Energy projects of value

I congratulate the government for managing to secure €25 million for energy projects, of which €20 million will go for the energy cable connection between Malta and Sicily and the remaining €5 million will "be spent on another alternative energy initiative which would be identified by the end of the week" (March 24).

I hope the government will not channel this money the photovoltaic way. Not that I am against PVs but I believe this money can be better spent elsewhere. Unfortunately, after years of rubbishing any form of alternative energy, the government recently made a complete U-turn and elected to use PVs as its latest environmental banner. Suddenly, it seems that PVs will solve our huge energy and CO2 emissions problems.

In reality, PVs will not make a dent in our extravagant use of energy and alarming CO2 emissions - and I hope the government's energy/CO2-emission advisers acknowledge this fact and are not perpetrating this myth themselves. The issue is essentially one of choosing which option offers the best value for money.

Some figures to support my argument follow.

The government has recently allocated €500,000 to part-fund the installation of PVs for households. At a maximum grant of €3,000 per installation, the budgetary allocation for PVs will only go as far as supporting 167 PV installations. The grant amount will have to be supported by another €3,000 from private funds.

How much electricity will these PVs generate?

At a realistic estimate of 4.5 units/day per installation, we are looking at the generation of some 320 mWh/year of electricity in total, or 0.01 per cent of the total amount of electricity generated by Enemalta in 2008! Using simple proportion, Malta will have to fork out more than €1,000 million in PV costs to reach the 10 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. Is this financially and economically sustainable? I don't think so.

In the last budget, the government also allocated €2 million in grants to encourage the use of solar water heaters. It is reported that 4,600 families will benefit from this scheme. From my five years' experience with a standard flat-plate solar collector I estimate that my solar water heater is saving 4 kWh of electricity every day. A total of 4,600 installations would save some 6,720 mWh/year, which is 20 times the amount the PVs will generate - for only four times the budgeted capital outlay. Which option provides the greatest return on investment?

The lesson to be learnt from this simple exercise is that investment in PVs should only be considered after we have saturated the solar water heater potential - also because PVs and solar water heaters are competing for our limited roof space.

Solar water heaters are but only one example of a cost-effective energy-saving initiative. Incentivising the installation combined heat and power (CHP) system at SmartCity is another case in point.

I sincerely hope that the government undertakes a holistic exercise on the cost-effectiveness of the various alternative energy and energy-efficiency systems available today and allocates the €5 million (and other funds voted for the energy sector) on the basis of cost-effectiveness. If the government has already carried out this exercise, then it should make this study public to allay any concerns. Taking ad hoc million-euro decisions in the absence of a national energy policy is foolhardy and irresponsible.