The editorial (TMID, 27 February) on the question of renewable energy appeared just as the surcharge on electricity consumption was raised to 67.5 per cent.

As rightly stated in the editorial, there is little awareness about renewable energy in Malta. This seems to extend to our politicians since there seems to be very little concern in government circles about the matter. Wind energy is currently the only available option open to Malta for offsetting our total dependence on oil and it should be pursued with vigour.

Solar power technology has yet to be improved before it can be of practical use on a large scale and it is still far too expensive to be practicable. It must also be remembered that electricity can only be generated during daylight hours and that affordable technologies for storing electricity do not yet exist.

There is no doubt that solar power will eventually have an enormous potential in our sunny climate – and an energy mix of solar and wind energy could be hugely advantageous, but we will have to wait. A very attractive idea would be to make Malta a centre for study of solar technology.

On the other hand, wind energy is now a firmly established technology that has been used successfully for decades. Turbines have become highly efficient and are fully cost effective. We almost certainly have enough wind to generate a significant amount of electricity and the technology is there and affordable.

Some time ago an application for planning permission was submitted by an independent company to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority for a wind farm on Marfa ridge but nothing ever came of it. This wind farm was to consist of 12 turbines with rotor diameters of 92 metres each with a potential of 2.75 megawatts. The calculated mean wind speed at pylon height was 7.5 metres per second. The annual output of one single such wind farm was projected at 55 gigawatt hours which works out at approximately five per cent of Malta’s total electricity needs.

This wind farm was to be built by a private company which would sell the electricity generated by the turbines to the government at a mutually agreed price. This was presumably independent of the price of oil for the useful life of 20-25 years of the turbines.

By contrast, your editorial quotes the Swedes as predicting that the price of oil fuel will double in five years’ time to around $120 per barrel. This could prove to be conservative. The projected increase in demand for crude oil over the next quarter century is at least 60 per cent. Ultimately only countries able to afford oil will get it. Another concern is that most of the countries with large reserves are politically unstable.

Our Prime Minister was reported in the press as saying that wind energy can only generate three per cent of Malta’s energy. This sounds far too conservative. The output of the proposed wind farm of 12 turbines was projected at five per cent of our needs.

But let us put this figure into perspective: Denmark currently generates around 20 per cent of its electricity from wind farms and plans to further increase its share of energy derived from wind. The province of Ostfriesland in Germany derives more than 50 per cent of its electricity from wind. The global rate of growth in wind power is currently over 30 per cent.

The unit cost of wind-generated energy is decreasing dramatically, while the price of crude oil does the opposite. Up until now, Malta’s government stubbornly persists in committing Malta to total dependence on fossil fuel for generating electricity while other countries continue to invest heavily in alternative energy.

We have been officially told that the question of wind energy is being “actively pursued” and that two sea areas have been identified for the creation of islands by land reclamation. This is can be nothing but pure fantasy. To reclaim a large enough artificial island to accommodate enough turbines to supply a significant amount of wind energy would be astronomically expensive in our deep waters.

Offshore wind farms based on reclaimed land, as hinted at by the Prime Minister, is therefore a non-starter. Offshore wind turbines with under-water foundations are hugely expensive in the first place and they would be virtually impossible to erect owing to the depth of our surrounding waters.

As things now stand the situation is clear. Land-based wind energy is currently the only economically viable form of renewable energy open to Malta for generating a worthwhile proportion of its electricity so as not to remain 100 per cent dependent on oil. There is no other option. Other possibilities, such as nuclear power, are out of the question.

A land-based wind farm of 12 turbines, such as the one proposed some time ago, needs almost a square mile (around two square kilometres) of terrain. One square mile might sound like an awful lot of space but there is a crucial difference between a wind farm and other typical large-scale developments such as, say, a golf course or a new residential area.

Whereas the entire terrain taken up by a golf course or residential area is irrevocably destroyed, the terrain which is disturbed when wind turbines are installed is negligible. Wind farms are not permanent installations. The commissioning of wind turbines does not damage terrain and the turbines can be removed leaving virtually no trace at the end of their useful life – or when new technology makes other forms of renewable energy exploitation more sustainable.

Though land space is limited on our little islands, only one third of our land surface is densely populated. The remainder is relatively sparsely populated. Much of this remaining area has the advantage of being elevated, exposed to prevailing winds and virtually uninhabited.

The main obstacle to land turbines is the very serious visual intrusion consequent on the gigantic size of wind turbines. There is no question that these leviathan structures will probably be visible from afar over much of the island. The challenge is therefore to overcome the unjustified prejudice against wind power and find space in suitable exposed parts of Malta and Gozo sufficiently far from human habitation on which an optimal number of turbines might be built.

Like it or not, this is Malta’s only choice if it wants to offset her total dependence on fossil fuels. The alternative to this is simply that of remaining totally dependent on fossil fuel to generate our electricity for the foreseeable future.

There is, of course, the other side of the equation, namely, reduction in demand for energy. Malta has still to go a long way here.

The bottom line is that we should do everything we can to diminish our dependence on oil – and soon. At this point in time, like it or not, land based wind farms are our choice. The other alternative is to remain totally dependent on oil for our electricity which can cost us very dear.

Dr George G. Debono

Sliema