3% renewable energy by end 2014? Oh, come off it Konrad Mizzi!

Konrad Mizzi, Malta’s Minister for the Energy, reported that the country will have an energy mix consisting of 3% renewable energy by the end of the year. Do you think that Malta can manage to generate the same amount of renewable energy in eight months that it generated in the first eight years of its EU membership?

Birds eye view of Hotel Fortina in Sliema showing what one would consider a lot of solar panels. I shudder at the thought of entire villages blanketed with these costly and ineffective renewable alternatives (Photo credit: maltashipphotos)

No. Actually, the more appropriate answer would be no, no, no, no, no. I would also throw a ‘lol’ in there somewhere, but it would be deemed highly unprofessional and childish. Just under a year ago, I wrote a blog entry regarding the situation of renewable energy in Malta and the limitations of the country in terms of reaching its mandatory 2020 energy target.

Since the above blog was published, Eurostat has since updated its data sheets to include 2012 (it takes a long time to collate the entire data sets from the EU 28, so we are always presented with data which is two years behind). The following table is an excerpt of the data presented, showing how Malta compares to the other small EU states Cyprus and Luxembourg, the newest Member State Croatia, and the top renewable energy producer Sweden:

The catch of this report is that the data for Malta for 2012 is an estimated that is based on the national data which is given to the European Commission under Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 on energy statistics. As such, there is not even a clear indication of what percentage share of renewables Malta managed to produce in 2012, and from which sources (although Solar Energy is the main contributor).

Maltese governments have never really cared about producing renewable energy. It is true that Malta is extremely limited by its size and lack of natural resources, but they never really ever tried to engage with the international and national scientific community on the matter. There are several Maltese engineers and scientists specialising in Energy, why not expand an almost non-existent job sector and at least attempt to retain local talent?

The hard truth is that solar energy on its own will never be Malta’s way forward in renewable energy. It is too costly to install, despite the government incentives, maintenance is expensive in itself, and the energy return is not high enough. Furthermore, a 2013 Photovoltaic Barometer report states that Malta ranks 21st in European production of electricity from solar energy, and 13th in solar energy converted per capita. This figures make sense since there is a very limited amount of space where PV panels can be installed.

Unfortunately, Maltese governments tend focus on fossil fuel energy and disregard the introduction of other renewable alternatives. Previous administrations flaunted pilot studies in wind, wave and biomass energy but never saw them through, and the current government wants to construct a new gas fired power station. Fossil fuel energy provides the short term solution to Malta’s energy problems (or in this case the Labour Party’s pledge to reduce energy tariffs), ignoring long term energy commitments in the form of the EU 2020 targets.

Therefore, Konrad Mizzi’s announcement that Malta will hit 3% renewable energy production is laughable at best, unless he plans to spend a considerable proportion of public taxes to blanket the entire islands with photovoltaic cells.

Lithuania pleads for gas from the US…is this Malta’s future fate?

The Ukraine-Crimea crisis has received worldwide coverage ever since Russia stepped up its rhetoric and the West countered with sanctions on certain Russian officials. However, the full repercussions of these economic deterrents are just beginning to produce shock waves across the European energy market. Lithuania, a country entirely dependent on Russia for its gas supply, is said to be paying the political price of this conflict.

Major Russian gas pipelines to Europe (active and proposed) (Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Russia dominates the European energy market, with a 30% stake in the supply of natural gas to the continent. This fact has historically made European leaders uneasy, since Russia has sought to dominate exports of oil and natural gas in the region, while the West wants to loosen Moscow’s grip on this energy market – often used a political instrument by Russia.

These fears by the West have come to fruition as a result of the Ukrainian crisis and Russia’s decision to annex Crimea. The first country to bear the brunt of this political confrontation is Lithuania, which is entirely dependent on Russia for its natural gas supply.

The direct result of this conflict is costing Lithuanians around “30% more for natural gas than any other European nation”, as a result of them being shackled to a monopolistic supplier. Lithuania has since asked the US to increase its exports to Europe in  a bid to solve their current natural gas crisis.

This poses a legitimate question to the upcoming LNG terminal in Malta:

Should there be some form of conflict in Azerbaijan that gains worldwide attention and results in the sanctioning of the Azeri government by the West, what would be the result on natural gas prices imported to Malta?

Malta has an 18 year contract with for the supply of natural gas with Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil and gas company SOCAR, which forms part of the ElectroGas consortium. This company has already been receiving negative press even before the construction of the new power station. It has been accused of “opacity in its dealings with private individuals, at the expense of Azeri citizens”.

It should also be noted that conflict in the Azeri region is ongoing ever since the separation of the Soviet Union. In 2008 there was the Georgia-Ossetian conflict, an ethno-political war involving Georgia and ethnic Russians in the autonomous South Ossetia region (very similar to what is happening in Crimea at the moment). Given the fact that Azerbaijan has a long standing dispute with neighbouring Armenia following the 1994 war in the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh, a conflict in the region is not outside the realms of possibility.

It is undeniable that Malta has entered into an energy deal with a volatile country. In the same manner that Lithuania is paying the price for the Ukrainian crisis, there is no telling how energy prices in Malta could spike should a similar political crisis in Azerbaijan erupt.

 

 

LNG Terminal – plug the hole, staunch the bleeding and hope for a miracle?

A meeting by MEPA to consider a permit for the new gas-fired power station and a floating gas storage facility in Marsaxlokk Bay is currently underway. The outcome of this meeting is sure to be in favour of the issuing of this permit, with the public’s concerns being completely disregarded and dismissed as frivolous. The harsh reality is that this permit will be granted with key environmental and health and safety assessments not being fulfilled. Why is there the need for such a rushed decision?

The following title is from the Times of Malta article relating to the meeting that is currently in progress. It is very evident that the article itself gives away the clear way in which Malta’s main planning authority operates:

Mepa meeting on power station enters sixth hour – PM says work to proceed if permit issued, despite possible appeals; Full maritime impact assessment study, final risk assessment, still to be completed

Isn’t there a massive paradox here? How can ANY legitimate planning and environment authority issue any permits without necessary studies being carried out? What is more important in the case of a floating gas storage in a bay used for commercial fishing than a study to mitigate the impacts of said storage on the surrounding area?

Mr David Galea, an Enemalta representative, insisted that despite the lack of necessary studies the project was hastily required since the nation’s main energy company was in urgent need of reform to avoid serious economic and social consequences. In his own words: “Enemalta requires immediate surgery and we do not have luxury to postpone decisions.”

In other words, “F*** any  possible environmental impact that this new project may have, we need to finish it ASAP otherwise the Maltese nation will end up financially and socially crippled – or so I have been instructed to make the people believe”.

The Maltese economy is not as distressed as it is being portrayed. While no one can debate the high prices of energy tariffs in Malta and their effects on a household’s income, the living situation faced by most Maltese people is not as bad as it is in many other European countries. Having lived in the UK, and paid exorbitant energy tariffs (which I calculated to be 290% higher than they are in Malta), I can safely say that people there feel the actual brunt of high-priced tariffs. This can be exemplified by the “Eat or Heat” awareness campaign, which shows the realities faced by poor families that turn off their heating during winter to spend the money on food instead.

Every winter, millions of vulnerable British people have to make a choice between eating or staying warm. This is hardly the case in Malta, despite the fact that the public is being duped into believing that without this rushed project, their finances will incur some cataclysmic impact (Photo credit: Express.co.uk)

The situation is even more exasperated by the Maltese Prime Minister’s comments at how he will want to proceed with the permit even if appeals are filed.  Despite this being (apparently) within legal limits, it evokes a sense of irresponsibility and nonchalance. If we cannot rely on the pertinent authorities and the government to ensure that the necessary studies are effectively carried out, the public is justified in feeling uneasy.

The 2015 gas-fired power station has quickly evolved into a project that exceeds the rational limits of planning and environmental and public safety, being fuelled by a false sense of immediate demand and underlying political commitments.

This project will be rushed to completion, with the hope that all goes well and no accidents happen – such a reassuring way for the residents of Marsaxlokk to live out their lives!

Britain had the ‘Mad Cow’ and Malta will have the ‘Deadly Gas Explosion’, like Cyprus!

With the deadline for the completion of the 2015 Malta gas fired power station etching closer, experts continue weighing in on the infeasibility of this project. Of great concern amongst the scientific, environmental and infrastructural community is the government’s decision to place the gas supply next to the actual power station. If history tells us anything, can we really trust a politician’s word as opposed to the technocrats when it comes to public safety?

Artist’s impression of where the gas supply will be store on a ship, permanently moored next to the Delimara power station (Photo credit: TimesofMalta)

The latest statement issued by the energy minister Konrad Mizzi insists that “Storing gas on ship in Marsaxlokk will be safe”. Even though Maltese people cannot seem to set aside their political preferences on any issue, there are many, many worrying things that come across from Konrad Mizzi’s interview in the above link.

As any graduate from any discipline can possibly understand, one needs to conduct preliminary studies or a detailed ‘literature review’ to start a project, assignment or dissertation for example. Yet, in this interview all that is being said is how “studies are still underway”, “studies will be conducted” or “Process is still ongoing – in reference to the risk assessments”. How can anyone determine what the outcome will be (in this case where the gas supply will be placed), unless proper study is conducted? Such a modus operandi completely contradicts even the most basic form of project management.

My personal worry is that the minister has already initiated a form of “assurance campaign”, where he is publicly declaring the safety of this venture and advising people to not worry. While many people will most probably believe or reject this simply based on their political colours, such a statement took me back to my studies on how environmental issues are conveyed in the media by politicians. It made me recall one of the most prominent environmental stories of our time – the BSE (Mad Cow disease) case in Great Britain.

The ‘Mad’ approach by the British government to BSE

In December 1984, cow number 133 fell ill at Pitsham Farm, near Midhurst, West Sussex, showing very strange symptoms and an erratic behaviour. It died the following year and scientists discovered peculiar lesions in its brain, a finding which would become all too familiar in following years. While technocrats were raising concerns, the Ministry of Agriculture ignored the warning signs for around two years, until it acknowledged the disease in 1986 following numerous cases across the country.

The British government stalled decisions on this issue for years, launching a public assurance campaign stating how British beef was scientifically tested and safe to eat. The propaganda reached it height in 1990 when then agriculture minister John Gummer famously feeding his four-year old daughter Cordelia a hamburger to personally guarantee the beef’s safety during the mad cow outbreak. Interestingly, it was later claimed that the photographs were staged and that the burger had actually been bitten into by a civil servant.

Beef Eater: John Gummer and his daughter eating a hamburger as part of a public campaign to assure British beef is safe (Photo credit: Hedin“>dailymail.co.uk)

Needless to say, the BSE case is recognized as the worst animal epidemic and public health scare in British history, claiming almost 180,000 cattle in the UK alone with another 4.4 million being destroyed as a precaution. This cost the taxpayer more than £5 billion, all because the government failed to listen to what experts were saying. Furthermore, the disease claimed around 200 people worldwide, and left a long lasting impact on people who lived in the UK between 1980 and 1996  as they cannot give blood since this carries the risk of transmitting the human form of mad cow disease.

Should Malta brace itself?

If you managed to arrive thus far into this post, it will be easy for you to see the similarities between John Gummer and Konrad Mizzi. Even worse for Malta, rudimentary aspects of this project are being green lit without even bothering to complete the necessary preliminary work!

The only thing that can possibly come out of such a rushed approach to building this power station is a possible disaster that like the mad cow disease case will cost people their lives and the taxpayers millions. This is the time for the public to put politics aside and acknowledge the need for caution in such projects and demand a more responsible approach.

It is also time for the government and Konrad Mizzi to acknowledge the Social Impact Assessment results and heed the concerns of residents in the vicinity of this project.

What if there was an incident?

If such an incident where to happen, what would be the possible effects for the Maltese people? Well, we do not need to look too far away from our shores to find the answer. On the 11th July 2011, an explosion occurred at the Evangelos Florakis Naval Base in Cyprus, a direct result of an incompetent government’s decision to store 98 containers of explosive next to the island’s largest power station in Zygi; a highly explosive substance next to a power station – sound familiar?

Cyprus’ largest power station (Vasiliko power station), estimated to supply power to half of the island, was severely damaged as a result of an explosion which could have been avoided (Photo credit: CBCNews)

This resulted in 12 casualties and scores injured in the immediate vicinity, and complete blackout across half of Cyprus (remember that Cyprus is 29 times large in size than Malta, so an explosive in the latter would wipe out the entire energy grid). The immediate aftermath included a cost of €2 billion for the repair of what was left of the power station, and sanctioned electricity from neighbouring Northern Cyprus at an unpublished cost.

Following the explosion, Moody’s rating agency downgrading Cyprus’ rating from A2 to Baa1 with a negative outlook  since such an event has considerable “fiscal and economic consequences” when it occurs in such a small economy. This led to the start of Cyprus’ financial woes, leading up to the 2013 bailout by the European Union.

It does not that a genius to figure out where Malta is heading with this new gas fired power station, all thanks to political naivety and ignorance in the face of experts and chilling tales from our neighbours. How many cow number 133s and power station explosions in other EU member states need to happen for the Maltese government to get a clue?

UPDATED

Maltese MEP Roberta Metsola has launched an online petition to the European Parliament against the floating gas storage discussed above, in order for it to look into the risk to public safety should this project go ahead.

Prevention is better than cure, so I urge people to follow the link below and sign this petition:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Petition-on-Marsaxlokk-Gas-Storage-Unit

More information: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-02-18/news/metsola-leads-petitionto-eu-to-remove-risk-toresidents-aroundmarsaxlokk-bay-3993239558/

New Energy Taxes in Malta? Wait for it

The British government’s website describes green taxes as taxes that “encourage businesses to operate in a more environmentally friendly way”. The most common forms of such taxes that governments worldwide employ are generally attributed to climate change mitigation. Given Malta’s recent pledge to build a gas powered power station, and the finance minister’s confirmation that indirect taxation will be used in the upcoming budget, will Malta be seeing the introduction of further energy taxes?

Many people are in favour of carbon taxes, as these will aid in the propagation of renewable energy sources. However, people are in some countries are becoming increasingly skeptic about such taxes as the revenue which they generally are not materializing into new and concrete alternative energy sources. Photo credit: paolaharvey

Green taxes are described as Pigovian taxes, which aim to sanction a particular market activity that is causing a negative externality – a harmful outcome that rises from activities or transaction and affects an otherwise unaffected party. In the case of carbon dioxide emissions, any person that emits unacceptable levels of this greenhouse gas is indirectly affecting the entire world population through his/her contribution to climate change.

In theory, green taxes are a positive way of how a country that control ‘environmental offenders’ who overuse energy, funneling the money towards research and investment into alternative energy as a means of reducing a country’s CO2 emissions. However, in most countries such taxes have just become another means at how governments can collect money from citizens, as the government itself is failing to reduce  set up new green energy initiatives and meet carbon emissions.

Let us take the UK as a case study. The government lists the following green taxes that it currently uses:

• Climate Change Levy
• CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
• Emissions Trading
• Capital allowances on energy-efficient items
• Landfill tax
• Aggregates Levy

The majority of such taxes in the UK are designed to limit the consumption of fossil fuels and the subsequent reduction in CO2 emission. These taxes are then (supposedly) used to drive the use and investment in alternative energy sources, which in turn will contribute to a diverse energy grid and less green levies in the future. However, there is an all rounded sense of confusion as to how effective and fair these taxes are on consumers.

The current UK coalition government, composed of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, seems to have some internal strife about green taxes. While both parties aim to reduce energy bills, Conservatives are looking into relaxing Green taxes to achieve this, while Liberal Democrats are advocating for retention of  these taxes, which would help in reducing future bills.

Photo credit: DECCgovuk

British Gas (one of the largest UK energy suppliers) have just announced a 9.2% increase in their energy tariffs, which would amount to an average annual increment of £123 per household. The harsh reality in the UK is that energy tariffs keep on increasing too frequently for consumers to handle, and the imposed taxes do not seem to be aiding in alternative energy investment. It becomes evident that green taxes in the UK are simply another source of income for the government, as it has so far failed to improve its alternative energy output. Such a rationale could explain the reasoning behind the Conservative’s decision to reduce current green taxes, even though the situation is still very open for debate.

EU Environmental taxes

A recent Eurostat report has indicated that environmental taxes in the EU-27 account for 6.2% of all revenues from taxes and social contributions. Environmental taxes can be of four types: energy, transport, pollution and resource taxes. Energy taxes include taxes on energy products (e.g. coal, oil products, natural gas and electricity) used for both stationary purposes and transport purposes. As exemplified above by the type of taxes used in the UK, in 2010 almost 75% of all environmental taxes were energy taxes. By convention, CO2 taxes are also included in this tax category since they are usually levied on energy products.

Transport taxes are also considered to be green taxes, and these mainly include taxes related to the ownership and use of motor vehicles. In2010, 21% of EU-27 total environmental tax revenue came from transport taxes. Pollution and resource taxes cover several taxes, including the taxes on the extraction of raw materials, those on measured or estimated emissions  of pollutants to air (e.g. NOx and SO2) and water; noise pollution (e.g. airports) and on the management of waste (e.g. landfills).

Green taxes in Malta?

Unbeknownst to most people, there are many environmental taxes currently used in Malta., with thee most common being ‘Eco-taxes’ and ‘Eco-contributions’. Eco-contributions are levies which people pay on certain products such as bottles, plastic bags, plastic disposables, tyres, mattresses, electronic equipment – any item which is perceived to end up as a pollutant. The Malta VAT department has issued an informative presentation on the Eco-Contribution –> click here.

Maltese citizens are also subject to the Eco-tax, which is mainly a charge on air travel, ship and hunting licences, water consumption and several motor vehicles taxes. A comprehensive list of eco-taxes is also available –> click here.

Source: Eurostat

As a total percentage of revenue from taxes and social contributions, Malta places fourth in the EU with 9.55%, of which Energy taxes are 4.89%, Transport taxes are 4.24%, and Pollution/Resource taxes are 0.42%. Despite these figures, it should be noted that the majority of energy taxes are obtained from industry, with households only contributing 18% to the total energy taxes.

As such, it can be hypothesized that there is a large room for taxation on Maltese energy bills, since Maltese households are the ones that contribute the least to energy taxes in the EU. On comparison, UK households currently contribute almost three times as much in energy taxes as Maltese households do.

With the implementation of a new gas fired power station, and all the associated environmental sanctions imposed by the EU, there is a high probability that Maltese consumers will need to start forking out huge sums on their energy bills in the form of energy taxes. This will mainly be attributed to the use of another type of fuel source, including transport and storage taxation as subject by EU standards, which will have to be covered directly by the government and indirectly by the consumer. Such is a result of a government that aims to meet immediate energy demands with gas as opposed to the much needed investment in alternative sources.

Energy bills: Going Green may save you Green!

The UK is still desperately trying to improve its renewable energy output, despite the fact that their current conservative government is boldly pledging to build more gas powered power stations. The Maltese government is also planning a new gas fired power station, and is claiming that its new energy plans will not have an effect on energy bills. What is the potential future of energy tariffs in Malta if it continues to ignore renewable energy commitments?

The guardian has recently reported that the UK is breaking domestic records in the installation of Solar installations, with an investment of £1.6 billion. However, it is claimed that the sector is still experiencing a considerable amount of pressure from the annually rising energy bills, which is driving the British government to plan a scrap of green subsidies and reduce potential investment in the sector.

Ovenden Moor Wind Farm in Yorkshire is one of the many wind farms in the UK that. according to Michael Liebreich, have generated enough wind energy during some periods between 2008 and 2012 to reduce wholesale short-term prices of energy (Photo credit: fruity monkey)

Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) and widely recognized leading energy analyst, said that such a move would be a mistake and would not bring down the costs of energy bills.

“Gas prices have risen more than 8% – we know that it is gas prices that are pushing up bills. I don’t follow the logic of how that has to do with green subsidies.”

UK Labour Party leader Ed Miliband has pledged that he would aim at solving energy tariff issues by freezing energy prices for 20 months. Liebreich also criticized Miliband’s plan: “If you control the price, there is less investment, therefore less supply, therefore prices go up. Anyone who says you can reduce prices through controls has been asleep for the past 30 years.”

British conservatives have argued that Miliband’s pledge is merely a gimmick, since “there is one thing governments can’t control and that is the international wholesale price of gas”. The way the current British government is coping with increasing energy prices and meeting its own environmental targets (or lower carbon emission targets) is by imposing green taxes or levies on household bills.

Possible future of Maltese energy bills?

Personally, I would forecast a fixed price on energy bills for the first five years, as dictated by the agreement made between energy minister Konrad Mizzi and the investors. This would satisfy the pledge made by the Labour Party to keep energy prices at a fixed rate. Once this five-year deal is up, there is no way of telling how much the price of gas will increase.

As argued above by Liebreich and British Conservatives, there is no control over international gas prices, which are currently on the increase. Should the purchasing price of gas by the Maltese government go up, energy tariffs will most definitely increase.

Furthermore, with mounting pressure by the EU to reduce our carbon footprint (which Malta has been failing to tackle since its accession), there is a high probability of green taxes being imposed.

It doesn’t make a difference which political party is in power, as the relevant parties in both the UK and Malta are not handling the issue of energy well. Investing heavily in gas as an energy source is a gross mistake, and a leap backwards. Investments in green energy is the way forward, as this is the only real energy source that can reduce energy tariffs. While recent plans to install a solar farm at the Malta Freeport is a welcome venture, it is still too early to tell what contribution this will have to national energy grid and future energy prices.

 

Make no mistake: Gas fuel is not cleaner

Times of Malta has reported how the deal on the new Gas fired power station has been finalised, with Electro Gas Malta consortium  chosen to build a new plant and related gas supply infrastructure. While the rest of the EU and the developed world moves towards securing renewable energy sources, Malta continues in its sluggish path away from them!

The Delimara Power Station is the proposed site for the new Gas fired power station (Photo credit: MEPA)

This gas fired power station scenario is the typical ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, where the government is dressing its economic aspirations in environmental ones. I would just like to state something for the general Maltese public:

Any Hydrocarbon/Fossil Fuel fired power station DOES NOT constitute a form of CLEANER energy or environment

If the government wants to build this new power station, it should do so without trying to blindside the general public into believing that we are producing cleaner air. Gas fuel will still produce Carbon Dioxide, which will contribute to climate change, which will see us increasing our carbon footprint as opposed to reducing it.

Clean Energy is defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency as “includ[ing] energy efficiency and clean energy supply options like highly efficient combined heat and power as well as renewable energy sources” – so where is the combination of green alternatives? Malta has long been dragging its feet in being a legitimate produced of renewable energy. Despite the numerous pilot projects and feasibility studies conducted by previous governments, there has been no significant change towards a future that is less reliant on fossil fuels. The move by the new government will further exasperate this situation. I have to reiterate the UK’s controversial decision to build 40 new gas powered power station and the campaigns in place to counter this (No Dash for Gas).

It is also quite baffling why this project is being rushed to such a degree. The current Environment Impact Statement (link to pdf –> GAS Power station environment impact statement) issued by MEPA  has been deemed as unsatisfactory by local NGOs, which indicate that the current report itself states that the operator has not yet decided to which level of detail the assessment should be carried out.

I also am curious to know whether or not a public consultation will be properly carried out, since the PM pledged at the UN General Assembly to aim for a people oriented decision-making process. The previous government failed catastrophically at such as an approach, so we have to wait and see what happens with this.

* * *

MEPA’s project description for the Gas Power station –> Gas Power station project description)

Joseph Muscat: practice what you preach

The Maltese Prime Minister just addressed the UN General Assembly currently being held in New York. In a brave attempt to sound at par with other world leaders, our Prime Minister gave a very bland speech, fueled with seemingly textbook quoted phrases. Does his speech, addressed to entire world (literally), translate into how his administration is tackling issues of energy and climate change?

Photo credit: TimesofMalta

This is an excerpt from the PM’s speech in which he mentions issues of climate change and energy:

“People need to be involved in the decision making since it affects their lives and their livelihoods. They should be foremost on our minds as we consider the world’s natural resources and tackle global concerns such as climate change. There is never one way of doing things and we can only achieve our targets if we listen to the people we are meant to represent and make them part of the decision-making process”.

It is quite comical how politicians’ behaviour changes when they take an international platform. While many people will feel proud that Malta was given an opportunity to speak in this important assembly, I am quite disappointed at the hypocritical comments being made.

What Joseph Muscat just argued completely contradicts how current energy projects are being handled in Malta. There was no public participation in decision-making processes, but a behind-doors-closed negotiation with third parties. How can the government commission the construction of a gas fueled power station without consulting the people who will have “their lives and livelihoods affected”?

Furthermore, can someone please explain to me how we can “tackle global concerns such as climate change” when we have two separate ministries handling the portfolios of energy and climate change, which are intrinsically connected? Is it any wonder how all pf the power station discussion have been devoid of climate change issues?

The 2015 Malta gas power station: Environmental concerns

Energy. Energy. Energy – This was one of the many highly politicised issues we endured during the latest Maltese electoral campaign. With the onset of the new Labour government, it is expected that Malta will have a new gas-fired power station by the end of 2015. But how much does the public REALLY know about such an energy strategy?

 Let me start by disentangling some rather confusing energy terms:

• Natural Gas (NG) = a type of fuel also known as methane, with a chemical formula of CH4
• Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs) = Hydrocarbons of smaller masses (generally being ethane, propane, butane, isobutane and pentane) which come out as gases with the extraction process of Natural Gas (methane). Pentane comes out as a liquid, but the other chemicals are pressurised and turned into liquids and stored in tanks.
• Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), is a mixture of NGLs (generally propane and butane) which is sold in tanks for heating appliances. LPG is in no way, shape or form NG – they have different chemical compositions. They are similar as apples are to oranges.

LPG is commonly used as a source of heat for cooking (Photo credit: George Shuklin)

• Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – This is simply Natural Gas that has been pressurized and cooled to -270°F (-127°C) for transport – remember that you have to turn gas to a liquid in order to transport it in sufficient quantities from point A to B.

The future power station will be making use of LNG, which is a rather costly fuel in terms of extracting it, converting it to a usable and transporting it to a designated location (since you need highly specialised equipment). So if people think that the new power station will be powered by the same stuff we use to boil our kettles, they are grossly mistaken. The fuel we will be using is much more powerful, with a greater heating potential and hence much more dangerous to transport and store.

A typical LNG carrier. Pictured above is the LNG Rivers, which has a capacity of 135,000 cubic metres (Photo credit: Pline)

It is rather irresponsible of the new government that it has not formally published a detailed environmental impact assessment and shared it with the Maltese public, especially after issuing a call for expression of interest in the local media. Such is the result of an electoral campaign predominantly centred around socio-economic issues – after all, the only reason why the Labour party pledged this power station was to reduce electricity tariffs.

For the sake of argument, I will use a recent example to highlight the eventual environmental impacts that this impending power station will have on the quality of Maltese life. On the 5th of December 2012, the UK Chancellor George Osborne unveiled a new gas strategy. Below is the opening quote by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Edward Davey:

“The UK faces a threefold energy challenge: how to keep the lights on, at affordable prices, while moving towards a sustainable low-carbon future. I firmly believe the best way to meet these goals is with a competitive, diverse, low-carbon energy mix. A mix where gas continues to play a vital role.”

This statement sounds all too familiar to the situation in Malta, except for the sustainable low-carbon future part which was mostly absent in the political campaign.

First of all, (this is quite unrelated to the point of this post) but notice how the UK have placed energy and climate change in the same ministry, while our new government separated them between two ministers. How on earth do you expect to tackle climate change issues if you have to compromise between two ministers? One cannot exist without the other, the whole point of an energy minister is to offer cheaper and CLEANER alternatives. Separating energy and climate change is equivalent to separating transport and infrastructure – it will only deteriorate future policies and processes. But as long as we build this power station and reduce these blessed energy tariffs, who cares about climate change right?

EDF’s new gas-fuelled West Burton power station in Nottinghamshire. Please note that the smoke being emitted from this station is actually water vapour from cooling towers, which is not a greenhouse gas (Photo credit: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images via theguardian)

The new gas strategy proposed by the British chancellor sparked an angered reaction from green groups and businesses promoting a cleaner and more sustainable future using wind and other low-carbon producing alternatives. This strategy was also cautioned by the British government’s own Committee on Climate Change, that such ventures will break commitments to lower carbon emissions, especially when gas price futures remain uncertain.

Gas prices have been steadily rising in the UK over the past decades (admittedly, the UK does have its own supply, unlike Malta who would need to solely rely on imports). The US will eventually start exporting cheap gas, but we need to account for a high demand from Asian countries, and most notably China. It will be interesting to see who will end up being Malta’s gas provider, and how the fees will eventually fluctuate – Gas prices are NOT the same as oil prices; the latter are regulated by a world market and so each country would purchase oil in terms of the current world price. Gas prices are not as regulated, so each country will set their gas prices and sell at will. The gas strategy document admits that:

“ultimately there is significant uncertainty about future gas prices, so we need to be prepared for both high and low gas price scenarios.”

Climate change activists had launched a No Dash for Gas campaign opposing this new strategy. The argument proposed by this campaign is simple: In the UK, EDF and other big energy companies (as supported by the strategy launched by George Osborne) are set to lock the UK for decades into a 40 newly proposed gas-fired stations, destroying climate change targets (which would technically make their use illegal since the UK has to adhere to legally binding greenhouse gas emissions).

So what will be happening in Malta?

Is the new gas-fired power station environmentally sustainable? Please bear in mind that the comparison between Malta and the UK is highly superficial, but it is quite chilling how no one has so far gave the public any detail about emissions of the new station versus the current oil-fuelled station.

How would Dr. Leo Brincat (as minister of Environment, sustainable development and climate change) react if Dr. Konrad Mizzi (as minister of energy) increases greenhouse gas emissions? The Maltese public might get their tariffs reduced, but they may certainly get that at a dear cost of increased air pollution. And even though some experts are claiming that proposals will see the CO2 produced being shipped out of the country, it will obviously be at a high cost.

So which one will be at a loss? Reducing the energy tariffs or (illegally) failing to comply with emission quotas? Unfortunately, all we can do is wait and see while these said ‘experts’ steam roll through.