Energy value for money

In Energy Projects Of Value (March 28), Marco Cremona bids the government not to go overboard in supporting photovoltaics as its "latest environmental banner". "The issue, Mr Cremona says, is essentially one of choosing which option gives the best value for money."

Begging his pardon, the issue is to grade our options - for we must simultaneously utilise all options and not just one - on a scale of cost per unit of energy saved. That would put a drive for efficiency in energy use at the top. For instance, an electric water heater serving a four-person household will take four to five units a day when run continuously, but only three to 3.5 units if time-switched for two three-hour periods during the day. That gives a saving in six months about equal to the cost of a time switch.

Going to solar water heaters Mr Cremona's contention that they offer better value for money than PV is correct, but not in the very sweeping sense he pushes. A SWH which supplies the major demands for hot water - bathroom, kitchen, laundry - and is correctly installed for best performance in winter, gives good value for money: a saving of €150-€180 per year. Public perception may be a bit different.

To move to PV: the "myths" that "the government's energy-CO2 emissions advisors" - I am not one of them, incidentally - can be seen in the published report of the Climate Change Committee. There it is stated that the government has accepted to work towards a PV target of four per cent of electricity generation by 2020. Mercifully, the hugely inflated figure for our PV potential produced by the Malta Resources Authority's favourite (non-local) consultants was laughed out of court by the CCC people. So Mr Cremona's "figures to support his argument" are inflated and somewhat misdirected.

The government is not really pushing domestic PV very hard, even if the 200 "offers" are already fully booked. Industry is being offered much more attractive capital incentives in the belief that it is likely to go in for relatively large installations which will, at least in the short term, push up our rate of PV accumulation. But the key to rapid expansion of PV, a good feed-in rate, has been left untouched. So PV-SWH competition for domestic roof space is not strong.

There is a very real if not very visible value to PV - that it tends to provide near-maximum output at times of maximum demand in summer, when the daemonio meridiano is turning the wick up outside, the local gremlin is turning the wick down inside, and the power stations are under pressure.

But even here, there is a free, quick saving if A/C temperatures are set at 25-26˚C rather than 18-20˚C and other savings if measures are taken to cut down the solar energy pickup by the building itself.

Finally Mr Cremona mentions SmartCity, in connection with combined heat and power generation. I find this slightly puzzling. Has SC included CHP in its business plan? Or is this a suggestion to SC how not to bankrupt the country through production of CO2 way beyond our allotted quota? When that assertion was made some months ago, the government and SC responded by complete silence.

The government, however, recently resurrected this prospect, not in connection with SC but in accusing the parliamentary opposition of wanting to bankrupt the country by pressing for lower charges and so encouraging people to use more electricity. Minister George Pullicino was reported in this newspaper, (March 13) as saying that if we exceed our "2015 targets" by as little as 0.05 per cent we would incur a €45 million fine - much as Mr Cremona had said about the SC energy requirements.

A look at the emissions trading market a few days after the parliamentary debate suggested that, were we to purchase the extra carbon, the present cost would be €20,000, in fact.

Hardly apocalypse now, or in 2015.