor is defined as the total energy-related CO2 emissions per kWh from electricity
generation.
In the energy sector the energy-related emissions emerge from combustion of fossil fuels to
generate electricity. The amount of CO2 emissions, which is released, depends on the fossil
fuel and its specific characteristics. Table 2.8 lists the specific emission characteristics of fossil
fuels referred to the net heat of combustion from [UBA.2003].
Table 2.8: Specific emission characteristics of fossil fuels related to the net heat of combustion
[UBA.2003].
Fossil fuels
Emission characteristic
in kg CO2 /MWh
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Oil
342.0
266.4
201.6
273.6
24
2.7 Power Grid in Malaysia

The total amount of CO2 emission which stems from the electricity generation are calculated by the specific emission characteristic of fossil fuels combined with the efficiency of the
electricity generation technology. Thus, the efficiency of fossil fuel-fired power stations affects
the electricity-specific CO2 emission factor as well. The higher the efficiency of a generation
technology, the lower the energy-related CO2 emissions.
In 2011, the electricity-specific CO2 emission factor amounted to 688 g/kWh in Malaysia [IEA.2013a].

The transmission grid is separated into three main parts: Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and
Sarawak. A connection between those individual parts did not exist in 2012. In future
considerations, the benefits of such connections are examined.
The transmission grid data in Malaysia are fragmentary, especially information about the
capacity of specific transmission lines are missing. However, combining references and making
assumptions indicated the actual situation with sufficient precision in 2012.
Peninsular Malaysia An overview of the electricity network is given by the official utility
of Peninsular Malaysia in their annual report of 2012 [TNB.2012, p. 188]. Existing transmission lines in 2012 are depicted based on different voltage levels. The voltage levels range
from 500 kV to 132 kV. It is worth mentioning that there are a high voltage DC line from
the North of Peninsular Malaysia to Thailand. However, this reference gives no data about
the installed capacity of each line. Furthermore, [PMGSO.2012] provides actual figures of
the transmitted electricity for specific lines in Peninsular Malaysia. Peninsular Malaysia is
subdivided into five parts and consists of the Northern, Eastern, Central, South Central and
Southern part. Information about the capacity are only available for those connections on a
actual basis. Hence, the determination of the HV transmission capacity is based on those data.
Thereby, figures of three different days and different daytimes were collected as snap-shot of
the inter-regional transfer. The maximum value is taken and increased by 10 %, assuming that
the maximum capacity of these connections are not reached in operation and there is back-up
capacity. However, [PMGSO.2012] does not define different voltage levels. Thus, by combing
those assumptions with the data of the existing transmission lines of Peninsular in 2012, the
power grid is defined sufficiently accurately regarding the available data.
Sabah As TNB also operates the power grid in Sabah, fragmentary data are available in the
same annual report [TNB.2012]. It is obvious that there was no connection to the bordering
Sarawak in 2012 and information about the capacity of the transmission and distribution grid
25

of this region are not given as well. Thus, it is assumed that the power grid is perfectly
connected within the region.
Sarawak
Information about the transmission grid in Sarawak exist hardly. The official utility
does not provide any data about the installed capacity of transmission lines and the distribution gird. All assumptions regarding the transmission grid of Sarawak are based on data of
Peninsular Malaysia if it is required.
Although there are more than one voltage level, the consideration of transmission lines is
done only for a general high voltage level due to the fragmentary data situation. Furthermore,
it is assumed that there is only one submarine cable possible between Borneo and Peninsular
Malaysia.
Length of transmission lines were defined by evaluation GIS data from [GADM.2012] combined with the location of power stations by [TNB.2012]. The transmission nodes are not
necessarily in the centre of a region but there where the most of power stations are located.
This is depicted in Figure 2.5 where the future power supply system is illustrated.
Regardless of the region, there are universal specific investment costs and fixed costs.
Moreover, the same specific loss factor applies to all lines. Those information are given
by [Schaber.2012a].
Converted the figures to US$ by assuming an exchange rate of 1.00 Euro = 1.348 US$, the
specific investment costs amount to 540 US$/MW/km for overhead transmission lines. Additionally, the specific investment costs of submarine cables come to 3,370 US$/MW/km. To
calculate the total investment costs of a cable, the specific investment costs are multiplied by
the length of each transmission line. Furthermore, the fixed costs come to 9,440 US$/MW/yr
for both line and cable types (assuming an exchange rate of 1.00 Euro = 1.348 US$ as well).
A development of costs and prices regarding the power grid are not taken into account.
Additionally, transmission losses are also depending on the length of each line/cable. The
specific losses are 4 %/1000 km [Schaber.2012a]. Consequently, the efficiency of cables differs
regarding the length of the transmission line and cable.
Table A.2 gives an overview of the defined transmission capacities, calculated lengths and
the resulting investment costs and efficiency based on the founded length. Investment costs
occur if capacity is added to the acutal installed capacity in 2012 which are also based on the
length of the connection.
Moreover, the depreciation time is a interest, due to the annuity resulting from high investment costs and the related profitability of expanding the transmission grid in Malaysia.
According to [Schaber.2012a] the depreciation period is set to 40 years for every new transmission line/cable.
26
Legend
Power Grid
Regions
Perlis
Kedah
Penang
Perak
Kelantan
Terengganu
Pahang
Selangor
Kuala Lumpur
Negeri Sembilan
Melaka
Johor
Sarawak
Sabah
Power Grid in Malaysia

Project: ASEAN/Malaysia
250
500
Data: Rienecker.2011
Map Source: GADM version 2.0
750 km
Publisher: TUM CREATE

Author: Melanie MANNHART
Date: 13.03.2014
1:7,500,000
Figure 2.5: Map of Malaysia. Red marked the possible future power grid which is defined as
input data.
27
3 Implementation of Data into the Model

URBS
3.1 The Model URBS
The main task of a power system is to constantly cover the demand for electricity by the
utilisation of power generation sources. The model URBS which is used in this thesis to
analyse the power system was developed by [Heitmann.2005] and modified by [LfE.2013].
URBS uses linear optimisation to solve energy-economic problems. The model is written in
General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS). It is further divided into sub-models which are
defined by linear equations which represent constraints. These equations are solved by Cplex
which is a solver of GAMS. Input data regarding demand situation, fleet of power stations,
power grid as well as environmental and economic aspects are organised in Excel files.
The main objective is to minimise the total costs of the power system while keeping constraints. The result is the most cost-effective configuration of a power system under given
constraints. According to [Heitmann.2005], the objective function is formulated as
min
cinvi Cnewi +
X
i
cf ixi Ci +
cvari Eini,t .
(3.1)
i,t
In it, cinvi represents the specific annual investment costs of every power station and transmission line i. The new constructed power generation and transmission capacities are Cnewi .
cf ixi stands for the specific fixed costs of every of every power station and transmission line i
and Ci stands for the installed generation and transmission capacities. Furthermore, the specific annual variable costs cvari for every power station and transmission line i is considered.
Eini,t represents the total generated electricity in every time step t. The sum of those factors
is minimised by the model.
28
3.1 The Model URBS

Moreover, there are constraints which are met in every time step:
Demand
In every time step, the demand for electricity has to be covered in every region. This is
achieved either by generating electricity in the region itself or by transporting electricity
which is generated in the bordering regions.
Efficiency
The amount of generated electricity depends on the efficiency of a power station. Additionally,
electricity transport by transmission lines results in losses as well. In order to meet the
predetermined demand for electricity, losses by generation and transmission have to be covered
by the total generated electricity.
Expansion of capacity
If the installed generation and transmission capacity are not enough to cover the demand, the
model will construct new power stations and new transmission lines. However, upper-bounds
might apply for limits of potential of RE or energy resources.
CO2 emissions
Due to the combustion of fossil fuels, electricity generation by conventional thermal power
stations results in CO2 emissions. The total amount of produced CO2 emissions can be restricted. The power generation mix and/or the generation capacity will have to be changed
to meet the predetermined restrictions on CO2 emissions. It is possible to restrict those by
region or country.
Figure 3.1: Overview of the structure of the model URBS.
29
3.2 Definition of Processes

By implementing hourly based time-steps, it is possible to evaluate impacts of intermittent
energy sources on the power system.
In the thesis at hand, a further development of this model is used. The model is run by
using Matlab as interface. It reads the excel input files and calls GAMS which solves the
equations using the Cplex solver, as already mentioned. The results are given back to Matlab
and are evaluated.
The further developed model URBS is successfully used by previous studies, for example
by [Huber.2012].
The following section presents a brief overview of the used input data. This is mainly
consisted by information about energy sources, electricity demand, data of power stations,
transmission lines and market trends for the actual state and future scenarios as well.

The detailed data about the individually types of generation technologies from [Platts.2010]
are simplified by defining seven generation process types for Malaysia. This aggregation
is based on the same type of generation technology and the description of the database
from [Platts.2010]. The defined process types are listed in Table 3.1.
As specific characteristics of power stations depend on the fired fuel, those process types
have to be combined with 11 energy sources. Not all compositions make sense and some are
not relevant in practice so there are 19 uniquely defined combinations of processes as input
data for URBS. Based on the process types combined with energy sources, the fleet of power
stations is characterised as the model basis.
Besides the conventional power stations such as CCGT, Gas Turbines (GT) and conventional steam power stations, some specific adoptions have to be made regarding Generator
Sets (GS) as well as biomass and biogas fired power stations. By means of integrating processes which represent GS, the actual situation in regions of SEA is reflected. Small and
backup generator sets are a common solution in off-grid systems in SEA. As these units are
often diesel-fired due to getting this fuel easily at petrol stations, the process type GS is
combined with Diesel. Moreover, processes of biomass were redefined to distinguish solid
biomass from biogas and their individual production methods. The additional expenditures
of the gasification process to biogas are taken into account by the biogas fuel price.
As already mentioned, the Platts database also provides information about planned power
stations and their expected year of going on line. This means that power stations which are
planned to be connected to the power grid by 2012 are set to operating power stations in
this thesis instead of their planning status given by [Platts.2010]. As a consequence, their
30
Table 3.1: Aggregation of generation technologies based on data of [Platts.2010] to 7 generation processes.
Defined process type
Generation technology given

by [Platts.2010]
Combined Cycle Gas

Turbine (CCGT)
CC
CCSS
GT/C
ST/C
Combined-cycle
Combined-cycle single shaft configuration
Gas turbine in combined-cycle
Steam turbine in combined-cycle
Gas Turbine (GT)
GT
GT/H
GT/S
Gas/combustion turbine
Gas turbine with heat recovery
Gas turbine with steam send out
Generator Set (GS)
IC
IC/H
Internal combustion (reciprocating diesel) engine

Internal combustion engine with heat recovery
Steam power
station
ST
ST/S
Steam turbine
Steam turbine with steam send out
Description given by [Platts.2010]
Hydro
HY
Hydroelectric turbine generator
Solar PV
PV
Photovoltaic cells
Wind
WTG
Wind turbine generator
capacity is added to the fleet of power stations in Malaysia. Thus, the 2012 capacities defined
by processes are derived. Capacities of the same process type and the same powering are
summarised to virtual power stations which are implemented into the model URBS. The
total capacity of the power station fleet in 2012 in Malaysia is listed by energy source in
Table A.5.
Based on the defined processes, the investment costs are given by the International Energy
Agency (IEA). Those costs were adjusted to prices in 2012 by considering a cumulated inflation
rate of 5.292 % [BLS.2014]. Fixed and variable costs of the defined processes are taken from the
Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 of the Energy Information Administration
(eia) and are given in 2012 US$.
In Table A.1, an overview of the defined processes as well as of investment, fixed and variable
costs is given. The 2012 efficiency by each process is registered in the same Table A.1. A
future development of costs and efficiency is described in Section 2.5 and is also implemented
into the model for future considerations.
As mentioned in Section 2.5, data about the availability (EAF) of a power station of Peninsular Malaysia are provided by [TNB.2012]. However, SEB and SESB do not give any
information about the availability of their power stations. Hence, it is assumed that the availability figures of power stations in Peninsular Malaysia also apply for power stations in Sabah
and Sarawak. The EAF is only implemented for generation technologies which do not have
any time series and the respective annual full-load hours. The EAF is shown in Table A.1.
31
3.3 Spatial Resolution of Malaysia
3.3 Spatial Resolution of Malaysia

In Section 2.1, the political division of Malaysia is described. This subdivision of Malaysia is
related to federal states and federal territories due to the detailed data which are provided by
literature such as [EPU.2012, JPMy.2012, JPMy.2012a, JPMy.2013, SurTen.2012b].
Due to its influence on the Malaysian economy and the high electricity demand, Kuala
Lumpur is considered as a separate region. W.P. Labuan as well as W.P. Putrajaya are added
to the relative states Sabah and Selangor. Data of Putrajaya and Labuan are factored into
the region Selangor and Sabah, respectively. Hence, a resolution of 13+1 regions is defined to
preserve and keep the given accuracy of detailed data, according to the political map.
The 14 regions are listed in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.
3.4 Classification of Model Input Commodities

In- and output data regarding energy sources, electricity and CO2 emissions are defined as
commodities in the model framework. The commodity type describes the properties of the
commodity. There are four different types, which are demand and environmental as an output
data, stock and intermittent commodities as input data.
The electricity demand is set to demand which means that the model has to cover these
figures by generating electricity in every time step. As the electricity demand fluctuates
throughout the day and the year, the load curve is implemented into the model. This is
realised by a normalised time series and the total amount of the demand for electricity by
region.
Data about the daily load curve of Peninsular Malaysia are provided by [SurTen.2012a]. To
simulate a whole year, data of every fourth week of 2012 are chosen, starting from the first
week in January. Thus, 13 different weeks are defined as the model simulation time frame.
After normalising the load curve by dividing the hourly values by the total sum, the time
series of the electricity demand is been pre-processed for the model. With multiplying the
values of the time series by the total respective demand for electricity of each region, the local
load curve is defined on an hourly basis. Because those load curve data are not available by
regions, the time series applies to all regions of Peninsular Malaysia. Moreover, as there are
no data about the load curve of Sabah and Sarawak available, it is assumed that they are
similar to the time series of Peninsular Malaysia. Hence, the same time series is implemented.
Values of the CO2 emissions are specified as env (environmental) to express their impact on
the environment. This parameter is one of the most important constraints since the model has
to change the power generation mix, if the actual CO2 emissions resulting from the electricity
generation are higher than the implemented limit. Although it is possible to define CO2
32
3.4 Classification of Model Input Commodities

emission restrictions by region in the model, the total amount of CO2 emissions is considered
in this thesis regardless the origin of CO2 emissions.
The energy sources have to be specified based on the availability. Energy sources such as
coal or gas are on stock whereas hydro power, solar insolation and wind are intermittent.
The distinction between energy sources is necessary to represent the fluctuation of the
commodity. While stock commodities assumed to be always and unlimited available, the
availability of intermittent commodities fluctuates like the electricity demand. Hence, the
temporal course of the availability is implemented into the model by adding a time series
which are provided by [Rienecker.2011] and further prepared by Karl Janker. Additionally,
the total amount of annual full-load hours of intermittent commodities are included based
on data given by [Rienecker.2011] and prepared by Karl Janker as well. Those data exist
from 2000 to 2012. The methodology which is used for the selection of the annual full-load
hours is as follows: The averages of the annual full-load hours in 2000 until 2012 are calculated
for every region. Next, the value of the year whose figure is the closest to the calculated average
of a region is set to be the input data of the model. An example of this selection method is
registered in Table 3.2. The input data of the other intermittent energy sources are listed in
Table 3.4.
To calculate the electricity generated by intermittent energy sources in each time step, the
value of the annual full-load hours are multiply by the value of the normalised time series in
this time step.
Moreover, overviews of the distribution of full-load hours of solar PV, wind onshore and
offshore by region are depicted in Figures A.1, A.2 and A.3.
Table 3.2: Example of the methodology used for the selection of the annual full-load hours of
solar PV in Malaysia.
Regions
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Trengganu
Average full-load
hours [h](2000-2012)
1,103.48
1,221.03
1,176.43
1,134.62
1,075.69
1,052.25
1,078.11
1,221.48
1,154.50
1,184.09
1,293.93
1,176.01
1,134.62
1,218.47
33
Reference year
Annual full-load
hours of PV [h]
2000
2000
2001
2000
2000
2000
2006
2001
2011
2001
2010
2001
2000
2005
1,099.29
1,233.53
1,157.88
1,140.65
1,080.98
1,082.05
1,035.53
1,126.04
1,169.75
1,197.10
1,354.93
1,182.64
1,140.65
1,231.78
3.5 Demand for Electricity by Region
3.5 Demand for Electricity by Region

In total the consumption of electricity was 109.3 TWh in 2012 [JPMy.2012a]. This is broken
down as follows: In Peninsular Malaysia, the demand for electricity amounts to 97.2 TWh,
whereas the electricity demand equals 12.1 TWh in Borneo.
For Borneo, a further allocation is given in the literature. The total electricity demand of
Borneo splits into 4.5 TWh in Sabah and into 7.6 TWh in Sarawak. However, as there are no
figures of the electricity demand by region in Peninsular Malaysia, the demand for electricity
has to be determined by making assumptions.
According to [Tang.2013] which studies the nexus between the energy consumption and
the GDP, a bi-directional causality exists between those two factors in Malaysia. Based on
that finding, the actual and the future demand for electricity is allocated by the share of
GDP in Peninsular Malaysia. This approach results in the distribution of the demand for
electricity which is listed in Table 3.3. Corresponding to this approach, the future electricity
is allocated related to an annual growth rate of 4.2 %, according to [IEA.2013, p. 60]. The
future distributions are also shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Distribution of demand for electricity in 2012, 2020 and 2035 [JPMy.2012a,
IEA.2013].
Region
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
2012 [TWh]
2020 [TWh]
2035 [TWh]
11.3
4.1
2.2
18.7
3.6
4.5
5.0
8.6
6.5
0.6
4.5
7.6
28.9
3.2
15.7
5.8
3.1
26.0
5.0
6.3
7.0
12.0
9.0
0.8
6.2
10.6
40.1
4.5
29.0
10.7
5.7
48.2
9.3
11.7
13.0
22.2
16.7
1.5
11.5
19.6
74.4
8.3
109.3
151.9
281.5
Remarkable is the high demand for electricity in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. A share
of 44 % of the total electricity demand was used in both regions in 2012. The approach that
Kuala Lumpur is considered as an own region, is validated by this finding.
34
3.6 Distribution of Potential of RE
3.6 Distribution of Potential of RE

It is assumed that only 50 % of the overall potential which is given in the literature is exploited
by 2035. Utilisation of RE potential will become more difficult in future. Hence, the first
share of the potential has an easier access than the rest of the potential.
As hydro power is already exploited in Peninsular Malaysia, the potential is distributed to
Sabah and Sarawak, according to [WEC.2010]. As a consequence, 81 % of the potential of
hydro power is hold by Sarawak, whereas Sabah is endowed with a share of 19 % of hydro
power potential.
The allocation of micro-hydro power stations is done by a study of Hussein [Hussein.2010].
This paper defines possible locations for micro-hydro stations based on specific criteria such
as elevations and stream flow velocity. According to the findings by Hussein, the distribution
of the potential of micro-hydro power is obtained.
Related to biomass and biogas, the utilisation of energy crops contradicts available food
sources partially. With a growing population the share of cultivated area which is possibly
used for energy plants will be rare. Hence, half of the in [Khor.2013] given potential is assumed
as well. The potential is distributed by the total area of each region.
Solid waste as an energy source has also a limited potential. This energy source results
from municipal solid waste (MSW). Thus, the higher the population of a region is, the higher
is the potential for solid waste. Hence, the potential is distributed by the population in each
region.
Solar PV is restricted to 5 GW in Kuala Lumpur due to the limited area and locations for
PV cells. In all other regions, it is assumed that the potential is unlimited. It is possible
to install as much solar PV generation capacity as needed. However, the profitability of
locations is reflected by the different full-load hours of NASA data. Those data are registered
in Table 3.4.
Due to limited average wind speed resulting from the equatorial location of the country, the
potential of wind is low. However, the capacity is set to unlimited due to the implementation
of the full-load hours and the resulting profitability. The full-load hours of on- and offshore
wind which are listed in Table A.3 show that the utilisation of wind as an energy source is
not profitable. As a consequence, wind power systems do not play a role in the future power
system in Malaysia. The distribution of renewable energy sources is listed in Table A.3.
35
3.7 Economic Data
3.7 Economic Data

To consider the economic depreciation of investments, the rate of interest is to be defined.
Thus, investments are more attractive and reflect the usual approach. In this thesis the annual
rate of interest is set to 7 %. Additionally, all quoted prices and costs in this thesis refer to
real 2012US$. Hence, the cumulated inflation rate of 5.292 % is taken into account to adjust
prices from 2010 to 2012 [BLS.2014].
3.8 Further Assumptions Concerning Input Data

Due to high complexity of the power systems several assumptions have to be made.
Generally, the availability of hydroelectric power stations depends on the fluctuation of
water head caused by rain fall and it also depends on seasons, a time series is included
in the model. However, a fluctuation of hydro power is not considered yet. Instead, an
evenly distributed time series is assumed. Moreover, the annual full-load hours are assigned
from 3,200 h to 4,000 h for each region based on the basis scenario 2012. The distribution of
the full-load hours are listed in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Full-load hours of selected renewable energies [h].
Region
Hydro
SunGlobal
Wind
onshore offshore
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
3,200
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
3,200
4,000
4,000
3,200
3,200
4,200
3,200
3,200
4,000
1,099.29
1,233.53
1,157.88
1,140.65
1,080.98
1,082.05
1,035.53
1,126.04
1,169.75
1,197.10
1,354.93
1,182.64
1,140.65
1,231.78
226
528
186
423
186
186
245
245
724
724
849
849
423
552
449
346
181
130
50
32
87
127
248
236
297
71
130
416
This thesis assumes that the intra-regions are perfectly connected with general losses of
distribution and transmission of 10 % which the model takes into account by a 10 % higher
electricity demand. That means basically that there is no lack in the power distribution
and transmission within a region. Losses of transmission lines which connect two regions are
considered separately as already mentioned.
One further assumption relates to the scenario with the possibility of extension of trans-
36
3.9 Excel Macro filling table

mission lines. As Malaysia is one country and the federal states collaborate very closely, it
is assumed that there is no restriction on the possible import and export of the the states
electricity demand, respectively. This means that it is allowed to cover the demand for electricity of one region merely with imported energy from the contiguous states. This applies
for example in Kuala Lumpur which is almost entirely supplied by the neighbouring region
Selangor.
Additionally, the first results showed that the high future demand in Kuala Lumpur results
in installing fossil fuel-fired power stations there. Due to air pollution issues, the capacity of
fossil fuel-fired power stations in Kuala Lumpur is restricted. As a consequence, the future grid
connection between Kuala Lumpur and Selangor are followed up to the needed transmission
capacity to provide the required electricity in Kuala Lumpur. The investment costs for adding
capacity to this line are neglected due to the generation capacity restrictions. This further
assumptions as the first results are also discussed later on in Chapter 4.3.
Data about energy sources are specified in literature inconsistently. They differ especially
with respect to the heat content of fossil fuels. Hence, conversion factors are used to convert
units to the model input data format. Those factors are listed in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5: Conversion factors related to the input data format.
Data
Unit
Energy
Gas
Coal
Biogas
Oil
MMBtu
MMscfd
metric ton
MMscfd
barrel
1 cf
1 kcal
1 cf
1 barrel
=
=
=
=
0.02832 m3
4186.8 J
0.02832 m3
5.9466 MMBtu
Unit in MWh
Reference
0.2931 MWh/MMBtu
276.12 MWh/MMscfd
6.39650 MWh/t
0.177 MWh/MMscfd
1.7429 MWh/barrel
[IEA.2013]
[UNFCCC.2007]
[IEA.2013]
[Ahmad.2011]
[EIA.2013d]
Auxiliary factors and assumptions:

Gas: 35.1106 J/Sm3
Coal: 5.5 106 kcal/t
Biogas: 22.5 106 J/Sm3

The model needs detailed data by process and commodity for each region. As a consequence,
there are contingency tables as for example a process has same key information as for instance
investment costs which apply for each process and region. The installed capacities of processes
differ between the regions, so there is another contingency table for this information in the
used Excel worksheet. Thus, redundancy is avoided by using contingency tables for the input
data. However, the input data which are given to model must be organised in data sets which
include all informations of one process in one region. So the contingency tables are split to
data sets including the data by region, processes and commodities. Hence, the more regions
37

are considered, the more data sets are inevitable. Due to the quantity of data, there is a macro
implemented to facilitate the providing of the data for the model. It is entirely necessary to fill
the data-related table which are orange marked contingency tables and the macro transfers
the data into the model-related tables which are marked green. This macro simply copies
the data of the contingency tables of commodities and processes by site together into the
model-related tables. Thus, changes in the figures of the input data are easily implemented
and do not make any efforts. It is merely necessary to fill the data-related tables and to run
the macro. Thus, the changes will be adopted to the model-related tables automatically.
38
4 Scenarios
4.1 Definition of Scenarios
The next step to investigate the power system of Malaysia is to consider the impacts of
certain constraints of the power system by defining scenarios. A scenario is characterised by
specific restrictive conditions regarding the input data of the power system. By changing the
input data, the model resolves linear equations according to the actual circumstances and
constraints. For instance, the results differ if gas prices are manipulated or energy-related
CO2 emissions are limited. Starting from the first week in 2012, the simulation time frame
is defined by 13 weeks by choosing every fourth week. One of those weeks is depicted in
Figure 2.2.
The 2012 reference scenario is defined to validate the model. In this scenario, all implemented constraints are based on the year 2012. All costs and expenses reflect the prices observed
in 2012. Thus, the reference scenario is regarded as the status quo in this thesis. Hence,
in the context of a growing energy demand in Malaysia, the generation of electricity will
increase in the next years. In this thesis, future scenarios demonstrate the impact of the electricity generation on climate change and air pollution due to energy-related CO2 emissions.
Thus, they are defined by assuming future input data as described in Chapter 2. For these
future scenarios the model will install more generation capacity to meet the future demand
cost-effectively, if it is required. Furthermore, more expensive fuel prices and a negative development of investment costs of power stations are taken into account. All prices and costs
refer to real 2012 US$.
There are two future years which will be examined. To demonstrate how political targets
can be achieved by 2020, the modelled year is set to 2020 for the first scenarios. To extend
these studies, a long-term case is defined in 2035 to show future challenges in general. In these
scenarios, the impact of new transmission lines and CO2 restrictions as well as alterations in
the gas price in 2035 will be demonstrated.
Due to the data situation and complexity of the power system, further assumptions have
to be made.
39

Evaluating the first scenarios, the model suggests to build coal-fired power stations in
Kuala Lumpur of around 4.4 GW. However, it is obvious that this result is not attractive and
desirable due to air pollution issues. Hence, the capacity of fossil fuel-fired power stations
has to be restricted. The maximum capacity of coal-fired power station is set to 0 since
there was no installed unit powered by coal in 2012. Whereas there were some gas, oil and
diesel power stations, the maximum capacity of power stations fired by gas, oil and diesel
is set to 50 MW. Due to these assumptions it is clear that the required electricity must be
generated in bordering regions. Moreover, it is assumed that the capacity of the transmission
line between Kuala Lumpur and the neighbouring region Selangor is perfectly followed up.
Investment costs of this transmission line are neglected due to the forced capacity limits of
fossil fuel-fired power stations in Kuala Lumpur.
These assumptions apply to all following scenarios.
Additionally, there are short terms defined to describe the main constraints of the following
scenarios. The use of appropriate short cuts facilitates the evaluation and the naming of
scenarios in the following part. Those short codes are listed in Table 4.1. An overview of all
scenarios which are considered in this thesis are registered in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1: Overview of used scenarios short terms and their definition.
Short code of scenarios
Definition
2020BAU
Business as usual scenario in 2020 and no restrictions on energy-related CO2 emissions
2020TrOFF
Scenarios in 2020 without expansion of transmission grid
2020TrON
Scenarios 2020 with construction of new transmission lines
2035BAU
Business as usual scenario in 2035 and no reduction of energy-related CO2 emissions
2035TrOFF
Scenarios in 2035 without expansion of transmission gird
2035TrON
Scenarios in 2035 with construction of new

transmission lines
40
Table 4.2: Overview of scenarios which are considered.

Target
year
Expansion of
2012 power grid
01: 2012Reference
2012
no
no
02: 2020BAU
03
04
05
2020
2020
2020
2020
no
no
yes
yes
no
26.50%
no
26.50%
06: 2035BAU
07
08
09
2035
2035
2035
2035
no
no
no
no
10
11
12
13
2035
2035
2035
2035
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Scenario
Reduction of
CO2 emissions
Reduction
compared to
Gas price
[US$/MWh]
15.59
2020BAU
44.21
44.21
44.21
44.21
no
25%
50%
75%
2035BAU
2035BAU
2035BAU
60.69
60.69
60.69
60.69
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
25%
50%
75%
2035BAU
2035BAU
2035BAU
60.69
60.69
60.69
60.69
2035
2035
2035
2035
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
25%
50%
75%
2035BAU
2035BAU
2035BAU
24.58
24.58
24.58
24.58
2035
2035
2035
2035
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
25%
50%
75%
2035BAU
2035BAU
2035BAU
47.89
47.89
47.89
47.89
41
2020BAU
4.2 Proofing the Model by Evaluating the 2012 Reference Scenario

The actual generation capacity in 2012 on the basis of [Platts.2010] is listed in the appendix,
Table A.5. As mentioned in Section 3.2, the data base is modified to represent the actual state
of 2012. The following considerations of scenarios are built upon this generation capacity and
are assumed to be installed. Additionally, a possible deconstruction of power stations is not
allowed in 2012 to represent the actual situation.
As previously mentioned in Chapter 1, the generation mix of the Malaysian power system was dominated by fossil fuels in 2012. Figure 1.6 shows the distribution by fuel type.
This generation mix is re-modelled by the model URBS. To reflect the actual generation mix,
the commodity supply is restricted since the 2012 power system is not optimised regarding
the minimal total costs. The Annual Report of TNB [TNB.2012] gives reference values, but
some adjustments have to be done, as these figures are only valid for power stations which
are located in Peninsular Malaysia. The total supply of gas and coal was 960 MMscf per day
and 20 million tons per year, respectively [TNB.2012]. Distributed by the total installed capacity of each power station, the power generation mix is re-built. In the scenario 2012Reference,
the model is not allowed to build new generation capacities, although this configuration of
the power system may not be cost-effective. However, the aim of rebuilding the status quo is
to reflect the actual power generation mix and the power system. By simulating the reference
scenario with the actual constraints, the generation mix of 2012 is derived as depicted in
Figure 4.1.
38.9%
52.7%
7.3%
0.2%
1.0%
Coal
Gas
Hydro Power
Oil and Petrochemicals
Other RE
Figure 4.1: Modelled electricity generation mix in Malaysia in 2012 [EPU.2012].

Key results which characterise the power system are listed in Table 4.3.
One main figure is the total generated electricity of 121.73 TWh. Compared to the actual
generated electricity of 122.54 TWh in Malaysia, the model reflects reality very well by calculating the generated electricity of the given demand situation. Consequently, this observation
is a valid proof for the input data and the used model.
Moreover, the annual total costs sum up 5.94 billion US$. The costs of generating electricity
42

hold a share of 96.6 %, while the remaining part belongs to operational costs of the high
voltage power grid for transmission (costs of the distribution grid is neglected as previously
mentioned). Additionally, the CO2 emission factor for the electricity generation represents
the impact on environmental sustainability. The higher the share of fossil fuels to the power
generation mix, the higher the electricity-specific CO2 emission factor. Thus, the lower the
value is, the higher the penetration of low-emission processes to generate electricity. In the
scenario 2012Reference, the power generation mix is dominated by fossil fuels. Hence, the
electricity-specific CO2 emission factor is relatively high. The simulated result is overall
consistent with the actual emission factor of 688 g/kWh [IEA.2013a, p. 112], although the
data reference is taken from the year 2011.
Furthermore, the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) is one of the decisive factors of the
power system.
Table 4.3: Summary of key results of the scenario 2012Reference.
Reference Scenario 2012
Generated electricity
Generation costs
Transmission costs
Electricity-specific CO2 emission factor
LCOE
43
121.73 TWh
5.71 billion US$
0.23 billion US$
622.90 g/kWh
4.88 US$ct/kWh
4.3 Investigation of Future Scenarios
4.3.1 Verifying Political Targets by 2020
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the input data in 2020 are modified by taking into account the
annual growth rate of the electricity demand as well as the future development of costs and
prices. In contrast to the reference case, deconstruction of generation capacity is allowed in
the following scenarios.
As in December 2009 at the UNFCCC Conference in Copenhagen the government pledged
to reduce the overall CO2 emission intensity by 40 % compared to 2005, the target year 2020
is investigated. This target has an effect on the overall CO2 emissions, although only a
part is caused by power generation. Thus, this indicator is adjusted to the CO2 emissions
related to the energy sector. According to [Theseira.2012], about 60 % of the overall emissions
in the BAU case is reducible in the energy, industry and transportation sector in 2020 to
achieve the political target. In the energy sector, the potential of CO2 reductions accounts
to 28.85 Mt CO2 in 2020 [Theseira.2012, p. 12]. Thus, on the basis of the total emissions in
the scenario 2020BAU, the energy-related CO2 emissions are reduced by 26.5 % in the power
generation in 2020. The limit of CO2 emissions is the key input data to verify the feasibility
and additional costs of the political target. In coming scenarios the impacts of the promised
CO2 restrictions on the power system and the total costs are examined.
In the following section, it will be demonstrated how this target can be reached costeffectively.
44

4.3.1.1 Influences of CO2 Emission Limits Related to Political Targets on the Future
Power System without Construction of New Transmission Lines in 2020
The scenarios without construction of new transmission lines (2020TrOFF ) are subdivided as
follows.
First, a scenario without any CO2 emission restrictions is simulated. Then the feasibility
of the political target of reducing CO2 emissions is evaluated which has been announced by
the government at the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen.
By meeting the demand of 151.9 TWh in 2020, an expansion of the generating capacity is
calculated by minimising the total costs of the power system in 2020.
An overview of the generating capacity by energy resource is given in Table A.6 without any
CO2 emission restrictions. Table A.7 shows the generating capacity under the constraints of
the political target to reduce CO2 emissions. Compared to the generation capacity in 2012,
the expansion of the future power station fleet is noticed. Further capacity of hydro power
stations accounts to about 4 GW, followed by power stations fired by biomass and biogas
with 450 MW which applies for both scenarios.
Regarding the scenario without CO2 restrictions, the main share of new generating capacity
is contributed by coal-fired power stations of almost 12 GW. This is mainly due to the low fuel
costs of coal and their low operational costs. However, the use of coal-fired power stations
results in high energy-related CO2 emissions. In this scenario, the electricity-specific CO2
emission factor is 797.4 g/kWh. This equals an increase of 28 % compared to the modelled
factor of the scenario 2012Reference.
As a consequence, the generation capacity regarding the scenario with restricted CO2 emissions has to be adapted to meet the limit of CO2 emissions. In this scenario, around 4 GW of
gas-fired power stations are added to the capacity of 2012 by the model, whereas the capacity
of gas-fired power stations regarding the scenario without restrictions of CO2 emissions was
not extended. The capacity of coal-fired power stations is extended by almost 2 GW compared to 2012. It is obvious that the CO2 emission limit is reached by shifting the electricity
generation from coal-fired to gas-fired power stations. This is also proven by evaluating the
power generation mix. The resulting power generation mix is depicted in Figure 4.2.
Regarding the scenario 2020BAU, the share of electricity which is generated by coal-fired
power stations is 80 %, followed by hydro power with 14 %. The proportion which is contributed by gas-fired power stations accounts to only 4 %. Electricity generated by biogas
and biomass sum up to 2 %. Compared to the power generation mix of the scenario with
restrictions on CO2 emissions, there is one main difference. That is that the power generation
mix consists of 43 % electricity generated by gas and 40 % by coal-fired power stations. Due
to this shift from coal to gas, the political target is achieved in 2020.
To discuss the feasibility, the costs are decisive. An overview of them are listed in Table 4.4.
45

Another finding is that the enforcement of CO2 restrictions results in higher costs. The main
reason for this is the inverse balance between costs and the environmental-friendly aspect, for
example of coal. On the one hand the fuel price of coal as an energy resource is very low, but
on the other hand coal is the fuel with the highest CO2 emission factor. Another example is
the installation of solar PV. On the one hand, the investment costs are relatively high but on
the other hand there are no fuel price and low operational costs.
The total costs of the BAU scenario are 11.64 billion US$. The total costs regarding the
scenario with CO2 limits are 17.9 % higher which also results in higher LCOE. In this scenario, the LCOE increases by 1.19 US$ct/kWh compared to the LCOE in the scenario 2020BAU
of 6.89 US$ct/kWh. There is also an increase of 66 % compared to the LCOE of the reference
scenario in 2012 to achieve the political targets. Moreover, the electricity-specific CO2 emission factor decreases to 583.4 g/kWh regarding the scenario with restrictions of CO2 emissions.
Additionally, the investment costs of new power stations regarding the scenario with CO2 limits are 38.2 % less compared to the investment costs of the scenarion 2020BAU, although the
total costs of the power system are higher. This is mainly because the installed generation
capacity
of gas-fired
power Targets
stations existed
in 2012.
However, due to a cost-minimising soluVerifying
Political
by 2020
(2/3)
tion, it is cheaper to build new coal power stations to meet the demand for electricity in
2020.Cost-minimised
Nonetheless, operational
costs to generate
Power Generation
Mix: electricity increase by 18.2 % compared to
the scenario
2020BAU.
Thus, thereLines
are higher
total2 Limits
costs of the power system.
Impact
of Transmission
and CO
Without construction of new
transmission lines (2020TrOFF)
With construction of new

transmission lines (2020TrON)
1% 1%
1% 1%
4%
4%
14%
14%
No CO2
limits
80%
80%
169.01 TWh
168.98 TWh
1% 1%
1% 3%
15%
27%
With CO2
limits
40%
51%
18%
43%
169.80 TWh
Biogas
Biomass
Melanie Mannhart | 17/03/2014
Coal
Diesel
Gas
23
169.48 TWh
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
Figure 4.2: Overview of modelled structures of the power generation mix in Malaysia for
different scenarios in 2020.
46

4.3.1.2 Impacts of Political Targets regarding CO2 Emission Reduction on the Power
System in 2020 with Expansion of the Transmission Power Grid
Compared to the previously described scenarios without considering the construction of new
transmission lines (2020TrOFF ), the following section presents the scenarios in 2020 with
a cost-effective construction of new high voltage transmission lines (2020TrON ). The model
takes new transmission lines into account whenever and wherever it is cost-effective to the
total costs of the power system. The feasibility study of political targets in 2020 applies in
these scenarios as well. Hence, the energy-related CO2 emissions are reduced by 26.5 %, as
already mentioned.
The generation capacity regarding the scenario with new transmission lines is listed in
Table A.8 without CO2 emission limits and in Table A.9 with reduction of CO2 emissions.
There is no significant difference between the generation capacity of the scenario without
CO2 restrictions and the BAU scenario. Additionally, the power generation mix is the same
in those two scenarios. Moreover, the costs which are shown in Table 4.4 are similar.
In contrast to that, differences are observed between the scenario with and without CO2
restrictions. A shift from coal-fired power stations to hydro power stations and power stations
powered by biomass is noticed, regarding the scenario with CO2 emission restrictions. The
capacity of biomass-fired power stations is extended to 670 MW in total. The capacity of
coal power stations amounts to 12.4 GW. This contribution reflects the power generation mix
which is depicted in Figure 4.2. The share of coal decreases to 51 % but is still higher than its
share in the power generation mix compared to the scenario 2020TrOFF with CO2 emission
limits. In the scenario 2020TrON, gas contributes only 18 % to the power generation mix and
electricity generated by biomass increases to 3 %. The increase of hydro power of the power
generation mix from 14 % to 27 % is remarkable. This shift arises from the installation of a
submarine cable from Malaysian Borneo to Peninsular Malaysia which has a positive effect
on the overall costs. Although the length of the cable is around 790 km and its construction
means high investment costs, this solution is cost-minimal.
Hydro power is emission-free but relatively expensive to construct, whereas coal has a low
fuel price but its combustion results in high CO2 emissions. By combining hydro power and
coal in the scenario 2020TrON, the limit of CO2 emissions is exploited by a higher share of coal
compared to the scenario 2020TrOFF as hydro power does not causes CO2 emissions. Hence,
the cost-effective advantage of this submarine cable is obvious. Without a transmission line
from Borneo to Peninsular Malaysia, the demand in Borneo is too low to exploit the whole
hydro power potential of this region which is in contrast to a connection between Borneo and
Peninsular. Thus, electricity which is generated by hydro power in Borneo covers the demand
in Peninsular Malaysia in the case with a submarine cable. Borneo itself contributes more
than 82 % of the total electricity generated by hydro power. This result shows the urgent need
to construct the grid connection between these two regions of the country which was already
47

planned in 2009 [TNB.2012]. The project was launched in 2010 by the Minister of Energy,
Green Technology and Water (KeTTHA) but the cable is not in operation yet [TNB.2012].
Regarding the scenarios with limited CO2 emissions, the total costs without construction
of new transmission lines are lower than the costs without any new constructed transmission lines. To compare these two figures, the generation costs are about 17 % higher compared to the scenario 2020TrOFF and CO2 restrictions. An increase of the transmission
costs of 1.07 billion US$ compared to the scenario 2020TrOFF is compensated regarding the
total costs by lower generation costs in the scenario 2020TrON. This is also proven by the
LCOE of the scenario 2020TrON with CO2 emission restrictions. Thus, the LCOE amounts
to 7.57 US$ct/kWh and is around 7 % under the LCOE of the scenario 2020TrOFF with limits
of CO2 emissions.
In the case with CO2 restrictions, investment costs increase by 10.2 % related to the scenario 2020BAU. In contrast to the scenario without construction of new transmission lines but
with the restrictions on CO2 emissions, the higher share of hydro power stations as well as
of coal-fired power stations results in higher investment costs. But at the same time, the
operational costs are 25 % lower than in the case with CO2 emission reduction and without
expansion of the power grid.
All these aspects proof that building new high voltage transmission lines are cost-attractive
in the consideration of the mentioned political targets. Although the aim of reducing the
overall CO2 emission intensity by 40 % seems to be a tough target, the share of this reduction
in the generation sector is relatively low. However, due to this political target, the electricity
price for consumers will increase in practice.
Table 4.4: Summary of key results of the scenarios in 2020.
Scenarios in 2020
2020TrOFF
Restrictions on
CO2
/
emissions
Generated electricity in TWh
Generation costs in billion US$
Transmission costs in billion US$
Electricity-specific CO2 emission factor in g/kWh
LCOE in US$ct/kWh
48
169.01
11.39
0.25
797.40
6.89
169.80
13.47
0.25
583.40
8.08
2020TrON
Restrictions on
CO2
/
emissions
168.98
11.35
0.27
797.10
6.88
169.48
11.50
1.32
584.50
7.57
4.3.2 Long-Term View in 2035
As a long-term consideration, the future power system of 2035 will be investigated. The
model calculates the capacity which has to be installed to meet the future demand on the
basis of the year 2012. Due to air pollution issues, the capacity of fossil fuel-fired power
stations in Kuala Lumpur is restricted, as previously mentioned. The development of costs
and prices as well as the demand for electricity in 2035 is taken into account. A deconstruction
of generation capacities by the model is possible but without any costs in all scenarios. In
this long-term approach the reduction of energy-related CO2 emissions is set to 25 %, 50 %
and 75 %, respectively.
4.3.2.1 Influences of CO2 Emission Restrictions on the Power System without

Construction of New Transmission Lines in 2035
The power generation capacities regarding these long-term scenarios are listed in the appendix
in Tables A.10 to A.13. The scenario 2035BAU demonstrates how the future demand can be
covered in 2035. Compared to the power generation capacity in 2012, a huge expansion of
coal-fired power stations regarding this scenario is observed which comes to 39.2 GW. Low
operational costs of this generation technology are arguments for an expansion. The required
capacity of gas-fired power stations in 2035 was already installed in 2012, so that there is no
capacity added. The generation capacity of hydro power stations grows from around 7.1 GW
to 9.6 GW. Moreover, the capacity of power stations fired by biogas and biomass amounts
to 0.9 GW in 2035 which is constant for all following long-term scenarios. Regarding the
scenarios with restrictions on CO2 emissions, the fleet of power stations is changed by the
model due to the constraints of limited CO2 emissions. More gas-fired power stations are
built, whereas the capacity of coal-fired power stations regresses related to the capacity in the
BAU scenario. The higher the CO2 emission restrictions, the higher this shift from coal to gas.
Additionally, capacity of hydro power and also solar PV is added to the fleet of power stations
by the model. New installed capacity of solar PV amounts to about 15.1 GW, whereas the
generation capacity of hydro power stations regarding the scenario with a reduction of 25 %
CO2 emissions increases by 0.8 GW related to the BAU scenario. Furthermore it stays almost
at this level in the remaining scenarios. Regarding the scenario with restrictions on the CO2
emissions of 50 % and 75 %, the capacity of coal decreases to the capacity which was already
installed in 2012. However, the generation capacity of gas-fired power stations raises to the
maximum of 43.5 GW compared to the scenario with a reduction of 75 % of the 2035BAU CO2
emissions. In this scenario, the capacity of solar PV increases rapidly to 98.2 GW. It is also
observed that with a higher share of electricity generated by intermittent energy resources
the power generation capacity is oversized in total. Due to the fluctuation of the generated
electricity it is required to have backup generation capacity to compensate such fluctuations.
49

As the development of the power station fleet already showed, the power generation mix
regarding these scenarios demonstrates the shift from coal to gas with increasing reduction of
CO2 emissions. The higher the restrictions on CO2 emissions, the higher the penetration of
RE, in this case solar PV. This impact on the structure of the generated electricity results in
a balance between the investment costs and operational costs combined with the restrictions
on CO2 emissions. Regarding the scenario without any restrictions, the share of coal in the
power generation mix is reduced from 83.3 % to 52.8 %, to 19.3 % and to 0 % with increasing
reductions of CO2 emissions by every 25 %. However, the share of electricity generated by gasfired power stations develops from 3.9 % to 27.4 %, to 59.6 % and to 51 %, respectively. The
share of hydro power is almost constant of around 10.8 % to 11.7 %. With higher reductions
of CO2 emissions, the share of solar PV amounts to 6.1 %, related to the scenario with 25 %
CO2 reductions, followed by 7.4 % and 35.7 % with increasing restrictions on CO2 emission,
respectively.
Table 4.5: Summary of key results of the scenarios in 2035 without construction of new transmission lines.
Scenarios in 2035 without expansion of the power grid
Reduction of CO2 emissions compared to the
emissions of the scenario 2035BAU
Energy-related CO2 emissions in g/kWh
Abatement costs in US$/t CO2
LCOE in US$ct/kWh
0%
25 %
50 %
312.94
22.95
0.32
744.00
0.00
7.44
313.39
26.29
0.32
557.20
57.47
8.49
313.39
30.40
0.32
371.50
64.00
9.80
75 %
338.80
39.64
0.32
171.80
95.59
11.79
The key results of the power system under the specific constraints are presented in Table 4.5.
The table shows the generated electricity in each case based on the demand situation in 2035.
Additionally, the costs of generation and transmission, the CO2 emission factor of electricity
as well as the abatement costs of CO2 emissions and LCOE are listed.
According to the findings of the power generation capacity and the power generation mix,
the figures reflect the more cost-intensive reduction of CO2 emissions by implementing RE
to reach a low-emission power system. Although the operational costs first increase with
higher restrictions on CO2 emissions, the operational costs decrease regarding the scenario
with 75 % CO2 emission limits related to the scenario with a 50 % reduction. This is because of
the installation of solar PV to the fleet of power stations which was described in Section 4.3.1.
Combined with the fact that RE do not contribute any fuel cost, the operational costs decrease
with a higher penetration of solar PV. At the same time the investment costs increase three
fold in the scenario with 75 % CO2 emission restrictions.
50

In the end, the higher the restrictions on CO2 emissions, the higher the total costs of the
power system.View
This is2035
also proven
by the LCOE which raise from 7.44 US$ct/kWh in the
Long-Term
(1/3)
scenario 2035BAU to 11.79 US$ct/kWh compared to the scenario with the highest emission
Cost-minimised Power Generation Mix:

limit.
Impact of Transmission Lines and CO2 Limits
100%

in the power generation mix
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reduction of CO2
emission by
0%
25 %
50%
75 %
Construction of new
transmission lines
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Generated electricty
in TWh (=100 %)
312.94
312.97
313.39
313.12
313.39
313.12
338.80
324.42
Biogas
Biomass
Melanie Mannhart
Figure| 17/03/2014
4.3: Overview
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
23 generation mix in Malaysia in 2035.

of modelled power
51
Wind-on

4.3.2.2 Effects of CO2 Emission Limits on the Power System with Expansion of the
Power Grid in 2035
In this section, the results of the scenarios 2035TrON and additional constraints are described.
In this case, it is remarkable that the capacity of hydro power stations is higher than in the case
without construction of new transmission lines, regardless of restrictions on CO2 emissions.
This is the case because of the already mentioned impact of the transmission line from Borneo
to Peninsular Malaysia. The hydro potential of Borneo is better exploited due to the electricity
transport to Peninsular Malaysia. Thus, the capacity of hydro power stations stays at the
same level of around 13.2 GW. With a higher share of electricity generated by emission-free
processes, the capacity of coal- and gas-fired power stations is higher than in the scenarios
without expansion of the existing power grid. Nevertheless, the shift from coal to gas is also
observed as pointed out in the previous section. Additionally, the capacity of solar PV is lower
than in the scenarios 2035TrOFF. Due to the higher capacity of hydro power which is emission
free, it is more cost-attractive to build gas-fired power stations to meet the demand, while
respecting the CO2 emission limit. Hence, the capacity of solar PV amounts to only 79.5 GW
regarding the scenario with a reduction of 75 % of the CO2 emissions compared to the scenario
2035BAU. The generation capacities of the scenarios 2035TrON with increasing CO2 emission
restrictions are listed in Tables A.14 to A.17.
The power generation mix is derived from the structure and development of the generation
capacities in these scenarios accordingly. An overview of the specific power generation mixes
is depicted in Figure 4.3. Compared to the scenarios without expansion of the existing power
grid, the power generation mix differs for following reasons: With the construction of new
transmission lines (in particular the submarine cable from Borneo to Peninsular Malaysia) the
potential of hydro power is better exploited due to the higher demand situation in Borneo.
By installing more hydro power, the share of solar PV decreases by 5.1 % due to the high
investment costs and the share of gas increases slightly.
Moreover, the investment costs related to the power stations of these scenarios are higher
than the costs related to the scenarios 2035TrOFF. However, with a CO2 emission reduction
of 75 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU, the investment costs of the generation capacity
are lower in the scenario 2035TrON (17.76 billion US$ vs. 15.30 billion US$). This is because
of the higher share of hydro power stations and the lower share of solar PV. At the same time,
the operational costs of the power stations regarding the scenario 2035TrOFF with increasing
restrictions on CO2 emissions have the same development but are lower in all scenarios. The
added transmission lines lead to additional investment and operational costs related to the
power grid, but are lower than the differences between the savings according to the scenarios
2035TrOFF and 2035TrON. This is also proven by the total costs of the power system. In
total, the minimised costs of the power system are lower than without expansion of the existing
power grid, but show the same cost trends.
52

All figures including the abatement costs are listed in Table 4.6. Compared to the scenario
without new transmission lines, the abatement costs are lower with new transmission lines,
partly up to 15 % of the abatement costs without expansion of the power grid. In the case
without any CO2 emission restrictions, the expansion of the power grid results in a more
effective operation of the power generation capacity with the result of lower CO2 emissions
and negative abatement costs. With higher reduction of CO2 emissions, the LCOE increase,
ranging from 7.43 US$ct/kWh to 11.66 US$ct/kWh. These figures are also listed in Table 4.6.
In conclusion, the higher the reduction of CO2 emissions, the more cost-attractive the
construction of transmission lines.
Table 4.6: Summary of key results of the scenarios in 2035 with construction of new transmission lines.
Scenarios in 2035 with expansion of the power grid
emissions of scenario 2035BAU
LCOE in US$ct/kWh
53
0%
25 %
50 %
312.97
22.93
0.33
741.30
6.72
7.43
313.12
25.45
0.78
557.70
50.90
8.38
313.12
29.55
0.78
371.80
60.68
9.69
75 %
324.42
36.76
1.05
179.40
83.29
11.66
4.3.3 Impact of Gas Price and CO2 Emission Restrictions in 2035
In the following scenarios, the first results of the preceding studies are applied. The advantages
of constructing new transmission lines are already shown in the previous section as the most
cost-attractive solution. Hence, the scenarios 2035TrOFF are not considered and evaluated.
Thus, the allowance of expanding the power grid (2035TrON ) is set in the coming study of
all scenarios.
As mentioned in Chapter 2.3, the price of gas is adjusted to the market price by reducing
the subsidies to natural gas by 2016. By assuming that the government may keep the gas
price low by further subsidies, the development of the gas price in the first case is based on the
price in 2012 with an annual growth rate of 2.0 % [EIA.2013d]. Thus, the gas price amounts
to 24.58 US$/MWh in 2035. In the second consideration, a higher development of the gas
price is assumed. In this scenario, the gas price is set to 47.89 US$/MWh based on the gas
price in 2012 with an assumed annual growth rate of 5.0 %.
Implementing those assumptions, the different power generation mixes are depicted in Figure 4.4. In the first case, the power generation capacity as well as the generation mix are dominated by gas. Due to the lower fuel costs of gas, it is cost-attractive to install around 40.1 GW
gas-fired power stations. Regarding the scenario with a CO2 emission reduction of 75 % of
the compared to the scenario 2035BAU, the generation capacity of solar PV increases rapidly
to 79.5 GW, also the capacity of gas-fired power stations raises slightly which means again a
oversized power generation capacity and higher investment costs. This is shown by the figures
which are listed in Table 4.7.
The structure of the power generation mix consists of about 86 % electricity generated by
gas. Coal and hydro power contribute a share of 7 % and 6 % to the generated electricity,
respectively. Electricity which is generated by biomass and biogas amounts to around 1 %. As
this configuration of the power generation capacity and its planning of generating electricity
is under the CO2 emission limit of 25 % and 50 %, the power system of those scenarios is not
changed by the model. By increasing the CO2 emissions to 75 %, coal as a energy resource
for the electricity generation disappears almost entirely from the power generation mix. The
utilisation of gas decreases to 53 % of the power generation mix, whereas the share of electricity produced by solar PV raises to 31 %. In this scenario, hydro power contributes 14 %.
Moreover, generated electricity by biogas and biomass amounts to 2 %.
A summary of key indicators of the future power system is listed by scenario in Table 4.7,
including total generated electricity, the generation and transmission costs, the electricityrelated emission factor as well as the abatement costs per saved t CO2 and the LCOE. These
figures show that the utilisation of power stations is not changed, although the reduction of
CO2 emission is more than 50 %. This is because the limit of CO2 emissions is already fulfilled
54
Long-Term View 2035 (1/3)
Cost-minimised Power Generation Mix:

Impact of Gas Price and CO2 Limits
100%

in the power generation mix
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reduction of CO2
emission by
2035
TrON_polit0
gasprice25
2036
%TrON_polit
gasprice47
Gas price in
US$/MWh
24.58
47.89
Generated electricity in TWh (=100 %)
312.95
313.00
Biogas
Biomass
Melanie Mannhart | 17/03/2014
2035
2036
TrON_polit25 %TrON_polit
gasprice 25
gasprice 47
CO2 25 %
CO2 25 %
Coal
24.58
47.89
312.95
313.15
Diesel
Gas
2035
2036
TrON_polit50%TrON_polit
gasprice 25
gasprice 47
CO2 50 %
CO2 50 %
24.58
47.89
312.95
313.13
Hydro
LGas
Oil
2035
2036
TrON_polit75 %TrON_polit
gasprice 25
gasprice 47
CO2 75 %
CO2 75 %
24.58
47.89
324.40
324.37
SunGlobal
Wind-on
23
Figure 4.4: Overview of modelled power generation mix in Malaysia in 2035 with modifying
the gas price.
in these scenarios due to the low fuel costs of gas and the resulting relatively low CO2 emissions.
This fact also influences the electricity-related CO2 emission factor which is negative for the
scenario up to a reduction of CO2 emission of 50 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU. Also

on the basis of the low gas price, the LCOE are lower (5.38 US$ct/kWh and 8.45 US$ct/kWh)
compared to previous scenarios.
For a higher gas price, the power generation capacity of coal power stations is extended
to 34.6 GW and decreases to 7.9 GW with increasing CO2 emission reductions. Additionally,
the capacity of gas-fired power stations increases from the basis value in 2012 of 14.1 GW
to 22.7 GW, to 36.4 GW and to 41.5 GW, respectively, while increasing the restrictions on
CO2 emissions by every 25 %. The potential of biomass and biogas is fully exploited by a total
capacity of 0.9 GW regardless of the development of the CO2 emission limits. Moreover, with
a limit of 75 % CO2 emission, a capacity of 79.4 GW solar PV is added to the power generation
capacity which also results in an oversized power station fleet. Hence, the investment costs
are higher in this case. Additionally, the power generation mix is similar to to the structure
of the power generation capacity. In the scenario 2035TrON without any restrictions on CO2
emissions but with a higher gas price, the power generation mix is dominated by coal with a
share of 78 %. Gas and hydro powered stations contribute 10 % and 11 % to the generation
mix, respectively. The higher the reduction of CO2 emissions, the lower the share of electricity
55
Table 4.7: Summary of key results of the scenarios in 2035 with construction of new transmission lines and a modified gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh.
and a gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh
Electricity-related CO2 emissions in g/kWh
LCOE in US$ct/kWh
0%
25 %
50 %
312.95
16.53
0.32
356.40
52.93
5.38
312.95
16.53
0.32
356.40
52.93
5.38
312.95
16.53
0.32
356.40
52.93
5.38
75 %
324.40
26.35
1.05
179.40
23.70
8.45
generated by coal. At the same time, the share in the power generation mix of gas develops
with higher reduction of CO2 emissions from 33 % to 67 % and then down to 53 % regarding
the scenario with 75 % CO2 emission limit. The share of hydro power rises slightly to a
constant value of 14 %. The same applies for electricity generated by biomass and biogas
on a 2 % share in the power generation mix. Regarding the last scenario with CO2 emission
restrictions of 75 %, the share of solar PV of the power generation mix jumps up to 31 %.
To compare the key results of the scenarios, especially costs and emission factors, Table 4.8
shows these figures for a higher gas price. As already mentioned, the leap of the share of solar
PV is also observed for the rapid increase of the investment costs of the scenario with a 75 %
reduction of CO2 emissions.
The costs of transmission lines are not affected by modifying the gas price, especially by
increasing the price for gas. Those costs are the same as in the scenarios with a lower gas price.
The generation costs are higher due to the higher fuel costs of gas. However, the increment
of generation costs amounts to 37 % with an CO2 emission limits increase from 50 % to 75 %
regarding the scenarios with a lower gas price, an increase by 24 % is observed in the scenario
with a higher gas price.
The abatement costs related to the BAU scenario in 2035 are also influenced by a higher
gas price. Compared to the abatement costs with a gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh, the abatement costs are higher due to the higher total costs of the power system. Accordingly, the
price for electricity is more cost-intensive due to higher total costs.
The LCOE ranges
from 7.29 US$ct/kWh to 10.52 US$ct/kWh with greater restrictions on CO2 emissions.
56
Table 4.8: Summary of key results of the scenarios in 2035 with construction of new transmission lines and gas price of 47.89 US$/MWh.
and a gas price of 47.89 US$/MWh
LCOE in US$ct/kWh
0%
25 %
50 %
313.00
22.49
0.33
712.40
45.77
7.29
313.15
23.44
0.73
557.70
15.53
7.72
313.13
25.30
0.73
371.80
23.68
8.31
75 %
324.37
33.08
1.05
179.50
62.19
10.52
Comparing the results of these two scenarios with different gas prices, it is obvious that
manipulating the fuel price affects the costs as well as the power generation mix.
The higher the fuel costs, the higher the operational costs of the power system and the higher
the penetration of RE. As the model solves the equations of the power system by minimising
the total costs, the lower operational costs (due to the fact that RE do not have fuel costs)
compensate for the higher investment costs of RE. In the end, lower total costs are observed.
Hence, subsidies to fossil fuels have to be reduced to hold the balance between the operational costs of fossil fuels and investment costs of RE. With the appropriate balance between
those two parameters it is possible to have a cost-effective sustainable power system in Malaysia.
57

The rapid increase of the electricity demand in Malaysia is a major future challenge for the
country. This includes the sustainable, reliable and environmental-friendly future electricity
supply to meet the higher demand for electricity. In Malaysia, the demand for electricity will
almost triple by 2035, compared to 2012.
For analysing the actual and the future power system of Malaysia, the time step based model
URBS is used. By means of the model URBS, impacts and influences of certain parameters on
the power system are derived. While meeting the demand and at the same time minimising
the overall costs in hourly time steps, the power system is modelled.
Planing the use and control of fossil fuel-fired power stations is time-independent and relatively straightforward. In contrast, the utilisation of intermittent energy sources is dependent
on their availability. Implemented time series of fluctuating electricity demand and renewable
energies, such as solar PV and wind, represent that availability to a power system. The model
covers the fluctuating demand for electricity by using the available energy sources. Thus, it
is analysed how the power system reacts to intermittent energy sources and the demand load
curve.
The increasing demand situation in the future is a key parameter which affects the power
system. But also effects of expanding the 2012 power grid and CO2 emission restrictions on
the system are examined. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis of fuel prices are added. In this
thesis, the variation of the gas price is taken into account.
Since the model solves linear problems of the power system by minimising the total costs,
the high influence of input data regarding costs is obvious. Although the data situation is
patchy in parts and available data contradict themselves, it was possible to re-model the
Malaysian power system in 2012. Verifying the model by comparing the results to historical
data ensures that the model presents the actual power system and its behaviour.
Without any restrictions on the power system, the future power generation mix as well
as the power generation capacity is dominated by fossil fuels, due to the their low total
costs. A further advantage of fossil fuel-fired power stations is their constant availability to
generate electricity. But this aspect results in a high dependency on fossil energy resources
(which are limited), particularly on imports. In Malaysia, this applies especially to coal
which is currently imported from Indonesia and Australia. A high dependency of limited and
58

imported fossil fuels would be the result of the most cost-effective solution in future without
any restrictions. However, this does not reflect the official position of the government. In the
last decades, particular political frameworks were launched to decrease the reliance on only
one fossil energy resource. Thus, a diversification of the power generation mix is striven for
a reliable and secure energy supply in future, although it will be more expensive. Further
constraints are examined to give an idea of possible alternatives to a sustainable and low
emission power system.
In all scenarios, the positive effect of expanding the power grid on total costs is demonstrated. Constructing new transmission lines is the future foundation of an affordable electricity supply in Malaysia. Although there are investment costs regarding the power grid in
the first step, the overall costs of the power system are reduced compared to the scenarios
without expanding the power grid. This is the fact due to a more efficient utilisation of the
power stations.
Moreover, restrictions on CO2 emissions have a strong impact on the structure of the power
system, especially the penetration of renewable energies are affected. The higher the CO2
limits are, the higher is the share of renewable energies in the power generation mix. One
finding is that wind does only play a minor role in Malaysia due to the equatorial location of
the country. The wind potential in the Malaysian region is very low and does not represent
an economical alternative to fossil fuels. Instead, solar PV as an energy source for generating
electricity is more important. But the cost-effective utilisation is dependent on several factors.
On the one hand, with higher prices of fossil fuels, the installed capacity of solar PV increases.
Thus, restrictions on CO2 emissions affect the increase of using solar PV as an energy source
positively. On the other hand, additional back-up capacity, for instance of gas-fired power
stations, has to be installed due to inconstant availability of solar PV. The reason is that backup capacity will have to generate electricity if there is no solar radiation but a high demand.
Installing back-up capacity results in higher investment costs which have to be compensate
by the lower operational costs.
Additionally, the fuel prices influence the structure of the future power system as well.
The higher fuel costs are, the higher the operational costs. Thus, the use of technologies
with high investment costs but without any fuel costs such as renewable energies become
more cost-attractive for generating electricity. A relief to fossil fuels to diminish the fuel
costs distort economic market mechanism. As a consequence, subsidies to fossil fuels restrain
the development of renewable energies. This is mainly due to man-made imbalance between
higher investment costs of RE and the operational costs of power stations fired by fossil fuels.
The input data of the upper bound of renewable energies are based on a literature research
on the potential in Malaysia. Studies regarding the determination and constraints of RE potential support a more detailed discussion of the power system and its energy sources. This
applies also to hydro power. Its potential is given in research studies and is implemented in
59

the URBS model. However, the respective time series is not inserted into the model yet. The
fluctuation of hydro power related to the weather conditions would give more insight on the
impact of hydro power to the power system.
Implementing tidal and wave energy would increase the presence of renewable energies but
those technologies are still in the early stages of their development and profitability. Additionally, research on the potential of tidal energy are needed in the future.
Furthermore, impacts of energy storage on the power system would be an interesting consideration. It should be decided which storage technologies have a promising future in ASEAN
and which of them should be implemented into the model. Data about the specific storage
power stations are also needed. As a first approach, water storage power stations could be
defined, especially in Malaysia and its high potential of hydro power. Feasibility studies related to economic and social aspects should be conducted as construction of the necessary
dams are always an impairment of nature.
Moreover, adding more voltage levels of the transmission power grid increases the accuracy
of the analysis of the power system. But these additional efforts will be only reasonable if
proper data are available.
Additionally, the fleet of power stations consists of power stations of different characteristics.
In this thesis power stations of the same power generation technology are pooled to a virtual
power station with specific characteristics. But in reality, the bundled power stations vary for
example in the efficiency or maintenance costs. A more precise approach would therefore be
to define more types of the same generation technology to reflect the real characteristics of
each power station. The additional expenditure on data research to provide the specific data
sets and a longer simulation time should be weighed against the gained accuracy.
Lastly, a modelling approach which is able to optimise the power system by including future
trends and iterative considerations would reflect the actual behaviour of the power system
more in detail. This would be interesting especially when it comes to extended long-term
evaluations.
60
Appendix
61
Table A.1: Overview of input data regarding power stations after combining data of [Platts.2010] and informations of costs. Additionally,
costs for transmission lines and submarine cables, losses and depreciation out of [Schaber.2012a] are shown.
Power stations
Technology
Energy source
Steam
power station
Biomass
Coal
Gas
Oil
Diesel
Gas
Oil
Gas
Oil
Biogas
Diesel
Gas
Landfill gas
Oil
Conventional
Micro-hydro
Sun
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
GT
CCGT
GS
62
Hydro power
Solar PV
Wind turbine
Investment costs
cinv
[US$/MW]
2,263,778
1,579,380
973,000
973,000
421,168
421,168
421,168
737,030
737,030
500,000
500,000
500,000
8,312,000
500,000
1,968,960
3,137,702
2,737,592
2,695,475
1,526,734
Fixed costs
cf ix
[US$/MW/yr]
Variable costs
cvar
[US$/MWh/yr]
105,630
31,180
7,340
7,340
7,040
7,040
7,040
15,370
15,370
15,000
15,000
15,000
392,820
15,000
14,130
14,130
24,690
74,000
39,550
5.26
4.47
15.45
15.45
10.37
10.37
10.37
3.27
3.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Efficiency
0.150
0.352
0.265
0.265
0.295
0.295
0.295
0.442
0.442
0.250
0.330
0.300
0.250
0.340
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Load
factor
af
0.808
0.830
0.808
0.808
0.966
0.966
0.966
0.876
0.876
0.966
0.966
0.966
0.966
0.966
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Depreciation
[yr]
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
20
20
20
Transmission
Type
Overhead line
Submarine cable
Specific
investment costs
[US$/MW/km]
540
3,370
Fixed costs
[US$/MW/yr]
9,440
9,440
Losses
[%/1000 km]
4
4
Depreciation
[yr]
40
40
Appendix
Table A.2: Overview of capacity, lengths and efficiency of the power grid in 2012 in Malaysia by each connection by [PMGSO.2012].
Investment costs based on the length of connection apply if capacity is added by the model.
Regions
63
To
Perlis
Kedah
Kedah
Penang
Perak
Perak
Kelantan
Pahang
Pahang
Selangor
Selangor
Melaka
Johor
Johor
Johor
Sabah
Pahang
Negeri Sembilan
Sarawak
Kedah
Penang
Perak
Perak
Kelantan
Selangor
Terengganu
Terengganu
Selangor
Kuala Lumpur
Negeri Sembilan
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Negeri Sembilan
Melaka
Sarawak
Kuala Lumpur
Kuala Lumpur
Johor
340
0
153
950
34
948
50
1,138
672
1,978
2,981
235
470
500
744
0
500
500
0
Investment costs
[US$/MW]
39,299.58
41,478.48
72,911.34
46,737.54
83,314.44
98,458.20
75,050.28
91,068.30
59,848.74
10,776.24
46,995.66
27,607.50
135,805.68
120,802.32
95,619.96
298,361.88
95,619.96
95,619.96
2,382,883.90
Length of
transmission lines submarine cable
[km]
[km]
72.8
76.8
135.0
86.6
154.3
182.3
139.0
168.6
110.8
20.0
87.0
51.1
251.5
223.7
177.1
552.5
177.1
177.1
273.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
789.8
Efficiency
0.997
0.997
0.995
0.997
0.994
0.993
0.994
0.993
0.996
0.999
0.997
0.998
0.990
0.991
0.993
0.978
0.993
0.993
0.989
Appendix
From
2012 modelled
capacity
[MW]
Table A.3: Upper bound of power generating capacities of renewable energies by region in 2020 and 2035 in MW Malaysia [ASM.2013].
Capacity of solar PV and wind is set to unlimited.
Distribution of Potential in MW
Region
Biomass
Biogas
Hydro
Micro-hydro
MSW
64
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
39
19
31
12
6
9
20
8
17
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
1
4
22
1
13
29
44
0
57
46
77
5
8
2,056
8,944
30
37
3
5
23
14
11
12
6
7
11
11
16
2
24
17
39
7
Totoal
670
205
11,000
250
200
Appendix
65
Appendix
Figure A.1: Full-load hours of solar PV in Malaysia in [h].
66
Appendix
Figure A.2: Full-load hours of onshore wind in Malaysia in [h].
67
Appendix
Figure A.3: Full-load hours of offshore wind in Malaysia in [h].
Table A.4: Overview input data: installed capacity by region in MW in 2012 by [Platts.2010].
Power stations
Indonesia
Technology
Java
Steam
Biomass
Coal
Gas
Oil
Gas turbine
Combined
cycle
Kalimantan
Malaysia
East
Sumatra
Borneo
Peninsular
Singapore
6.10
15,216.80
20.00
2,436.00
27.93
273.63
16.00
34.50
19.00
526.50
0.00
53.20
898.00
1,865.00
25.00
263.20
129.33
480.00
20.00
0.00
39.35
7,449.00
6.00
1,371.00
23.09
0.00
1,250.00
3,450.00
Gas
Oil
Diesel
2,222.65
1,653.00
1,106.75
286.01
508.00
14.00
73.50
461.71
0.00
1,939.04
1,312.30
0.00
572.18
373.90
0.00
3,327.20
168.20
0.00
733.73
168.00
0.00
Gas
4,258.71
50.00
90.00
662.40
574.90
9,454.51
6,030.00
Oil
1,762.23
10.00
60.00
312.00
0.00
948.32
848.00
456.00
25.63
0.00
228.37
25.40
0.00
1,031.18
0.00
0.00
96.47
156.45
0.00
196.24
0.00
599.63
17.72
0.00
197.35
0.00
1.00
80.91
2,361.00
1,064.00
0.00
0.00
30.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
689.20
45.00
0.14
0.00
1,486.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
490.30
0.00
0.00
0.15
1,982.81
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
Diesel
Gas
Oil
Hydroelectric
Geothermal
Solar PV
Wind turbine
Hydro
Heat
Insolation
Wind
68
Engine
Appendix
Table A.5: Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2012Reference based on [Platts.2010].
Unit: (MW)
69
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
10
-
3
1
10
116
2
2
-
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,249
228
14
1,615
1,995
108
690
1,958
710
576
690
2,672
1,610
0
1
621
11
946
80
430
3
400
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
Total
10
133
7,929
214
14,116
2,493
3,653
Appendix
Table A.6: Modelled generation capacity in scenario 2020BAU.

Unit: (MW)
70
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
116
2
16
26
2,342
783
119
550
1,505
1,294
1,034
2,100
121
480
9,880
400
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,249
228
14
1,615
1,995
108
690
1,958
710
576
690
2,672
1,610
0
9
637
55
946
1,497
2,946
3
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
385
20,607
214
14,116
6,500
3,653
Appendix
Table A.7: Modelled generation capacity by region and process in scenario 2020TrOFF and political target of CO2 emission reduction.
Unit: (MW)
71
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
116
2
16
26
2,244
1,505
24
2,100
480
3,385
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,249
400
82
64
1,615
1,995
560
995
1,958
710
576
690
5,566
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
1,555
3,622
7
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
385
9,738
214
18,071
7,343
3,653
Appendix
Table A.8: Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2020TrON and no CO2 emission restrictions.
Unit: (MW)
72
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
116
2
16
26
2,342
783
119
550
1,505
1,294
1,034
2,100
121
480
9,880
400
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,249
228
14
1,615
1,995
108
690
1,958
710
576
690
2,672
1,610
0
9
637
55
946
2,056
2,186
3
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
385
20,607
214
14,116
6,299
3,653
Appendix
Table A.9: Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2020TrON and limited CO2 emissions defined by political targets.
Unit: (MW)
73
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
221
84
1,505
250
2,100
480
5,498
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,249
228
14
1,615
1,995
108
690
1,958
710
576
690
2,672
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
8,944
7
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
670
12,382
214
14,116
13,196
3,653
Appendix
Table A.10: Modelled power generation mix of the scenario 2035BAU.

Unit: (MW)
74
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
4,494
1,660
602
1,326
1,624
2,089
3,399
2,100
214
415
480
19,905
918
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,249
228
14
1,615
1,995
108
690
1,958
710
576
690
2,672
1,610
0
9
637
55
946
2,086
5,474
3
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
670
39,227
214
14,116
9,617
3,653
Appendix
Table A.11: Modelled power generation capacity of the scenario 2035TrOFF and a CO2 reduction of 25 % compared to the scenario
2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
75
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
3,570
299
294
206
1,505
1,147
2,349
2,100
480
11,218
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,707
892
273
64
1,615
1,995
589
690
1,958
710
619
690
7,842
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
6,188
7
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
2,150
5,000
164
5,257
2,571
0
-
215
670
23,168
214
21,253
10,440
3,653
15,142
0
Appendix
Table A.12: Generating capacity of the scenario 2035TrOFF and 50 % CO2 emission reduction compared to 2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
76
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
1,505
726
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
2,965
1,179
551
64
1,776
1,995
1,678
2,210
1,958
710
619
690
16,863
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
6,190
7
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
2,199
5,000
164
8,300
2,641
0
-
215
670
8,655
214
34,868
10,442
3,653
18,303
Appendix
Table A.13: Generating capacity of the scenario 2035TrOFF and with reduction of CO2 emissions by 75 % compared to the scenario
2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
77
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
5,093
1,375
516
64
1,910
2,421
1,981
3,584
2,156
710
623
690
20,750
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
7,171
7
405
23
14
11
12
6
7
11
11
16
2
24
39
7
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
13,856
4,066
1,327
5,000
2,105
77
7,640
6,605
741
1,000
51,096
4,736
0
-
215
670
7,929
214
43,483
11,423
183
3,653
98,248
0
Appendix
Table A.14: Generating capacity of the scenario 2035TrON without CO2 emissions limits.
Unit: (MW)
78
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
4,494
1,660
602
1,326
1,624
2,089
3,399
2,100
214
263
480
19,905
918
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,249
228
14
1,615
1,995
108
690
1,958
710
576
690
2,672
1,610
0
9
637
55
946
2,086
5,817
3
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
670
39,075
214
14,116
9,960
3,653
Appendix
Table A.15: Modelled generating capacity in the scenario 2035TrON and reduction of 25 % emissions compared to the scenario 2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
79
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
439
321
240
1,505
1,362
2,350
2,100
480
12,699
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,607
667
253
64
1,615
1,995
390
690
1,958
710
576
690
6,486
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
8,981
7
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
2,166
5,000
3,976
2,375
0
-
215
670
23,739
214
19,312
13,233
3,653
13,517
Appendix
Table A.16: Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON and CO2 emission reductions of 50 % compared to the scenario
2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
80
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
93
1,505
1,170
2,100
480
1,729
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,609
1,092
464
64
1,779
1,995
1,678
1,783
1,958
710
576
690
16,753
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
8,981
7
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
2,223
5,000
7,995
2,641
0
-
215
670
9,320
214
32,760
13,233
3,653
17,858
0
Appendix
Table A.17: Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON and with reduction of CO2 emissions of 75 % compared to the scenario
2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
81
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
3,732
1,357
434
64
1,882
2,399
1,872
3,467
2,089
710
576
690
20,519
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
8,981
7
405
23
14
11
12
6
7
11
11
16
2
24
17
39
7
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
8,775
9,271
516
5,000
1,194
6,849
780
39,201
7,886
0
-
215
670
7,929
214
41,401
13,233
200
3,653
79,472
0
Appendix
Table A.18: Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON with a adjusted gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh and no restrictions on CO2
emissions.
Unit: (MW)
82
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
3
1
10
116
2
2
-
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
3,677
1,267
585
64
1,805
1,995
1,788
2,972
1,958
710
719
2,742
18,215
1,610
0
1
621
11
946
2,056
430
3
400
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
133
7,929
214
40,108
4,469
3,653
0
Appendix
Table A.19: Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON, according to the scenario with an adjusted gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh.
The CO2 emissions are limited to 25 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
83
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
3
1
10
116
2
2
-
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
3,677
1,267
585
64
1,805
1,995
1,788
2,972
1,958
710
719
2,742
18,215
1,610
0
1
621
11
946
2,056
430
3
400
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
133
7,929
214
40,108
4,469
3,653
0
Appendix
Table A.20: Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON, a restriction on the CO2 emissions by 50 % compared to the scenario
2035BAU and an adjusted gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh.
Unit: (MW)
84
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
3
1
10
116
2
2
-
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
3,677
1,267
585
64
1,805
1,995
1,788
2,972
1,958
710
719
2,742
18,215
1,610
0
1
621
11
946
2,056
430
3
400
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
133
7,929
214
40,108
4,469
3,653
0
Appendix
Table A.21: Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON with a modified gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh and a CO2 emission limit
of 75 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
85
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
3,758
1,374
473
64
1,878
2,418
1,980
3,476
2,115
710
576
690
20,516
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
8,981
7
405
23
14
11
12
6
7
11
11
16
2
24
17
39
7
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
8,772
9,276
516
5,000
1,263
6,875
780
39,132
7,843
0
-
215
670
7,929
214
41,637
13,233
200
3,653
79,457
0
Appendix
Table A.22: Overview of the generation capacity in 2035 under certain constraints which are following: an expansion of the power grid is
allowed, the gas price is set to 47.89 US$/MWh and no restrictions on CO2 emissions are made.
Unit: (MW)
86
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
4,164
1,467
558
887
1,505
1,951
2,687
2,100
480
18,341
447
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,249
228
14
1,615
1,995
108
690
1,958
710
576
690
2,672
1,610
0
9
637
55
946
2,086
5,599
3
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
670
34,587
214
14,116
9,742
3,653
0
Appendix
Table A.23: Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON with reduction of CO2 emissions of 25 % compared to the scenario
2035BAU and a modified gas price of 47.89 US$/MWh.
Unit: (MW)
87
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
1,100
183
75
1,505
1,257
1,305
2,100
480
11,898
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,737
263
395
64
1,615
1,995
756
1,720
1,958
710
576
690
8,603
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
8,944
7
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
670
22,146
214
22,691
13,196
3,653
0
Appendix
Table A.24: Generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON with a gas price of 47.89 US$/MWh and a reduction of CO2 emissions of 50 %
compared to the scenario 2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
88
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
1,901
1,307
569
64
1,689
1,995
1,956
2,961
1,958
710
576
690
18,395
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
8,944
7
405
2
-
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
0
-
0
-
215
670
7,929
214
36,381
13,196
3,653
0
Appendix
Table A.25: Overview of the power generation capacity in 2035 with following constraints: the expansion of the power grid is allowed, the
gas price is set to 47.89 US$/MWh and the CO2 emissions are limited to 75 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU.
Unit: (MW)
89
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Kuala Lumpur
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Penang
Perak
Perlis
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Terengganu
Total
Biogas
Biomass
Coal
Diesel
Gas
Hydro
LGas
Oil
SunGlobal
Wind-on
12
6
9
0
1
4
32
1
13
0
46
77
5
8
39
19
31
0
3
14
73
2
43
2
150
252
16
26
2,244
1,505
2,100
480
1,600
-
1
2
1
42
154
14
-
3,761
1,365
440
64
1,887
2,406
1,884
3,472
2,098
710
576
690
20,567
1,610
20
9
637
29
55
1,004
2,086
8,981
7
405
23
14
11
12
6
7
11
11
16
2
24
17
39
7
252
109
59
6
126
433
0
802
172
653
1,042
8,775
9,254
516
5,000
1,372
6,910
777
38,989
7,835
0
-
215
670
7,929
214
41,531
13,233
200
3,653
79,427
0
Appendix

Acronyms and Their Definitions
ASEAN
BAU
CCGT
EAF
ECA
ESA
FiT
GAMS
GDP
GS
GT
HV
IPP
LCOE
LNG
MESI
MBIPV
MP
MSW
NG
OCGT
PPP
PV
RE
REPPA
SEA
SEB
SESB
SREP
TNB
UNDP-GEF
UNFCCC
W.P.
Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Business as usual
Combined Circle Gas Turbine
Equivalent Availability Factor
Energy Commission Act
Electricity Supply Act
Feed-In Tariff
General Algebraic Modeling System
Gross Domestic Product
Generator Set
Gas Turbine
High Voltage
Independent Power Producer
Levelised Cost of Electricity
Liquefied Natural Gas
Malaysian Electricity Supply Industry
Malaysia Building Integrated Photovoltaic
Malaysia Plan
Municipal Sold Waste
Natural Gas
Open Circle Gas Turbine
Purchasing Power Parity
Photovoltaic
Renewable Energies
Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement
Southeast Asia
Sarawak Energy Berhad
Sabah Electricity Sendirian Berhad
Small Renewable Energy Power
Tenaga Nasional Berhad
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention
Wilayah Persekutuan (Federal Territory)
90
Symbols and Units

cf
MMBtu
MMscf
toe
cubic foot
Million british thermal unit
Million standard cubif foot
tons of oil equivalent
91
List of Figures
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Overview of selected political frameworks from 1975 to 2015 [Khor.2013]. . . . . . . .

Primary energy supply in Malaysia in time steps based on the 5-year Malaysia Plans
(MP) [MEIH.2012b]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary energy supply in 2012 in ktoe [MEIH.2012b]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Final energy demand (in total 46,710 ktoe) by fuel type in 2012 [MEIH.2012d]. . . . .
Electricity consumption in Malaysia by sector in 2012 [MEIH.2012c]. . . . . . . . . . .
Electricity generation of 122.5 TWh in Malaysia in 2012 [EPU.2012]. . . . . . . . . . .
Political map of Malaysia: Division into 13 federal states and 3 federal territories, namely
Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hourly load curve of Peninsular Malaysia [SurTen.2012a]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Share of electricity consumption in Malaysia by region in 2012 [JPMy.2012a]. . . . . .
Demand for electricity in Malayisa in 2012, prepared by the means of [JPMy.2012a]
and [JPMy.2013]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Map of Malaysia. Red marked the possible future power grid which is defined as input
data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
7
8
8
9
9
. 12
. 18
. 19
. 20
. 27
3.1
Overview of the structure of the model URBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1
4.2
Modelled electricity generation mix in Malaysia in 2012 [EPU.2012]. . . . . . . . . . .

Overview of modelled structures of the power generation mix in Malaysia for different
scenarios in 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of modelled power generation mix in Malaysia in 2035. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of modelled power generation mix in Malaysia in 2035 with modifying the gas
price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3
4.4
. 42
. 46
. 51
. 55
A.1 Full-load hours of solar PV in Malaysia in [h]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

A.2 Full-load hours of onshore wind in Malaysia in [h]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A.3 Full-load hours of offshore wind in Malaysia in [h]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
92
List of Tables
1.1
Primary energy consumption of ASEAN by county in 2011 [IEA.2013]. . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
2.2
Distribution of area [JPMy.2012], population and share of GDP by regions [JPMy.2013].

Prices of fuels with giving respective references. The annual growth rates of fuels are
taken from [EIA.2013d]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of References: Decision making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of investment costs in 2012, 2020 and 2035 of selected electricity generation
technologies by [IEA.2010], [EIA.2013c] and [Lazard.2013]. All costs refer to 2012 US$. .
Overview of 2012 efficiencies of electricity generation technologies given by different
references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of future efficiencies of electricity generation technologies given by different
references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Availability of specified power stations [TNB.2012]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specific emission characteristics of fossil fuels related to the net heat of combustion
[UBA.2003]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Aggregation of generation technologies based on data of [Platts.2010] to 7 generation

processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Example of the methodology used for the selection of the annual full-load hours of solar
PV in Malaysia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Distribution of demand for electricity in 2012, 2020 and 2035 [JPMy.2012a, IEA.2013].
Full-load hours of selected renewable energies [h]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conversion factors related to the input data format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of used scenarios short terms and their definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of scenarios which are considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of key results of the scenario 2012Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of key results of the scenarios in 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of key results of the scenarios in 2035 without construction of new transmission
lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of key results of the scenarios in 2035 with construction of new transmission
lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lines and a modified gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lines and gas price of 47.89 US$/MWh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
17
21
22
23
24
24
24
. 31
.
.
.
.
33
34
36
37
.
.
.
.
40
41
43
48
. 50
. 53
. 56
. 57
List of Tables
A.1 Overview of input data regarding power stations after combining data of [Platts.2010]
and informations of costs. Additionally, costs for transmission lines and submarine
cables, losses and depreciation out of [Schaber.2012a] are shown. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.2 Overview of capacity, lengths and efficiency of the power grid in 2012 in Malaysia by
each connection by [PMGSO.2012]. Investment costs based on the length of connection
apply if capacity is added by the model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.3 Upper bound of power generating capacities of renewable energies by region in 2020 and
2035 in MW Malaysia [ASM.2013]. Capacity of solar PV and wind is set to unlimited. .
A.4 Overview input data: installed capacity by region in MW in 2012 by [Platts.2010]. . . .
A.5 Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2012Reference based on [Platts.2010]. . . .
A.6 Modelled generation capacity in scenario 2020BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.7 Modelled generation capacity by region and process in scenario 2020TrOFF and political
target of CO2 emission reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.8 Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2020TrON and no CO2 emission restrictions.
A.9 Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2020TrON and limited CO2 emissions
defined by political targets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.10 Modelled power generation mix of the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.11 Modelled power generation capacity of the scenario 2035TrOFF and a CO2 reduction
of 25 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.12 Generating capacity of the scenario 2035TrOFF and 50 % CO2 emission reduction compared to 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.13 Generating capacity of the scenario 2035TrOFF and with reduction of CO2 emissions
by 75 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.14 Generating capacity of the scenario 2035TrON without CO2 emissions limits. . . . . . .
A.15 Modelled generating capacity in the scenario 2035TrON and reduction of 25 % emissions
compared to the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.16 Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON and CO2 emission reductions
of 50 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.17 Modelled generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON and with reduction of CO2
emissions of 75 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.18 Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON with a adjusted gas price of
24.58 US$/MWh and no restrictions on CO2 emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.19 Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON, according to the scenario with an
adjusted gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh. The CO2 emissions are limited to 25 % compared
to the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.20 Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON, a restriction on the CO2 emissions
by 50 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU and an adjusted gas price of 24.58 US$/MWh.
A.21 Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON with a modified gas price of
24.58 US$/MWh and a CO2 emission limit of 75 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU.
A.22 Overview of the generation capacity in 2035 under certain constraints which are following: an expansion of the power grid is allowed, the gas price is set to 47.89 US$/MWh
and no restrictions on CO2 emissions are made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.23 Power generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON with reduction of CO2 emissions
of 25 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU and a modified gas price of 47.89 US$/MWh.
94
62
63
64
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
List of Tables
A.24 Generation capacity in the scenario 2035TrON with a gas price of 47.89 US$/MWh and
a reduction of CO2 emissions of 50 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . 88
A.25 Overview of the power generation capacity in 2035 with following constraints: the expansion of the power grid is allowed, the gas price is set to 47.89 US$/MWh and the
CO2 emissions are limited to 75 % compared to the scenario 2035BAU. . . . . . . . . . . 89
95
Bibliography
[ASM.2013] Academy of Sciences Malaysia (2013). Sustainable Energy Options for Electric
Power Generation in Peninsular Malaysia to 2030.
www.http://www.akademisains.gov.my/download/monograph/
SustainableEnergyOptions.pdf
[Ahmad.2011] Ahmad S., Kadir M.Z.A.A., Shafie S. (2011). Current perspective of the renewable
energy development in Malaysia. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
15(2):897904.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.009
[Ahmad.2014b] Ahmad S., Tahar R.M. (2014). Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable
development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A
case of Malaysia. In: Renewable Energy, 63:458466.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.001
[Ali.2012] Ali R., Daut I., Taib S. (2012). A review on existing and future energy sources
for electrical power generation in Malaysia. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 16(6):40474055.
[APEC.2013] APEC (2013). Energy and Demand Supply Outlook: 5th Edition.
http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1389
[ACE.2011] ASEAN Centre for Energy (2011). The 3rd ASEAN Energy Outlook;.
http://aseanenergy.org/media/filemanager/2012/06/14/t/3/t3aeocomplete-outlook.pdf
[ASEAN.2014] Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2014). Overview.
http://www.asean.org/asean/about-asean
[ASEAN.1967] Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2014). The Asean Declaration (Bangkok
Declaration) Bangkok, 8 August 1967.
http://www.asean.org/news/item/the-asean-declaration-bangkokdeclaration
[BV.2012] Black & Veatch (2012). Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies: Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Cost
Report.
http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-cost-report.pdf
[BLS.2014] Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014). Consumer Price Index: Inflation Calculator.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
[UNFCCC.2007] CDM UNFCCC (2007). Comparison of per unit Energy Cost between Natural
Gas in Malaysia and Fuel Oil.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1182238337.59/
ReviewInitialComments/977LEW4S7Y16GZPFH0EQZKZEL2N25G
[CIA.2014] Central Intelligence Agency (2014). The World Factbook - Malaysia: Geography.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/my.
html
96
Bibliography
[Chang.2013] Chang Y., Li Y. (2013). Power generation and cross-border grid planning for the
integrated ASEAN electricity market: A dynamic linear programming model. In:
Energy Strategy Reviews, 2(2):153160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2012.12.004
[DOA.2012] Department of Agriculture Malaysia (2012). Agricultural Information: Idle Land
Information 2012.
http://www.doa.gov.my/maklumat-tanah-terbiar?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_
3JeB&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=
column-5&p_p_col_count=1&page=1
[EPU.2012] Economic Planning Unit (2012). The Malaysian Economy in Figures 2012:
Updated Edition.
http://www.epu.gov.my/documents/10124/72ac36d7-fe5a-489b-a34ca2cb2be073a6
[EIA.2013d] Energy Information Administration (2013). Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with
Projections to 2040.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf
[EIA.2013e] Energy Information Administration (2013). Assumptions to the Annual Energy
Outlook 2013.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/0554%282013%29.pdf
[EIA.2013b] Energy Information Administration (2013). Malaysia - Analysis.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=MY#note
[EIA.2013c] Energy Information Administration (2013). Updated Capital Cost Estimates for
Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf
[Gan.2013] Gan P.Y., Komiyama R., Li Z. (2013). A low carbon society outlook for Malaysia
to 2035. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 21:432443.
[GADM.2012] Global Administrative Areas (2012). GADM Database: Version 2.0 - Malaysia.
http://www.gadm.org/
[HAPUA.2013] Head of ASEAN Power Utilities/Authorities (2013). Malaysia Country Report.
http://www.hapuasecretariat.org/doc2013/Country_Reports/05_Malaysia_
Country_Paper_HAPUA_2013.pdf
[Heitmann.2005] Heitmann N. (2005). Lsung energiewirtschaftlicher Probleme and mit Hilfe and
linearer and Programmierung. Ph.D. thesis, Universitt Augsburg.
[Huber.2012] Huber M., Dorfner J., Hamacher T. (2012). Electricity System Optimization in
the EUMENA Region: Technical Report.
[Hussein.2010] Hussein I., Raman N. (2010). Reconnaissance studies of micro hydro potential in
Malaysia.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ESD.2010.5598802
[IEA.2010] International Energy Agency (2010). Assumed Investment Costs, Operation and
Maintenance Costs and Efficiencies for Power Generation in the New Policies and
450 Scenarios.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/weomodel/investmentcosts/
[IEA.2013a] International Energy Agency (2013). CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion Highlights 2013. In: .
97
Bibliography
[IEA.2013b] International Energy Agency (2013). Electricity Information 2013.
[IEA.2013] International Energy Agency (2013). Southeast Asia Energy Outlook - WEO
Special Report.
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
SoutheastAsiaEnergyOutlook_WEO2013SpecialReport.pdf
[IGU.2013] International Gas Union (2013). World LNG Report - 2013 Edition: News, views
and knowledge on gas - worldwide.
http://www.igu.org/gas-knowhow/publications/igu-publications/IGU_
world_LNG_report_2013.pdf
[JPMy.2012] Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia (2012). Buku Maklumat Perangkaan Malaysia:
Statistical Handbook Malaysia.
http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Handbook/files/BKKP/
Buku_Maklumat_Perangkaan_2012.pdf
[JPMy.2013] Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia (2013). Akaun Negara KDNK Negeri: GDP by
State: National Accounts 2005-2012.
http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Akaun/files/gdp_state/
2005-2012/Penerbitan_KDNK_Negeri_2005-2012.pdf
[JPMy.2012a] Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2012). Buku
Tahunan Perangkaan Malaysia 2012: Statistics Yearbook.
http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=2223&Itemid=153&lang=en
[Kaltschmitt.2009] Kaltschmitt M., Hartmann H., Hofbauer H. (2009). Energie aus Biomasse:
Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren. In: Energie aus Biomasse.
[KeTTHA.2011] Kementerian Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau Dan Air (2011). Handbook on the Malaysian Feed-in Tariff for the Promotion of Renewable Energy.
http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=
1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fefit.seda.gov.my%2F%3Fomaneg%
3D00010100000001010101000100001000000010100001000110%26id%3D303&ei=
JsjlUr7vHK-XiQe4-YDoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFRRRW_wKLpFEkb8lqJ5VmQD9q8A&sig2=LDks_sYqcwLaXrrAjdzOxw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.aGc
[Khor.2013] Khor C.S., Lalchand G. (2013). A review on sustainable power generation in
Malaysia to 2030: Historical perspective, current assessment, and future strategies.
In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
[Koh.2010] Koh S.L., Lim Y.S. (2010). Meeting energy demand in a developing economy
without damaging the environmentA case study in Sabah, Malaysia, from technical, environmental and economic perspectives. In: Energy Policy, 38(8):4719
4728.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.044
[Lazard.2013] Lazard (2013). Lazards Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 7.0.
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_
Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf
[LfE.2013] Lehrstuhl fr Energiewirtschaft und Anwendungstechnik (2013). The Model URBS:
Further Development.
[MEIH.2012c] Malaysia Energy Information Hub (2012). Statistics: Final Electricity Consumption (ktoe).
98
Bibliography
http://meih.st.gov.my/statistics?p_auth=5BxK5Jng&p_p_id=Eng_
Statistic_WAR_STOASPublicPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=
maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_
count=2&_Eng_Statistic_WAR_STOASPublicPortlet_execution=e2s1&_Eng_
Statistic_WAR_STOASPublicPortlet__eventId=ViewStatistic3&categoryId=
4&flowId=7
[MEIH.2012d] Malaysia Energy Information Hub (2012). Statistics: Final Energy Demand by
Fuel Type (ktoe).
8&flowId=21&showTotal=false
[MEIH.2012b] Malaysia Energy Information Hub (2012). Statistics: Primary Energy Supply
(ktoe).
8&flowId=19&showTotal=false
[MMD.2014] Malaysian Meteorological Department (2014). General Climate of Malaysia.
http://www.met.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
75&Itemid=1089&limit=1&limitstart=0
[Maybank.2012] Maybank Kim Eng (2012). Oil & Gas: The golden age of gas? Sector Update.
http://upload.xinhua08.com/2012/0221/1329811726609.pdf
[McGinley.2011] McGinley M. (2011). The Encyclopedia of Earth: Climate of Malaysia.
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151260/
[Mekhilef.2012] Mekhilef S., Safari A., Mustaffa W.E., et al. (2012). Solar energy in Malaysia:
Current state and prospects. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
16(1):386396.
[OECD.2013] OECD (2013). OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Malaysia 2013. OECD Publishing. ISBN 9789264194571.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264194588-en
[Platts.2010] Platts (2010). World Electric Power Plants Database: (WEPP): Database.
[PMGSO.2012] PM-GSO (2012). Reliable Service. Transparent Operation.
http://gso.org.my/System-Data
[Rienecker.2011] Rienecker M.M., Suarez M.J., Gelaro R., et al. (2011). MERRA: NASAs ModernEra Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications: Prepared by Karl
Janker. In: Journal of Climate, 24(14):36243648.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00015.1
[Schaber.2012a] Schaber K., Steinke F., Hamacher T. (2012). Transmission grid extensions for the
integration of variable renewable energies in Europe: Who benefits where? In:
Energy Policy, 43:123135.
99
Bibliography
[Schaber.2012] Schaber K., Steinke F., Mhlich P., Hamacher T. (2012). Parametric study of variable renewable energy integration in Europe: Advantages and costs of transmission
grid extensions. In: Energy Policy, 42:498508.
[Shafie.2011] Shafie S.M., Mahlia T.M.I., Masjuki H.H., Andriyana A. (2011). Current energy
usage and sustainable energy in Malaysia: A review. In: Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 15(9):43704377.
[SurTen.2012a] Suruhanjaya Tenaga (2012). Daily Logsheets (DLS) Reports 2012: Reports for
year 2012.
http://www.st.gov.my/index.php/ms/component/content/article/12industry/304-daily-logsheet-dls-reports.html
[SurTen.2012b] Suruhanjaya Tenaga (2012). Memastikan Tenaga Untuk Semua: Laporan
Tahunan 2012.
http://www.st.gov.my/index.php/component/k2/item/554-http-www-stgov-my-index-php-download-page-category-87-annual-reports-htmldownload-409-energy-commission-annual-report-2012.html
[SurTen.2014] Suruhanjaya Tenaga (2014). Overview of the Energy Commission.
http://www.st.gov.my/index.php/about-us2/overview-of-the-energycommission.html
[Tan.2013] Tan C.S., Maragatham K., Leong Y.P. (2013). Electricity energy outlook in Malaysia. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 16:012126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/16/1/012126
[Tang.2013] Tang C.F., Tan E.C. (2013). Exploring the nexus of electricity consumption, economic growth, energy prices and technology innovation in Malaysia. In: Applied
Energy, 104:297305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.061
[TNB.2012] Tenaga Nasional Berhad (2012). Annual Report 2012.
http://www.tnb.com.my/investors-media/annual-reports.html
[WorldBank.2014] The World Bank (17/1/2014). Pump price for diesel fuel (US$ per liter) | Data |
Table.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EP.PMP.DESL.CD
[Theseira.2012] Theseira G.W. (2012). Current Status of Malaysias Climate Change Mitigation
and Adaptation.
http://www.conference.tgo.or.th/download/2011/workshop/190811/PPT/
05_ASEAN.pdf
[UBA.2003] Umweltbundesamt (2003). Bundeseinheitliche Liste der CO2-Emissionsfaktoren
(bezogen auf den unteren Heizwert).
http://www.ago.ag/files/deeagt-services-emissionadvice-listdocument.pdf
[WEC.2010] World Energy Council (2010). 2010 Survey of Energy Resources: 2010.
www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ser_2010_report_1.pdf
[Zahoransky.2013] Zahoransky R.A., Allelein H.J., Bollin E., et al. (2013). Energietechnik: Systeme
zur Energieumwandlung. Kompaktwissen fr Studium und Beruf. SpringerLink:
Bcher, 6th edition. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden. ISBN 3834822795.
100

Malaysia Power Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malaysia Power Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technische Universitt Mnchen

Lehrstuhl fr Energiewirtschaft und Anwendungstechnik

Analysis of the Power System of Malaysia

Melanie Maria Theresia Mannhart

Statement of Academic Integrity

Regional Distribution of Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Demand for Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Power Stations and their Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Power Grid in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3 Implementation of Data into the Model URBS

The Model URBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Spatial Resolution of Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Classification of Model Input Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Demand for Electricity by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Further Assumptions Concerning Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Excel Macro filling table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Proofing the Model by Evaluating the 2012 Reference Scenario . . . . . . . . . 42

Investigation of Future Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Verifying Political Targets by 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Long-Term View in 2035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Impact of Gas Price and CO2 Emission Restrictions in 2035 . . . . . . . 54

5 Conclusion and Outlook

Table 1.1: Primary energy consumption of ASEAN by county in 2011 [IEA.2013].

The previously mentioned diversity affects the demand for electricity.

National Energy Policy

Structure of the Energy Sector in Malaysia

Share of energy sources

Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

Coal and Coke

Figure 1.3: Primary energy supply in 2012 in ktoe [MEIH.2012b].

Figure 1.5: Electricity consumption in Malaysia by sector in 2012 [MEIH.2012c].

Oil and Petrochemicals

Figure 1.6: Electricity generation of 122.5 TWh in Malaysia in 2012 [EPU.2012].

Objective of This Thesis

2.2 Climate in Malaysia

239.9 billion US$

including W.P. Labuan

2.2 Climate in Malaysia

2.2 Climate in Malaysia

2.3 Energy Sources

2.3 Energy Sources

2.3 Energy Sources

2.3 Energy Sources

Annual growth rate

2.4 Demand for Electricity

2.4 Demand for Electricity

Figure 2.2: Hourly load curve of Peninsular Malaysia [SurTen.2012a].

2.4 Demand for Electricity

Figure 2.3: Share of electricity consumption in Malaysia by region in 2012 [JPMy.2012a].

2.5 Power Stations and their Characteristics

2.5 Power Stations and their Characteristics

2.5 Power Stations and their Characteristics

Data for SEA related to linear optimisation

Quoted literature from 2008 and 2005

Latest data from 2013, nearly complete

World prices (referred to U.S. market)

Costs explicit for SEA

Only 5 different technologies

Regional costs of power stations

Not complete, in combination with

Almost every technology, for each complete data, on an unsubsidised basis

Referred to U.S. prices and power stations

Data related to linear optimisation

Explicit for Europe in Euro; no data