An €18 million boiler refurbishment project scrapped by Enemalta earlier this month has been replaced by modifications costing a relatively paltry €100,000, the energy company has said.
Enemalta had said the new modifications and a change in fuel would yield the same emission results as the original multi-million project.
But the massive discrepancy in cost between the two options – the modifications carried out cost some 0.5 per cent of the cancelled project’s cost – has raised eyebrows about the accuracy of Enemalta’s claims or the original €18 million project’s value for money.
“If Enemalta are capable of achieving the same reduction in emissions by spending €100,000 instead of €18 million, then all the better, but anyone in their right mind would have serious questions about the claim,” said engineer Arthur Ciantar, who served as a consultant to the Marsaxlokk local council on the extension to the Delimara power station.
The cancelled project, which originated in 2009 and was meant to rely heavily on EU funding, had sought to modify two boilers to bring their emissions of nitrogen oxide and dust to within EU emissions limits.
The European Commision had objected, however, questioning whether the use of EU funds was in line with state aid and competition rules. It has now closed its investigation into the matter after Enemalta abandoned the project.
The corporation said lower emissions were possible thanks to the use of “a different fuel” in conjunction with “other investments”.
When asked about these other investments, an Enemalta spokesman said that existing atomisers had been replaced with “specially designed low NOx” ones and that modifications were carried out to the boilers’ combustion air control system, their air fuel mixing system and the fuel staging of the different levels of burners.
“The total cost of these modifications, including trials of different atomisers and settings, was in the range of €100,000,” the company said.
Both boilers have also switched to the less-polluting 0.7 per cent low-sulphur fuel, from the one per cent sulphur fuel oil they were previously running on.
These various modifications have resulted in a 40 per cent reduction in NOx emissions and 65 per cent less dust, a spokesman added, leaving Enemalta well within emission ceilings.
Both Mr Ciantar and environmentalist Edward Mallia had criticised the company for the scant information originally provided when announcing the project’s cancellation.
Dr Mallia had said that perhaps Enemalta intended to cut emissions by reducing both boilers’ output but the company rejected the suggestion, saying that there was no need to do so.
Enemalta has dodged a question concerning the advantages that the multi-million refurbishment would have offered over the smaller-scale modifications.
However a company spokesman argued that the €18 million boiler refurbishment would have achieved even better results without changing the sulphur grade of the fuel.
“Even though the trials with the €100,000 modification investment produced exceptional results, one has to also take into account the conscious decision taken by Enemalta in August 2010 to reduce the sulphur content of the fuel used in both power stations (from 1 per cent to 0.7 per cent sulphur content) which further helped the reduction in emissions.”
Still, Mr Ciantar remained baffled. “The more questions you ask, the more perplexing the situation becomes,” he told The Times.
Enemalta told The Times it continuously monitored emissions from its chimneys and made the results publicly available online. The reply left Mr Ciantar unimpressed.
“I can say whatever I want about myself. It should be the Malta Environment and Planning Authority which gives the emissions results its seal of approval.”
A Mepa spokesman said that Enemalta was obliged to monitor and regularly report its emissions, in line with its Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control permits.
Mr Ciantar felt that the entire situation only served to undermine Enemalta’s own credibility.
“People are not stupid. If Enemalta withdraws from an €18 million project but then says that it has achieved the same result by switching fuel and spending a mere €100,000, questions are bound to be asked. The difference in price is incredible. How do you reconcile the two?”