Noel Grima is quite right to complain that despite the troubled waters we are currently sailing in, we seem to lurch from one diversion to another (TMIS, 27 November). And right again in suggesting that “spin” rapidly takes over sensible discussion on any issue. However, in the case of what he calls ‘this Norwegian wonder’, his quick attribution of spin and claim of recognition of fingerprints makes for a superficial approach, itself a generator and consumer of spin.
Whatever the Norwegians had in mind, they did not make “a sudden appearance”, as claimed in the editorial of the same date; they had actually spoken to Dr Gonzi 18 months ago. And yesterday there was even citation of a feature in The Sunday Times of 2007 – i.e. B (BWS) C! One event that did happen very suddenly was the re-definition of the Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST) writ by the Office of the Prime Minister, so that MCST suddenly and at very short notice dropped the idea of hosting the meeting. At this meeting, nothing was said about the imminent Mepa discussion of the power station extension IPPC permit. The shenanigans at the IPPC hearing will be coming from Mepa, as its proposal of a trial IPPC permit is a piece of almost pure spin, quite removed from correct technical and financial considerations. Noel Grima seems to have been desensitised to that sort of spin; nor does he recognise the “hoof prints” on the KPMG “study” commissioned by Mepa.
The use of phrases like ‘this Norwegian wonder’ and ‘the best invention since jelly tots’ are not only patronising but also symptoms of an infection of spin. Rhetorical questions like “why is the system not used all over the world?” are generally used to hide a lack of information and justify it by the implication that one has no time to waste on such nonsense. Much the same goes for the comment about the BWSC plant being “a world first”, though in this case the point behind the use of that accolade is not clear, to me at least.
The core of the Norwegian case, for which neither “wonder” nor “perfection” has been claimed, lies principally in the combustion technology and in the effectiveness of method of capture of the CO2 which results from that combustion. I have not heard anybody with a minimum acquaintance with such matters say that there is any spin in their proposal. An as yet approximate estimate of overall cost of generation concludes that units reaching the grid could have a price of €c7-8.
The hullabaloo about exporting energy arose from the Norwegian counter to people, myself among them, pointing out that they have arrived a little too late on the local energy scene, with DPSE about to start up and the Sicily cable (IC) contract signed. They had a two pronged answer: the first prong said that the extra energy could be exported to Sicily using the IC; and the second said that the Sargas PS could capture the DPSE CO2 and save us having to pay carbon taxes that the EU will impose in 2013. This second proposal may have triggered off that frantic round of calls from the OPM to locate a local Carbon Capture expert. It is not known if anyone suggested looking in Yellow Pages.
Outside that serious engineering core, the choruses variously predicting a Paradise Now! of low cost electricity; a fiendish plot masterminded by Commissioner John Dalli designed to help “that scum”, i.e. Dr Gonzi’s political adversaries; tales of Norwegians carrying olive branches generating electricity while walking on water; orders to re-interpret the writ of MCST; are just spin, left or right handed spin.
The final boomerang was launched by Dr Gonzi and apparently supported by Noel Grima. The former claimed that the population would not have gone in for extensive purchases of PV panels if electricity prices had remained low. The latter said that if electricity prices were to go down, “we would return to our wasteful habits of the past”. But has anyone checked on the degree of overlap between the social groups purchasing PV and the groups finding it difficult to cover energy bills? And has anyone checked that those installing PV have actually changed their “wasteful habits” and not just their source of electricity?
The two questions highlight a local problem. Schemes we can devise, but good checks on their effectiveness we cannot, it seems. This was well illustrated recently during a lecture delivered to a group of students from the University of Geneva. The lecturer was enthusiastically describing the extensive take-up of the energy-efficient household appliances scheme. Up piped a student to ask what effect it had had on household energy bills. Answer: we do not know. No monitoring was actually carried out.
E.A. Mallia
ATTARD