Monday, 5th January 2009
Wind farm application to be submitted soon
An application for a permit to build an offshore wind farm on Sikka l-Bajda will be filed with the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in the coming days, The Times has learnt.
The Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs confirmed that, after the application is submitted, the necessary environmental impact assessments will be carried out and wind-speed measurements will be taken.
Sikka l-Bajda is a reef located about two kilometres off Aħrax Point, in Mellieħa, where there are shallow waters on a stretch of about seven square kilometres of sea.
Experts have suggested that about 15 large wind turbines (about 100 metres diameter) could be located at this site. This could produce about 10 per cent of Malta's energy needs.
An environmentalist said that for a company to invest in a wind farm it would first need to know the measurements of wind speed for a period of between six months and a year before establishing whether the project would be financially feasible.
According to the ministry, information about wind resource at a given location can be estimated from a number of sources, including "regional climate data and local meteorological data, as well as computer modelling".
"This information is sufficient to yield indicative estimates for the likely energy yield from the proposed development. However, these will eventually need to be followed by a site-specific wind measurement campaign to be able to quantify the local wind resource with a higher level of certainty."
In the coming weeks, the ministry plans to launch a project intended to collect high quality wind data in the area of Sikka l-Bajda.
According to the government, the wind energy farm at Sikka l-Bajda would provide around four per cent of Malta's energy requirements. The project has been controversial because of the chosen location and the fact that offshore wind farms are more expensive and risky than land-based farms.
RSS
Comments
As a I said earlier on, the "coolings" you keep referring to may well be only temporary and ephemeral.
Temperature fluctuates because CO2 is not the only determinant. As a result, temperature kept rising only "in the long run" concurrent with the steady rise in CO2, over the past 50 years.
It would be irresponsible for any government to ignore the concurrence of these two important scientifically proven events.
The polar temperatures being experienced these last weeks all over the northern hemisphere (it snowed on the French mediterranean coast region today and Milan city was unrecognisable from Helsinki in winter while Canada and the US are cruelly freezing too), and the lack of a summer in the southern hemisphere are not proving a continuing global warming trend.
The Alps have a record snow thickness, lakes are icing up in some areas England, ...........
"...when CO2 gas was on the up during the post-war industrial boom." (Presumably you mean post-WWII.)
This is the real issue here. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was "on the up" (never decreases) since 1960. According to the Mauna Loa Observatory, this concentration has risen from 315 to 385 ppm between 1960 and 2008.
This rise has been steady (linear) with only minor seasonal fluctuations. The rise is attributed to large increases in fossil fuels consumption and deforestation.
I do not know of any entity that ever disputes any of this.
We all know how gullible some people can be. We also know that there will always be those who will take advantage of an issue to make money for themselves. I do not think one needs convincing on these unfortunate attributes commonly found in human nature.
I will continue to trust only that group of scientists who can demonstrate consistent and reliable results over a very long period of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
This chemical happens to be just water
There are thousands of other scientists worldwide agreeing with him. They are now coming out of the closet where they were hiding afraid of being inquisitioned by the politicians who hijacked the AGW theory making millions of dollars out of the ?scam?
I went through some of the exchanges in The Times comments board Jan2 "Hail on December27 was last month's weather highlight-MetOffice".
What I noticed there was that much of the controversy revolves on global temperature measured in some particular year.
Data collection on average annual global temperatures since 1850 was pioneered by a small team of scientists based at the University of East Anglia. These scientists used various novel techniques at the time, such as tree rings, to "infer" average annual temperature measurements around the world. They were very meticulous -- low profile but a highly respected group back in the 90's.
I recall looking at a plot of their data in late 90's. The data, from memory, covered until mid-80's at that time. Presently they are showing this graph on their site http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ covering until 2005.
The problem with this data is that it is not linear, hence hard to analyse, leading to much controversy. It has lots of bumps, ups and downs, but overall it has an upward trend.
The "cooling" you referred me to is merely temporary -- the calm before the storm, so to speak.
Scientific papers highlighting the rise in MGT and its causes, namely, population growth, increase in the use of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, have been written ***since*** the early nineties, and they are ***still*** being written and published now in 2009.
I only wish to comment on one of your claims: "Spending trillions of euros/dollars worldwide to reduce CO2 may actually be conducive to increasing world hunger due to the conversion of agricultural land for producing bio-fuels."
The rapid rise in the production of bio-fuels over recent years was caused by the rapid increase in the cost of fossil fuels ($150/barrel) prior to the recent financial downturn, not CO2.
Producing bio-fuels does not necessarily translate to a reduction in CO2. Bio-fuels are not regarded as being strictly a renewable energy. In fact, environmentalists are vehemently against bio-fuels. I personally am also against bio-fuels.
The rise in the cost of food we experienced recently was more attributed to transport, which requires a large amount of fossil fuel. The idea is to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which is very hard to achieve.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090102/local/hail-on-december-27-was-last-months-weather-highlight-met-office
also: http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx
After going through these links you may realise that there are still a lot of questions regarding global warming. The AGW theory has spawned a great industry based on CO2 induced global warming. If this theory is wrong, then this great industry may die the death, hence the vested interests are as real as those by coal and oil magnates. Reading scientific reports by proponents (scientists) of both theories is very healthy, especially for our politicians who have succumbed to the still to be proven (at best) theory of AGW.
Spending trillions of euros/dollars worldwide to reduce CO2 may actually be conducive to increasing world hunger due to the conversion of agricultural land for producing bio-fuels. We should be looking into alternative energies but not at such an expense.
I have to strongly disagree. Scientific papers have been written on the subject since the early 90's, all pointing at the strong correlations between population growth, fossil fuel consumption, MGT, and CO2 level in the atmosphere. These correlations cannot be happening all at once by coincidence or due to solar activity.
The only entity which has a vested interest is the coal lobby. For example, wind farming is being held back in Victoria, Australia. At the same time, the coal industry in Victoria, which is among the largest in the world, is investing heavily in CO2 sequestration. They have already started squeezing (literally) CO2 into cylinders and dropping these cylinders into deep holes in the ground. They call this CO2 sequestration to keep propping up their industry.
All scientific studies that are reported on by the BBC science reporters had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Anyone can do a search on the site and check that this is the case. Each report can then be investigated further through the relevant journal.
Wind farming is good for all species. It translates to better air quality and environment.
When people start to convert to combustion-electric motor cars with a battery unit at the back, it will be a good feeling charging your car battery at night so that the next day, when you start the engine, the air remains clean.
Hopefully, this aim can be achieved.
Status Quo = kills human beings
Priority = save humans
That CO2 levels have risen from 0.025% to about 0.038% during the past 100 years is a scientifically known and measurable fact. However the effect of this on the greenhouse phenomenon is not scientifically proven, at least not on the scale prophesied by Al Gore and the IPCC. The major greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere is water vapour.
In fact the current global warming is more attributable to solar cycles than anything else, as was the middle age warming period (circa 1000 AD) and the little ice age and other warm/cold cycles that this planet has experienced during its travails.
The theory that warming follows atmospheric CO2 increase is a fallacy. The situation is the other way round, that is, CO2 levels increase AFTER a global warm period. The global warm/cold cycles are dependent on many natural factors such as sun spots, interstellar radiation, earth's magnetism and also greenhouse gases.
This information is based on scientific peer-reviewed reports
Regarding BBC reports on global warming; this entity has vested interests in spreading this theory. Be careful.
Other TV stations have produced scientific documentaries showing the contrary.
Underwater Turbines = Kill Fish
Hunters = Kill birds and Fish
Ugliness, as love, is in the eyes of the beholder.
Mr Mifsud Bonnici, you are wrong….again. Birdlife has not kept silent about this issue.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/10/22/t5.html
Hunters are also conservationists. I don’t think I’ve seen any statements by the FKNK or any other hunting related group about this matter.
@K.Zammit
Birdlife supports renewable energy, but we are supposed to be a civilized country and also a member state of the EU and in such cases, Birdlife is requesting a detailed study of the pros and cons of such a project to ascertain the feasibility of the project.
We are speaking here of the future of our children and all you are concerned with are birds.
If we continue like this there will be no place for birds and for HUMANS.
Just DO IT.
1. MRA website is a joke agreed
2. In UK EON and other power companies get the go-ahead from the regulator and then take on the project, will this happen with enemalta.
3. Land based wind farms would be cheaper, more effective, quick turn around time, sea based-expensive. You could perfectly situate a wind farm on Dingli as well as a solar tower on comino.
4. A buy and pay as you go solar PV would be fantastic paying huge dividends quickly for the island in reduced energy imports.
As for smart city, well i see that the government of Dubai has admitted that Dubai is in more debt than it has oil to pay for, and that property prices in Dubai are dropping almost 50%, will smart city go ahead?
I have my doubts.
Lastly, Malta does not have to luxury to wait and see what it will do about it's energy future, but my main concerns are water and food security, can Malta feed herself in peacetime?
Have birdlife members never flown abroad? Do you know how many birds get killed daily by planes? What we do then? Stop flying?
The country needs those turbines, the world needs those turbines, nature needs those turbines. It's worth a couple of bird's lives for nature's sake itself. Now stop boistering against something that's good for everybody.
'These wind farms will also disturb the migration of birds, not to mention the many rare birds killed, what birdlife has to say on this project who always opposed hunting'.
Now we shelve this project because of the birds! What a mentality!!
Blame the whole charade on the Birds and their official friends in high places.
Time will prove us right.
Significant rise in the mean global temperature (MGT) is most certainly man-made. Here is one example:
"Measurements of carbon dioxide amounts from Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii show that CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. That means for every million particles in our atmosphere, there are now 62 CO2-particles more than in 1960. Even if this does not seem like much, scientists say this increase – most probably caused by human activities – is mainly responsible for rising global temperatures throughout the last decades." Source: Allianz Knowledge Partnersite
Very recently, the BBC reported on a scientific study that confirmed that the rise in MGT is not due to solar activity. Solar effect on MGT fluctuates, but is not responsible for the steady increase over recent decades.
Hopefully the Sikka project can succeed. Even if the Maltese government can economically achieve 5%, that would be a very good start. It would be a statement in its own right. It would put Malta on the map in a very positive light. Much will now depend on what the wind data will look like.
Wind farms worldwide have never met the birdwatcher's approval, will this be a first?
One wonders when this bubble will burst. And what the obliging Minister for Resources and Rural affairs will have to say.
I am quite sure the whole episode has already been rehersed, acted and recorded. The main actors being Birdlfie Malta and the Ministry concerned.
Let's all wait and see!!
Maybe we should look more into on-land wind farms and solar photo voltaic panels.
Is this high initial cost & high maintenance cost (due to being off-shore) worthed for just 10% or possibly less of Malta energy needs?
I think that if the amount that is going to be spent on the wind farm is invested in grants by the government given to individuals to buy photo-voltaic panels and wind turbines for their homes, it would be much more feasible.
And another thing - the government should start working on a proper buy-back rate for Kwh. It is UNFAIR (and ridiculous) that a person buys a unit of electricity at e.g. 35c but sells it to the government at 7c!!
I'd prefer another site, farther away from the shore, the technology is only a few years away, and it would be great for Malta. But maybe time isn't on our side.
Also, I hope that the government will go for putting solar PV on its roofs (eg. Mater dei hospital) - at least it will cover air conditioning. The more heat and sunlight, in summer especially, the more air conditioning... and more electricity from PV .
Has the MRA made any economic studies on the wind farm? What I mean is wind energy from Sikka l-Bajda more expensive than that produced by EneMalta? Who will buy the generated electrciity - EneMalta or the consumers direct? I hope that this does not become a white elephant and a burden on the taxpayers.
Since elecricity generation is the responsibility of EneMalta why is the matter being handled by the regulator (MRA) and not the operator (EneMalta)?
Can MRA upgrade its website by placing all reports on its webiste for us the small citizens to download and read. The website of MRA is like a project of a ten year old.
I hope this will not be a statuts symbol project or it is forced on us by the energy policy of the EU. Let us build a transparent structure for the project not to be spoilt by another tender saga like we have had in the Mater Dei omni potentus project.
MEPA will process the application and in one way or another refuse it. The Government will blame MEPA for scrapping the project and sigh and say it tried!