Bomba tal-ħin f’Delimara

Il-proposta ta’ Power Station f’Delimara li taħdem bil-gass flok bil-Heavy Fuel Oil ser twassal għal titjib fil-kwalita’ tal-arja f’Marsaxlokk, Birżebbuga u l-inħawi tal-madwar. Imma huwa ukoll ċar li l-preokkupazzjoni tar-residenti kif espressa fl-istudju dwar l-impatti soċjali għadha m’hiex qed tiġi indirizzata b’mod adegwat. L-istudju dwar ir-riskji mill-gass maħzun fil-Bajja ta’ Marsaxlokk m’huwiex wieħed konvinċenti.

Huwa neċessarju, anzi huwa essenzjali, li l-ħażna tal-gass għall-użu tal-Power Station tinħareg il-barra mill-Bajja ta’ Marsaxlokk.

Alternattiva Demokratika hi konxja li s-soluzzjonijiet tekniċi neċessarji jirrikjedu kemm iż-żmien kif ukoll spejjeż addizzjonali sostanzjali. Huwa importanti għaldaqstant li titwarrab l-għaġġla żejda biex ikunu jistgħu jsiru dawk l-istudji addizzjonali li huma neċessarji biex ma jibqa’ l-ebda dubju li r-riskji kollha li għalihom il-komunitajiet ta’ Marsaxlokk u Birżebbuġa ġew esposti jkunu indirizzati b’mod sodisfaċenti.

Alternattiva Demokratika hi konsistenti. Dan il-kliem qalitu diversi drabi, anke waqt il-kampanja elettorali tal-elezzjoni ta’ Marzu 2013 wara li l-Partit Laburista ħareġ bil-proposti tiegħu li, dakinnhar, kienu nieqsa minn informazzjoni essenzjali.

Is-saħħa u is-sigurta tar-residenti ta’ Marsaxlokk u Birżebbuga għandhom jiġu qabel kull konsiderazzjoni oħra.

Il-kunsens nazzjonali dwar il-ħtieġa tal-użu tal-gass fil-ġenerazzjoni tal-elettriku għandu jitwettaq f’rispett sħiħ lejn ir-residenti. Jekk dan ma jsirx jista’ jwassal biex fil-Bajja ta’ Marsaxlokk tkun istallata bomba tal-ħin.

9 comments on “Bomba tal-ħin f’Delimara

  1. Because of technical terminology I am commenting in English.

    There are logical inconsistencies on both sides of this argument. If the present Risk Assessment (RA) relating to a tanker moored inside M’Xlokk Bay is deemed to be “unconvincing” (which it probably is), then, unless one has carried out a higher quality RA, one But that involves both much more time and money than Enemalta has available.

    Cannot conclude that “it is necessary for the the tanker to be moored outside the Bay.” That is tantamount to saying “this is the result I want out of any RA”. With the already chosen tanker, mooring it outside the Bay will involve sending LNG not NG along a ~500m long pipe one the sea-bed to the on-shore re-gasifier unit. No one, Dutch expert or locals has mentioned this problem or pointed out any examples of this difficult engineering piece. The proper solution in this case would be a complete tanker-re-gasifier ship, so as to send NG is gas form to the gas turbines. Remark about a timebomb is also dubious, simply because a RA can only give a probability , which is or can be seen as “a time-bomb”:once in a hundred years say as the probability of a serious accident.

  2. My first comment is garbled because the comment box shows only a couple of sentences. After that I am typing “in the dark”.

  3. After several promises by the PN and PL I have the following comments to make. The Risk Assessment was conducted, by a Dutch expert. Very understand the Mediterranean sea, especially during a storm . From an environmental stand point the risk on water is higher, there are too many factors to discuss, but the cost benefits are too costly due to the following; Structural design, contingency plans, evacuation procedure, and responding to an Emergency response, not to mention the damage to maritime ecology.

    • There are of course various difficulties. May I point out that you are incorrect when you state that the risk assessment was carried out by a Dutch expert. it was in fact carried out by an Italian : Roberto Vaccari.

  4. Could Simon Abela please clarify: 1. “Very understand the Mediterranean sea, especially during a storm”. 2. “From an environmental stand point the risk on water is higher”, 3. but the cost benefits are too costly due to the following;

  5. I had worked out the thermal power of the 140,000 M3 LNG storage facility. When I arrived at the value I could not believe it. I checked and re-checked my physics various times and I always arrived at the following:
    The 140,000 M3 LNG storage vessel will contain an explosive amount of gas equivalent to:
    These are the workings:
    Energy in LNG Vessel:

    Volume: 140,000 M3
    Specific gravity of LNG : 0.422
    Total mass in Kg: 59,080,000 kg
    Calorific value of methane: 13,271 kcal/Kg
    Total Thermal Energy in the LNG storage Vessel=784,050,680,000 kcal (value 1)
    Energy in Hiroshima bomb:

    Total energy equivalent of Hiroshima bomb equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT=15,000,000 kg of TNT = 15,000,000,000 kcal (Value 2)

    Now divide value 1 by value 2 and you get 52 Hiroshima bombs equivalent in thermal energy.

    Now who would want 52 Hiroshima bombs stored 2 or 20 kilometers away from his home? Not Dr. Muscat for sure. If our prime minister is putting political convenience (following his irresponsible promise that he would resign if the gas-powered power station would not be commissioned by March 2015), before the safety of thousands of people and the economic stability of our island, then he should not be our prime minister and he should resign. We do not want 52 Hiroshima bombs anywhere in Malta or Gozo.

    But that is not all. There must be times when there are at least two LNG carriers due to logistical requirements and this at least doubles the risk and increases the size of the bang. The 140,000 M3 last approx. 3 months at 200MW of continuous power and assuming a thermal to electric efficiency of 50%. Every three months the risk doubles for some days if not weeks.

  6. The Risk for environmental cleanup is higher in water than on land due to many factors, including personnel and maritime ecology, from a security stand point if a bunch of terrorists decide to blow up the LNG vessel what will the authorities do? I am sure that the AFM is not going to secure the entire 24 hours. So where are the contingency plans? In case of disaster? What about a major storm like the one we had last Saturday? Can you imagine if the vessel is pushed ashore, have the authorities planned how to evacuate the people? And then what about the Power Station how will it provide electricity in case of this type of disaster?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s