World Environment Day has come and gone. The increased attention temporarily devoted to the environment suggests that renewable energy is becoming sexy at last. There has certainly been some good news these last months. Our Government has introduced a number of positive environmental measures as, for instance, capital grants to individuals who install domestic solar water-heating panels or solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on their roof (or even small wind turbines).

Government has also combined this incentive with the offer to purchase surplus electricity fed back into the Enemalta grid. Moves are also afoot to modify the behaviour of the public at large through an information campaign which might result in a drop in fossil fuel consumption. This should be accompanied by incentives to induce people to use energy-efficient appliances in their homes. One step towards this would be to cut or remove VAT on long-life low-energy light bulbs.

A (draft) report by Malta to the European Commission on the Implementation of Directive 2001/177/EC has been drawn up and it can now be viewed on the Internet. It surveys Malta's options with regard to generating energy from non-fossil fuel sources. Parts of the report, such as those dealing with generating energy from solid domestic waste and agricultural waste are encouraging.

Predictably, much of the report is devoted to Malta's options in regard to generating energy from non-fossil fuel sources such as wind and solar energy. The report concludes that the EU target of five per cent of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2010, as originally agreed with the EU commission by Government on accession, cannot be achieved in Malta without the development of a large onshore wind farm. This is quite true.

In the light of this statement it is disappointing to find that this report adopts a persistent bias against land-based wind turbines. This negativism towards land-based wind is based on the traditional objections to wind energy which are exaggerated out of proportion by the authors of the report. These include the high visual impact, limited land availability, unspecified environmental restrictions, impact on bird life and, most inexplicable of all, "public opposition".

This is very damaging, as Malta desperately needs to acquire hands-on experience with wind power of one sort or another if it ultimately wants to develop offshore wind turbines. The emphasis on these constraints in the report with no further comment provides evidence of a continuing reluctance of our Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure to approve at least one land based wind farm.

This persistently negative attitude towards land-based wind turbines is incomprehensible and this report will undoubtedly impede progress so that nothing positive can be expected in the medium or short term. As a result Malta will remain stubbornly at the bottom of the list of the 31 EEA member countries in terms of renewable energy. (EU Report SOER 2005).

What 'public opposition'?

Here are some examples which illustrate the bias against land-based wind farms in Malta's Report 2001/177/EC by Malta to the European Commission:

"Public opposition" is quoted as a constraint to the development of a land-based wind farm. But what public opposition has there been in Malta? Have there been any street demonstrations? Have petitions signed by hundreds of citizens been submitted to the ministry? Has a survey of public opinion been carried out by our Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure to substantiate this objection? If not, there is no basis for citing such a constraint.

It is odd to see how Government is suddenly worried about (non-existent) "public opposition" to a source of clean energy like land-based wind farms, and to observe how the very same government totally disregards the truly palpable and strong public opposition to unpopular projects such as the proposed golf course or the Ta' Cenc development, both of which are disgracefully damaging to our environment. The plain fact is that (unlike the case of proposed golf courses and Ta' Cenc) there has been no outcry against wind energy. It must be emphasised again and again that a wind turbine is a temporary structure which causes little damage to terrain.

The report goes on to raise the question of "high visual impact". While it is perfectly valid to quote visual impact as a constraint, it should not be over-exaggerated. By way of emphasis, the report goes on to add that "wind turbines do not match the Maltese landscape characteristics (which are) generally low-rise (sic!) urban environment".

This is nonsense. First of all, wind turbines are not built in "urban surroundings" but in uninhabited areas. One can go as far as saying that there are, among the public, many who are of the opinion, contrary to what the report says, that the gigantic turbines would blend harmoniously with the rugged terrain and garigue of our uninhabited southern coastal areas. It is probably a safe bet that any wind farm built in Malta will immediately become a favourite picnic site which will rival our airport terminal.

"Constraints due to limited land availability" are inevitable on our small island, but this is less of a limiting factor than the report makes it out to be. It is certainly not an insuperable constraint. No less than two-thirds of Malta to the south and west is sparsely populated and there are a number of (ideal, high, exposed, virtually uninhabited and windswept) sites away from built-up areas where wind farms can be built with relative impunity. For instance there is just such a virtually uninhabited area which stretches from Mgarr on the north-east to Dingli on the south-west which encloses the perpetually windy Victoria Lines.

On what criteria is it asserted that that "it is unlikely that more than one large onshore wind farm would be approved due to expected high visual impact and (unspecified) environmental restrictions"? Why is MEPA expected to become so finicky about visual impact when it allows so much second-rate architecture and a forest of cranes to clutter our islands? Which environmental restriction is MEPA expected to raise when dealing with such a superbly clean source of energy?

The report adds, by way of emphasis, that there is "high competition and pressures on available resources". It is not clear as to the nature of the competition or which resources are referred to. However it is very odd to hear this when our government is currently recommending golf courses which gobble up huge areas of virgin land and destroy it permanently, not to mention the threat to the water tables. To this are added the proposed commercial development on pristine land at Ta' Cenc and the extension of Malta's development boundaries.

One must note, yet again, that wind turbines are temporary structures. After a useful life of 20 to 25 years of generating energy, an entire land-based wind farm can be removed, leaving virtually no trace on the land it occupies. Thus, if offshore wind turbines are eventually installed in the medium to long term, any existing land-based turbines can simply be removed when their 20-year useful lifetime has elapsed if some other clean source of energy becomes available.

What is meant by "With the construction of one wind farm the feasible target is 1-1.13%"? Assuming that this "1.13%" represents the percentage energy contribution of a (unspecified) land-based wind farm towards our total energy requirement, this figure sounds conservative. It is also rather mystifying how a figure accurate to two decimal points can be arrived at when talking about something as unpredictable as the wind.

The ill-fated wind farm on Marfa ridge which was proposed quite some time ago was to consist of 12 turbines each with a potential output of 2.75 megawatts. The calculated mean wind speed at pylon height was 7.5 m per second.

The predicted annual output of one single such wind farm was projected at 55 gigawatt/hours which is approximately equivalent to five per cent of Malta's current total electricity needs. This is also at odds with the comment that "setting a target of 1.93% consumption (again those two pseudo-scientific decimal points!) from wind is considered exceedingly ambitious". Pessimism reigns even at this point of the report. with the comment that "this may also be unrealistic given that there are still various uncertainties regarding the development of a large scale wind farm in Malta".

Impact on bird migration

To raise the question that wind turbines have a negative impact on bird migratory routes is plausible. But to what extent is this blanket statement about "impact on bird migratory routes" based on sound scientific data or (at the very least) realistic extrapolation? Does this sweeping statement have any basis on fact? Has the matter been studied? Does it apply to the whole of Malta or to a particular site?

The problem is of lesser significance with modern turbines as long as they do not lie directly in bird migratory pathways or between nesting and foraging areas. Again, the negative impact becomes insignificant when compared to the number of birds destroyed by collision with cars, high-rise buildings, pylons, electric cables, plate glass windows and pollution. Finally, it is odd that our government is so concerned about the annual loss of a small number of birds for each turbine when our hunters are allowed to indulge in wholesale massacre of migratory birds every year.

For good measure "other negative environmental impacts" are added to the objections to land based turbines. These are "light flicker, shadowing effects, noise and vibration". Light flicker and vibration are pure nonsense.

As to noise, modern wind turbines are required to meet strict noise standards. Thanks to advances in technology and improvements in aerofoil section of the rotor blades, modern gearless turbines are no longer noisy and cause no disturbance to people living just a few hundred metres away. At these distances, any noise they do make is usually drowned out by the natural noise of the wind itself. In any case, owing to their very nature, wind farms are placed in exposed areas which are usually uninhabited, so any noise they might produce does not intrude.

Shallow waters

A large part of the report relates to offshore (sea based) wind farms. If it were not for the huge extra expense, offshore wind farms on appropriate suggested sites would be a realistic option. There is certainly some room for optimism if the various shallow water reefs (Sikka il-Bajda, Benghajsa Patch, Sikka l-Munxar) are considered.

Other sites nearer to the coast (Griebeg, Qawra, Ghallis, Marku, etc.) are also suggested. Again, the possibility of wind turbines in our shallow waters is summarily condemned by our Tourism Authority (MTA) which pronounced "all the sites (less than 20m deep)" as "unsuitable".

On what criteria did MTA base this objection to each and every potential wind farm site on shallower water site closer to our shores? This blanket condemnation suggests that our MTA also suffers from the misguided knee-jerk reaction against wind turbines-based energy on the delusion that wind energy structures deter tourists. This is another popular misconception which has been shown to be incorrect.

For instance, a MORI poll found that over 80 per cent of tourists visiting Argyll, a part of Scotland which actually has wind farms, said it made no difference to their decision to return. A majority of those tourists who had seen the wind farms said they had made a positive impression and that they would be interested in visiting and subsequently finding out more on wind farms and their operation. Some wind farms include viewing platforms at the top. In Denmark there are organised boat trips which take visitors to see the offshore wind farms.

It is perfectly reasonable for our MTA to object to a wind farm in the vicinity of, say, a hotel or a popular beach. But to impose a blanket objection suggests a degree of arrogant incompetence and lack of awareness of how things really are.

As things now stand it is incomprehensible how our government seems to have no hesitation in indulging in projects which further permanently destroy our environment, such as extending the development zone, proposing new golf courses and commercial developments at sites of outstanding beauty such as Ix-Xaghra l-Hamra and Ta' Cenc. At the same time our government has been hesitating for months and years on the question of installing just one single land-based wind farm which would have, at the very least, given us some important hands-on experience with wind energy and an indication of the feasibility and acceptability of wind energy in Malta.

Our Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure is again buying time by over-emphasising largely imaginary constraints to land-based wind farms (we should have built at least one wind farm years ago). It has now come up with the option of deep seawater turbines which are probably unattainable in the first place and so expensive as to be totally beyond our means.

A matter of urgency

In summary, Malta is still totally dependent on fossil fuel for its energy generation and there are compelling reasons why introduction of renewable energy sources must be put higher on the political agenda as a matter of urgency.

Since the option of offshore wind energy is currently too expensive and probably not feasible, land-based wind energy is currently our only option until new technology permits more acceptable solutions. A second best (but probably still prohibitively expensive) option might be turbines in shallow waters nearer to our shores.

An interesting possibility is using sea currents to generate energy. The conclusions of this report are based on flawed arguments since the constraints cited against establishing land-based wind farms have been accepted too readily while the benefits of land-based wind turbines were given no attention. Contrary to what the report states, there has been no public opposition to land based wind farms. The other objections cited in the report were over-emphasised. In particular, though Malta is small, there are nevertheless quite extensive uninhabited sites where one or more wind farms could be established without undue disturbance to life in Malta or our to tourist industry.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.