Linking energy and democracy

 

Saturday, June 18, 2011 ,

by

Carmel Cacopardo

 

Last weekend, Italian voters said no to nuclear energy for the second time since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 25 years ago.

Italy is not alone in refusing to handle nuclear energy. The Fukushima incidents have driven home the point that, even in a country that is very strict on safety standards, nuclear energy is not safe. Fukushima has proven that no amount of safeguards can render nuclear energy 100 per cent safe. Though accidents are bound to happen irrespective of the technology used, the risks associated with nuclear technology are such that they can easily wipe out life from the affected area in a very short time.

Last weekend’s no has a particular significance for Malta as this means an end to plans for the construction of a nuclear power plant at Palma di Montechiaro on Sicily’s southern coast, less than 100 kilometres from the Maltese islands.

Germany’s Christian Democrat/Liberal coalition government, faced with the resounding victory of the Greens in the Länd of Baden-Württemberg, has made a policy U-turn. As a direct effect of the Greens-led opposition to Germany’s nuclear programme, Germany will be nuclear-energy free as from 2022, by which date all existing nuclear power installations will be phased out. In doing so, the Merkel government has, once and for all, accepted the Green-Red coalition agreement on a complete nuclear phaseout.

Even Switzerland is planning not to make use of its existing nuclear plants beyond their scheduled projected life. The Swiss government will be submitting to Parliament a proposal not to replace existing nuclear plants. The process is scheduled to commence in 2019 and will conclude with the closure of the last Swiss nuclear reactor in 2034.

After the Tunisian revolution, Abdelkader Zitouni, the leader of Tunisie Verte, the Tunisian Green party, has called on Tunisia’s transitional government to repudiate the Franco-Tunisian agreement for the provision of nuclear technology by France. Hopefully, the same will happen when the Administration of Libya is back to normal.

There are other Mediterranean neighbours that are interested in the construction of nuclear plants. Libya and Tunisia were joined by Algeria, Morocco and Egypt in reacting positively to Nicolas Sarkozy, the peripatetic nuclear salesman during the past four years.

Malta could do without nuclear energy installations on its doorstep. Italy’s decision and the policy being advocated by Mr Zitouni are a welcome start. It would be wishful thinking to imagine Foreign Minister Tonio Borg taking the initiative in campaigning for a Mediterranean free of nuclear energy even though this is in Malta’s interest.

It is a very healthy sign that Malta’s neighbours together with Germany and Switzerland are repudiating the use of nuclear energy. Their no to nuclear energy is simultaneously a yes to renewable energy. This will necessarily lead to more efforts, research and investment in renewable energy generation as it is the only reasonable way to make up for the shortfall between energy supply and demand.

A case in point is the Desertec project, which is still in its infancy. The Desertec initiative is based on the basic fact that six hours of solar energy incident on the world’s deserts exceeds the amount of energy used all over the globe in one whole year. Given that more than 90 per cent of the world’s population lives within 3,000 kilometres of a desert, the Desertec initiative considers that most of the world’s energy needs can be economically met through tapping the solar energy that can be captured from the surface of the deserts.

The technology is available and has been extensively tested in the Mojave Desert, California, in Alvarado (Badajoz), Spain and in the Negev Desert in Israel where new plants generating solar energy on a large scale have been in operation for some time. The Desertec project envisages that Europe’s energy needs can be met through tapping the solar energy incident on the Sahara desert. The problems that have to be surmounted are of a technical and of a geopolitical nature.

On the technical front, solutions are being developed to address more efficient storage and the efficient transmission of the electricity generated.

The Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt and, hopefully, the successful conclusion of the Libyan revolution will address the other major concern: that of energy security. The movement towards democracy in North Africa can contribute towards the early success of the Desertec project in tapping solar energy in the Sahara desert for use in both Northern Africa and in Europe.

While Malta stands to gain economically and environmentally through the realisation of such a project, I have yet to hear the government’s enthusiasm and commitment even if the project is still in its initial stages.

Malta is committed in favour of the pro-democracy movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Benghazi. Being surrounded by democratic neighbours is a definitely positive geopolitical development. If properly nurtured, this would enhance Malta’s economic development, energy security and environmental protection concerns.

Controversial waste plant denied planning approval

by MICHAEL PARSONS

published Saturday 12 July 2008

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE COUNTRY’S leading racehorse trainer Aidan O’Brien said yesterday he was “over the moon” following An Bord Pleanála’s decision to refuse planning permission for a waste treatment plant close to his Ballydoyle Racing Stables and the Coolmore Stud in south Tipperary.

Mr O’Brien said the proposed development “would have destroyed Ballydoyle . . . closed us down and ruined all the land in terms of raising horses”.

A joint venture company, Green Organics Energy Ltd (GOE), had sought approval for the facility at Castleblake near the village of Rosegreen on a site which had traditionally been used for rendering animals.

The €100 million plant was intended to process waste from meat factories as well as household organic “brown-bin” waste. GOE planned to process the waste using a system known as anaerobic digestion to generate “green” electricity for the national grid and biodiesel for cars.

An Bord Pleanála, while acknowledging “the desirability of providing such facilities”, rejected the proposal claiming that it would be “prejudicial to the viability of the equine industry in this area”.

The planning authority noted that it is “the policy of the Government to support the equine sector” and the proposed development would be located “in an area of national importance for the bloodstock industry”.

Mr O’Brien said: “We are delighted here at Ballydoyle with this decision. I want to pay tribute to the many individuals and organisations throughout this community for their hard work in campaigning against this development.”

A spokeswoman for GOE said the company “has not had sight of the decision and will be reviewing it in detail when it is available.”

The decision and the inspector’s report have been posted on the Bord Pleanála website.

The venture was backed by three Irish companies, Dawn Meats, Bioverda (a unit of conglomerate NTR) and Avglade, a holding company controlled by Tipperary businessman Louis Ronan.

The proposal was the subject of a 12-day public hearing conducted by An Bord Pleanála in Clonmel last February which heard statements from expert witnesses and attracted large crowds including many employees of both Ballydoyle Stables and Coolmore Stud. The hearing was told that John Magnier’s Coolmore Group – one of the industry’s most successful operations – could be forced to relocate away from Co Tipperary if the plant received approval.

In his testimony, Aidan O’Brien claimed the proposal “would be a disaster” and negatively impact on the health of horses at Ballydoyle.

Former attorney general Rory Brady SC, who led the legal team for GOE, said the case was “fundamentally a clash between modernity and a fear of change”.

Paul Barrett, the project’s manager, claimed that such facilities were necessary “if Ireland is to succeed in meeting our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol”. He claimed the proposed plant would “displace up to 250,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum from fossil fuels, provide green electricity for 40,000 houses . . . and biofuel to fuel 32,000 cars per year.” The company said that the plant was essential for the Irish meat processing industry which is currently obliged to export waste for incineration.

Yesterday, Maurice Moloney of Coolmore Stud described the decision as “a great result for common sense” and expressed “a heartfelt thank you” to “the people of south Tipperary”.

The decision was also welcomed by local community activist group South Tipperary for Clean Industry. Spokesman Douglas Butler said: “This refusal will protect the environment and our well-established equine industry.”

The proposal had been opposed by politicians of all parties in Co Tipperary. Dr Martin Mansergh, a Fianna Fáil TD for the constituency, had told the hearing: “If we have to have dirty industry in this country, then a better place needs to be found for it, well away from human habitation and acutely environmentally sensitive activities.