A report on plans to achieve the set Renewable Energy target of 10% of total energy use by 2020 has been sent to Brussels.
It should be stated at the outset that apart from the report of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) – which forms the basis of this document -- there is extensive, independently compiled relevant material incorporated in the Second National Communication to the UNFCCC.
This latter treats some aspects of the energy scenario that are not included in the NCCC report, and predicts lower electricity demand for 2020.
In the present report, some aspects of Section 3 – Developments in the Renewable Energy Sector – are repeated in the Risks section at the end. This, which sets the rather pessimistic tone of the report, is most evident for wind energy, onshore or offshore. For onshore, where “there is a perceived lack of public acceptance”, little has yet been done to influence hearts and minds.
In the specific case of Bahrija, there are good sets of wind speed measurements stretching over several years, allowing an accurate estimate of the output of any projected wind farm. So the project should really be moving forward at speed on the public persuasion and environmental fronts. Instead, yet more wind speed measurements are being taken. Similar foot dragging is apparent on the offshore front, where concentration on the one site of Sikka l-Bajda has led to a refusal to take measurements on another site with a demonstrably good potential and fewer problems than is-Sikka l-Bajda.
The installed photovoltaic (PV) generating capacity and the proposals in the pipeline, which may reach 20MW in all, show that the NCCC target, requiring 60-70MW, is unlikely to be reached. We may simply not have the necessary area available. Of course, if there is any truth in the rumour that Enemalta is asking that for heavy users of electricity, who will be paying the highest rates (~ 60-70c) for units, the payback for PV-generated units be capped at 18c, there could be a nosedive in interest in PV.
The hopes placed in use of solar water heaters (SWH) show up the problems of our approach. We have encouraged the installation of expensive RE devices to substitute electricity that is in fact being wasted; and for SWH at least, there is no set of measurements to demonstrate actual savings in different circumstances, which is a necessary exercise given the vagaries of SWH installation as well as the variety of use. So the estimated saving of 1500 units by a four-person family installing a SWH, turns out to be higher (by ~ 500 units) than the total consumption of a standard four-person electric water heater using a time switch instead of being left on continuously.
Getting energy from “biomass” seems to be the one bright spot in the report, though even there, the production and use of methane from the engineered landfill at Ghallis seems to have fallen behind schedule. The report does give the impression of considerable official relief at being able to resort to incineration.
Reliance on a switch from private car use to public transport to reduce fuel consumption is, in the absence of any definite plans, speculative to say the least. Biofuels look like playing a limited part. Renewable electricity could do much more in both private and public transport; but even improved efficiency of conventional generation can have a very marked effect on “fuel consumption” in hybrid / pure electric transport as less fuel would be used to generate a unit of electricity.
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.
