Addressing the energy question

So far, national discussions about energy production in Malta have been confined to the realm of purely partisan politics. We saw this most clearly in the controversy surrounding the €200 million Delimara power station extension project, and the award of the contract (under decidedly murky conditions) to Scandinavian firm BWSC.

Perhaps because suspicions were first raised by an Opposition spokesman, media coverage was almost immediately polarised between those who suspected foul play - some because of genuine suspicions, others because it was politically expedient to do so - and those who felt compelled to defend the contract out of political allegiance.

And yet, the real issue at stake was all along environmental, not political at all. Apart from the strong smell of corruption that has permeated the entire affair, the problem with the Delimara power station concerned the technology on offer: a technology that was more pollutant than others, resulting in higher emission rates, as well as thousands of tonnes of hazardous waste having to be driven through the streets of heavily populated towns, among other serious drawbacks.

Instead of getting bogged down in unproven allegations of corruption, it would have been far healthier to challenge the government's energy policy on the basis of its actual results. But no: rather than evaluate the proposed technology for its environmental impact, the political nature of the discussion led to a perverse state of affairs whereby "true blue" Nationalists felt they had defend the contract for no other reason than because it was under attack by Labour... and vice versa.

Unfortunately, we seem to have learnt little or nothing from this grave mistake, as the same basic dynamic has clearly carried over into today's discussions also. Just this week, a Norwegian firm announced that it has been in talks with Enemalta over a technology which would the company claimed reduce current electricity bills by around half, while producing cleaner energy.

At the risk of oversimplification, the technology is one which uses a power station constructed on a barge and attached to the existing Delimara plant, which may in turn be driven by a varied mixture of fuels: namely biopaste (in Sweden, for instance, they use olive kernels), as well as coal and other such fossil fuels, together with flue gases diverted from the present power station at Delimara.

The truly innovative aspect of this technology is that would also capture carbon dioxide produced by the Delimara power station, with a view to exporting it (CO2 being a much sought-after commodity in the oil industry, for purposes too complex to go into any detail here).

This effectively kills two birds with one stone: not only would it reduce emissions, but it would also create a revenue stream and enable electricity to be provided to the end user at a cheaper price.

Sargas, the company currently offering this technology, has proposed to the government of Malta that they would replicate what Stockholm  City has achieved, and provide electricity  with zero emissions at the cheapest rate possible.

Sargas have committed themselves to producing electrical energy at half the existent price, allowing cheaper tariffs for home and business and allowing Enemalta to turn the tide. So far government has expressed only cautious interest in the offer; and while, under normal circumstances, both interest and caution would be commendable, given the actual energy situation there has been too much procrastination.

Besides, it is unclear why no effort has so far been undertaken to evaluate the claimed benefits by means of a transparent technical assessment team. The very least that ought to have been done when Malta was first presented with the offer 18 months ago was to immediately commission an evaluation.

On the other hand, industry and media interest in this proposal has been rather interesting... though there have been the usual 'investigative journalists' who have tried to see red where there is no red.

Sargas CEO Henrik Fleischer has meanwhile had to explain that this is not an experimental or prototype power station and that the proposal has worked in other countries. He also reminded us that the future energy picture consists of both renewable energy and fossil fuel... "whether we like it or not."

Besides, from 2013 onward EU member States will have to pay for the emissions they produce. If emissions are not reduced by then, the additional costs incurred by EU fines will have to be passed onto the consumer in the form of higher bills.

The technology in question would - always if the claims are substantiated - go some distance towards addressing this concern. Even without adopting the technology on offer, these concerns will need to be addressed anyway... something the present energy set-up clearly does not do.

All things considered: if Fleischer's proposal makes financial and environmental sense - something that can only be evaluated by objective and competent scientists and

technicians - then it would be downright foolish to discard such a proposal out of hand.

Halving our tariff cost, making Enemalta profitable, decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and achieving zero emissions... these are all targets that should be at the heart of every energy policy.

If there ever was a time for common sense to prevail, then that time is now.