Comparison of Nordic cities shows Helsinki has worst gas emissions
Coal-fired electric plants and natural gas main contributors, emissions from transport lower
Residents of Helsinki generate more greenhouse gases per capita than those of other large cities in the Nordic region.
Emissions were measured in a recent study covering Gothenburg, Copenhagen, Malmö, Oslo, Reykjavik, and Stockholm.
The large numbers for Helsinki stem from Helsinki’s own electricity production, which is almost totally dependent on fossil fuels.
The power plants run by Helsinki Energy use natural gas and coal as their main fuel, whereas other cities use more renewable sources of energy.
Slightly lower than average were Helsinki’s emissions from transport. This is at least partly attributable to the popularity of public transport in Helsinki.
The Nordic report has been brought to the attention of the Environment Committee of the City of Helsinki. A team of experts set up by the cities uses the same standards to measure the state of the urban environment and to compare results of environmental protection.
Renewable resources accounted for only eight percent of energy used in Helsinki in 2003. The level was highest - 60 percent - in Iceland’s capital Reykjavik, because of the use of geothermal energy, which is counted as a renewable resource. Almost as high a level was in Oslo, where hydroelectric power is the main source.
In Stockholm, the proportion of renewable sources of energy was over one third. Sweden uses a fair amount of biomass, mainly wood. Waste materials are also used in the production of electricity and district heating in Sweden.
Helsinki Energy burns coal in two large power plants. The utility also maintains an emergency stockpile of coal.
The main fuel firing Helsinki’s power plants is natural gas, whose greenhouse gas emissions are 40 percent lower than those of coal.
Matti Hyvönen, Environmental Director of Helsinki Energy, notes that the use of different sources of energy varies from year to year. "For instance, last year we mainly used natural gas; coal was used only during the coldest snaps."
This year will be quite different, now that the lack of rain in the summer has left little water in reservoirs in the Nordic Countries for hydroelectric power. The availability of nuclear power also affects the level of emissions.
There are historical reasons for the use of coal and gas. We should also compare how well the cities have succeeded in reducing emissions", Hyvönen points out.
He says that Helsinki is going in a better direction. There is greater efficiency in using the energy generated from burning fuel. The synergy benefit in the co-generation of electricity, heat, and cooling is considerable.
The Director General of the Helsinki Environment Centre, Pekka Kansanen, notes that natural conditions favour Norway and Sweden.
"If we want to stay in the forefront of environmental protection, new biological fuels should be favoured. Sweden is taking new technology into use with an open mind", Kansanen says.
Kansanen is concerned at the growth in the consumption of energy, for which no limit seems to be in sight.
However, the statistics only indicate the emissions that are produced inside the city limits. "One long holiday flight to Thailand causes more carbon dioxide emissions than a whole year of commuting by car from Tuusula to Helsinki", points out environmental planner Kari Silfverberg.
Helsingin Sanomat
|
| 19.9.2006 - TODAY |
 Comparison of Nordic cities shows Helsinki has worst gas emissions
|
|
