The issue of Times of Malta of November 2, 2009, carried a piece headlined ‘If the offshore wind farm fails we are stuck – Pullicino’.
The “offshore wind farm” was the proposed wind farm on Sikka l-Bajda off Rdum tal-Madonna at Armier.
There followed an extended period of two years of wind speed measurements at Armier, as well as a long look by Mepa at the wind farm’s potential impacts.
Of the other two small sites in the 2009 proposal, Ħal Far is now out because of the new airport approach radar and Baħrija has vanished without trace.
A promising Gozo offshore site, mentioned in the original Sikka l-Bajda report, was never looked at.
After five years of scrutiny, Mepa now tells us that the Sikka l-Bajda wind farm “would have significant multiple impacts on the environment”.
With the proposed 200MW gas turbine, the Sicily interconnector and the BWSC contribution, we do not need any help from wind
There is a basic problem with the Mepa report: the unquestioned choice of 5MW turbines at a time when such machines were – and still are – under trial and so would have long supply times.
That choice has a strong effect on how significant these “multiple impacts” are.
Yet even keeping that in mind, Mepa does give the impression that it is doing its utmost to inflate these impacts. Take the “visual impact” statement: “major impact” on an immense arc between Pembroke and Ta’ Ċenċ.
The noise footprint is hardly less dramatic, particularly in l-Aħrax and Comino, even though both locations are out of the line of the direction of the prevailing wind reaching the turbines.
The supposed “restriction of navigation routes” is again open to doubt; that of having to give up “an important bunkering area” is plain nonsense, as it is not backed by any information on present frequency of use.
Relocation of “an aquaculture farm” might be seen as a plus by Buġibba people, who have to put up with episodes of fish-farm muck drifting ashore.
The one solid objection relates to the impact on the Yelkouan shearwater, which nests in the cliffs of Rdum tal-Madonna. It is very difficult to see how such a large group (19) of 5MW rotors would not lead to the disruption of its nesting and foraging habits.
Even a one or two-season disruption could have irreversible results. But again, Mepa feels the need for ‘padding’ the Yelkouan case by bringing in “ducks, raptors, and waders”, species that would have far less serious problems with the turbines.
Post March 2013, engineers in the Ministry for Energy and Water Conservation initially took the view that Sikka l-Bajda could be declared “a project of national importance”, overriding any objections to its construction.
Wied Rini was also said to be still in play, even if the long litany of “studies” supposedly being undertaken by Mepa looked like foot-dragging. And these “studies” had to be restricted to the original Pullicino proposals, which contained obvious lacunae related to turbine number and siting, adding another (avoidable) source of eventual objections.
Then the wind shifted; the engineers developed a different take.
The sun, it was said, shines during the day (surprise, surprise); the wind blows at night (not just at night according to information from the National Statistics Office!) and power demand at night quite frequently slips below 200MW.
But with the proposed 200MW gas turbine, which cannot be turned down to deliver less than about 180MW without loss of efficiency, the Sicily interconnector and the BWSC contribution, we do not need any help from wind.
So Sikka l-Bajda must go. And Sikka l-Bajda has gone.
Are we then “stuck”, as Pullicino predicted we would be?
Probably not, as the EU has kindly reduced our 2020 Renewable Energy quota to 10 per cent of all energy used.
And we have had a strong development of solar PV panel installation, though we have had setbacks in renewable energy from waste and from use of biofuels.
So there need be no great regret for the passing of Sikka l-Bajda, except for the method of passing.
As the song goes: when will they ever learn?