Misinformation on wind energy

Alfred Zammit's article "Wind energy - who is still at square one?" (The Sunday Times, July 23) was based on distortion and misrepresentation of 'evidence' aimed at misleading readers.

Professor Edward Mallia (September 3) has already responded to his scathing condemnation of wind energy but Mr Zammit's approach of creative misuse of references to disparage wind energy deserves to be exposed. Here are some (unreferenced) quotes used by Mr Zammit (abbreviated) in bold print below; each is followed by appropriate comments:

1. Britain's prediction for CO2 saving by renewable electricity (mainly wind) in 2010 is 9.2 million tones... this sounds very impressive... but this figure is less than four ten-thousandths (0.0004) of global man-made CO2 emission: Only about 25 per cent of overall global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are due to electricity generation. A reduction of 9.2 million tonnes of GHG with wind energy represents a significant decrease of six per cent of UK GHG emissions. Even if Mr Zammit's arithmetic is right, it is absurd to expect that wind energy produced in just one single country can possibly have a noticeable impact on global GHG emissions. (www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/dukes/dukes2004/annexe.pdf)

2. Wind-turbines have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling bit of electricity! (quoting "Sir Martin Holdgate"): Very few knowledgeable people would be fooled by this facetious remark. It conveniently ignores the environmentally disastrous oil wells, pipelines, refineries, and huge storage tanks needed to feed generators - not to mention giant sea-going oil tankers and the numerous marine oil slicks which kill millions of birds. Once a wind turbine is up and running the energy comes free, and is absolutely clean.

3. Costs of electricity in Denmark is the highest in Europe. Subsidies added to Danish electricity bills: Exploiting renewable energy is not about saving money; it is about decreasing GHG emissions. If Danes are prepared to pay more for clean energy it may be so because they are concerned about the damage caused tour planet through generating energy from fossil fuel. In any event, the price of electricity derived from land-based wind farms is about the same as fossil fuel-derived energy, and will soon be cheaper. Offshore wind energy is more expensive.

4. Madness to squander taxpayers' money... doing nothing to reduce fuel imports, and almost nothing to reduce the pollution merely adds to the cost of our electricity bills (which it is supposed to decrease): Wind farms are usually built by a company which sells the energy to the government. The projected saving of the proposed wind farm at Marfa was five per cent of Malta's fossil fuel requirement and it would have avoided about 16,000 tonnes of GHG emission (MEPA application for establishment of a wind farm at the northern part of Malta, September 27, 2002, SWECO VBB). The price of the energy sold to the government would have been competitive.

5. The Danish government's National Environment Research Institute reported that in 2003, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 7.3 per cent over 2002 levels ..."in spite of all the nation's wind-turbines": Here Mr Zammit tries to discredit wind energy by cunningly choosing a particular year when Denmark happened to have higher GHG emissions than the previous year and adding that it was "in spite of all the nation's wind-turbines!" Using similar trickery, comparing 2003 with 1996 shows the opposite, namely, that GHG emissions in Denmark were 24 per cent lower in 2003 than in 1996 (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Key GHG Data, FAOSTAT).

6. Denmark aborting plans to build three offshore wind farms and phasing out subsidies. Such statements are meaningless if quoted out of context. Currently Denmark plans to increase the wind power to well beyond Kyoto Protocol requirements and wind power alone covers more than 20 per cent of total electricity needs. (www.scandinavica.com/culture/nature/wind.htm).

Spain withdraws subsidies in 2002. Germany (2004) reduced tax breaks to wind power. Switzerland (2005) cuts subsidies. Dutch decommissioned 90 turbines. Irish government stopped all new connections to the national grid... onshore wind bonanza is over: These are random statements quoted in isolation and out of context which Mr Zammit selected to lead readers into thinking that wind energy is in decline. Reality is quite the opposite: 2005 was a record year in Europe with an additional 6,183 MW of wind energy capacity installed (European Wind Energy Association, EWEA). This surpassed EC White Paper targets for 2010, representing an increase of cumulative capacity of 18 per cent between 2004 and 2005. A total of 40,504 MW megawatts is now installed in Europe. Global increase in installed generating capacity went up by 20 per cent. (www.ewea.org/index.php?id=180)

7. A Maltese wind farm would be a laughable non-starter in respect of altering the world climate: This betrays the insular and selfish attitude so prevalent in Malta. We are all responsible, as individuals, to do what we can to diminish the impact of GHGE on our planet's climate and environment. Exploiting renewable energy is only a small part of the solution, but it is a start.

8. The manufacture, transport, and construction (of Wind Turbines ) only increases the use of dirty energy: This is untrue. The average energy payback time of wind turbines is very short at three-five months. (Windstats, Vol. 11, No. 2, Spring 1998, "Dispelling the Myths of Energy Payback Time").

9. The spinning blades of a wind tower kill birds. The Danish Wind Industry Association admits this fact, but adds, as your correspondent does, that so do cars and power cables. Mr Zammit seems to have forgotten his earlier false allegation that the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) was opposed to wind power which got published in The Times of April 27, 2002. The RSBP categorically denied what Mr Zammit had alleged in public and maintained that the scale of bird strike from correctly sited wind turbines is not of concern.

10. Turbine noise is (still) a problem: Modern wind turbines create much less noise than previously. Compared to road traffic, trains, aircraft and construction activities, the noise from modern wind turbines is low. The sound intensity of a wind farm at a distance of 350M is 35 - 35 decibels (db). This is a bit louder than rural night-time background noise (20-40 db) and is quieter than a car travelling at 60 kph (55 db) or a truck at 50 kph (65 db) - both heard from a distance of 100 metres. The noise in a busy general office (60 db) is almost twice as loud as a wind farm. (www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/ref/noise.html).

Siting of wind turbines takes sound levels into consideration. The regulation minimum distance from residences works out at about 400-500 metres and noise are performed and publicised. (www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/whitepapers/Wind_Turbine_Acoustic_Noise_Rev2006.pdf).

Mr Zammit is doing immense damage to the cause of renewable energy in Malta by twisting and manipulating information to deceive readers into believing his false, negative picture of wind power.

The bottom line is this: like most things in life, wind energy is a question of weighing the benefits against the disadvantages. Malta's choices for generation of energy from renewable sources are limited. Land-based wind energy is by far the cheapest renewable energy source since electricity derived from land-based wind farms will soon be cheaper than fossil fuel-derived energy.

Offshore wind farms in shallow waters are feasible, though more expensive. Deep sea turbines are still in development but will be hugely expensive. Until suitable alternatives become available, land-based wind farms are Malta's best choice with shallow water offshore wind farms as a second choice.