Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1496720
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 APRIL 2023 OPINION 11 anyway; and also, to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, for purely environmental rea- sons.... so... why not just 'kill two birds with one stone?' And from that perspective: 'increasing renewable energy sources' does indeed become one of many possible strate- gies, through which the Mal- tese government could try and avoid – or at least, minimise – any sudden 'economic shocks'. Not only does does this repre- sent a much more logical, and sensible, appraisal of the situa- tion: but – in theory, at least - it's actually true, you know. Yes, indeed: Malta COULD conceivably 'cushion itself' from any future price-hikes... if only it could find a way of replacing around 80% of the energy it currently imports (through a combination of the interconnector, and the Elec- trogas deal with Azerbaijan), with 'energy derived from re- newable sources'... ... and even then, if it could also somehow find an alterna- tive method of providing for around 60% of all its currents fresh water needs: without re- lying on (highly energy-guz- zling) technologies such as 'Re- verse Osmosis'. I could go on, of course. Yes, I imagine that our electricity bills would also reduce drasti- cally, from one second to the next: if we were to miracu- lously stumble upon a way of actually producing enough en- ergy – through sources such as wind-turbines, and solar-pan- els – to service at least a re- spectable percentage of Malta's actual energy-requirements, as a growing nation with a pop- ulation of over half-a-million (and which, to cap it all, also hopes to attract '5 million tour- ists a year'!) But let's face it: there wouldn't be much point, would there? Because by now it should be painfully obvious that – in practice – Malta CANNOT possibly ever hope to produce even a fraction of the energy it would require, to achieve all the above, though 'renewable sources' alone... ... or at least: not if the plan remains (as it has always been, up to this point) to base our national energy policy, only on renewables such as wind- and solar energy... ... and not, say, on some of the other technologies ('renew- able', or otherwise) that – by an amazing coincidence – the same EU is also trying to pres- sure us all into accepting, even as we speak! And, oh look: just two days after the article I've been quot- ing was published – on 30 March, to be precise - the Eu- ropean Parliament announced an 'agreement in the field of renewable energy': which now includes 'biomass/bioenergy', 'hydrogen' and 'nuclear power' on the list of recommended re- newable energy sources. Now: I've left myself with too little space, for a full explana- tion of why those three par- ticular options would be hope- lessly 'impractical', in the local context... ... but here goes anyway: 1) 'biomass/bioenergy' in- volves the mass-production of combustible organic material – including 'manure'; and even, believe it or not, 'wood' – to be burnt, just like coal, in gen- erators. But without even go- ing into all the environmental 'pros' and 'cons': the one thing it would need, to function in practice, is the one thing we simply do not have. Acres, and acres, and acres, of 'open space'... 2) Hydrogen. This is the tech- nology favoured by Germany – which separately explains why the European Commission is already pressuring Malta to re-convert its Delimara pow- er-station (for the umpteenth time) to be able to run on 'hydrogen' instead of 'natural gas'... ... and leaving aside that it is not really 'renewable', anyway (it requires energy produced from either fossil fuels, or nu- clear plants, to even function at all): for a wide variety of rea- sons, Malta would never real- istically be able to generate its own electricity, from local 'hy- drogen plants'... ... but would have to 'import it from Germany' instead (as, presumably, was all along part of the European Commission's 'cunning plan'.) This leaves us with option three (favoured by France, this time): 'nuclear'... which, on one level, is by far the 'scariest' of the lot... but, on another level entirely: it is arguably the on- ly one that Malta COULD re- alistically resort to, for its own energy production, at any time in the near future. (All it would take, on the logistical front, is a simple 're-conversion' of the existing Delimara plant, to run on imported Uranium instead of natural gas.) And given also that the same article states: "the government must persuade the European Commission that it will have new sources of energy in place OVER THE FOLLOWING FEW MONTHS AND YEARS" [my emphasis, again...] ... well, it sort of implies that that earlier (incorrect) inter- pretation, might not have been so far off the mark, after all. To me, it looks a lot like the European Union really IS us- ing those 'energy subsidies', as leverage to force Malta into changing its energy infrastruc- ture... and even then, to ac- commodate 'new technologies' that: a) are clearly not in our own interests to tamper with (though it would, of course, be hugely profitable for German and French corporations); and b) remain, to this day, rather 'unclear'. (Or was that 'nucle- ar'? But never mind, you get the point...) By now it should be painfully obvious that – in practice – Malta CANNOT possibly ever hope to produce even a fraction of the energy it would require, to achieve all the above, though 'renewable sources' alone