Environmental impact of alternative fuel mix in electricity generation in Malaysia

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2229–2235 www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Environmental impact of alternative fuel mix in electricity generation in Malaysia Abdul Hamid Jafara,1, Abul Quasem Al-Aminb,, Chamhuri Siwarb,2 a

b

Faculty of Business and Economics, National University of Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), National University of Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Received 24 May 2007; accepted 16 December 2007 Available online 19 February 2008

Abstract The Fuel Diversification Strategy was incorporated into the Malaysian National Energy Policy in order to achieve a more balanced consumption of fuel, namely gas, hydro, coal and petroleum. The objective of this paper is to evaluate changes in CO2, SO2 and NOx emission due to changes in the fuel mix specified in the Fuel Diversification Strategy. Using the environmental extended Leontief’s input–output framework it was found that the fuel mix as envisioned by the Fuel Diversification Strategy generates higher CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions. As such, to ensure a sustainable energy policy, the proposed fuel mix must be accompanied by efficiency gain so that the negative impact on the environment could be mitigated. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Input–output analysis; Electricity; Pollution; Malaysian economy

1. Introduction Malaysia is well endowed with both fossil and renewable energy supply and has so far been able to meet the country’s demand for energy. In the past decade, there has been significant growth in the Malaysian energy sector. Primary energy supply in 1991 was 20,611 kilotonnes of oil equivalent (ktoe) but had increased to 50,658 ktoe in 2000. In 2003, it further increased to 54,194 ktoe [1]. Final energy demand, which was 14,560 ktoe and 29,996 ktoe in 1991 and 2000, respectively, increased to 34,586 ktoe in 2003. Electricity demand increased from 22,273 gigawatts hour (GWh) in 1991 to 60,299 GWh in 2000. Demand further increased to 71,159 GWh in 2003 [1]. Generally, electricity consumption and GDP keep to the same trend. As such, being a fast industrializing country, it is expected that Corresponding author. Tel.: +603 8921 4161.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.H. Jafar), [email protected], [email protected] (A.Q. Al-Amin), [email protected] (C. Siwar). 1 Tel.: +603 8921 3757. 2 Tel.: +603 8921 4154. 0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.12.014

Malaysian demand for electricity will continue to rise (Fig. 1). Basic fuels for electricity generation are oil, coal, gas and hydropower with CO2, SO2 and NOx as by-products. Increasing concentration of these pollutants is detrimental to human health and the environment including animal, crops and structures. High concentration of these pollutants also brings about greenhouse effects, which could contribute to global warming. In Malaysia, electricity generation is mostly fossil-based, in particular natural gas and oil. To ensure reliability and security of energy supply, the Four-fuel Diversification Strategy was introduced in 1981 as an extension of the 1979 National Energy Policy. Subsequently the Five-fuel Diversification Strategy was introduced in 1999 [2]. The rationale for this policy initiative was to reduce Malaysia’s overdependence on oil in overall energy consumption and gas in the electricity generation sector. In the electricity generation sector, this policy aimed for a gradual change in fuel use from 74.9% gas, 9.7% coal, 10.4% hydro, and 5% petroleum in 2000 to 40% gas, 30% hydro, 29% coal, and only 1% petroleum by 2020 [3]. The change in fuel mix

ARTICLE IN PRESS 2230

A.H. Jafar et al. / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2229–2235

Fig. 1. Trends in GDP and electricity consumption in Malaysia, 1990–2003. Source: Reproduced from PTM [1], p. 3.

Fig. 2. Electricity generation fuel mix in Malaysia, 1990–2003. Source: Reproduced from PTM [1], p. 5.

for the electricity sector has environmental implication in terms of emission trade-offs. Among the four fuels, gas and hydro are the most environmentally sound options in terms of air pollution emissions. At the same time, switching to more coal would imply greater particulate emissions and solid-waste generation. On the other hand, less oil means less sulphur emission into the air. The objective of this paper is to assess the relative pollution emissions arising from the Fuel Diversification Strategy in the electric power industry in 2000 and 2020. In particular, we will compare emissions between two scenarios. Scenario one is based on final demand in 2000 with emissions from year 2000’s fuel mix against year 2020’s fuel mix. The other scenario calculates emissions based on final demand for 2020 with emissions from year 2000’s fuel mix against year 2020’s fuel mix. The comparison of emissions is limited to CO2, SO2 and NOx. 2. Brief review of Malaysian electricity sector The electricity generation sector of Malaysia is composed of two sub-sectors; thermal generation and hydro

generation.3 In Malaysia, electricity is supplied by the three main utility companies: Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), Sabah Electricity Supply Berhad (SESB) and Sarawak Electricity Supply Corporation (SESCO). Power supply is also supplemented by several independent power producers (IPPs) and co-generators. There are 51 power stations in Malaysia with a total installed capacity of 13,824.22 MW [1]. As an industrializing country, sufficient and uninterrupted electricity supply is crucial for economic development. Fig. 2 depicts the electricity generation fuel mix in Malaysia from 1991 to 2003. The introduction of the Fuel Diversification Strategy was to reduce Malaysia’s overreliance on specific fuel type and to achieve a more balanced supply mix between natural gas, oil, coal, and hydropower (plus other minor renewable energy in the Five-fuel Diversification Strategy). In the electricity generation sector, Malaysia hopes to 3 Hydro power plants use hydropower as energy input and are considered a renewable energy. Thermal power plants use natural gas, diesel or heavy fuel oil, coal and coke as energy input. Electricity cogeneration is very small in Malaysia and is excluded from discussion.

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.H. Jafar et al. / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2229–2235

gradually change fuel use from one that greatly relies on gas to a mix that places greater emphasis on hydropower and coal. In response to the policy initiative, the share of natural gas in electricity generation decreased from 74.9% in 2000 to 65.3% in 2003. The share of coal in the fuel mix increased from 9.7% in 2000 to 24.6% in 2003, while that of crude oil and diesel oil decreased from 5.0% in 2000 to 3.8% in 2003. However, the share of hydropower decreased from 10.4% in 2000 to 6.3% in 2003 (see Table 1 and Fig. 2). Although the generation of and demand for electricity in Malaysia has been increasing and the energy efficiency of the electric power industry of Malaysia is more efficient than that of Thailand, Brunei, China and Vietnam, it is still relatively less efficient when compared with developed countries such as Sweden, Japan, Finland, Italy and Norway (see Table 2 and Fig. 3). This is due to the fact that those countries have relatively large contributions from hydroelectricity. The irreversibility losses of their utility sector are relatively small compared with Malaysia’s, which has a major contribution from thermal generation [11]. Note that the greater dependence on coal for electricity generation as well as its pollution implications could be avoided if Malaysia switches to other sources of renewable energy such as geothermal, photovoltaic, solar thermal and biomass for its future energy requirements. Table 3 presents the national electricity generation technologies and their emission factors (CO2, SO2 and NOx) in 2000. Figures in the table indicate that coal has the highest emission per kWh of CO2, SO2 and NOx than other energy sources. On the other hand hydro and mini-hydro technologies have zero CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions, but their contribution to the total electricity generation is still small.

3. Methodology Towards the achievement of the stated objective, the extended Leontief’s input–output (I–O) framework is utilized [12–15,23,25]. In this framework, the structure of an economy is analyzed in terms of inter-relationships between production sectors. The implied assumption of the I–O framework is that the production process in each economic sector is characterized by a linear relationship between the amount of input required and the final output. For an n-sector economy, the input–output relationship is

2231

shown by the following equation. (1)

X ¼ AX þ Y.

In (1), Y is a final demand vector, X is a vector of total output with elements xi where i ( ¼ 1,y,n) is the number of sectors in the economy. Matrix A is the direct input requirement matrix with elements indicating the direct input from sector i used by sector j to produce one ringgit’s worth of output (henceforth, the ringgit is dropped). Solving the equation in (1) for total output gives the following: X ¼ ðI  AÞ1 Y.

(2)

In (2), I is an identity matrix and (IA)1 is the total requirement matrix, or more popularly known as the Leontief inverse matrix. An environmental extension of the input–output model can be obtained by incorporating a matrix e, which accounts for the pollution output. Elements in e are the direct-impact coefficients. In the case where pollution output stems from the inputs utilized, the directimpact coefficient matrix is linked to total output via an input intensity matrix, i.e., matrix u in (3). The total impact of each particular pollutant is given by elements in e. e ¼ euðI  AÞ1 Y ¼ euX.

(3)

To account for pollution from electricity generation out of using a specific fuel type, say oil and coal, it is assumed that all oil and coal are combusted when used and emit CO2, SO2, and NOx. Row elements in u represent the amount of Table 2 Energy efficiencies of utility sector for Malaysia and other countries Country

Year

Average energy efficiency (%)

References

Norway Finland Sweden Italy China Saudi Arabia Turkey Malaysia Singapore Thailand Indonesia Philippines Japan Vietnam

2000 2000 1994 1990 2000 2000 1995 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

76.6 78.0 48.0 43.0 31.2 31.6 45.0 35.7 40.6 31.7 41.6 57.4 69.2 31.2

Ertesvag [5] Ertesvag [5] Wall et al. [6] Wall et al. [7] Chen and Chen [8] Dincer et al. [9] Ileri and Gurer [10] Saidur et al. [11] Saidur et al. [11] Saidur et al. [11] Saidur et al. [11] Saidur et al. [11] Saidur et al. [11] Saidur et al. [11]

Sources: Summarized from Saidur et al. [11] except Chen and Chen [8].

Table 1 Electricity generation by type, 1991–2000 (million kWh) Type

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Steam stations Diesel stations Hydro stations Gas turbines

14,307 1585 4444 7999

14,871 1368 4357 11,290

15,609 1554 4925 13,491

14,130 1538 6521 17,725

14,373 2009 6166 23,715

15,000 2134 5139 30,138

14,965 1600 3917 37,871

14,094 2093 4799 38,879

13,586 1995 7460 38,874

12,531 2209 6835 44,444

Source: DOE [4].

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.H. Jafar et al. / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2229–2235

2232

Energy efficiencies (%)

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1990

1992

1994

1996

2000

1998

Year Hydroelectric Power Plant

Thermal Power Plant

Fig. 3. Energy efficiencies of Malaysian utility sectors. Source: Saidur et al [11].

Table 3 A detailed presentation on technologies and emission factors by type, (2000 MW) TNBa

SESCOa

SESBa

IPPsa

Totala

%

Emission (kg/kWh) CO2

SO2

NOX

Steam Coal Gas Oil Hydro Mini-hydro Diesel/LFO Rural diesel Combined cycle

600.0 1200.0 360.0 1911.0 – 0.0 0.0 1717.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 94.0 3.3 93.9 0.0 0.0

0.0 60.0 110.0 66.0 4.65 73.16 4.3 44.0

100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 218.0 0.0 3569.0

700.0 1260.0 470.0 2071.0 45.0 385.1 4.3 5330.0

5.0 9.1 3.4 15.0 0.3 2.7 0.0 38.6

1.18 0.53 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.83 0.85

0.0139 0.0005 0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0165 0.0163 0.0164

0.0052 0.0009 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 0.0027 0.0024 0.0026

Open-cycle GT Diesel Gas Total Percentage

68.0 1805.0 7661 55.4

64.0 290.9 546.1 4.0

0.0 131.0 493.1 3.6

0.0 1200.0 5124.0 34.6

132.0 3426.9 13,824.2 100.0

1.0 24.9 100.0 –

0.86 0.53 – –

0.0165 0.0005 – –

0.0027 0.0009 – –

Source: PTM [1]. a Installed capacity of power plants of Malaysia (Megawatts).

oil (or coal), generally in units of tonnes of oil equivalent (toe), that are either domestically produced or imported, needed to produce one (monetary) unit of output of electricity j. Accordingly, row elements in uX are the total oil (or coal), needed to produce all electricity types. Pollution emission is computed using the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) guideline, which is given in (4). The computed emission is in tonnes of pollutant of either CO2, SO2, or NOx, per toe of fuel used to generate electricity.4 Emissions per toe of fuel

!

Fuel’s emission ¼

factor

!

Molecular weight 

!

Fraction of 

ratio of emission

!

pollution oxidized .

For example, in the case of crude petroleum (oil), the carbon emission factor equals 0.77 tonnes of carbon/toe of oil, and 99.25% of the carbon is oxidized. The molecular weight of CO2 is 44.01 and that of carbon (C) is 12.01; thus the molecular weight ratio equals 44.01/12.01 which is equal to 3.66 tonnes of CO2/tonne of C. Consequently, the combustion of 1 toe of crude oil results in the generation of 0.77  0.9925  3.66 ¼ 2.80 tonnes of CO2 emission. Multiplying the above figure to 1 toe of oil/dollar (in this case, the Malaysian ringgit or RM) used in electricity generation gives tonnes of CO2 that are generated by the combustion of 1 RM (1 US$ ¼ 3.5 RM) of oil equivalent.5 Emissions of SO2 and NOx from the burning of oil (or coal) are similarly estimated.6

ð4Þ

4 Software for computing emission is available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip. iges.or.jp/public/gl/software.htm (last visit: November 27, 2006), [24].

5 Numeric example is from Temurshoev [16], page 20 with slight alteration in units of measure. 6 For a detailed exposition, see Proops et al. [17], Dietzenbacher and Mukhopadhyay [18], Temurshoev [16].

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.H. Jafar et al. / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2229–2235

2233

Table 4 Input–output transactions, 2000 (000 RM) Non-electricity

Thermal electricity

Hydro electricity

Final demand

Total output

Non-electricity (NE) Thermal electricity (TE) Hydro-electricity (HE)

256,890,840 9,786,699 1,063,300

3,030,789 487,373 52,952

329,287 52,952 5753

600,254,505 2,915,184 316,727

880,283,615 14,922,849 1,621,329

Total intermediate input Total input

267,740,839 1,778,201,965

3,571,114 13,939,166

387,992 1,514,455

603,486,416 703,313,964

896,827,793 1,699,279,897

Sources: Calculated from DOS [19], PTM [1].

Table 5 Direct impact, energy intensity, Leontif inverse and total environmental impact based on 2000 electricity fuel mix 2 3 0:004755 0:011245 Thousand tonnes of CO2 6 0:000051 0:000034 7 generation per thousand toe e¼4 5 of oil and coal, respectively 0:000006 0:000330 Thousand tonnes of SO2 generation per thousand toe of oil and coal, respectively Thousand tonnes of NOx generation per thousand toe of oil and coal, respectively  u¼

0

0:8285 0

0

0:1000 0

2



Thousand toe of oil consumption per thousand ringgit of output Thousand toe of coal consumption per thousand ringgit of output

1:4173 0:2987 0:2986

3

6 7 ðI  AÞ1 ¼ 4 0:0163 1:0373 0:373 5 0:0018 0:0041 1:0041 2

65; 093

3

Leontief inverse matrix

Thousand tonnes of CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions

6 7 e ¼ 4 582 5 482

Assuming two types of electricity sectors, thermal and hydro, for the given total electricity output in the economy, total emissions of CO2, SO2, and NOx (in tonnes) is given by 2 3 2 3 c1 c2 c 6 7 6 7 e ¼ 4 s 5 ¼ 4 s1 s2 5uðI  AÞ1 Y, (5) n

n1

n2

where c1 and c2, respectively, are CO2 emission conversion factors for oil and coal. Likewise, s1 and s2, respectively, are SO2 emission conversion factors for oil and coal; and n1 and n2, respectively, are NOx emission conversion factors for oil and coal. Elements c, s and n, respectively, are the calculated total emissions of CO2, SO2 and NOx due to electricity generation for the given total output.

3.1. Data sources For the purpose of estimating emissions from the two fuel mixes, this study used the 2000 Malaysian I–O table published by the Department of Statistics, Malaysia [19,21]. Information on energy balance was obtained from the National Energy Balance 2003, published by the Malaysian Energy Centre (PTM), and supplemented by information from the Energy Statistics and Balances of non-OECD countries 1999–2000 published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) [20], [1]. To implement the model, the electricity sector of the 2000 I–O table was initially disaggregated into (a) generation and (b) transmission, distribution and supply activities. Subsequently, the generation sector was then again disaggregated into (i) thermal and (ii) hydroelectric generation sectors, while all other sectors were aggregated into a non-electric sector; thus creating a 3 by 3 sector economy.7

4. Results discussion Table 4 depicts the aggregated economy while Table 5 shows matrices contained in (5). Fuel consumption per 1000 RM of output, u, was calculated based on year 2000’s fuel mix. The estimated total pollution emissions are shown in e. Subsequently, all other things remaining the same, total pollution emissions based on 2020’s fuel mix were similarly calculated. Results are given in Table 6, where u2 and e2, respectively, are the fuel intensity and pollution emission based on 2020’s electricity fuel mix. As indicated by the result, based on current technology and current final demand, the proposed fuel mix would result in higher pollutants generation in 2000. Generation of CO2 would increase by more than twice the current emission, from 65,093,000 tonnes to 130,819,000 tonnes. Generation of SO2 would also increase, however, only in negligible quantities, from 582,000 tonnes to 621,000 tonnes. NOx emission increased the most, i.e., from 482,000 tonnes to 2,989,000 tonnes. Relative to the current fuel mix, the proposed fuel mix would result in a six-times higher generation of NOx. 7

Gas was included in thermal generation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.H. Jafar et al. / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2229–2235

2234

Table 6 Fuel intensity and total environmental impact base on electricity fuel mix for 2020 2 3 0:004755 0:011245 Thousand tonnes of CO2 6 7 generation per thousand toe e ¼ 4 0:000051 0:000034 5 of oil and coal, respectively 0:000006 0:000330 Thousand tonnes of SO2 generation per thousand toe of oil and coal, respectively Thousand tonnes of NOx generation per thousand toe of oil and coal, respectively   0 0:493 0 Thousand toe of oil u2 ¼ consumption per thousand 0 0:697 0 ringgit of output Thousand toe of coal consumption per thousand ringgit of output 2 3 1:4173 0:2987 0:2986 Leontief inverse matrix 6 7 ðI  AÞ1 ¼ 4 0:0163 1:0373 0:373 5 0:0018 0:0041 1:0041 2 6 e2 ¼ 4

130; 819 621

3

Thousand tonnes of CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions

7 5

2989

Table 7 Total environmental impacts based on business as usual and proposed electricity fuel mix for 2020 Pollution emissions

Business as usual (in 000 tonnes)

Proposed fuel mix (in 000 tonnes)

CO2 SO2 NOx

398,139 3589 2985

800,519 3840 18,316

Based on current technology and 2020’s final demand, the proposed fuel mix would result in higher pollutants generation in 2020 as given in Table 7.8 In this scenario the new fuel mix would result in 800,519,000 tonnes of CO2, 3,840,000 tonnes of SO2 and 18,316,000 tonnes of NOx. Simply put, while the Fuel Diversification Strategy places Malaysia in a position that is less dependent on oil, the reduction is compensated by higher generation by coal fuel and hydroelectricity. As such, overall pollution increased. 5. Conclusion Electricity generation in Malaysia is mostly fossil-based with especially high reliance on natural gas. To ensure 8 Data used for final demand projections were based on information given in the 8th and 9th Malaysian Plan [3]. Using the final demand growth rate given in the development plans, we forecasted final demand, Yt from 2000 to 2020 holding 2000 as the base year as follows: Yt ¼ Y2000(1+rY)t, where t ¼ 1,2,3,4,5y20 and rY is the annual final demand growth rate.

long-term security in the supply of energy, the Fuel Diversification Strategy, which is an extension of the National Energy Policy, was introduced. According to the strategy, fuel mix for 2020 would have a greater balance between gas, hydro and coal and emphasis is also given to reduce dependence on petroleum as fuel for electricity generation. This paper evaluates the amount of CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions based on the fuel mix specified in the Fuel Diversification Strategy incorporated in the Malaysian Energy Policy. Estimation of emission was done using the extended Leontief’s input–output (I–O) framework, where the economy is aggregated into a three-sector economy and emission is estimated using the IPCC guideline for emission. All things remaining the same, our results show that the fuel mix in 2020 would result in significantly higher CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions. The amount of emissions is even greater if calculated based on the final demand in 2020. As such, even though the Fuel Diversification Strategy could provide the needed security and cost effectiveness in future energy supply, it nonetheless fails to achieve the environmental objective of the Malaysian National Energy Policy which aims to minimize the negative impacts of energy production, transportation, conversion, utilization and consumption on the environment. To achieve environmental sustainability with the proposed fuel mix, greater emphasis must be given to improving the conversion efficiency of energy [22]. As shown in Fig. 3, annual average efficiency has been moderately increasing from 1995 to 2000 at a rate of about 1.6% per annum. If this rate of increase persists through 2020, the conversion efficiency would be approximately 48%. While this figure is still very low in terms of international standards, it will however, lessen the amount of emission that would have been generated had there been no efficiency gain. As a final note, to make the fuel mix for 2020 environmentally sustainable, Malaysia must strive to increase its efforts in attaining greater efficiency in energy conversion, transmission, and utilization. References [1] PTM. National Energy Balance Malaysia 2003. Ministry of Energy, Communications and Multimedia, Malaysia; 2003. [2] PTM. Biofuel: Malaysian programme and ASEAN overview. In: STAP Biofuel Workshop, India, New Delhi, 2005. [3] EPU. Ninth Malaysia plan 2006–2010. Malaysia: Economic Planning Unit; 2006. [4] DOS. Malaysia’s economic statistics—time series. Malaysia: Department of Statistics; 2003. [5] Ertesvag IS. Energy, exergy, and extended exergy analysis of the Norwegian society 2000. Energy 2005;30:649–75. [6] Wall G. Exergy use in the Swedish society 1994. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Thermodynamic Analysis and Improvement of Energy Systems TAIES’97, Beijing, China, 10–13 June, 1997. [7] Wall G, Enric S, Vincenzo N. Exergy use in the Italian society. Energy 1994;19:1267–74.

ARTICLE IN PRESS A.H. Jafar et al. / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2229–2235 [8] Chen B, Chen GQ. Exergy analysis for resource conversion of the Chinese Society 1993 under the material product system. Energy 2006;31:1115–50. [9] Dincer I, Hussain MM, Al-Zaharnah I. Analysis of sectoral energy and exergy use of Saudi Arabia. Int J Energy Res 2004;28:205–43. [10] Ileri A, Gurer T. Energy and exergy utilization in Turkey during 1995. Energy 1998;23(12):1099–106. [11] Saidur R, Sattar MA, Masjuki HH, Abdessalam H, Shahruan BS. Energy and exergy analysis at the utility and commercial sectors of Malaysia. Energy Pol 2007;35(3):1956–66. [12] Leontief W. Input–output economics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1966. [13] Leontief W. Environmental repercussion and economic structure— an input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 1970;52:262–71. [14] Leontief W. Environmental repercussion and economic structure— an input–output approach: a reply. Rev Econ Stat 1974;56:262–71. [15] Miller RE, Blair PD. Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1985. [16] Temurshoev U. Pollution haven hypothesis or factor endowment hypothesis: theory and empirical examination for the US and China. Working paper series (ISSN 1211-3298). Economics Institute, Charles University. [17] Proops J, Gay P, Speck S, Schro¨der T. The lifetime pollution implications of various types of electricity generation. Energy Pol 1996;24:229–37.

2235

[18] Dietzenbacher E, Mukhopadhyay K. An empirical examination of the pollution haven hypothesis for India: towards a green Leontief paradox? In: Working paper presented in input–output and general equilibrium seminar: data, modeling and policy analysis. Belgium: Brussels; 2004. [19] DOS. Input–output table, Malaysia 2000. Department of Statistics; 2005. [20] IEA. Energy statistics and balances of non-OECD countries, 1999–2000. OECD publication; 2001. [21] DOS. Malaysian standard industrial classification 2000. Malaysia: Department of Statistics; 2000. [22] Nuclear energy option and energy planning in Malaysia. Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research (MINT), 2003. [23] Mukhopadhyay K, Forssell O. An empirical investigation of air pollution from fossil fuel combustion and its impact on health in India during 1973–1974 to 1996–1997. Ecol Econ 2004; 55:235–50. [24] Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC/OECD/IEA Inventory Programme, Paris; 1996. Online version: /http://www.ipcc nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs6. htmS. [25] Han Sang-Yong, Yoo Seung-Hoon, Kwak Seung-Jun. The role of the four electric power sectors in the Korean national economy: an input–output analysis. Energy Pol 2004;32:1531–43.