While the proposed extension to Delimara Power Station (DPS) is an important subject from a number of angles, not least for the evidence it provides of the operation of powerful lobbies, Evarist Bartolo’s long running commentary (MaltaToday, 15 November) is beginning to go round in circles.
In a number of public presentations, Enemalta has given an overview of total cost of the proposed DECC (diesel-engine combined cycle) plant. For instance, the annual running cost of the pollution removal system, including waste collection, storage and export, some months ago, was reckoned at €12 million, quite close to Bartolo’s latest estimate. This sum, as well as the €27 million necessary to convert the DEEC plant to run on natural gas, are included in the total cost to 2015.
Enemalta says that this will be more than offset by the price difference between HFO (heavy-fuel oil) and diesel. So, the argument goes, the unit cost of electricity should be lower with DECC than with the CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine) plant, which can only burn (currently unavailable) natural gas or diesel.
While one may not agree with these estimates, one cannot go on saying that we have not been given these costs. Again, one can cast doubt on the ability of Enemalta to keep the public informed on the state of anti-pollution equipment, going by the present “black dust” episode, where Enemalta has not answered a simple question about its electrostatic precipitators. But that is not sufficient reason to rule out DECC.
What I do find surprising is the fact that an important technical advantage of DECC over CCGT – flexibility and therefore efficiency in generation when there is a variable energy source like wind in the grid – is never mentioned by either side.
On the question of a supply of natural gas, Bartolo is being a little superficial. A gas pipeline in 2003 would have been every whit as expensive as one in 2009. There is also another aspect that needs clearing up: what is the minimum consumption of gas that will justify the expense of a pipeline? In this respect, the use of liquid natural gas, imported by tanker at a rate suited to the rate of use, was on offer in 2005, when Enemalta was invited to join Norwegian, Greek, Cypriot and Egyptian interests to set up a supply liquid gasin the eastern Mediterranean. That would have required on-shore liquid gas storage among other things. Hearing PL outcries about the Benghisa LPG plant, one wonders what the reaction to a liquid natural gas store would have been.
In any case, routing the Libya-Sicily pipeline through Malta was never on the cards. Libya and Italy were not interested in increasing costs to accommodate small fry like us. We could have recouped some cash had we defined our economic zone as the pipeline goes through that to the west of us.
While I hesitate to question IEA forecasts on gas prices, I suggest that the present glut of gas will not last long, given the rising European demand and the decline of the North Sea fields. Put in another way, I will not be betting much money on lower unit prices at the advent of a natural gas supply. The lifting of the danger of a major pollution episode will, on the other hand, be a great relief.
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.
