Whither wind farms?

Wind energy has featured from time to time in the media lately. Malta's "Proposal to the EU for an Energy Policy for Malta" dated June 2006 has also appeared recently and is now open for public consultation.

On August 4 The Times reported that the government issued a call for expressions of interest in "exploring available technology for wind energy on the market with a view to evaluating which options might be viable in Malta". The odd thing about this statement is that wind energy technology is already highly developed and is very much available.

The cheapest available option for exploitation of wind power is land-based wind farms. The price of electricity generated by land-based wind farms is now highly competitive and will soon be cheaper than fossil fuel generated energy as the price of oil increases and that of wind energy technology decreases.

However, land-based wind energy installations, which might have been the most feasible and least expensive solution for generating some of Malta's electricity requirements from renewable energy, is now excluded from Malta's renewable energy plans by the Malta Resources Authority (MRA) on the grounds that "...wind farm development on land is considered to be unsustainable, due to the country's size and population density, together with the wind turbines' negative visual impact". This is not true.

Limited land availability and "high visual impact" may pose some problems which are peculiar to Malta but they are not insuperable constraints. About two thirds of Malta to the south and west is sparsely populated and there are a number of relatively large exposed windswept areas which are virtually uninhabited and sufficiently well away from built up areas to allow the operation of wind farms with relative impunity.

This decision is all the more bizarre when one considers that the government has just opened up large areas of land for permanent destruction under the name of "rationalisation". This brings with it the prospect of more noise, inconvenience, dust and concrete, not to mention a forest of visually intrusive giant cranes which will continue to clutter our residential areas for many more years to come - and probably also deter tourists from coming to Malta. This, however, does not give rise to any concern for our government as long as the construction industry thrives.

Then there is the government's apparent readiness to give the go-ahead to commercial developments on pristine land such as Ta' Cenc and Hondoq ir-Rummien or, worse still, golf courses which gobble up huge areas of virgin land and destroy it permanently - not to mention the threat to our water tables. At the same time, paradoxically, this very same government is reluctant to allow temporary use of a square mile or so of uninhabited land (which will not be degraded) for wind farms on aesthetic grounds. This simply does not make sense; wind turbines are structures which do not damage the terrain because they can be completely removed, leaving virtually no trace when other technology become available - or cheaper.

If land-based wind energy is excluded, Malta's second-best choice is offshore turbines in shallower water, nearer to our shores. This is a feasible and attractive alternative, but more expensive.

Though the electricity generated from offshore wind turbines would inevitably be more expensive, it would suit Malta admirably. The technology is widely available and some of the problems associated with erecting land-based wind farms would be avoided.

This option has been summarily turned down by the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA) on the grounds of "a negative impact on tourism". This knee-jerk condemnation by MTA of the use of one or two suitable offshore shallow-water areas for wind farms nearer to our shores suggests that the MTA's decision is based on a grossly mistaken vision of thousands upon thousands of turbines entirely surrounding our islands. It sounds suspiciously like uninformed, sloppy thinking based on popular misconceptions. Does the MTA realise, in the first place, that we are talking here of 10 or 20 offshore turbines occupying a discrete area on one of the 12 or so patches of shallower waters of around 20 metres depth at some convenient point off a small part of our coast? Did those responsible for the decision against shallow-water offshore installations inform themselves realistically as to the impact, if any, of wind energy installations on tourism? Wind farms represent a sign of progress and modernity to most people, including tourists. That a sensitively placed offshore wind farm or two will deter tourists is a myth. The MTA can rest assured that tourists will not catch the next plane back home on seeing one or two wind farms.

The government's new proposal is an exceedingly ambitious and expensive option, namely, the installation of deep-sea offshore wind turbines a long distance away from our coast. This is, to use Star Trek language, boldly to go where no man has been before. The technology for deep-water offshore turbines does not exist yet, so Malta will anyway have to wait years until deep-sea offshore technology is developed. In the meantime Malta will continue to be completely dependent on fossil fuel for generating her electricity - apart from a small quantity of electricity generated from alternative (but not renewable) energy sources such as biomass.

Somewhere there has been no joined thinking. The huge cost of deep sea turbines will definitely be reflected in an exorbitantly high price of the energy generated by them. The government seems confident that a competitive tariff for electricity generated by deep-sea offshore wind farms can be negotiated with a developer. This is impossible. The price of deep-water turbines is several-fold higher than the more immediately feasible - and cheap - alternatives of land-based or shallow water offshore wind turbines.

The question raised is this: What sense is there in going directly for more expensive technology when cheaper alternatives are currently available and feasible? There is no indication in the MRA report of any basis (such as impact assessments, realistic price calculations or opinion surveys) to justify Malta's choice of the most expensive and least feasible option. Have sums really been done? How can it be possible that a company will agree to sell the energy generated from highly expensive deep water turbines to MRA at anything near to current fossil fuel costs?

From a pragmatic standpoint, opting for expensive futuristic technology without first gaining some hands-on experience with just one land-based or near offshore turbine farm is putting the cart before the horse. In any event, can we afford to be so unnecessarily finicky as to bypass more affordable solutions and probably wait for another decade or so until a far more expensive alternative becomes available?

In summary, Malta has opted for a highly speculative and expensive project few countries can afford and which risks being a non-starter. This extravagance makes about as much sense as buying a Ferrari sports car to go shopping at the local supermarket. The most practical and least expensive choice of a land based wind farm was ignored because of finicky over-emphasis on reasons such as "negative visual impact". This is truly unbelievable - coming from a government which has consistently allowed over-development to reduce Malta (and, soon, Gozo too) to a dump. The next best alternative of near offshore wind turbines was also unjustifiably vetoed by the MTA.

If one were to be cynical, Malta's decision to opt for futuristic and expensive technology can only be regarded as a public relations exercise aimed at buying time and keeping people (and politicians' consciences) happy by giving the impression that something is being done. As Ralph Cassar observed (Weak Energy Policies, August 12), the government's reluctance and lack of enthusiasm for exploiting renewable energy is palpable.