Christian Peregin
Hopes raised for reef wind farm in Mellieħa
The wind monitoring mast at L-Aħrax tal-Mellieħa.
An offshore wind farm on the Mellieħa reef known as Sikka l-Bajda is “viable”, wind speed studies have confirmed, but two important tests remain before this crucial project can set sail.
The next step is for the government to call on private companies willing to take on this venture to come forward and make their proposals. A call for expressions of interest will be issued this year and the feedback will be a clear indication of the project’s financial feasibility. Once a company is selected, the environmental impact assessments, now under way, will be refined and concluded.
If all the hurdles are overcome, Malta should have its offshore wind farm by 2016, four years before EU countries must ensure 10 per cent of their energy is produced from renewable sources. A wind farm with about 20 turbines will cover 3.24 per cent of this target and over a year will be able to generate 200GWh, the equivalent of the energy used by 40,000 households in a year.
These figures result from a study started in November 2009 through the instalment of an 80-metre high wind mast at L-Aħrax point, which overlooks the reef. The mast recorded average wind speeds of about seven metres per second, above the minimum speed required for a wind farm.
But one important hurdle remains to be overcome.
Last May, marine geologist Aaron Micallef told The Sunday Times seismic studies on the reef showed the appearance of two sinkholes, or underwater caves. Besides being rare and ecologically sensitive, these sinkholes could threaten the stability of the reef and limit the space available for enough turbines to be placed.
Resources Minister George Pullicino said, however, that his experts told him the turbines could be placed around these “small” caves in a way that would not affect the plans. He added the reef was already severely damaged due to bunkering and anchoring.
The wind farm, he said, would help to conserve the area and develop its natural habitat because it would prevent other forms of activities.
Mr Pullicino appealed to people to welcome the wind farms, which, rather than being an eyesore, were a “symbol of sustainable development”.
However, he warned, electricity generated from renewable sources would be more expensive than oil.
“Any politicians giving the opposite impression are basically saying rubbish. Any secondary school student could contradict them.”
Malta, he said, had to invest in renewable energy not to reduce electricity bills but to cut carbon dioxide emissions and pollution.
The European Commission on Monday singled out Malta as the member state which was not making any tangible progress to reach binding renewable energy targets by 2020. It noted the island was still planning to reach its commitments in less than 10 years’ time, even though the progress made so far was “disappointing”.
Asked about the 2020 EU targets, Mr Pullicino said Malta was the only country aiming to surpass its aim. But such ambitions depended on projects like that of Sikka l-Bajda.
Malta required an energy mix which also utilised sun and waste, he added. One aspect that should be explored in the future, he said, was developing energy from waste dumped in the engineered landfill because it could not be processed through the systems now in place. He pointed out that energy could be generated from items like contaminated plastic.
“We are literally dumping our coal,” he said.
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...
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alex Ellul
Feb 4th 2011, 08:28
Wind farms are killers of birds, the bigger the birds the more the risk becuase big birds depend on winds to fly, quick manouverability not their forte like small birds (same as samll and large aircraft).
The experience in countries that have invested in WT's is that they find lots of dead birds at the windfarms. The following link is a video showing an eagle actually being hit by a turbine blade, falling dead beneat the turbine mast. Open the following link, scroll down a bit, and click on the video:
http://againstlakelandturbines.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/wind-turbines-harm-birds-the-latest-from-christopher-booker/ . Watch the video, it shows the horrible fate ready for our Yelkouan shearwaters that actually live on that part of the sea where the WT's are being proposed. I just wonder what birdlife has to say about these. These W-Turbines will give hunters such a big excuse..............
Some more..
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5349
Alex Ellul
Feb 4th 2011, 08:05
Windfarms will not reduce the capacity of the oil-powered power stations or the capacity of the interconnecter planned for a Siciliy-Malta link. Wind turbines are funny machines. In the UK, the erection of wind farms have been a great success, due to the heavy subsidies (from people's taxes, that's why I call them politicians' toys), but teir operation has been a great flop. Let me explain: During the big freezes experineced during the last three winters when the UK was covered in snow from Scotland to Cornwall, when electricity is need most the wind turbines practically failed to generate electricity. Same for when there is a high pressure during summers, when the wind is practically dead but when commercial buildings switch on their air-conditioning systems. So, the conventional power stations were overloaded and the operator asked industry to reduce their loads as much as possible. OTOH, during times of good wind speeds, the authories had to compensate the wind farm owners to reduce their production due to over supply. I would not want to be an Enemalta engineer when we have 10% of our electrical (theoretically) coming from the erratic wind.
paul mallia
Feb 2nd 2011, 14:19
PART 2 These windfarms are quite expensive and reach the millions of Euros but they are good and commendable. Why on earth did we not go for a system that ensures loads and loads of KWs that could have sufficed for our requirements with extras to sell in the first place? I suppose that this could be deciphered by each one of us who reads this contribution, but I still contend that if this system was introduced immediately, with the amount of money that is being spent in the Delimara project it would have been more than enough to obtain cleaner energy with a cleaner atmospheric condition. But Not we in Malta! We go for this that and the other that suits us and our pockets rather than the atmosphere and clean surrounds!! I hope that the situation is cleared once and forever and the trend is changed towards supplying cleaner energy at a better price when we consider all that has to be considered. Change to cleaner energy is a must and the Delimara station should be closed down rather than enhanced. it will be suitable for storage on second thoughts! BUT!!!!
MSciberras
Feb 2nd 2011, 16:12
Because the system you want does not exist or is not yet technically feasible, in short.......Much more can be done to get more alternative energy sources but there is a limit. Compelling each household to have a solar panel would be a start but it will be expensive. There is no space for huge solar and wind farms in Malta; offsore, the sea is too deep in most viable places for windfarms because our islands are the summits of mountains rising from the seabed.
paul mallia
Feb 2nd 2011, 14:18
More comments about this issue are expected to be coming in. But the comments will be superfluous if not taken seriously through comparing our position with that of other countries. Take Spain (for example) - This country has introduced alternative energy by installing a trough system which has already received an EU credit as this has decreased drastically the emissions previously being experienced, and the cost was (albeit hefty) accepted to be medium considering the advantages. Another large country - Australia is to become Alternatively Electrified by the year 2020 in the same manner as Spain. And mind you there is already a plan and budget for this to ensue. Take small African states which are becoming alternatively electrified through Solar Stations (small in size but efficient for their requirement) as well. And then take Malta - We go for an old system which ensures that emissions are still there and that generates X-Quantity of material that needs disposal etc. etc. And what do we get? EUR400 million expense just for getting nothing new and another EUR200 for the Sicily pipeline. We are now considering the Wind Farms (finally). To be contd.
Godfrey Camilleri
Feb 2nd 2011, 14:17
Something is very wrong with these figures! 20 turbines will give enough electricity to cater for the needs of 40,000 households and this is just 3.24% of the 10% target. Hence if we reach the 10% target we will supply 1,234,568 households! With an average 2.5 persons per household this means that the supply of 100% electricity requirement will cater for 1,234,568 x 10 x 2.5 ie close to 31 million people!! Kindly clarify your figures.
MSciberras
Feb 2nd 2011, 15:59
Nothing wrong with the figures. The hospital for ex is included in the remaining balance and it alone is the equivalent of tens of thousands of households; then there are factoriesm airport etc. Households are not the only consumers of energy....
v mercieca
Feb 2nd 2011, 11:22
A positive outcome of the study. We do need alternative energy.
However, as the saying goes: I put my bottom dollar that before the project starts MEPA would discourage private investors with a list of requests which would be expensive or difficult to achieve.
Alex Ellul
Feb 4th 2011, 08:19
One does not need MEPA to dishearten potential investros. One only needs to measure the depth of the sea, unless we taxpayers are robbed of some billion dollars to finance the monstrous bases on the sea-floor that are required for each wind turbine. And then there is the ssue of birds being killed by the machines. Wind farms are killers of birds, the bigger the birds the more the risk becuase big birds depend on winds to fly, quick manouverability not their forte like small birds (same as samll and large aircraft).
The experience in countries that have invested in WT's is that they find lots of dead birds at the windfarms. The following link is a video showing an eagle actually being hit by a turbine blade, falling dead beneat the turbine mast.
http://againstlakelandturbines.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/wind-turbines-harm-birds-the-latest-from-christopher-booker/ . Watch the video, it shows the horrible fate ready for our Yelkouan shearwaters that atually live on that part of the sea where the WT's are being proposed. I just wonder what birdlife has to say about these. These W-Turbines will give hunters such a big excuse..............
MSciberras
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:52
Pullicino likes to give the impression that he is 'on track' with respect to the environment. These are the facts. After years of PN government, solar water energy receptors are still not mandatory in new, let alone existing developments. In Cyprus these have been mandatory for years. The law on water reservoirs, on the statute books for at least two years (even two years ago it was about 15 years too late) was and probably still is not being officially enforced, with the target date for enforcement now pushed to next year if I am not mistakem. Recent events in Gozo, administered by the truly horrific Giovanna (how about some investigative reporting here Mr Editor???) with YouTUbe clips showing construction waste being dumped on virgin garigue, as well as several sites across the islands which remain spoilt by such waste (a notable example is the natural huge crater-like depression off Xemxija Heights, which has its own unique ecological habitat and which I doubt has ever been subject to an archaeological analysis). Dont be impressed by the euros 100K fine meted out to the Gozitan quarry-owner. His lawyers will ensure it will be years before it is paid - if ever.
Ian Abdilla
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:24
But how can our politicians say something like that? alternative energy being more expensive than oil energy!! if it were so, then one will never be able to repay the cost of ownership of a photovoltaic system or of a wind turbine in as little as 3 years!!! if alternative energy was more expensive then this would imply that if I buy a solar photovoltaic system or wind turbine, I will never to get back the money I spent to buy the system. An other point - why would it in the states cost more than 10 cents per kWh(without factoring in carbon capture and storage) for coal generated electricity and wind power then costs just 6 to 8.5 cents per kWh???
wouldn't that just mean that politicians are still basing their ideas and calculations on pre 1995 costings (when wind energy was still more expensive due to inefficiencies in turbine designs and economically cheaper oil sources)?
why do we have to make everything more expensive in this country? even to buy a photovoltaic system or a turbine, you have to pay double what you pay elsewhere in the world?
someone may illuminate me on this?
MSciberras
Feb 2nd 2011, 12:01
Unfortunately Dr Pullicino is both right and wrong. Yes, energy supplied by a windfarm to the natonal grid is more expensive even at current (high) prices of fuel.........but wih prices of fuel at an even much higher level (a certainty in the near future), wind farms become more economically viable. Having a solar panel on your roof is a different matter - its a matter of one house, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of households, factories etc. Even in the case of solar panels, it is relevant to point out that they pay their own price in reduced energy bills only in a household with say 3 or 4 people, and probably after factoring in a govt subsidy. The hard truth is that having a windfarm or a solar panel is not about cheaper energy prices - it is more about stabilising the prices of our renewable energy sources at a level that is still high, bearing in mind that the alternatives (oil and gas) pollute, will one day run out and suffer huge price fluctuations. So in short - even with a wind farm - your electricity bill stays high, unless its subsidized.....which means higher taxes.....
Raymond Sammut
Feb 2nd 2011, 14:43
@ MSciberras --Dr Pullicino? Since when? So far as I know, Minister George Pullicino is "Perit" by profession.
ASpiteri
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:09
another white elephant...another eur400million down the drain!