Interfuel substitution, hydroelectricity consumption and CO2 emissions mitigation in Malaysia: evidence from a transcendental logarithm (trans-log) cost function framework

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to estimate the interfuel substitution elasticities between hydropower and the fossil fuels of coal and natural gas used in the generation of electricity for Malaysia. Due to the violation of the assumption behind the ordinary least squares (OLS) method on account of the correlated error terms in the system of equations, the econometrics techniques of seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) was adopted to obtain the parameter estimates using dataset that covers the period 1988 to 2016. The main finding is that there exists substantial substitution possibility between hydropower and fossil fuels in the generation of electricity for Malaysia. CO2 emissions mitigation scenarios were also conducted to explore the possible effects of substituting fossil fuels for hydropower to generate electricity. The results show that switching from high carbon-emitting fuels to renewable energy such as hydropower will substantially reduce CO2 emission and assist the country towards achieving the carbon emissions reduction targets. Policy recommendations are offered in the body of the manuscript.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Frondel (2004) for details

References

  1. Allen RGD (1938) Mathematical analysis for economists. MacMillan and Co., Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrikopoulos AA, Brox JA, Paraskevopoulos CC (1989) Interfuel and interfactor substitution in Ontario manufacturing, 1962-82. Appl Econ 21(12):1667–1681

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arshad M, Bano I, Khan N, Shahzad MI, Younus M, Abbas M, Iqbal M (2018) Electricity generation from biogas of poultry waste: an assessment of potential and feasibility in Pakistan. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81(1):1241–1246

    Google Scholar 

  4. Azlina AA, Anang Z, Alipiah RM (2013) Interfactor and Interfuel substitution in the industrial sector of three major energy producer in developing countries. International Review of Business Research Papers 9(5):139–153

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bello MO, Solarin SA, Yen YY (2018a) The impact of electricity consumption on CO2 emission, carbon footprint, water footprint and ecological footprint: the role of hydropower in an emerging economy. J Environ Manag 219:218–230

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bello MO, Solarin SA, Yen YY (2018b) Hydropower and potential for interfuel substitution: the case of electricity sector in Malaysia. Energy 151(1):966–983

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berndt ER, Christensen LR (1974) Testing for the existence of a consistent aggregate index of labor inputs. Am Econ Rev 64(3):391–404

    Google Scholar 

  8. British Petroleum (BP). (2018). British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy. London, United Kingdom

  9. Chambers RG (1988) Applied production analysis: a dual approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ISBN: 0-521-31427-5

    Google Scholar 

  10. Considine TJ (2018) Estimating concave substitution possibilities with non-stationary data using the dynamic linear logit demand model. Econ Model 72(1):22–30

    Google Scholar 

  11. De Oliveira, RL (2018) Powering the future: Malaysia’s energy policy challenges. Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Policy Ideas No. 55

  12. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Washington DC (2016): International Energy Outlook: With Projections to 2040. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2016).pdf

  13. Frondel M (2004) Empirical assessment of energy-price policies: the case for cross-price elasticities. Energy Policy 32(8):989–1000

    Google Scholar 

  14. Global Footprint Network (GFN) (2018) Ecological footprint data: 1961–2014. Available at: http://data.footprintnetwork.org

  15. Griffin JM, Gregory PR (1976) An intercountry translog model of energy substitution responses. Am Econ Rev 66(5):845–857

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hall VB (1986) Major OECD country industrial sector inter-fuel substitution estimates, 1960–1979. Energy Econ 8(2):74–89

    Google Scholar 

  17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2015) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change Cambridge University Press, Vol. 3

  18. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2012) Technology roadmap, hydropower. Available:https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/2012_Hydropower_Roadmap.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2019

  19. International Hydropower Association (2017) Hydropower Status Report. Available: https://www.hydropower.org/sites/default/files/publications-docs/2017%20Hydropower%20Status%20Report.pdf

  20. Jones CT (1996) A pooled dynamic analysis of interfuel substitution in industrial energy demand by the G-7 countries. Appl Econ 28(7):815–821

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jones CT (2014) The role of biomass in US industrial interfuel substitution. Energy Policy 69(1):122–126

    Google Scholar 

  22. Li J, Lin B (2016) Inter-factor/inter-fuel substitution, carbon intensity, and energy-related CO2 reduction: empirical evidence from China. Energy Econ 56(1):483–494

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lin B, Ankrah I (2019) On Nigeria’s renewable energy program: examining the effectiveness, substitution potential, and the impact on national output. Energy 167(1):1181–1193

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lin B, Atsagli P (2017) Energy consumption, inter-fuel substitution and economic growth in Nigeria. Energy 120(1):675–685

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lin B, Tian P (2017) Energy conservation in China’s light industry sector: evidence from inter-factor and inter-fuel substitution. J Clean Prod 152(1):125–133

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lin B, Atsagli P, Dogah KE (2016) Ghanaian energy economy: inter-production factors and energy substitution. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57(1):1260–1269

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lu Y, Stern DI (2016) Substitutability and the cost of climate mitigation policy. Environ Resour Econ 64(1):81–107

    Google Scholar 

  28. Malaysia, SEDA, 2019. The Sustainable Energy Development Authority of Malaysia. http://seda.gov.my/. 13 Accessed April 2019)

  29. Moore S, Durant V, Mabee WE (2013) Determining appropriate feed-in tariff rates to promote biomass-to-electricity generation in eastern Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy 63(1):607–613

    Google Scholar 

  30. Morishima M (1967) A few suggestions on the theory of elasticity. Econ Rev 16(1):145–150

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pindyck, RS (1977) Interfuel substitution and the industrial demand for energy: an international comparison. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Working Paper, MITEL 77-026WP

  32. Prywes M (1986) A nested CES approach to capital-energy substitution. Energy Econ 8(1):22–28

    Google Scholar 

  33. Raadal HL, Gagnon L, Modahl IS, Hanssen OJ (2011) Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(7):3417–3422

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rogelj J, McCollum DL, Reisinger A, Meinshausen M, Riahi K (2013) Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493(7430):79–83

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rogelj J, McCollum DL, Reisinger A, Meinshausen M, Riahi K (2014) Corrigendum: probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 506(7488):396–396

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sadaf S, Iqbal J, Ullah I, Bhatti HN, Nouren S, Nisar J, Iqbal M (2018) Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: an efficient technique to convert waste into biodiesel. Sustain Cities Soc 41(1):220–226

    Google Scholar 

  37. Scherer L, Pfister S (2016) Hydropower's biogenic carbon footprint. PLoS One 11(9):e0161947

    Google Scholar 

  38. Serletis A, Timilsina GR, Vasetsky O (2010) Interfuel substitution in the United States. Energy Econ 32(3):737–745

    Google Scholar 

  39. Solarin SA, Bello MO (2019) Interfuel substitution, biomass consumption, economic growth, and sustainable development: evidence from Brazil. J Clean Prod 211(1):1357–1366

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sorrell S (2014) Energy substitution, technical change and rebound effects. Energies 7(5):2850–2873

    Google Scholar 

  41. Steinhurst, W, Knight, P, Schultz, M (2012) Hydropower greenhouse gas emissions. Conservation law foundation. Available: https://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Hydropower-GHG-Emissions-Feb.-14-2012.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2019

  42. Stern DI (2012) Interfuel substitution: a meta-analysis. J Econ Surv 26(2):307–331

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stratopoulos T, Charos E, Chaston K (2000) A translog estimation of the average cost function of the steel industry with financial accounting data. Int Adv Econ Res 6(2):271–286

    Google Scholar 

  44. Suh DH (2016) Interfuel substitution and biomass use in the US industrial sector: a differential approach. Energy 102(1):24–30

    Google Scholar 

  45. Taheri AA (1994) Oil shocks and the dynamics of substitution adjustments of industrial fuels in the US. Appl Econ 26(8):751–756

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tsita KG, Pilavachi PA (2013) Evaluation of next generation biomass derived fuels for the transport sector. Energy Policy 62(1):443–455

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Washington DC (2009) International energy outlook: with projections to 2030. Available: http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/0383(2009).pdf

  48. Uri ND (1979) Energy demand and interfuel substitution in India. Eur Econ Rev 12(2):181–190

    Google Scholar 

  49. Uzawa H (1962) Production functions with constant elasticities of substitution. Review of Economic Studies 29(1):291–299

    Google Scholar 

  50. Vlachou AS, Samouilidis EJ (1986) Interfuel substitution: results from several sectors of the Greek economy. Energy Econ 8(1):39–45

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wesseh PK, Lin B (2018) Energy consumption, fuel substitution, technical change, and economic growth: implications for CO2 mitigation in Egypt. Energy Policy 117(1):340–347

    Google Scholar 

  52. Woodland AD (1975) Substitution of structures, equipment and labour in Canadian production. Int Econ Rev 16(1):171–187

    Google Scholar 

  53. World Bank (2018a) World development indicators 2018. World Bank Publications. Available: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/

  54. World Bank (2018b) World Bank commodity price data (the pink sheet). World Bank Publications. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets

  55. World Nuclear Association (2014) Climate change-the science

  56. Yang M, Fan Y, Yang F, Hu H (2014) Regional disparities in carbon dioxide reduction from China’s uniform carbon tax: a perspective on interfactor/interfuel substitution. Energy 74(1):131–139

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang Z, Lin B (2019) Energy conservation and emission reduction of Chinese cement industry: from a perspective of factor substitutions. Emerg Mark Financ Trade 55(5):967–979

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zhang Y, Ji Q, Fan Y (2018) The price and income elasticity of China's natural gas demand: a multi-sectoral perspective. Energy Policy 113(1):332–341

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sakiru Adebola Solarin.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Eyup Dogan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bello, M.O., Solarin, S.A. & Yen, Y.Y. Interfuel substitution, hydroelectricity consumption and CO2 emissions mitigation in Malaysia: evidence from a transcendental logarithm (trans-log) cost function framework. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 17162–17174 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08251-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Interfuel substitution
  • Hydropower
  • CO2 emission mitigation
  • Malaysia
  • Trans-log cost function
  • Seemingly unrelated regression (SUR)