Alternative energy more expensive - Gatt

@ Albert Bezzina

"ENERGY SECURITY" is what we, as a small people very much on our own, would want to achieve. Fossil fuel never provided us with security, both financially and health-wise. I am not across the entire set of questions that minister Gatt was required to address in parliament. I am only going by what is reported here. From what I can see, Gatt is not saying how deep and wide was the research by the Malta Resources Authority. He simply announced the project "before the general election". There does not seem to be a comprehensive professional report coming out up for discussion by qualified people on the island. To me it seems that things are ad hoc. In my view, long-term security can be achieved only from re-newables. Renewables are no longer the catch-cry of the "Greens". They are becoming increasingly an economic reality. A combination of solar and wind energy should be highly feasible. For example, in reference to what I was arguing earlier, the Ricasoli plot would have been a candidate spot for a solar power station. I do not think Gatt is getting it right. To me it sounds like a long-term disaster.

Wind energy is more expensive than the current fossil energy if Malta persists in excluding near shore wind farms. Dr Gatt's 'as far as he knows', deep sea wind farm had only been built off Scotland and Sicily are actually prototype single units - 'as far as I know!' Could an actual aerial photograph of these 'wind farms' be shown to the public.
The longer we take to get committed the greater will be the waiting time for delivery and installation and the higher will be the price as the composite blades use tons of petroleum based raw material.
There may be another reason for procrastinating. Clean energy may not be as convenient to tax as fossil fuels (therefore less easy revenue) and large sums of cash will leave our shores to get the hardware. Vide; road building with other people's money - €150 a meter if the Maltese Government is paying, €1500 if the Italians are paying and €2500 if Brussels pays!
Dr Gatt and numerous bloggers have missed the whole issue. It is all about ENERGY SECURITY and not saving a penny. Dr Gatt may recall what happened to Malta's infrastructure with 'il-qamel' of the 70's

If Maltese households were to have, for example, as many solar panels as TV antennas on roof-tops, that in itself would already be a big step forward. Solar panels have been coming down in price and still improving. They are very easy to install, and virtually require no maintenance. Their effective use, however, will require a government initiative to allow a form of "plug-in" into the grid. Such a government initiative would be at the micro-level of Malta's economy. At the macro level, there is no reason as to why the Maltese government should not investigate the potential for a solar power generator similar to the ones Portugal and Spain have been working on. These generators are mostly static, cause zero pollution, do not generate any noise, and can also be designed to be aesthetically pleasing. With these properties, such a generator can be built just about anywhere. I never concealed my opposition to that monstrosity called SmartCity. There is nothing "smart" or "knowledge based" about this concrete-palm-tree obscenity. Gatt is telling lies about this "city". Gatt is incompetent, visionless, and will keep screwing the small island nation with his short-sighted stupidity.

Solar power is viable when one thinks of the open spaces we possess and these open spaces are our flat roofs! maltese houses are perfect for solar panels and I don't mean just for water heating. imagine if every household were to install a solar power source on its roof. the government could play its part by subsidising these units. and in the short term they will pay for themselves. no more fossil fuels= no more fumes=less respiratory illnesses=less medical expenses.

@Andrew Brincat - this vindicates Austin Gatt's statement:

"Is it true that this power is three times more expensive than power from conventional sources? Yes, but prices will fall, as they have with wind power, as the technologies develop."

This is taken from the report on Spain's Solar power tower:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm

I am for alternative energy but we need to understand that it shall cost us more not less (at least in direct, out-of-our pocket costs!

Though it is true that increasing the use of alternatives energy might reduce health and social problems and that these would then reflect in a reduction in Govt expenditure BUT in reality the cost of the energy production has to be paid and in this prior to its production i.e. as a huge capital cost. Considering the lifetime of these plants (both wind and electrical) this is quite heavy - land based WF the cost is comparable to fossil fuel (but here we can only produce at the most 5-7% of our needs), offshore cost at least 30% more whilst solar is around 50% more (max 11-15% of our needs). The reason to invest in alternatives is environmental rather than economical - but we still have to pay the price. I cannot understand why we have already written off Nuclear - if Italy and Libya go on with their plans, we are still at risk (and this risk is unquantifiable - as it depends on others) - whilst the modern, pebble based systems are very safe and economical.

To Mario Borg - The minister said that the surcharge should be 115% but govt is absorbing around 20% of this!!

Austin Gatt is perfectly right and it gives some peace of mind that he is not an environmental shaman. alternative energy is no alternative at all. Perhaps we should consider what the russians are doing: putting reactors on offshore barges to light up their remote areas. with the ever increase of price of oil, two small reactors might make sense - but do we have the political will or will we sacrifice our standard of living to green radicalism?

While acknowledging that the initial outlay to set up an alternative energy producing system can exceed that of a conventional system, the long term benefits with regard to health and the environment must surely outweigh any potential disadvantages.

In Spain,Seville, with a population in excess of 300.000 A heliostate system is in the final stages of completion, which will produce in excess of 325 megawatt.

Surely with Malta being blessed with more than our share of sunshine,plus unused open spaces such as Hal-far, such A system is worth being considered and cheaper than A deep water windfarm and easily maintained

There's another point - fossil fuels including oil will just keep getting more and more expensive. As countries like China and India become more heavily industrialised and buy up massive quantities of oil we can expect the price to keep rising.

On the other hand we have our own supply of wind and sun. We depend on no other country for them.

I think it's high time that government stop playing games with peoples' lives. Only yesterday i went to the Trade Fair and there was the Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi talking about the benefits of renewables to kids. Hardly 24 hours later, Austin Gatt is rubbishing all that the PM was saying. Do they talk to each other?

More expensive to whom? Government? the Consumer? What has been factored in this calculation? What price of oil has been taken into account? what rates of interest? what depreciation? Has the price of purchasing carbon credits been factored in when calculating the cost of fossil fuel generatipn? what alternative sources of energy have been considered?

It is a known fact that onland wind energy costs almost a half of what fossil fuel generation is costing us today.....but government has decided to put a stop to all viable and proven alternatives by coming up with the 'pie in the sky' offshore wind project - that will never materialise.

And by the way, the energy regulator is the Malta Resources Authority, falling under Minister George Pullicino - not Austin Gatt. What does George Pullicino have to say about Austin Gatt's 'shot off the hip' statement?

A big effort can be done by the governement for alternative energy, following the example of malta's neighbour Tunisia can help reducing considerably the electricity conception. Tunisan governement made it possible for each house to acquire a solar water heater by paying only 0.25 LM per month with the electricity bill and no charges when buying or installing the solar heater !!
Tunisia has signed for a nuclear energy plant built by french and the interconnection with scicilly is on the project phase. So what is malta's governement waiting for ? knowing that the survival of our economy is relying on the price we will pay for energy...

Everyone seems to be such an expert on energy supply and viable alternatives to fossil fuels!. So, if everyone thinks that everybody else's ideas are too flawed to function.... WHAT, pray, is THE solution? Preferably one that won't bankrupt your average wage-earner, as this last brainwave looks likely to do.

Implementing an re-newable energy is never expensive. In my opinion the gov. should opt for solar energy and not wind energy since we get more sun than wind. Another option would be not to spend all the allocated money on wind farms only but also add solar panels to the system.

As a regular viewer of the "Discovery Channel" and "National Geographic" i would like to share the link below as another alternative to the conventional re-newable energy, which i would like Times of malta to forward the link to the Minister to consider it as an alternative to the conventional renewable energy

http://www.energyplanet.info/blog/2007/05/06/solar-power-tower/

if link doesn't work please google it as "solar tower"

with political statements as these...I am not sure whether to laugh or to cry!!! It just accentuates how environmental illiteracy is deep-rooted in our policy makers and explains our poor track record in environmental issues.
Such politicians would do our country more service if they keep their big mouth shut and try to use their grey matter to plan sound environmental policies. Is that too much to ask?

Implementing an re-newable energy is never expensive. In my opinion the gov. should opt for solar energy and not wind energy since we get more sun than wind. Another option would be not to spend all the allocated money on wind farms only but also add solar panels to the system.

As a regular viewer of the "Discovery Channel" and "National Geographic" i would like to share the link below as another alternative to the conventional re-newable energy, which i would like Times of malta to forward the link to the Minister to consider it as an alternative to the conventional renewable energy

http://www.energyplanet.info/blog/2007/05/06/solar-power-tower/

if link doesn't work please google it as "solar tower"

Actually market forces will solve our problems, although maybe not exactly in the way we want - the fact that alternative energy sources are being considered at all is because of the high price of oil. If it goes up even more (and it will), alternative energy sources will make economic sense. Moreover, as technology improves and demand for alternative energy increases, their prices will decrease too.
Frankly I don't think that in Malta we have the land area for either wind or solar power (windmills-in-the-sea technology is still decades away), however there are currently huge technological advances in wave-powered generators. Hopefully this technology will prove reliable and cheap enough to invest in in the near future.

@ victor pulis

Your question is sharp and valid. As Mr Schembri points out, "price" is measured ceteris paribus. From the way this incompetent minister is struggling to answer what is essentially a Uni year one economics question, one can see that he does not understand the large opportunity cost inherent in nuclear energy. The cost of disposing of nuclear waste materials is increasingly exceeding the cost of every other aspect of energy production. Also, the cost of maintaining a submarine cable, and protecting it against sabotage, could prove to become uneconomical overtime. The worst part of it is that it makes Malta even more, and in this case, very critically, dependent on foreign supply. Wind exploitation, on the other hand, will require a large capital outlay initially, but on a 10-20 year horizon, the economic benefit from these machines would greatly outweigh the cost of fossil fuels. Because there would be several of these machines, and they would be highly visible and accessible, the risk associated with these machines is much smaller. Reading this little article, down goes another of Gonzi's ministers. How these asses find their way into Malta's parliament is beyond belief.

I agree with Paul smith that becoming dependent on Italy for electricity is dangerous.

Politicians being what they are, they will always go for short term solutions. In future, it will always be easier for them cater for increases in demand by buying more electricity from Italy, rather than going through the hassle of expanding the Delimara power station or building a new one. The situation will become worse when the Marsa power station is closed in a few years' time.

Alternative energy is more expensive?!

So why are other countries in EU all investing heavily in it. UK alone has set up a budet of over 100Billion pounds for wind farms!! Are this countries mad, and Austin correct?!

Also on one side he says they are expensive on the other he says we are investing in wind farms!! Is it not a contradiciton?!

Alternative energy will create local employment through maintenance of equipment etc, and is health - no fumes. WHilst fossil fuels sends money abroad, and creates fumes and desease.

Perhps this could be a new venture for some shipyard employees - to biuild and maintain wind farms; Solving two problems at the same time.

Where Austin Gatt really misses the point is, Italy has it's own very big energy problems and relies on Russian Gas + coal for generating electricity, further upstream France produces energy via nuclear and sells energy abroad already mostly to the UK. All the upstream energy supplies are not indigenous and all those countries rely on imported fossil fuels or imported finite uranium.

Latching yourselves to Italy for electricity is a dangerous game, a surge in demand in Italy could cripple Malta's supply. Again, Malta will be making itself an energy hostage to other nations. Alternative energy is expensive, any type of energy investment is expensive in the beginning just like north sea oil exploration was. The ministers view is so typical of so many politicians, that the market will fix all our problems, unfortunately this time it wont!

good question by victor pulis...but one has to remember that the minister was quoted as saying that surcharge will be increased to 115% and couple of days later announced it at 95%! He either tried to mislead the public or was ill-informed....or even worse he's playing games!

What 'price' is Dr. Gatt speaking about? If this is money versus the future of the world than there is no contest.

It all depends on what Austin has factored in.

Some useful comparisons could be made on the basis of the following : Capital expenditure, Health bills for respiratory diseases causes by power station emissions, security of supply, running costs.

What about social and economic costs to our industry as a result of a dependence on fossil fuels ?

The whole point is that costs are not just economic. But it seems that Austin Gatt only considers economic costs as worthy of consideration.

Waiting on our door step, and maybe changing the world is electricity produceing solar paint. Replaceing the expensive silicon solar panels once and for all.
If then oil prizes go to $200 a barrel, the minister should give us permission to paint our houses with solar paint.

A question. If alternative energy was more expensive than fossil fuels why is a windfarm being considered?

Is this a warning from Minister Gatt that even alternative energy will cost as much or perhaps more than it does today? Do these windfarms have to be installed in the sea?

Buying electricity from Sicily should have been a done project 20 or more years ago.

The energy issue has been neglected for years. If you look at an aerial photo of Tel Aviv, you'll see hundreds of solar panels on the roofs. The government could have promoted solar panels and could have helped by cutting the taxes so people will be encouraged to install them on top of their houses.