The two letters by Henrik Piski (September 2 and 6) are of significant public interest.
Aside from the Malta-Germany price differences for photovoltaic (PV) installations - primarily caused by the huge increase in sales in Germany after the 2004 revision of the feed-in tariff - the letters highlight the fact that the local capital subsidy seems to be going to the dealers and not to the householder.
This was not the intention behind it, presumably. On the other hand, the way it was introduced and its presumed restriction to local purchases point in the opposite direction.
These points apart, the comments by Albert Cilia Vincenti (September 6) need looking at.
The rumour of an Enemalta intention to trade two fossil fuel units for every PV unit a householder puts on the grid may not sound too exciting, given that Enemalta already has a straight barter arrangement (1:1). But it can be seen in another light. The top unit rate with 95 per cent surcharge reaches €0.20. So two units for one is equivalent to €0.40 for every PV unit. If, at the same time, Enemalta increases the top rate for domestic consumers by just €0.05, it would be making a profit on the deal until the installed PV power reaches 4MWp - some 40 times the current installation. For a 2kWp installation, the householder would have a 10.5 year pay-back time for a local purchase and 8.5 years for an unsubsidised German installation. Of course, all this depends on the current electricity tariff. The promised review of the basic tariff structure may upset it all.
There is no need for "wonder" over our PV potential. Over two years ago, members of the University's Institute of Energy Technology - those very people accused of wasting public money by Mr Cilia Vincenti some months ago - published a paper entitled The Renewable Energy Potential Of Malta, which was distributed to government bodies, ministries, newspapers, etc. The figure arrived at for PV potential from house, commercial, public and industrial roofs was around six per cent of present generation. No considerations as to capital costs or timescale were given.
One last point. As an example of fragmented planning, domestic PV and solar water heater installations on two-storey houses can fall foul of the three-storey and penthouse syndrome.
To take a specific case: a third floor and penthouse built by a neighbour on the west side of a two-storey terrace house in central Attard - which had been carefully excluded from the Urban Town Core in 2006 (shades of Transfiguration Avenue, Lija!) - cut the terrace house's PV output by a third this summer.
Did anybody mention "solar rights"?