Energy is now a very important environmental issue, so it is good to see a newspaper editorial (Energy, which way forward? TMID, 12 June) devoted to the question of energy – and congratulations to the green party for coming up with sensible workable solutions.

Inevitably, wind energy arises in this context and the old chestnut about “aesthetics” is raised again. In your editorial you say “...we must also take into account the aesthetic impact, as well as the land footprint (a wind farm) would take up to be installed”.

It is sad to see this how this mantra about aesthetics continues to be perpetuated as though a monument – and not a means of generating clean electricity – is under discussion. The plain fact is that land-based wind energy is the most cost-effective technology and that, since we are still 100 per cent dependent on oil for generat-ing our electricity, we cannot afford to be fussy about “aesthetic impact”.

Yes, a wind turbine is very large, much in the same way that the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco are large and have a high visual impact. Wind turbines are not unsightly and it has been a repeated experience that, after initial opposition, there is full acceptance of wind farms once they are up and running and they often become a source of wonder.

Your editorial goes on to say “we must also take into account ...the land footprint they would take up to be installed”. This is also a misconception. First of all, contrary to what one might think, there is space for land-based wind farms on our islands. Though Malta is densely populated, residential areas are concentrated in about one quarter of its surface area to the northeast of the island. The remainder of Malta, to the south and west, is sparsely populated and includes a number of quite large, virtually uninhabited areas. Some of these areas are ideal in the sense that they are elevated, exposed, windswept and sufficiently far away from dwellings.

Secondly, a sizeable wind farm of, say, 19 or 12 full-size turbines needs only about half a square mile. This might sound like a lot of land, but wherever a wind farm is installed, the land is not disturbed and life goes on unhindered beneath the turbine; there is no perimeter fence so that the site is still fully accessible to the public. Finally, there is no permanent damage to the terrain; a wind turbine is a temporary structure that can be removed, leaving barely a trace, when an alternative source of renewable energy becomes available. The actual turbine foundation “footprints” take up no more than two to five per cent of the wind farm surface area.

Offshore (sea-based) wind turbines are more problematic than land-based energy and the investment needed is correspondingly higher. On the whole, the sea surrounding our islands is deep but wind energy could be sustainable in some of our shallow offshore areas. The option of near offshore wind farms was, in any event, summarily dismissed (along with land-based wind energy) by our Tourism Ministry on the basis of a “negative impact on tourism”.

This is based on a nonsensical knee-jerk reaction that wind energy puts tourists off. This is not so and this kind of blanket condemnation suggests lazy, uninformed, sloppy thinking. To most people – and this includes tourists – wind farms represent a sign of progress and modern-ity. We are, anyway, talking here of 10 or 20, possibly large, turbines occupying only one or two discreet areas on land or offshore in our shallower waters – while our MTA seems to have a misguided vision of hundreds of turbines covering the whole of Malta and the surrounding sea.

The option currently in favour with our government is deep sea turbines. Deep sea turbines are still in development and need huge investment, though this is offset somewhat by the higher yield. By contrast, the technology of land-based wind turbines is fully evolved and has been tested by time. Energy from land-based turbines is now cheaper and more competitive than other forms of renewable energy technologies and this is by far the most feasible option. Given correct wind conditions, land-based wind energy can reliably provide clean electricity for less than the price of conventional fossil-fuel generated electricity and yield is steadily increasing owing to the ever greater sophistication and efficiency of modern turbines. At the same time, oil prices are increasing.

Wind energy and solar (photo-

voltaic – PV) energy make a very good mix and this is what Malta should aim for. The government subsidy on photovoltaic panels makes very good sense. There should be more education of the public regarding the need for economy and conversion to renewables along with an improvement in the government subsidy to make the installation of rooftop PV panels more attractive, as suggested by the Greens.

This might increase the uptake of domestic solar energy, which could provide a significant proportion of our energy requirements. The government’s sensible policy on PV energy contrasts starkly with the negative attitude to wind energy. The misguided dismissal of the most favourable option of land-based or near offshore wind energy for Malta as an interim first step could cost us dearly.

The reservation to our Green Party’s recommendations is that their suggestion of the installation of four 750kW land-based turbines is too modest. An application turned down by Mepa some years ago was for 12 2.75 megawatt turbines on Marfa ridge with a projected total annual output of 55 gigawatt per hours – approximately equivalent to five per cent of Malta’s electricity production at the time.

Finally, to say in your editorial that “…we do not have many experts in the field” is disparaging.

On the contrary, we have many people who are sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject of renewables so we can do without “overseas” experts to tell us what to do. It is time that our government snapped out of the mindset of wasting hundreds of thousands of liri on “overseas” consultants when faced with a decision that we can easily make on our own. We do have the know-how.

A particularly blatant recent example was the expensive U-turn on Xaghra l-Hamra for which our government paid Lm140,000 to consultant firms – only to be told what everybody had been telling them for months.

The bottom line is this: Malta is being prevented from taking her first major step into large-scale renewable wind energy because of the traditional prejudicial subjective criterion of “visual impact”. If weighed against the huge advantages of land-based wind power over the other wind options, the exaggerated aspect of “visual impact” should not be an impediment. Wind and PV solar energy make a very good mix; the time for endless discussion is over and both should be energetically pursued.

(Dr) G G Debono

Sliema