Cost benefit analysis of photovoltaic technology adoption at rest and service area for Malaysia Highway

Abstract

Photovoltaic technology is cleaner technology that’s served the needs in reducing energy demand consumption. However, the demand for this technology is still weak due to its high cost of installation and maintenance. Besides that, rest and service areas (RSAs) are facilities that operate 24/7 consuming high energy demand. However, the combination of this technology for RSAs seems beneficial since it carries the benefits not only as part of alternative energy, but it will keep the whole environment from its footprint clean. Hence, this research aims to identify the cost-benefit analysis on PV technology, which assists decision-makers, stakeholders and highway concessionaires in selecting the best PV technology for RSAs. To achieve this aim, issues and challenges, types of PV technology and cost analysis have been investigated. Microsoft Excel and RETScreen Expert software have been used to evaluate the economic and environmental aspects. Five semi-structured interviews were conducted. All costs incurred were collected from manufacturers and governmental agencies. The study revealed that high initial cost of photovoltaic system, lack of public awareness and lack of government incentives are the key lever issues that hindering the prosperity of this technology in the Malaysian market. Besides that, it reveals that the total initial cost of monocrystalline and poly-crystalline PV system estimated to be (MYR 715400 and MYR 518500) respectively. The financial indicators for the monocrystalline PV system were found to be (MYR 1513182, 17.6% and 3.1) for (net present value, internal rate of return and benefit-cost ratio) respectively. While the poly-crystalline PV system were found to be (MYR 1440253, 21.5% and 3.8) for (net present value, internal rate of return and benefit- cost ratio) respectively. For the environmental analysis, monocrystalline and poly-crystalline reduce the GHG emission at Machap RSA by (25.6% and 22.3%), respectively. From this, concludes that poly-crystalline is more economical however it can be improved for monocrystalline providing more space area is being added up.