Congratulations on your editorial devoted to the question of sustainable energy. First of all, as emphasised in this editorial, diversity is an important element and both photovoltaic and wind energy should therefore play a major part in Malta’s energy mix. As things now stand, we are going nowhere fast. Malta still lags behind with a pathetic 0.2% of energy from renewable sources. Progress with domestic photovoltaic panels continues to be hindered by limited subsidies, ungenerous payback terms, delays and undue bureaucracy. The introduction of wind energy in Malta has fared no better, this was held up by a series of misjudgements and an unjustified negative attitude.
As stated in the editorial, wind energy plays a role in Malta’s urgently needed energy revolution. But we are still firmly at square one. Five years ago an application by a private company to build a large-scale wind-farm on Marfa Ridge could have paved the way to Malta’s renewable energy era, but this was not to be. The project was summarily turned down for reasons that were, at the time, not made clear. Since that time, there has been a persistent prejudice against wind energy, especially land-based wind energy. Decision makers continued to refer to wind energy largely in negative terms, mentioning every possible counter-argument, while omitting the advantages. This bias against wind energy seems to have been largely orchestrated by MTA and this has been crucial in Malta’s backward renewable energy situation.
Regrettably your editorial accepts too readily that the MTA “has its reasons” (for objecting to wind farms). The important question here is: “are the reasons valid?” And the answer is “no” because there is a gross discrepancy between the true situation and MTA’s perception of tourists’ attitudes to wind energy. MTA’s persistent and obstinate objections to wind energy have omitted realistic thinking all along. MTA, too lazy to think or do its homework, simply did not check the results of numerous surveys on the effect of wind energy on tourism or public perception carried out elsewhere.
Neither was a survey on which to base such an important decision ever conducted in Malta. MTA simply took the easy way out and made a purely subjective objection based on no more than an uninformed knee-jerk negative reaction. This objection cost us dearly because it has kept Malta far behind in renewable energy. It is a shame that these invalid objections were not rejected, considering the importance of Malta’s energy situation.
Briefly, the surveys referred to above, including a major study on “landscape tourism” areas in Scotland (where one would expect tourists to be rather sensitive to visual impacts on landscape), indicate that wind farms do not have a negative impact on tourism. Results of some surveys even suggested that tourists are in favour of wind energy.
Wind power installations have even been used to promote a country’s image as a ‘green’, environmentally-friendly country and wind farm-based eco-tourism has become an industry in its own right. Public attitude surveys indicate in general that approximately 80% of people are in favour of wind farms. The remaining 20% are neutral with a few who are against.
The quoted objections of “aesthetic impact so close to popular bathing sites” (from MTA) and “minimum amount of energy compared with the enormity (sic) of the land surface area” are both invalid, verging on the nonsensical. They are based on the false perception that introduction of wind energy would mean that the whole of Malta, or the surrounding seas, will be studded with a forest of turbines. This is not so at all. The area of terrain or sea required for a sizeable wind farm of twelve large turbines as was proposed in 2004, capable of fully covering the needs of 6,000 to 7,000 houses, is less than a square mile.
The question of limited (land) space is also a weak argument. Malta might be small but our built up areas are limited to one quarter of our land surface, mostly to the North and East, with uninhabited areas in the south-west, many of which are high and exposed to our prevailing Majjistral. One or more discrete wind farms could be established without undue disturbance to anybody or to our tourist industry. Furthermore, in terms of kilowatt per surface area of terrain, wind turbines take up less land surface area than photovoltaic panels. Turbines do need a large open space as they are spread out, but the area of terrain actually utilised amounts to no more than 2 to 5% of the surface area of a farm; also, turbines can be removed leaving no trace when superior technology renders them obsolete. Life continues undisturbed beneath a wind farm, be it wildlife, recreation or farming. Finally, and most important of all, the price of energy generated from land-based wind farms is not expensive – about equal to, or less than energy derived from fossil fuel generators. Of course, unlike oil-generated electricity, wind energy comes absolutely clean.
It is sad to reflect that, if the wind farm at Marfa had been approved, it would by now have been into its fifth year of clean electricity generation for about the same price as the oil which would have been needed. It would have avoided, among other pollutants, the annual emission into our atmosphere of over 16,500 tonnes of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, 45 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide and 55 tonnes of sulphur dioxide. It would have given us a realistic estimate of the potential of wind energy in Malta and whether land based wind farms are aesthetically acceptable to the Maltese. In these five years Malta would have benefited in other ways. Beside providing a significant amount of clean electricity and reducing Malta’s carbon dioxide emissions by a total of around 80,000 tons through reduction of fossil fuel combustion, such a project would also have provided a valuable opportunity for our technicians to gain hands-on experience in the servicing and maintenance of wind energy generators and to test the logistics of adding a major source of intermittent electricity to our grid. It would also have provided new employment opportunities.
The essence of energy security is diversity – connection to the European grid and investment in all feasible renewable or alternative energy options should have been pursued with vigour long ago. There is no place for stalling the issue with further groundless speculative fussing over aesthetics when the evidence from experience from abroad is that, once installed, wind energy is accepted both by tourists and residents.
Finally, as your editorial rightfully says, a lot can be also achieved simply by reducing consumption and promoting widespread use of solar water heating; some have put this as high as 40%, but that is another story.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
