Wind farms: Data collection at Mellieha to continue for two more years
An artist's impression of the proposed wind farm.
Mepa has granted a two-year extension for the operation of a data-gathering mast at l-Ahrax in Mellieha for studies on the site's suitability for an offshore wind farm.
The extension had been sought by scientists. The projected wind farmm at Sikka l-Bajda will provide electricity for some 40,000 households.
Another two years of collecting data would reduce the margin of error when extrapolating the results to cover the 20-year wind farm lifetime.
Tonio Sant, director of the University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, which is overseeing the collection, correlation and analysis of the data collected by the Malta Resources Authority, said earlier this year that data compilation in conjunction with the required studies would reaffirm what had already been established – that the 11-square-kilometre Sikka l-Bajda is a good location for an offshore wind farm.
Wind studies at L-Aħrax Point began in November 2009 after the 80-metre wind mast was installed. The data being collected from the mast is being correlated to the wind data that has been collected since 1997 from the institute’s wind station at Wied Rini, near Baħrija.
“Statistical correlation, like any experimental technique, has a margin of error, especially when you are extrapolating the data to cover a 20-year period. A longer measurement period would help decrease that margin of error,” Dr Sant told The Sunday Times.
Around 19 to 24 wind turbines, each with a diameter of between 100 and 126 metres, are expected to be installed at Sikka l-Bajda, a reef covering an area of 11 square kilometres, situated around two kilometres to the east of L-Aħrax tal-Mellieħa.
According to studies based on wind data collected so far, these would generate around 200 gigawatt-hours (Gwh) of electricity – which is about 10 per cent of what Enemalta produces every year, and the annual electricity consumtion of around 40,000 households.
Constructing an offshore wind farm is a lengthy process. A look at similar projects abroad show that a wind farm takes between six and eight years to construct, including time for studies and commissioning.
The Malta project, estimated to cost around €300 million, is expected to be in place by 2016, four years before EU countries must generate 10 per cent of their energy through renewable sources. The wind farm alone would cover just over three per cent of this target.
This project forms part of the National Renewable Energy Action Plan, which aims to generate electricity not only from wind but also from the sun.
Dr Sant said studies were continuing on the environmental impact of the project and the suitability of the site.
These studies, overseen by the Resources Ministry, are costing the government around €300,000 and are expected to be concluded in about a year’s time.
Engineer Robert Farrugia, also from the University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, said the institute had been collecting wind data from its station at Wied Rini since 1997, taking measurements of wind speeds at 10, 23 and 45 metres. This station is 220 metres above sea level while the one at L-Aħrax is just 15 metres above sea level.
Dr Sant said the environmental assessments included geological studies on the seabed to determine whether the rock was strong enough to anchor turbines.
According to preliminary investigations, it appeared that the seabed was suitable, despite the presence of underwater caves.
Once these studies are completed, the developer will conduct further geo-technical studies on what kind of foundations the turbines require. The foundations alone are estimated to cost about 20 per cent of the total cost of the project.
The bigger the diameter of the turbines chosen, the slower the rotational speed of the blades, which would have a positive effect on aesthetics.
The high-tech designs of today’s turbines have resulted in much less noise.
Dr Sant said technology was improving drastically with modern turbines estimated to generate between 25 and 35 per cent more energy per year.
“These are more expensive but they give a better yield and would eventually result in a lower cost of energy,” Dr Sant said.
Studies conducted include:
• Effect of wind farm on birds and bats;
• Effect on marine ecology;
• Visual and noise impact;
• The impact of the rotating shadow of the turbines;
• The impact on the quality of the marine environment, including any possible pollution;
• Study on the possible archaeological remains;
• Impact on air traffic;
• Effect on communications, including mobile coverage;
• Impact on fishing and aquaculture.
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...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
39 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Michael Bock
Jan 26th, 06:39
This is at the end of January 2012 and it may be too late for this comment but I will make it anyway. Look up
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/
and read about the wind turbine graveyards in the USA, 14.000 turbines so far and more to go - and many thousands of dead birds. In case they introduce them in Malta it would save the bird hunters a lot of bird shots, no?
G G Debono
Nov 18th 2011, 17:36
Quick comment to …………John Borg (Yesterday, 12:59)
RE “……… renewable energy is still in an experimental stage………..”
Sorry, but this is not so. Land-based and near offshore Wind energy technology is fully advanced what is still in m development is deep sea technology – but this is advancing rapidly.
The price of PV panels might go UP too – (rather than down) as the raw material prices rise with demand ! b
RE “…..It does not pay to rush into so called clean systems which cost ……………….” With big projects a company pays and sells the energy to governments.
Household PV pays itself after some years …….
What must also be factored into the cost is the avoidance of the carbon-related and health (pollution) consequences as well as oil spills and so on .
It is now beyond reasonable doubt that climate change will happen if we continue to emit CO2 at the same rate. This means that our young children and grand children may be the last living humans – it is as bad as that.
Anthony Azzopardi
Nov 18th 2011, 14:15
Who will take the overall responsibility and be accountable should this mega project fail? We must know this before the first euro is spent!
pat muscat
Nov 18th 2011, 09:25
This is just a political gimmick. The truth is the Government has no intention of building the wind farm at Sikka il-Bajda or elsewhere!
Michael Pule
Nov 18th 2011, 13:53
Ms Muscat, you seem to be a qualified expert on alternative energy. Come on, give us your proposals then, please....
M.O. Micallef
Nov 18th 2011, 21:16
Very sorry Mr Pule, Ms Muscat is an expert about evrything on the planet....emmm sorry in the universe...so Mr Pule next time round before stating your reply check you facts
J Galea
Nov 18th 2011, 07:27
why spoil this wonderful view with these ghastly turbines. Better develop other technologies like wave and solar panels. Once these nasty things go up they will be there for at least 50 years.
G G Debono
Nov 18th 2011, 10:54
Mr Galea
You think they are ugly. Most people think they are fine - because they represent a new clean way to produce energy. ( most surveys show that approx 5% of people hate them. 15% are neutral and 80% are positive)
Also, the average working life of a turbine is 25 years (not 50 years) - and they can be removed without leaving a trace.
So presumably you are one of the 5% who make a lot of noise but are in fact a small minority.
The way to go for Malta would have been start on land on land - it is 2/3 cheaper etc - going straight to offshore is positively gimmicky and not the way to start, (see my comment below - Yesterday, 13:58)
Christan Brincat
Nov 18th 2011, 02:52
Dear Mr Minister
The UK Government who has had windfarms for a while now has just confirmed that the energy from wind farms is much much more expensive than a normal plant. And since they have to increase to 33%, that means more wind power and higher cost per watt for the consumer (all due to an agreement Tony blair made).
Food for thought
Albert Bezzina
Nov 17th 2011, 20:39
The reason is simple:
If the turbines could have been built in Malta using franka stone, prickly pair stalks, politicians' hot air, fat from liposuction, and maybe a good dose of pastizzi it would not be a problem because local materials would have been used and nothing would have needed to be imported. A great opportunity for a high value added project.
Since all the hardwear has to be imported than - 'Let's get another two years of data just to be sure, and than just for good measure, maybe another two years after that'
Mr Jurgen Grech
Nov 17th 2011, 14:11
Would you put a solar panel on you roof if it was given to you for free? You would not be paid for the extra units you produce but you would not receive an electricity bill, ever! I know I would accept such an offer! What this country lacks is land...what it has in abundance though is private roof space and sun! If the government was to give solar panels to anyone who is willing to accept my described offer and to install all public buildings with solar panels, I would imagine we would cater for much more than 40,000 households at a cheaper price! They could also be installed immediately and do not need further studies! Although subsidizing the purchase of solar panels is a good thing, the initial cost of a solar panel installation is still out of the reach of many!
J. Debono
Nov 17th 2011, 15:26
To produce 200GWH by photovoltaics, you have to cover a substantial area, ll of which is private.
Besides being more expensive than wind turbines, it does not produce electricity at night and cloudy days.
The cheaper and much more efficient solar water heaters should be first introduced, THEN photovoltaics, as they're still extremely expensive and very inefficient (less than 16%), as opposed to solar water heater (60% efficiency and cheaper materials).
In order to produce enough electricity by PVP to heat water, you have to invest almost double the amount in PVP than solar water heater (obviously excluding any grants).
Mr Jurgen Grech
Nov 17th 2011, 17:03
@J Debono...the idea is not to become fully reliant on PVP! Renewable energy sources need to work together...so I agree with you that together with PVP, there is a need for more solar water heaters as well...however i'm sure that if we were to cover most public buildings in PVP and they were given for free to anyone willing to install one on his roof, even at 16% efficiency, we would lower demand on Enemalta by a long stretch!!
J. Debono
Nov 17th 2011, 19:18
@ Mr. Grech
With less than 2,000 Euros, I installed a solar water heater, changed all my bulbs to energy savers, and did double glazing instead of single glazing (the difference in price I calculated).
The result - 7 Units less consumption per day. App. 4-5Units from solar water heater, 1-2 Units from bulbs, 0.5 - 1 Unit ftom insulation.
To produce 7 Units per day with PVP - the cost is app. 5,000 - 6,000Euro.
They are currently too expensive
G G Debono
Nov 17th 2011, 13:58
This offshore thing is like ordering Caviar and Champagne when we could have done better with Beer and sausages in order to see if an expensive offshore farm was worthwhile. .............`
Malta missed a golden opportunity when a company offered to build a wind farm on Marfa ridge 5 years ago. If this had not been stupidly rejected by MEPA it would by now have been into its fifth year of electricity generation ......and provided information on the advisibility of going offshore.
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. This project withan estimated annual output of 55 GWh (equivalent to approximately 5% of Malta’s electricity needs at the time) would also have provided a valuable opportunity for our technicians to gain 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 before going out to see. It might also have afforded Malta an opening into a (GREEN) service industry for renewable energy in the Med area . &c&C&C which have provided new employment opportunities.
The decision by MEPA to turn this down was the most phenomenally stupid and ignorant decision of the decade - it has put Malta back by 10 years and left us 100% dependent on oil. - - - As well as missing the bus on possible exploitation of a GREEN economy activity.
j brincat
Nov 17th 2011, 13:53
Typical - forever postponing matters.
(jb)
D. A . Agius
Nov 17th 2011, 13:11
60 million of the estimated cost will be just the foundations according to the above article. Would an area such as Wied Rini not be a lot less expensive to place and in the long run, cheaper to maintain? Maybe we could even spend the saving on more turbines, thus increasing yield from wind energy.
I have seen huge acres of these wind turbines in Scotland and Bulgaria and although yes, they do emit noise, on the other hand they do not pollute and environmentally, I'd be more worried about a single oil tanker hitting the coast whilst providing fuel for our power stations.
In order to maintain these turbines on the seabed, what will be the maintenance cost?
I belive the cost and practicality of making use of this location makes no sense when locations like ix-Xaghra l-Hamra, Wied Rini and why not, Kemmuna, would be a LOT more practical.
Actual effect of Environmental impact on birds is low as well, as indicated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power
R ferriggi
Nov 17th 2011, 13:01
stop with this nonsense.
this WHOLE idea is not viable FROM THE WORD GO.
it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
frankly i think it will never be done,,,,,, because it will such a HUGE failuer that no politician,,,,, no matter how attention and power seeking he is,,, will risk it.
with that money,,, we can do a million other things!!!
1. incentivate solar and solar thermal,,, smaller land based wind.
2. link maltaa to sicily by gas pipeline and interconnector.
3. switch local power stations to cleanest fuel possible. (( the newextension is a total disaster environmentally).
4. switch to electric cars, incentivate electric cars, create an infrastructure for them.
I REPEAT,,,, THIS WHOLE OFFSHORE WIND FARM NONSENSE SHOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY.
John Borg
Nov 17th 2011, 13:01
the solution to save on energy is to use more solar panels on roofs to generate electricity. It does not even pay to install solar water heaters. the panel could be generating electricity in summer when most people end up covering them as they don't need the hot water. people should be incentivised to install more panels on their roofs to cover their own consumption. Enemalta can then benefit because if enough electricity is generated to enable it to switch off a turbine, some real savings could be made.
V. Cauchi
Nov 17th 2011, 12:45
Start studying geothermal energy - it is boundless and not so unaesthetic.
Mr Jurgen Grech
Nov 17th 2011, 14:00
It is also possible in areas which are igneous in nature not sedimentary! Malta is a sedimentary island...geothermal is not an option unfortunately.
V. Cauchi
Nov 17th 2011, 15:18
@ Mr Jurgen Grech
Best read on drilling in sedimentary rock http://www.greenrock.com.au/geothermalProcess.php
Mr Jurgen Grech
Nov 17th 2011, 17:00
It is easier to drill, agreed, but you would have to go deeper and deeper in order to get to those areas which are hot enough to boil water...in countries like Iceland and certain parts of Italy, hot magma is much closer to the surface and makes geothermal plant much more convenient to install...geothermal energy could however be an option for cooling/heating as it is currently being investigated in the new parliament building.
V. Cauchi
Nov 17th 2011, 18:15
No problem digging deeper or looking for new technology producing very hot water which could then be brought to the boil by CSP (concentrated solar power) over a very limited area, given our limitations. What is needed is inventiveness and lateral thinking, local government initiative and private entrepreneurship to get ideas rolling. I am sure some foreign entrepeneur will come with pretty good ideas if only we advertise our needs thoroughly.
Mark Brincat
Nov 17th 2011, 12:27
A project costing around €300 million to power just about 10 per cent of what Enemalta is currently producing is absolutely not viable. However if I'm correct with my calculations one could have gotten at least 400Gwh. However this would have caused an issue with the extra space needed.
Mark Brincat
Jonathan Scerri
Nov 17th 2011, 12:55
Such an investment would have to be seen in virtue of its life cycle costs, not just the capital cost. It's about time this country stops demonishing renewable energy if it ever wants to diversify its energy sources and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
B Ellul
Nov 17th 2011, 13:18
Since you have already concluded that the project is not viable, I would suggest that you contact the ministry and explain.... a cheap consultant (or shall I say economic professor) is always welcome! AND other countries who already/will be investing in wind technologies should also contact you as well.... not to commit all the same mistake.... u mur l'hemm....
G G Debono
Nov 17th 2011, 14:01
Another good reason for starting on land - land based wind energy provides energy at about the same price(or cheaper ) than offshore ---- the infrastructure costs about one half or even one third to build AND maintain.
But our ministry of silly decisions turned the original land based project down.
G G Debono
Nov 17th 2011, 16:36
Sorry - correction - - -
what I meant to write is:
G G Debono
Today, 14:01
Another good reason for starting on land - land based wind energy provides energy at about the same price(or cheaper ) than FOSSIL FUEL (delete 'offshore ' ) ---- the infrastructure costs about one half or even one third to build AND maintain THAN OFFSHORE .
But our ministry of silly decisions turned the original land based project down.
charles v schembri
Nov 17th 2011, 12:16
What about the impact on safe navigation?
B Ellul
Nov 17th 2011, 13:20
if you're worrying about navigation.... well buy a small boat and anchor yourself next to the turbine to signal other ships.... have you heard of the word RADAR!
G G Debono
Nov 17th 2011, 14:02
Should be ok with safe navigators - as long as they go easy with the gin-and-tonic ?
J. Debono
Nov 17th 2011, 14:51
well, in my opinion a 126METRE blade is easily visible!!
Marco Cremona
Nov 17th 2011, 12:10
The writing was on the wall ...... and I had warned that this will happen when the wind-data collection project was announced.
For how can a mere 12-months data ever give the necessary assurances to potential investors to put millions of euros of their money in such a high risk 20-year project?
If government received any offers the investors would have asked us for an astronomical price for the electricity the wind farm will produce - and this latest development is probably a reaction to such feedback received for investors.
Shame on our politicians for rubbishing alternative energy until 2009 (when they saw the light!) and for making us believe that one-years data would have been sufficient to see us home and dry with respect to wind energy.
We lost a good 10 years in alternative energy development, and we're still years away from reaping any tangible benefits.
And with all due respect to Dr. Sant (a person I hold in high esteem), did he inform the Resources Minister that there is no way anybody could realistically extrapolate one-years data over the next 20 years when the Minister announced the start of the wind data project?
John Borg
Nov 17th 2011, 12:59
wasted 10 years? renewable energy is still in an experimental stage. people who bought panels for their homes just three years ago paid a higher price than was is being paid now for panels that produce less output. It does not pay to rush into so called clean systems which cost much more. 300 million for so few households is not a good return whichever way one looks at it.
Edward Mallia
Nov 17th 2011, 14:25
I suggest that request for another two years of wind speed data has little or nothing to do with extrapolating one year's data over the next twenty years. This extrapolation over however many years is not usually part of the procedure in determining the search wind farm sites. The German firm once interested in a land-based farm at Marfa may have had no more than six months of measurements. And wind farms in the North sea DO NOT take 6 to 8 years from start to finish. North Rhyl offshore of North Wales took less than 4 years.
In any case, if a lack of long time base measurements are really what's holding up Sikka l-Bajda, what does one make of Ing. Robert Farrugia's statement that 'the institute has been collecting wind data from its station at Wied Rini since 1997, at 10, 23 and 45m [above ground level]'? Was not Bahrija (Wied Rini) the second of the three farm sites in Minister Pullicino's proposals? How come we do not have one miserable turbine up there? Or is the Institute for Sustainable Energy misinforming the public about Bahrija?
Mr Tony Gatt
Nov 17th 2011, 11:51
There is huge controversy in the U.K. about these turbines, which never produce their rated maximum capacity, and produce very expensive electricity.
Then of course there is the obvious question- what to do if the wind doesn't blow? The answer is to keep the present power stations on standby. A ludicrous solution.
joe vella
Nov 17th 2011, 12:30
there are very few windless days in malta, dead calm days are few and far between
and the location being reviewed is well exposed to the predominant winds in malta
one hopes that we do not end up with never ending studies and the project takes an eternity to materialise, that is if it eventually materialises!
Michael Borg
Nov 17th 2011, 12:30
Whilst your points are valid, there are aspects of the present power stations that must be taken into account when assessing the viability of wind turbines and other renewable technologies.
As you pointed out, wind turbines do not continously operate at their rated capacity (but still reach it above certain wind speeds). In fact offshore wind turbines have a load factor of around 35-40% (that is, on average they operate at rated capacity for 35-40% of a given time period). The present power stations do not run at 100% capacity as one would think, due to the electric grid fluctuations, although they have a much higher load factor.
Another factors to be considered are the security of supply, with oil prices continously changing, the price of electricity (and water in Malta's case due to the heavy reliance on reverse osmosis) will also fluctuate. With wind turbines and other renewable technologies, once the capital investment, operational lifetime, and maintenance costs are established, a fixed price for electricity is used.
Also with the introduction of the carbon dioxide emissions tax by the European Commission, the price of electricity generated by using fossil fuels will be more expensive.
This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the situation, but one must try to take a full view to appreciate the implementation fo renewable energies to substitute our current addiction to fossil fuels.