Unfortunately, biomass is becoming an expensive commodity with the various alternative uses that have cropped up reently, so that may influence the potential rate of such RE development. But, biomass power plants may not survive if they need to purchase fuel feedstock (EFB) from palm oil mills that are not part of the RE developer/owner.

Let’s see how RE develops now with the granting of attractive FiT rates under the RE act.

Cheers,

Lal

If your technology can capture carbon on a commercisl scale you should be a millionaire. May be you should link up with Yayasan Inovasi Malaysia to develop it (BTW, I’m not a part of YIM).

Good luck for your venture to clean up teh environment.

I’m sorry to be very late with these comments which are based on the recent commencement of the implementation of the FiT (Feed-in-Tariff) mechanism. I make these comments in the interests of the Raakyat as the FiT mechanism is set to create “gross social injustice” by burdening electricity consumers with a tariff levy burden to create windfall profits for a new batch of PV IPPs.

Your main article has correctly pointed out that promotion of RE, even with “subsidised” FiT rates is appropriate for Malaysia to adopt. It also correctly, and wisely, repeats the ETP’s EPP 10 for solar power development and cautions against being too “gung-ho” over large scale PV power plant (PVPP, or PV Farm) development as they are not economicallly viable today.

However, the implementation of the FiT mechanism to promote RE has now apparently approved the FiT rates for PV for the PVPPs which the PEMANDU led EPP 10 specifically discouraged till about 2017 or later, when they can be developed at grid parity rates.

These actions perpetuate social injustice (Robin Hood in reverse) to burden the electricity consumers with a “so-called” 1% tariff levy to support the FiT funding for promoting RE, including the PVPPs mentioned in PEMANDU’s EPP 10. The proposed levy will be higher (as much as 3%) as has been presented in KeTTHA/MBIPV presentations over the past year (FiT Updates on 27 January 2011 and Renewable Energy Bill & SEDA Bill on 16th March 2011).

It must be noted that the FiT rates for PV are scheduled to be paid for 21 years and the developers for the PV Farms can include foreign investors with up to 49% equity holdings.

I am not against RE development but am strongly against the creation of PV IPPs who expect the electricity consumers to make their projects viable through getting FiT rates which were never proposed under the PEMANDU led ETP’s EPP 10. In fact, the same arguement applies to the other (roof top) PV systems as the solar FiT rates were apparently set at system prices for 2009, which have virtually “collapsed” since then. Similar Fit rates in Germany (the example Malaysia used) have fallen by roughly 30% in the last 2 years.

I hope this comment will see print in your comments and I also hope that you may wish to comment on the subject in your editorial role.

Thank you & cheers,

Lal (11/12/11).

In hindsight, the bulk of the present day technological advancement has evolved with time and has been geared to the use of fossil fuel. While admittedly, most of the technology (thermodynamic aspects) related to the use of fossil fuel are also common to energy derived from other sources such as wind, waves, solar, biomass, etc., some engineering developments are fuel specific. For example, the technological needs of liquid type fuels are different from those of solid types. Even the technological needs between say, types of liquid fuels are in themselves quite different and mostly viscosity specific.

The engineering development in the use of fossil fuel, and others, are as mentioned earlier, evolutionary in nature and time related which in turn is cost related. In a chicken or egg first situation, with time, more commerce, engineering development and population increase, more and more energy was required, which in turn increased the cost of fossil fuel which in turn contributed to technological improvements and developments in order to improve efficiency thereby helping to reduce the operational cost.

The moot point to be noted is that the fossil fuel era is the first ever cycle of learning curve for humans. With the current level of technology developed for fossil fuels, if we do not take advantage in adapting this existing, off the shelf technology in order to obtain optimum efficiency say for the use of renewable fuels and at a time of relative plenty, which I believe this article is trying to stress, then we can consider ourselves as the proverbial ostrich with its head stuck in mud and the behind facing the writing on the wall.

On a more personal note, I believe experienced mechanical, chemical, process, marine, automotive professional engineers, preferably from the private sector, are chosen to carry out studies and advise the Minister.

Your attempt to rationalise Renewable Energy Bill 2010 weakness with reference to the wind turbine generator (WTG) is a result of poor understanding about grid-connected renewable energy technology. The Bill is referring to the feed-in tariff, which is meant for grid-connected resources and not stand alone!

Once you are connected to the grid, you are exporting to the grid and not directly taking any local load. It is just the same like the grid connected PV, the grid supplies the load, while the PV export energy to the grid. Therefore the argument of substantial load causing WTG to stall in a grid-connected situation is non-existent.

A study carried out by using First look software ( world-class energy prospecting software, you can find information about it in the internet), found that there are many places of good wind site in Malaysia. One of them is in Kudat Sabah and another in Langkawi. The Langkawi site is not a surprise, considering that EGAT has successfully installed 150kW WTG and connect it to the grid in Phuket which is not that far from Langkawi. Langkawi and Phuket are exposed to similar wind conditions.

Department of energy USA, is investing in low speed wind speed research and has got some successes. In many ways wind technology is so much better and superior than PV. I have not heard of any sound technical basis of not including this in the bill.

Pmax = function (ρ * V^3 * S);

ρ: air density
V: upstream wind speed
S: swept rotor area

A performance coefficient Cp must be applied to the above ideal power for a real rotor in a practical environment with interferences.

In Europe, for example, the annual mean wind speed is more than 8 m/s at the hub height (80m typical). When we take our annual mean wind speed of 2.5 m/s, the theoretical maximum wind energy output compared to in Europe is (2.5/8)^3 = 0.03. Considering a better performance coefficient Cp at lower speeds, we can expect about 15% of the energy output of a similar wind turbine operating in Europe. It is generally considered that at present energy prices and wind turbine costs it is not economical (Return on Investment – ROI ) to operate a modern wind turbine below an annual mean wind speed of 5 m/s.

You are referring to cut-in wind speed, i.e. the minimum wind speed required to rotate the wind turbine overcoming its inherent resistance. A design with a low cut-in wind speed only helps to get the turbine to rotate; however, when a substantial load is applied it cannot sustain its rotation and will begin to stall. A wind turbine with a low cut-in speed design operating at such low wind speed areas may help only in special applications. Noise and public safety are important factors for locating wind turbines in residential areas.

The Renewable Energy Bill 2010 did not consider wind energy for these reasons, I presumption.

I agree with your analysis. I just wonder why wind energy is not considered in the bill. Many if not most consider wind turbine is not be feasible in Malaysia. This is not based on comprehensive study. PERNEC which is a GLC has started a unit that sells wind turbine manufactured in Taiwan. The key point in the Taiwan Technology is that it can harness energy at low wind speed where its cut-in speed is about 1.5 to 2 m/s. Most other commercial wind turbines cut-in speed is about 3-4 m/s and thereby producing little energy in Malaysia as most of the times the wind is below 3 m/s.

For biomass and biogas fuel resources, Combined Heat and Power technology is encouraged in almost all countries, because the CHP technology can achieve up to 90% overall (power + heat) efficiency in utilising the renewable energy content in these fuels. Pure electricity generation is discouraged because of its low efficiency, but for the foolhardy, Europe still provides an efficiency level to qualify for subsidies. For biomass fuels, EU sets a target of 27.02% through its “CHP Quality” concept to qualify for grid connection with a minimum subsidy. As an indicative figure for Malaysia, an efficiency level of 27% for net electricity output to grid based on gross calorific value of the biomass fuel is achievable with a simple power plant. This is almost double the electricity export when compared to the bonus efficiency level of 14% provided in the RE Bill. The Renewable Energy Bill 2010 does not impose a minimum efficiency level.

The electricity displacement costs declared by the government for Peninsular Malaysia for the year 2011 are:
– RM 0.2047 / kWh for medium voltage point of connection and
– RM 0.3131 / kWh for low voltage point of connection (applicable only for residential building integrated Solar PV systems).
There has been no indication of the unsubsidised costs.

SESB has stated that in Sabah for the year 2010 the electricity generation costs were:
- RM 0.4370 / kWh without subsidy
- RM 0.3230 / kWh with subsidy