Wind farm advantages

Joe Borg (March 3) is quite welcome to express his opinion that wind turbines are "... giant windmills..., unwelcome eyesores..., ghastly carbuncles that litter the land..., ugly structures despoiling the land". Of course, others might think exactly the opposite and regard wind turbines as graceful symbols of a better, less polluted future. But it is a different matter when Mr Borg does not stick to the truth to make his point.

Mr Borg says "(the wind farm) will swallow up much recreational land to the detriment of the public and tourist industry".

Wind farms are not fenced off and recreational activity is quite possible beneath the turbines; in fact wind farms often become popular picnic sites. Wind farms do not deter tourists. Many wind farms are themselves tourist attractions. For example, the UK's first commercial wind farm in Cornwall received 350,000 visitors in its first eight years of operation.

An energy centre was opened at the site in 2001 and received 50,000 visitors in its first year. In Swaffham, Norfolk, tourists queue to climb the wind turbine tower to the viewing platform at the top. In Scotland, a Mori poll was undertaken in 2002 regarding wind farms in the Argyll area; 80 per cent of tourists said they would be interested in visiting a wind farm if it were open to the public. In Denmark, many tour agencies run boat trips to take visitors to see the offshore wind farms.

Mr Borg wrote that "huge areas of land (will be) given over to private interests without any gain to the national interest..."

The turbines typically only use three to five per cent of the surface area of the wind farm. There is minimal degradation of the land.

The land retains its original use for recreation or farming; or it remains in its natural state. At the end of their operating life, the wind turbines can be removed, leaving no trace.

Mr Borg wrote: "...Enemalta would not gain financially by any cost cutting in fuel cost".

First of all, this statement totally disregards the object of wind turbines, which is the environmental gain through reduction of fossil fuel use. Secondly, there is no reason why Enemalta should profit from another company's investment. Enemalta will cooperate in Malta's first major environmental project by buying the wind-generated electricity for the equivalent cost of the fuel it would otherwise have needed to produce that amount of electricity.

Mr Borg wrote that "...(a wind turbine farm)... will remind us of the follies we are capable of inflicting upon the land and upon ourselves". No, the ultimate folly would be to remain backward and persist in delaying conversion of our energy source from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources as a result of a combination of indifference and ignorance.

A single wind turbine typically provides enough electricity for 650 homes. The proposed wind farm would avoid the emission into our atmosphere of 16,500 tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, 55 tons of sulphur dioxide and 10 tons of nitrogen dioxide per year. Wind energy is one of the most environmentally benign ways of producing electricity and this is a part of their beauty. If we don't switch to cleaner forms of energy, climate change will severely and irrevocably alter much of our landscape as well as threatening biodiversity.

What is particularly disturbing about Mr Borg's letter is that it would be a great mistake if Malta's first step towards using renewable sources of energy were to be turned down for the wrong reasons. This is exactly what will happen if the likes of Mr Borg are allowed to get their way through not being challenged and shown to be wrong.