Alan Pulis
Malta's renewable energy prospects
The Marsa power station is on the way out, as stipulated by the Large Combustion Plants Directive, its remaining operating hours to be consumed by not later than December 31, 2015. However, a realistic analysis of Malta's renewable energy prospects does not entail a scenario whereby we can debunk altogether the use of conventional energy sources. The same applies to our EU counterparts.
Under the Climate and Energy Package, the EU bloc is committed towards achieving an overall binding target of 20 per cent share of renewable energy sources in terms of energy consumption by 2020. This share has been distributed among the EU-27 in conformity with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, such that whereas for, say, Sweden, the target stands at 49 per cent in final energy consumption, Malta's binding renewables target is set at 10 per cent. Comparisons may be odious but official EU documentation has it that, by 2005, Sweden had already achieved a remarkable 39.7 per cent of its ultimate 2020 renewable energy target compared to Malta's zero per cent.
Comparing Malta with Sweden may be extreme and unfair given our geophysical and financial constraints and, above all, our human resource limitations. It is definitely not opportune to indulge in a whitewash rubbishing of our efforts in the renewable energy sector. But few would disagree that this is an unacceptable laggard-like situation, symptomatic of lack of acumen by our political leaders.
The comparison with Sweden may be taken a bit further, not just politically but on principles of equity. To what extent is the Sweden-is-to-Malta ratio, 49 per cent-is-to-10 per cent, effectively in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities given Sweden's socio-economic and geophysical potential, for example? Is Malta's target unrealistic, after all?
Irrespective of opinion on the above, Malta's 10 per cent target is established in Annex I of Directive 2009/28/EC, which refers to "mandatory national targets" rather than "indicative" targets, as in the previous legislative framework, Directive 2001/77/EC (now repealed), to ensure certainty for investors in the renewable energy technology sector and also for the sustained development of this sector. It therefore comes as no surprise that the EU Commission has put its foot down against any proposal or possibility for Malta to re-negotiate on the renewables target issue.
Article 2 ( a ) of the directive defines "energy from renewable sources" as "energy from renewable non-fossil sources, namely wind, solar, aerothermal, geothermal, hydrothermal and ocean energy, hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas and biogases". As far as the Maltese islands are concerned, the most feasible possibilities in tapping renewable energy sources clearly lie in solar and wind power. Waste is considered a renewable energy source by virtue of the landfill gas and biogases that can be extracted from it and as defined by the directive.
Malta's solar power prospects look good. Our high insolation levels should make it relatively easy for a photovoltaic/solar water heating market to develop, despite the fact that the limited government subsidies and initiatives seem not to have triggered the market take off originally intended.
Medium-scale concentrated solar power, whereby the generation of green electricity through photovoltaics or similar technology, should not be discarded altogether given that the Marsa power station site should soon be made vacant, definitely by not later than 2015. Feasibility studies could show that exploiting the site for such a purpose could be viable and cost-effective. There still exists a dire need, however, to get more concrete on direct tapping of solar energy from households, schools, commercial and government establishments. In this respect, the situation still leaves much to be desired and for some, especially foreigners, it is quite surprising.
The Magħtab rehabilitation project has been designed to include the extraction of landfill gas, mostly methane, which is then converted into electrical power.
Although, on a minor scale, the same roughly applies to the Sant'Antnin waste recycling plant where the technology installed is meant to extract biogas, close in chemical composition to landfill gas, from biodegradable municipal solid waste. However, the success of Sant'Antnin and any other related ventures depends on whether we shall be responsive enough to exploit biodegradable waste fractions through an adequate recycling system in conformity with the EU Landfill Directive targets, tough as these may be. It is truly alarming that the Environment Report 2008 states that whereas municipal waste generation in the EU25 is projected to increase by 25 per cent over 2005 values by 2020 the projections for Malta are expected to be as high as 60 per cent.
Article 7 of Directive 2009/28/EC allows for "joint projects" between member states relating to the production of electricity from renewable energy sources. This point is developed further in article 9, including so-called "third countries" (possibly non-EU member states), through which arrangements could be made for the setting up of large-scale renewable energy projects, such as wind farms, on their territory with more favourable geophysical conditions and once the electricity generated from such sites is fed into the European grid, this would be taken into account for meeting a member state's national target on renewable energy.
The sophisticated legalese in articles seven and nine of Directive 2009/28/EC needs to be closely examined but could possibly offer Malta another option with regard to the issue of wind farm sites. Directive 2009/28/EC also hints that the EU is already paving its future role in the development of a Mediterranean solar plan. Good government with an effective foreign policy is obviously a prime requisite if we decide to move in this direction.
The author specialises in environmental management.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alex Ellul
Jun 16th 2010, 16:51
And for anybody who still believs that climate change is man made, read here: http://www.financialpost.com/Climate+junk+hard+dump/3160015/story.html
Fact is that AGW 'science' is melting fast, while the global ice cover is recovering well after the NATURAL global warming we had during the latter years.
Today scientists are watching the sun, and its lack of activity, waiting with baited breath, to see if we are entering some little ice age. Read about it. The sun has not been so quite for 100 years. If it stays that way som more, it will be a Maunder type solar minium that caused the little ice age that peaked some 300 years ago.
Derek Bennett
Jun 16th 2010, 16:01
I predict some dark times ahead for Malta, and the rest of the EU come to that, as the lights begin to go out and electricity supplies run out due to the EU's mad rules on renewable energy.
EU directives on renewable energy make about as much sense as trying to invent a perpetual motion machine - mind you, knowing the EU, a directive on that is probably on its way!
Jesmond Farrugia
Jun 16th 2010, 13:25
@ Alex
Although you have some valid points, namely regarding the 'backup' role needed by the power stations, it is incorrect to state that PV and wind are unprdictable.
We already have data over 5 years (UOM have more) for PV and the consistency of PV is reassuring. Furthermore, the peak generation from PV coincides with peak demand. Unfortunately, data on (large) wind is not widely available but the wind resources is less that the solar resource in Malta. This conclusion has been arrived to using data on small wind.
Malta's future does depend on renewables and solar will play a critical part. We still need large wind to reach the required targets.
Alex Ellul
Jun 16th 2010, 16:08
Let me repeat. There willbe times when there will beno wind, zero velocity, and no sun, during the night for sure, and on cloudy days. During these times, the HC power stations will have to supply electrical power to ALL Malta and Gozo, all households, hospitals, factories, etc etc. without fail. You canhave 400 MW ofinstalled renewables which theoretically should be enough for Malta and Gozo, but during no-wind and no-sun conditions, these areuseless and one must have 450 MWatts of power coming out of MarsaxlokkHence, all the renewables we are installing and will be installing, WILL NOT REDUCE ONE SINGLE WATT OF GENERATING CAPACITY OUT OF MARSAXLOKK. This isan irrefutable and undeniable fact.
Alex Ellul
Jun 16th 2010, 13:10
Meanwhile, many countries, including Sweden which is mentioned in the commentary up here, is investing in nuclear power, which is considered as the real and true energy provider of the future. It provides affordable power on demand. France produces 80% of its electricity from the atom, Finland 100%, while Russia, China and India are investing heavily in nuclear. India is one of the new leaders today in nuclear design and may surpass the west in this technology. This is as green as one can go. The next step is Thorium. This element was researched during the early 60’s as an energy provider, in parallel with Uranium, but since Uranium produced plutonium as a by product, which is utilised in nuclear warheads, and nuclear warheads were required for the cold-war, the technological leaders USA and USSR went for Uranium reactors while US Thorium research was shelved. Recently this research was rediscovered with a great potential. First of all there is enough extractable Thorium on the planet to last a millennium and its waste is practically harmless unlike Uranium, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. This is the future and this is where we must and will go. -End
Alex Ellul
Jun 16th 2010, 12:44
...continued: Meanwhile, many countries, including Sweden which is mentioned in the commentary up here, is investing in nuclear power, which is considered as the real and true energy provider of the future. It provides affordable power on demand. France produces 80% of its electricity from the atom, Finland 100%, while Russia, China and India are investing heavily in nuclear. India is one of the new leaders today in nuclear design and may surpass the west in this technology. This is as green as one can go. The next step is Thorium. This element was researched during the early 60’s as an energy provider, in parallel with Uranium, but since Uranium produced plutonium as a by product, which is utilised in nuclear warheads, and nuclear warheads were required for the cold-war, the technological leaders USA and USSR went for Uranium reactors while US Thorium research was shelved. Recently this research was rediscovered with a great potential. First of all there is enough extractable Thorium on the planet to last a millennium and its waste is practically harmless unlike Uranium, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. This is the future and this is where we must and will go. - end
Alex Ellul
Jun 16th 2010, 12:43
...continued: So there goes the fairly tale of renewable energy. The cost of subsidising renewables by the public’s taxes is therefore causing the overall cost of generating electricity to go up, making us the poorer and making us sweat in summer and freeze inside in our homes in winter.
What are the real alternatives? First of all, we have to achieve full reliability in electrical power provision and distribution so as to, at least, keep our present living standards. Since renewables cannot achieve this, we have to seek other sources. Hydrocarbons are still the cheapest way to produce electricity, even though the carbon-atom has been demonised by scientists who should know better. Life on this planet is carbon-based, the food-chain commences from the carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere and hydrosphere where life commences as vegetation, upon which all other life depends. It is my scientific opinion that there is nothing wrong in burning HC fuels, as long as the by-products are managed well, especially flue scrubbing in a way that only steam and CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere. This is achievable at a cost and works well in the most developed countries.
Continued..
Alex Ellul
Jun 16th 2010, 12:42
No matter what politicians say and wish, no amount of wind turbines or solar panels will replace one single turbine run by means of oil, coal or gas. The reason being that renewable generating stations be that micro or massive will not generate electricity when WE want them, but they will generate electricity when THEY want to. Hence, no matter how much installed renewable power we manage to built, when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing (or blowing too much hence the turbines are locked for safety), or both simultaneously. In a nutshell, renewables do not produce power on-demand. So what do we do when the wind stops and the sun is hiding? Do we have a black-out, a brown-out or do we switch on the Marsa Power station again? OK, the Marsa plant has to go and we will all be very happy about it, but the MXlokk one will have to deliver full power as though renewable never existed. The bottom line is that we have to plan for a full-scale power plant that can supply electricity according to the Maltese population requirements without fail, WITHOUT the input of renewable. Continued..
M Tabone
Jun 16th 2010, 14:52
ARE YOU KIDDING? Ongoing technological advancements will take care of your concerns, currently renewable sources has to potential to service part of our needs but in the future (not-so-far away) they will generate enough to keep sceptics of your breed happier.
Alex Ellul
Jun 16th 2010, 16:18
M Tabone: Give me me scientific proof. Renewables will never run a country. They are highly expensive and inefficient and will, in twenty years time be the laughing stock of power generation. In the UK windframs have only worked for a fraction of the time and produced a fraction (5%) of their estimated output. Read about it. Solar is much more reliable in Malta than wind and if we have to comply with the EU's 20/20, then we have to coevr our roofs with PV's, but wind? Its a non starter, both at the kilo and mega watt range. It will cost the earth to install them in deep water (btw, a US firm has designs for floating ones) and madness to install them on land due their visual impact. They kill birds, although in Malta we can trust the hunters for the birds to be dead before they re hit by a wind turbing blade, and they are noisy.
We have to be practical and economic in procuring energy to the masses, including the poor who need it most. The rich can buy their energy at any price, but the poor?