4.7 Article

Performance evaluation of renewable energy R & D activities in Malaysia

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 163, Issue -, Pages 544-560

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.160

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis; Efficiency; Renewable energy R&D

Funding

  1. Public Service Department
  2. National University of Malaysia, Malaysia [GUP-2018-127]
  3. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia [FRGS/1/2018/SS08/UKM/02/4]
  4. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the performance of R&D activities in renewable energy resources in Malaysia, finding that mini hydro is the most efficient source while wind is the least efficient. Despite high R&D activities, wind has the lowest installed capacity compared to other sources.
This study explores the performance of R&D activities in five renewable energy resources, namely, solar, wind, biomass, biogas, and mini hydro. The case study is Malaysia and considers the data from 2012 to 2017 in relation to two policy thrusts, namely, systematic R&D program and human capital development toward the renewable energy deployment in Malaysia. This research uses the DEA method to evaluate the efficiency of the R&D activities of renewable energy resources considering the variables in the government's renewable energy policy. Result indicates that mini hydro is the most efficient renewable energy source in Malaysia, whereas wind is the most inefficient one from the perspective of R&D ac-tivities. Although the R&D activities related to mini hydro are few, the output of installed capacity is proportional to the input in R&D activities compared with other renewable energy resources. Wind is the most inefficient renewable energy resource due to its high R&D activities compared with those of other sources, and installed capacity is the lowest among others. (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available