Wind energy and bird protection

Correspondence on wind energy in The Times has so far been peppered with falsehoods and misinformation. Here, for those who would like to know, are a few points indicating what the true picture is really like.

There is increasing evidence, such as the 2002 VisitScotland attitudes survey, that tourists will avoid "turbinised" landscapes. No country advertises wind turbines as a tourist attraction. And no country builds wind farms for tourists. Wind farms are not just an eyesore or visual pollution; they would be an anathema on the Maltese landscape.

The bulldozers will start destroying the last bits of unspoiled land, quarries will be opened on ridges and thousands of tons of concrete poured into the crests, moulded into as many 400-ton anchors as there are turbines. Yes, every 100-metre-high wind turbine requires a 400-ton concrete base.

Besides, it is a fact that each turbine, depending on the model, holds up to 400 litres of oil in the nascelle to lubricate its moving parts. This oil is known to drip from the tip of the blades when idle, or to be thrown a good distance when they move. I have seen the wind farms on the ridges near Tarifa, in Spain (apart from other countries). They are an abomination, utterly spoiling what was previously a picturesque area of pristine beauty. And that is Spain, where space is generous and the distances huge. Imagine those monstrous machines on Marfa Ridge or Dingli Cliffs; just say goodbye to the last remaining beautiful parts of tiny Malta. And for what?

"The proposed wind farm would avoid the emission into our atmosphere of 16,500 tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, 55 tons of sulphur dioxide and 10 tons of nitrogen dioxide per year". This is absolute nonsense and pure wishful thinking! Malta must have generators capable of delivering enough electricity to cater for consumption at all times and especially at peak times, plus enough reserves to cope in the event of a breakdown or some other emergency. A wind farm cannot be relied on because, first, there are many days in the year when there is no wind at all, and, second, the speed of the wind is not constant. Consequently, Malta would still need to use the conventional power plants at Marsa and Delimara irrespective of how many wind turbines we may have and irrespective of their power.

If we want to make certain of having an assured and constant supply of electricity, we would need to act as if there were no wind turbines existing at all. An investment in wind turbines would, therefore, have to be over and above normal fossil fuel generation and not instead of it. In effect, this would mean costs over and above those existing already. These costs, one way or another, will be passed on, in the end, to consumers (as usual). The Maltese taxpayers will also have to pay for the high price of the wind energy itself.

Perhaps we would be prepared to pay more in return for cleaner air and less pollution. But... wait for it! Our power stations would still need to be used at all times to back up the intermittent and highly variable output of the turbines of the proposed wind farm. To do that, the existent fossil fuel generators at our power stations must run at less than full capacity, or in what is called "spinning reserve mode", ready to be revved up every time the wind dies down or slackens.

The efficiency factor of the power station would, therefore, be operating on partial load so as to be able to increase production when the wind drops a little or ceases completely. This means that more greenhouse gases will be emitted because in that mode of operation the power stations - like cars in heavy traffic - will burn fuel less efficiently.

In other words, a wind farm is no good because, to back it up, the power stations would be forced to increase their gas emissions by running at a reduced load. Denmark proves the point. In spite of producing 15 per cent of its electrical energy from wind, that country has failed to reduce its noxious emissions. As a consequence its energy policy has been the subject of a re-think.

The US is another country that is giving up on wind energy. According to the strategic plan released by the US Department of Energy in August, 2003, the main features are energy efficiency and the application of the clean hydrogen economy based on the new "clean-coal" technology by means of which hydrogen will be produced without carbon dioxide emissions. The role of wind power will remain insignificant at less than one per cent of the projected electricity production in the year 2025. Obviously, the US Department of Energy knows all there is to know about the inefficiency of wind power. But over here (as usual) some people think they know better!

Another reason why wind turbines should never be allowed on Maltese/Gozitan territory - both on land and at sea - concerns the birds. When you look at the rotating arms of a wind turbine, even in a very strong wind, the impression you get is that they are slow. Do not be fooled; the tips of the blades thrash the air at actual speeds of up to 290 kmh. But the birds, fooled by their apparent slowness, fly towards them, even try to settle on them (especially the ones at sea which are lit up at night) and do not realise the danger until it is too late and they are hit/sliced up by the blades.

From reports prepared by scientists in Belgium, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom of bird deaths caused in this manner, it has been reliably concluded that if the wind power industry were to achieve its present target of one million wind turbines worldwide, they would kill 20 million birds per annum, most of them belonging to protected, even endangered, species.

It is, therefore, difficult to understand why the RSPB (the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the UK) is so strongly in favour of wind energy. On the other hand it is perhaps not so difficult. The RSPB receives between £10 and £30 for every customer who switches to Scottish and Southern Energy for their electricity (and gas). It is called RSPB energy. So there you are; you have an industry that kills birds by the million and you have a bird-protection society that supports and promotes it.

The RSPB has at times donated money to the local bird-protection society, now BirdLife Malta, and both societies encourage their members to speak out against what they call "the indiscriminate shooting of birds" on the Maltese islands.

Their members, some of whom visit Malta as tourists, write vociferously in the papers, to the Ministry of Tourism, as well as the European Commission, condemning the "slaughter", declaring they will never be back until it is stopped, and urging others to boycott Malta. So the questions arise: How come two weights and two measures? Will the RSPB continue to look with favour on the bird-killing wind industry? Who really leads in the "killing fields"? When will a minority of "tourists" stop magnifying the mote in the eye of their host country before first trying to remove the beam in that of theirs? And when will some Maltese learn to put things in their true perspective before blindly rushing to throw mud at their fellow citizens (read hunters), however perverse some may be (read poachers)?

I have said nothing about the kilometres of high tension cables that will be necessary to connect the wind farm to the power stations. I have said nothing about the noise produced by the high speed blades. I have said nothing about the loss in value of property in the proximity of wind turbines. And I have said nothing about a few other things... all in good time, if necessary!

To conclude, there is a need to end all speculation and unwarranted pressure from individuals or companies whose interest in wind energy is purely to make money at the expense of the Maltese taxpayer. I would, therefore, urge the competent Maltese authorities responsible for energy planning and production to verify the data, facts and figures mentioned above and to give one resounding no to wind energy in the interests of the Maltese people. In the interests of the birds, too, that need to be protected not only from poachers, but also, it seems, from their protectors!