From Dr G.G. Debono

Just because Daphne has a newspaper column all to herself, this does not mean that she can abuse this privilege by misleading the public with incorrect information (Tension over the grid, TMIS, 6 July). Neither does it give her the right to insult readers who are genuinely concerned about Malta’s energy situation by referring to them as “energy obsessives” who “bleat about solar power and wind energy”. This is arrogant and patronising in the extreme and is made all the more distasteful by Daphne’s obvious bottomless ignorance about what she pretends to discuss.

Oddly enough, in her column Daphne echoes quite precisely Dr Austin Gatt’s repeated fuzzy mantra that “alternative energy” is “too expensive” when she serves up the extraordinarily sweeping statement that “The brutal fact of the matter is that it costs more to produce energy by alternative (sic) means than it does to produce energy by conservative (sic) means.” This, Daphne, is mere wishy-washy rubbish, unless you define what particular form of energy generation you are referring to. Does this dramatic “brutal fact” apply to wind energy, solar photovoltaic energy, solar water heating, biofuels or biomass? Indeed, are you entitled at all to discuss these matters if you are incapable of distinguishing between “conservative” and “conventional” or “renewable” and “alternative” (big difference there)?

Were you correct in trying to substantiate what you were trying to say in such a lame, scientifically dyslexic fashion, namely by referring to a biased opinion expressed in the Sunday Telegraph (no less!) by a certain “professional builder” called Jeff Howel? Did it occur to you that this gentleman hails from a country where sunshine is a rarity, even in the summer, and where the con trick still reigns supreme? Yes Daphne, if you had read a bit more widely you would have been aware that people in the UK have been conned into buying solar panels and other gadgetry that is useless in the meteorological conditions of many parts of Britain.

Sad to say, Daphne, Jeff Howel’s rant does not apply to sun-soaked Malta. You see, in this country solar panels can produce plenty of hot water or electricity, even in winter. We also have a fair annual dose of wind on many exposed, uninhabited southwestern coastal areas, where we should have had the foresight to build one or two land-based wind farms to help see us through the crisis until we really get our act together.

In contrast with Daphne’s portentous “brutal facts”, the true facts are quite simple:

Wind energy

For many years, clean electricity generated by land-based wind turbines has been cheaper than fossil fuel-derived electricity and, given good wind conditions, electricity generated by offshore wind farms built in shallow (less than 25m) seas is not necessarily more expensive than that generated by fossil fuel.

Photovoltaic energy

Yes, PV is expensive, but it is also sustainable and the investment can pay for itself in a number of years. The combination of abundant sunshine, plenty of available space on our flat roofs and the adaptability of PV for decentralised grid-connected applications on roofs and façades make PV an attractive option. If the government creates better incentives, widespread take-up of PV could provide a significant amount of clean electricity and go some way to reducing Malta’s dependence on fossil fuel for electricity generation.

Solar water heaters

First of all, Daphne, solar water heating is not a means of energy generation but of conservation (a word that you seem not to have grasped). In spite of what your aforementioned misguided friend Jeff Howel has to say, the energy-saving potential from wider uptake of solar water heating (if correctly fitted and well-maintained) is huge in Malta. It can save more energy than can be produced by the same area of photovoltaic panels. It is obvious, even to the bird-brained, that solar panels are more productive of hot water in the summer. But, unlike England (where your friend Jeff lives, remember?), the sun shines strongly enough in Malta over most of the winter to provide enough hot water to cover domestic use. Only 11 days per year (three per cent) are so severely overcast that water will not be warmed at all, and electricity will needed to provide warm water. A well-installed solar water heater (and that includes a direct connection to dishwasher and washing machines) can save energy, even on cold cloudy days when the water is only slightly pre-warmed so that less electricity will be needed to bring it up to the required temperature.

From the above it is clear that Daphne’s exalted and sweeping assertion: “The huge cost of exploiting them (renewable energy?) is not factored into the equation.” is worse than a gross exaggeration, it is pure nonsense unless qualified. If, Daphne – as seems to be the case – you are talking about large-scale wind energy, you are doubly wrong because wind farms are usually installed by private companies and the electricity fed to the grid at an agreed price.

If Daphne must know, we missed a golden opportunity in 2002 when a large-scale wind farm on Marfa ridge was proposed by a private company. This proposal seemed ideal. It was made at a time when wind turbine prices were at their lowest and delivery times at their shortest. The choice of Marfa Ridge was determined by its proximity to the electric grid, the exposed nature of Marfa to the prevailing wind and the absence of dwellings in the vicinity. The estimated annual output of this was 55GW/h or about five per cent of Malta’s requirements of the time. If this wind farm had received the go-ahead at that time, we would now be laughing. Apart from delivering cheap clean electricity (and probably serving as a popular picnic site), it might have helped us realise that we can, after all, live with turbines visible from a distance here and there and build another farm. We might also have gained some hands-on experience with wind energy so that we would be well prepared for the next phase of offshore wind energy.

Predictably, the application for this wind farm was turned down by Mepa for reasons that were not made public, but it seems that Mepa went all fussy and finicky over the “aesthetics” and “visual intrusion” of wind turbines. This does seem to have prevented the Authority from continuing to kindly grant fistfuls of permits to lucky developers for equally visually intrusive mega-buck monstrosities which, besides permanently disfiguring our country, will be a drain on our energy supply because (to maximise profit) these developments have no in-built energy-efficient features. Please note: unlike the damaging developments being approved by Mepa, wind farms are not permanent installations. The disturbance of terrain for the pylon foundations is minimal. When better green technology becomes available, turbines can simply be removed after their useful life of 20 – 25 years, leaving barely a trace, with no harm done.

Readers are warned to henceforth regard all Daphne’s pronouncements on the subject of renewable and alternative energy with the greatest of suspicion.

Dr G.G. Debono