Philip Mifsud
Renewable energy: 2020 and beyond
If you think that the renewable energy targets set by the European Union to be reached by the year 2020 are too ambitious then you have to take a look at what the European Renewable Energy Council is suggesting for the year 2050.
The European target for the year 2020 for the EU (as established by the EU itself through the Renewable Energy Directive) is to generate 20 per cent of all its generated energy from renewable energy sources.
Different countries have different targets; the weighted average of all member states remains 20 per cent. For example, the local RES target for the year 2020 is 10 per cent.
On the other hand, the Swedish target is 49 per cent. And if a 49 per cent target seems too high to you, you had better know that Sweden had already reached and exceeded its target in 2009.
The question is whether this collective target will be reached or not. Economic and financial complications that affected a good number of European countries in recent years are definitely not helping the situation. It is evident that some member states are in a real risk of not reaching their 2020 target. Penalties and legal action against such member states may apply.
Notwithstanding this, recent predictions still show that the collective target will be reached. In fact, the most recent studies show that, by 2020, the energy generated from RES within the EU will be 20.6 per cent of the total energy generated. The targets, as imposed by member states themselves in their respective National Renewable Energy Action Plans, show that the projected EU aim will be exceeded by 0.7 per cent.
It seems that these positive predictions have triggered more and more ambitious plans. European stakeholders are now discussing targets for 2030 and 2050. And, guess what?
The EREC is presenting a pathway towards a 100 per cent RES for the EU by the year 2050. The EREC is the umbrella organisation of the major European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations.
Yes, that’s right, in order for this target to be reached, by 2050 RES need to have exclusivity within the EU. This includes transport! No fossil fuels, no gas, no nuclear power solutions. Talking about nuclear energy, it is obvious that the Fukushima disaster has triggered discussions on the viability of this high-risk method of energy generation. We witnessed mass protests in different countries. These actions led politicians back to their drawing boards. The decisions that were recently taken gave the upper hand to RES. It is really a pity that such decisions had to be triggered by a devastating disaster!
Back to 2050, I feel that a 100 per cent RES vision is quite ambitious.
Obviously, the situation is a complex one and one can feel pressure from opposing commercial interests. It seems to me that the RES industry is becoming more and more powerful and influential. Aware of such a fact, it is dedicating more resources in planting such high targets within different European fora. In doing so, it will guarantee that such an industry will continue to flourish. The turnover of this industry within Europe stands at €70 billion annually. Just imagine what the figures would look like if the 100 per cent RES target would be reached.
This is where the role of the politicians comes into play. Obviously, politicians will decide on the targets to be reached beyond 2020. The year 2030 might be already too near. The EREC is pressuring the European Commission, member states and the European Parliament to deliver on the EU’s long-term climate commitment by proposing and endorsing a legally-binding EU target of at least 45 per cent renewable energy by 2030. Operators in the conventional energy generation business will definitely oppose such a proposal. As explained above, pressure will soon be mounting for a binding target for the year 2050.
The EREC is demanding exclusivity. The year 2050 might seem too far but thinking in terms of investment cycles, that is only one to two investment cycles away. The EREC knows this quite well.
At this stage, I feel that the question should not be whether such a target is attainable or not. If Sweden has been generating more than 50 per cent of its energy through RES since 2009 it is definitely capable to reach the 100 per cent mark by 2050. And if Sweden can do it, then the EU can do it.
The question that we should ask at this stage is whether we should aim this high or not.
My instinct seems to drive me towards a positive answer!
The author, an architect by profession, is a Nationalist member of Parliament and Parliamentary Assistant within the Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs.
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Andre Fenech
Oct 18th 2011, 10:56
Although I agree in principle with what is being suggested in the article especially ion view of the growth the Green Industry has seen in the last decade in countries like Germany and Spain, one has to keep his feet firmly to the ground.
One has to remember that Europe does not exist in a vacuum but is competing against other major economic powers like the USA and now the ever emerging BRICS which are doing basically nothing in combating the Global climate change phenomenon and keep on polluting at very high levels. Europe must not impose stringent targets just for the sake of looking good and further alienating European businesses in staying on the continent by relocating to the Far East.
The EU should inspire further investment in the R&D of new technologies to make the latter cheaper to produce and make them more efficient and therefore viable to invest in for businesses and the community at large.
I also believe that our Government needs to make the right submissions to the Commission to make it understand that Malta cannot possibly achieve 100% RES on its own territory but we should be given an exemption to import green energy from neighbouring countries especially in view of the impending connection to the European mainland grid via Sicily. With this, I'm not saying that we should forego producing green energy locally as there is still a lot that can be done especially with regards to Waste to energy, Solar energy and solar thermal and possibly wind and wave energy. Nevertheless, one must understand our limitations and Europe cannot impose a one size fits all approach in this aspect.
G G Debono
Oct 18th 2011, 15:52
PrintEmail
Andre Fenech
Yes, OK, but “ keeping feet firmly to the ground” does not exclude being realistic and starting to invest gradually which is what Malta should have started long ago but didn’t do – it is only now that, in a panic things are being done to catch up after years of incomprehension and foot dragging.
The missed opportunity at Marfa Ridge would not have been expensive – the electricity would have been sold to Malta at the going price and this opportunity was simply turned down on utterly stupid grounds. Now Malta is planning on a proposal for (expensive) offshore wind energy. This is like trying to run before we can walk - - - we should have started on land at Marfa Ridge (at about 1/3 of offshore prices) to get some know-how and then possibly gone offshore.
Nobody is talking of Malta cannot achieving 100% RES on its own territory. And , of course, importing green energy from neighbouring countries is a good idea - - - it should be part of the varied mix of wind, waste to energy, solar energy and solar thermal and possibly wave energy as you say. There is security in diversity and remaining 100% dependent on oil is insane
Marco Cremona
Oct 19th 2011, 10:43
Andre Fenech,
The possibility of Malta investing in RES elsewhere in Europe (and subsequently generating RES at a fraction of the cost of what it will cost in Malta) already exists - and this would account towards our RES obligations.
Already in 2007 government's foreign consultants Mott McDonald had suggested that this should be the best way forward. But then we wouldn't have any mega projects to inaugurate in Malta would we?
G G Debono
Oct 18th 2011, 10:42
Mr Mifsud I absolutely agree with your last line.... but political will was always lacking and priorities all wrong.
. Malta is still at still at square one in respect of renewable energy and 100% dependent on polluting oil. We are too far away from any significant contribution from renewable to reach targets on time. It has been a case of bumbling, ignorance and incompetence all the way.
Malta missed a very significant opportunity in 2004 when a commercial company offered to erect a wind farm with twelve 2.75 megawatt turbines at Marfa ridge and to sell energy to Malta at a fair price. The projected annual output of this wind farm was equivalent to approximately 5% of Malta’s electricity needs at the time and equivalent to the electricity consumption of about 7,000 households.
Turning down this project was one of the stupidest decisions of the decade. The reasons given for turning it down were invalid - and of the most stupid kind. If this project had not been turned down it would by now have been into its fifth year of electricity generation and it would have given us a realistic estimate of the potential of wind energy in Malta and whether such a land based wind farm was aesthetically acceptable to the Maltese. In these five years Malta would have benefited in other ways. Besides providing a significant amount of clean electricity and reducing Malta’s carbon dioxide emissions by a total of around 80,000 tons through reduction of fossil fuel combustion, such a project would also have provided a valuable opportunity for our technicians to gain some hands-on experience in the servicing and maintenance of wind energy generators and to test the logistics of adding a major source of intermittent electricity to our grid. It would also have provided new employment opportunities.
So because of ignorance – and, probably one-upmanship type politics – we are still as backward
as a third-world country when Malta might have otherwise been a hub of know-how in the Med.
It is now 6 years later - probably too late to late to revitalise this project - who knows. What is sure is that prices have doubled or trebled in the meantime !