Underwater caves pose threat to planned wind farm
The discovery of two large underwater ‘caves' on the reef where the government plans to build an offshore wind farm, could pose a threat to the project.
The reef off Mellieħa was chosen as the site of Malta's first offshore wind farm because it is the only area of the seabed around the islands that is shallow enough to cater for today's technology. But if the reef turns out to be unstable or hollow in some areas, it would be extremely difficult, expensive or even dangerous to drill into the seabed to install the wind turbines.
Oxford graduate and marine geologist from the University of Malta, Aaron Micallef, 29, conducted a study of the Mellieħa reef known as Sikka l-Bajda, as part of a research project. What they found was surprising: two large perfectly circular sinkholes (or dolines). These were probably formed during an ice age, when the reef was above the sea level.
"The problem is that there may be more where these came from. It is likely that along the reef there are other caves that have not yet collapsed. And this may create problems for the wind farm project.
"The reef is full of fractures, probably because it is made of upper coralline limestone overlying a layer of blue clay, causing the limestone to slip along the softer clay, as happens in various parts of Malta's cliffy coast. Dr Micallef said:
"I don't want to be alarmist. For all I know these could be the only caves and we would be able to work around them. Further studies would obviously have to be carried out. But at least we know beforehand that we could encounter difficulties."
Full story in The Sunday Times.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
35 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Rocco Cauchi
May 23rd 2010, 18:03
There is much that can be done about electricity generation than simply windmills. In our Don Quixotic approach of chasing windmills we are forgetting alternatives such as hydrogen generation (the sea around us is full of it) and algae-derived fuels (the new artificial cell development is being heralded as producing full-fledged commercial results within the next ten years).
What is really needed is for us to get away from this EU fomented target fixation and simply promise to reduce our levels to acceptable ones and wait and invest in alternative solution which would be best for our small island. Rush and hurry would not benefit anyone at all, not even the EU.
We have of late been rushed into doing many things which bigger brothers themselves have not been doing and unfortunately we have always been yes-men, bending over backwards to comply and more than the obedient servants we were in colonial times.
We have to sit and think and - most important of all - join forces. It is unfortunate to see Government and Opposition waste away their verbal energy and time on arguments rather than developing an effective energy structure for Malta. Sure we can always hope!
Joe Formosa
May 24th 2010, 08:31
Very well said.... we waste time in Yes and No and dont use time correctly.
Can anyone answer a simple question? Can anyone just fix a small wind turbine on his house without being asked for a load of permits and engineers' approval which cost an arm and a leg and happily test such system viability for his home? I think we should cut the red tape and make things more accessible.
K J Vella
May 25th 2010, 08:47
Dear Mr Cauchi,
Hydrogen is (a) very dangerous - if there is a leak (contact with oxygen) it will explode, no spark needed; (b) global hydrogen production is 48% from natural gas, 30% from oil, and 18% from coal; water electrolysis accounts for only 4%. So it wouldn't pay us - and I am not apologising for the government. Like all our governments, our current one took it easy - the energy reduction requirement was tabled OVER 7 years ago. Surely we could have done something and investigated the idea better. Wind farms are clean. What I cannot understand is the refusal to look at solar energy - there again I am no specialist
ftheuma
May 23rd 2010, 17:43
I love all the negative comments that we so love to make. Let us stop dreaming(sic). Let us do nothing, let us just continue to rely 100% on fossil fuels. Let us just keep thinking that if it does not burn oil and does not belch smoke then it is too 'futuristic' too 'spaceage' too 'starwars' and therefore not for us. Let us show no commitment towards a greener cleaner future, let us just be parasites and latch on to the European grid and not think further about it. Let's. After all there are not enough waves, there are not enough currents, the wind comes from the wrong direction, and the reef is full of holes, and the minister himself says that we are almost stuck.
Joe Formosa
May 23rd 2010, 15:39
Think of:
1) Safari tops (shade-makers) on flat roofs made of PV panels on all buildings. Create energy and reduce heat in buildings.
2) Underwater current turbines in North channel (between Gozo and Comino) known for strong current all year round.(not a deep area just 18m max.
3) Wind Farm at Old Telecom Antenna Area next to Mtahleb. (Have a look at South Italy, Greece and Croatia and their wind farms on islands or coastal shores.
I bet most of these if not all together are cheaper than Offshore wind turbines which require the expensive installation ship (check out for the discover channel Mega ship series). Maintenance that requires a large barge crane (not cheap) a tug boat or two.
These are very expensive and I am sure that if we go ahead with this Offshore Project the first thing that will happen is have an investigation to see who is being bribed into spending all this money.
Think before you act.
Wilfred Camilleri
May 23rd 2010, 14:19
Wind farms are not going to solve Malta's power problems. A large wind turbine can provide electricity for approximately 650 households if there is a consistent wind. Imagine how many turbines would be required to power Malta's needs. Malta would be surrounded by a jungle of wind turbines. Goodbye tourism! No tourists are going to come to be faced with a wall of wind turbines instead of a beautiful view of the sea. Wind turbines are useful for limited power supplies. Connection to the European grid is the only true solution.
Ramon Mangion
May 23rd 2010, 17:23
Wilfred I tend to disagree with you in that the aim in my opinion is to at least have some sort of renewable energy on this island and at least reduce the pressures put on the oil fired powerstations.
I am actually quite happy for the facrt that a number of households are reverting to solar powered heaters which shows a changing mentality.
ftheuma
May 23rd 2010, 17:33
The thinking behind green energy is that it will be provided from a combination of renewable sources: wind, waves, sun and so forth and not from just a single one as you seem to be thinking.
Alex Ellul
May 24th 2010, 08:02
@ftheuma: Renewables will never replace conventional "On-Demand" power. Even if we had to install wind turbines having nominally the same power tht our power stations collectively have. When the wind stops blowing we would still need the oil power stations to generate elcetricity, besides, we would still require these oil-fired power stations to spin (spinning power) waiting for the wind to stop (just like a car waiting for the red light to turn green). Denmark is the most wind-turbined country on hte planet and it has notmanaged to closed one single coal/oil fired power station while the elctricity costs are sky high.
And by the way: The planet is not warming because of CO2. Warming and cooling on a millenial sclae is just a natural cycle just like summer and winter on a annual scale. There are many scientific reports confirming the natural causation of global warmings and coolings byt Ian Plimer's book: "Heaven and Earth" explains it beautifully, while the Climategate scandal shows the politics and money inbuilt into the AGW scam.
ftheuma
May 24th 2010, 09:16
@Alex Ellul: I never said that we will be able to shut down our oil fired power stations completely, but at least we should strive towards less dependance on them. As for Denmark you will find out that the oil/coal fired power stations they have are much less polluting than ours will ever be, and if electricity is expensive it is part of the whole. Everything is expensive and wages are equally high so I do not really know what you are proving by that statement.
'The planet is not warming because of CO2. ' Well that is one side of the argument - there are those of us who believe that humanity has an impact and that we should do something about it.
Alex Ellul
May 24th 2010, 20:32
all the wind turbines planned to be built globally will not make one percentage of a dent into CO2 emmissions. This is proven science. All the wind turbines already installed have killed millions of birds already. These are proven statistics.
ftheuma
May 24th 2010, 23:03
So you say. Proven? I thought there was a whole debate going on about the climate change/global warming issue. Surely if all is as proven as you sustain no such debate would exist.
Alex Ellul
May 25th 2010, 12:27
There are two debates: 1: Wether global warming is anthropogenic or natural. 2: Wether we can replace coal and oil-fired electrical generation with wind turbines. You have mixed up the two in your latest post. I said "all the wind turbines planned to be built globally will not make one percentage of a dent into CO2 emmissions. This is proven science." Wind turbines have not contirbuted to CO2 emissions reductions. What has contributed to this recently, at a global level is the financial meltdown, leaving many the poorer finacially.
At a local level, replacing seven 100-watt light bulbs with their equivalnet energy-saving ones, according to my arithmetic and a few assumptions, has reduced the load on our power stations by as much as 15 MW at peak. This is equivalent to having five 3MW wind turbines turning at fullcapacity when the wind is blowing at the ideal speed, which is vary rare. Hence, actually this is the equivalent of more than five x 3MW wind turbines, I would say it is the equivaalent of 15 of these, considering that wind is a scarce commodity, or at times it blows so hard that the wind turbines would stop generating.
ftheuma
May 26th 2010, 19:52
Ok so let me unmix them. I believe that global warming/climate change is partly caused by human activity and that (I have to repeat myself here) we can lessen the dependence on oil fired power stations by using wind, wave and sun power.
"all the wind turbines planned to be built globally will not make one percentage of a dent into CO2 emmissions." it is a hell of a statement to make - could you point me in the direction of the scientific evidence that proves this -you said its proven right?
Alex Ellul
May 23rd 2010, 14:06
"California and Denmark, which have the longest experience in the field of wind power, no longer bank on wind for their future. Isn't it time for us to wise up too? before 500,000 irremovable concrete bases the size of a swimming pool are poured into the landscape from Vancouver to Auckland? before countless pylons are added to the landscape? before the horizon is marred everywhere by giant metallic structures beating the air, and the birds? and for no benefit whatsoever in terms of climate change?
It is time we study carefully the new California Energy Plan. It contains many answers."
http://www.john-daly.com/windfarm/index.htm
ftheuma
May 23rd 2010, 17:31
Well Denmark has just installed 7 wind turbines to supply the energy needs for the Big belt bridge, so much for turning its back on wind energy.
Alex Ellul
May 23rd 2010, 14:05
"Wind plants are harmful in a number of important ways, beneficial in none, and they cost dearly to taxpayers and consumers, more still to residents in terms of property values. They are uneconomical and useless. But they are highly profitable to their promoters because they are subsidised. So much so that industry leaders have joined forces to lobby at the political, media and ecological levels, silencing the opposition with money - taxpayers' money reaped from the subventions. I know of a bird society that receives donations from electricity companies amounting to 25% of its annual budget."
http://www.john-daly.com/windfarm/index.htm
Ian Bugeja
May 23rd 2010, 12:30
Wind farm technology is still in it's early days and each day new inventions and new technology gets invented and available. Like for instance if one looks at the below article it is possible to have wind turbines floating just like an oil rig.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/29/poseidon-floating-power-plant-features-wind-turbines-location-f/
Tonio Azzopardi
May 23rd 2010, 11:45
Please stop dreaming….Forget this very risky and extremely expensive ‘star wars’ project....we cannot afford black hole expeditions...aren’t we satisfied that we have ruined Malta’s environment and built up everywhere, now we even want to ruin the beautiful blue sea…the only unobstructed view existing on the island’s horizon!!!
Get the underwater cable/s laid up (if two are not enough install more) and hook up to the European grid...
…and start a serious campaign beefed up by attractive subsidies and a good return for energy retrieved to the national grid from such systems, which will make for the installation of more PV panels on residential and other buildings
…more start participating in European led initiatives which are seeing the setting up of solar farms in Northern Africa regions….
….Gear up our university to produce students who will start looking at exploring our ‘free’ resource – solar energy – which surely is guaranteed to get ‘better’:-P as climate change takes it’s pace…
ftheuma
May 23rd 2010, 12:58
'Star wars project'? Perhaps you should know that the first wind turbine was built in 1888. Hardly futuristic technology is it? But I am sure that most Maltese discovered wind turbines when they started being mentioned in the local context.
Raymond Sammut
May 23rd 2010, 14:01
There is no "dreaming" about wind-farming. Wind-farming is very real, and has been economically viable for more than twenty years. Submarine cables will be suited to Malta's needs as short-term assets and as additional security. In all likelihood, Malta has a strong potential to develop deep-water wind-farming right up to the middle of this century. The hardest thing for Malta, and for the region, will be acquiring expertise. The time to start is now, and a small shallow-water wind-farm would be a good opening. Cost of deep-water wind-farms will keep coming down, and in the meantime the Maltese government should continue to invest, at least moderately (or perhaps "tentatively" for now), in this technology.
Paul Barrett
May 23rd 2010, 11:41
I still believe that you can get a reasonable wind farm, combined with solar panels set up along the Coast Road. This would be at a fraction of the cost of trying to set up a wind farm in deep water.
Alex 'the Sharkman' Buttigieg
May 24th 2010, 18:53
Agreed.....and if it was placed instead of the rubbish dump eyesore it would be even better.
Edward Mallia
May 23rd 2010, 11:27
The statement that Sikka l-Bajda (SB) 'is the only area of the seabed around the islands that is shallow enough to cater for today's technology' is demonstrably false. A paper from Minister Pullicino's 'SB' team, read at a Brindisi wind energy conference and subsequently published in a US journal has a Gozo offshore wind energy potential comparable to that of SB. Improved calculations gave the following: With the SB depth limit (30m), the Gozo north offshore farm can accomodate 21x 2MW turbines. The wind speeds used (for year 2007) were taken at Gordan lighthouse, to the west of the farm. To correct for that the output from the farm was taken to come ONLY from the wind directions to which it is directly exposed, from 270degs (west) to 120degs. (SE). RESULT IS A TOTAL OUTPUT AMOUNTING TO 4.3% of 2007 Power Station GENERATION.
Despite having an indication of this potential, Minister Pullicino chose to make apocalyptic statements on SB, which failed to impress the EU. More, he refused to put up a measuring mast on Gozo north shore, as an insurance policy against any SB setback requiring the start of another long measuring period on Gozo.
D. Farrugia
May 23rd 2010, 11:13
As always, no mention of the project's inevitable destruction of an EU priority habitat: posedonia meadows. Wind farms are a non-starter here in Malta. The archipelago is way too small to house such technology. Wherever they are planned they are bound to destroy habitats. Green as they will ever be, we must nonetheless realise that their impact is simply unacceptable. EU should have realised this from the beginning. There are other alternatives. Why go head over heals for new technology when we lack basics: energy efficiency through insulation? Scrap the whole project.
ftheuma
May 23rd 2010, 11:52
Rubbish. I have seen full sized wind turbines on islands as small as Gozo. These islands still have a high level of pristine natural beauty. The turbine's footprint is negligibly small and will cause much less destruction than the rampant building that we see taking place all over Malta. All the objections to wind turbine are just empty excuses stemming from ignorance or laziness.
D. Farrugia
May 23rd 2010, 12:11
@ftheuma. It is not just a matter of footprint. Perhaps a read through the following articles may provide some food for thought.
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/05/30/study-shows-hundreds-of-dead-birds-bats-at-wind-turbines/
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
ftheuma
May 23rd 2010, 12:56
Scandinavian countries have hundreds of wind turbines maybe it would be interesting to know how many birds are slaughtered by them. Moreover in Malta i do not think that we will have 10s of turbines let alone 100s so I would say that the impact on the bird population will be negligible. Again this is not a matter for speculation but for scientific study.
G.Debono
May 23rd 2010, 13:53
Mr. Farrugia
More birds perish at hunter's hands than what happens with wind turbines. Furthermore, birds also get hit by planes. Their habitat dwindle every year as a result of human activity. I hazard a guess that pollution generated by powerstation, cars, factories are also having some impact on the eco-system.
Which one of the above, according to you, should we start dismantling. Shall we go back to the era of the candle or maybe we should self destruct the human race to reduce the harm we do. I would've thought that building alternative energy tech is by far better than building greenhouse gass emitting powerstations or nuclear ones which could in a second destroy 1000s of miles of all living species, including us.
What you say here is a bucket full of doomsday talk, not as far as what impact wind turbines have but that by default therefore saying that the status quo is fine. Insulating is all good, but it does not generate power, at most temporarily reducing it. Power must come from somewhere and the best source is a multitude of different sources, some of which being renewable and less polluting to the eco system.
D. Farrugia
May 23rd 2010, 18:52
@ G.Debono. Of course we won't revert back to candle! What I'm saying is that wind turbines are not as "clean" as one would hope. Although they do not pollute the air, they do have other impacts. It also happens that Sikka l-Bajda is the rafting zone of the Yelkouan Shearwater whose breeding ground is an Important Bird Area funded through EU Life project. The coastal area has been a stronghold of these rare birds since time immemorial (10% of the global population). It's quite convenient to blame everything on hunters but they cannot be blamed for their demise if the wind turbines are established at Sikka l-Bajda since the Shearwaters only return to their burrows during the night. If their rafting and feeding zone is disturbed, it doesn't require rocket science to conclude that their breeding grounds will be abandoned. Do we have to wait for such tragic loss to admit that wind turbines are to blame? I hope not.
Let's connect to the European grid if we're so desperately seeking alternative forms of energy.
Anthony A. Mifsud
May 23rd 2010, 10:57
Wow, that is some NEWS unblievale, that is why we need this extention to the exissiting power house.
By any chance have the surveyers found and fish in the caves?
Toni
Edward Mallia
May 23rd 2010, 10:43
1.The features found by Aaron Micallef are not caves but depressions in the sea-bed probably originating from collapse of caves.
2. Sikka l-Bajda (SB) is not 'the only area of the seabed around the islands that is shallow enough to cater for today's technology'. With the same depth limit (30m) as for SB there is a long strip off the north Gozo coast from Ix-Xwejni to San Blas which has a good potential.
The other errors originate from the Resources Ministry. It cannot be the case that the farm potential is calculated 'irrespective' of the depth of the reef. If the latter were 50m for instance, the reef would not have much potential with present market technology. As for Minister Pullicino's 'Malta would be stuck' statement, that is demonstrably wrong, as is his hope that the EU will reconsider its expectations. On the latter, the EU said 'nothing doing' months ago. The Times carried a report by Ivan Camilleri to that effect. On the former- the uniqueness of SB- there is published and unpublished evidence against it.
ftheuma
May 23rd 2010, 10:24
Are floating wind turbines being considered at all by the government? They exist, initial installation cost is competitive with that of moored ones, and they are more efficient and can be positioned wherever. And what about generating energy from waves? Again the technology is out there and we are surrounded by a sea that kicks up significant wave activity in a consistent manner. Ah I get it, what we need is unproven technology dependent on heavy fuel oil that will produce tons of toxic waste on a weekly basis. The lack of commitment that the government has to get energy from renewable sources is astounding and defies explanation.
Raymond Sammut
May 23rd 2010, 12:04
"energy from waves" may not be viable for Malta. This technology requires a combination of sea currents and geological features. Such a combination may be hard to find around Malta in a cost-effective manner. "floating wind turbines" are most likely to be suitable for Malta. What Dr Micallef is pointing at here is not necessarily detrimental. It would probably only make a future project a little trickier. Most likely the key-factor would be the data on average annual wind capture, which seems to be still in progress.
ftheuma
May 23rd 2010, 12:53
Lots of 'mays' in your objection I am afraid. Have scientific studies proven the 'non-viability' of wave technology for Malta? I am not aware of any, perhaps you could share.
'This technology requires a combination of sea currents and geological features' - I do not know where you got this from but from what I have read on the matter it seems that your assertion is incorrect.