Changed 7.3.98
VAARU - ALTA - VUOTOS
Environmental and social comparison of three power plant projects
The power plant of ALTA is running at a loss; it produces least electricity in winter when electricity power is most needed. The planned pump-fed power station of VAARU (Vaarunvuori hill) would have used more electricity than it would have produced the loss would have been equivalent to the electricity consumption of households of 100.000 300.000 people in Finland (without heating). The VUOTOS plan has been proved unprofitable from the standpoint of the common interest by a neutral research (VATT) even without setting a price on environmental hazards.
- Location?
Vaaru: Central Finland; the eastern shore of Lake Päijänne, 7 km south from 62 degrees north latitude. Vaarunvuori hills, in the municipality of Korpilahti.
Alta: Norwegian Lappland. Alta river, about 40 km south from 70 degrees north, in tundra. In municipalities of Alta and Kautokeino.
Vuotos: Finnish Lappland. River Kemijoki, in municipalities of Pelkosenniemi, Savukoski and Salla, about 50 km north from Arctic circle.
- Name of area derived from Sami language?
Vaaru: Yes: Vaaru ( from the word Várri).
Alta: Yes: Cavco (Sautso.)
Vuotos: Yes: Vuotos.
Back to the beginning of the comparison
-
When was plan originally drafted?
Vaaru: C. 1968
Alta: 1968
Vuotos: Early in the sixties.
- Completed plans?
Vaaru: 1974
Alta: 1975
Vuotos: 1974
- Inhabitants in area of planned constructions?
Vaaru: Was not.
Alta: No. (In the basic plan about 400-500. But the Sames rose and fought and Masi area was saved).
Vuotos: 78 people (198, 2 now fewer).
-
Lenght of building time?
Vaaru: Would have been 3 years (earlier estimated to 4-5 years).
Alta: 7 years.
Vuotos: About 10 years.
-
Final decision to build plant?
Vaaru: Company has postponed decision and canceled the plan 30.12.1997.
Alta: Passed the parliament 1978 with votes 90-35.
Vuotos: 1992 Cabinet gave it's permission to start preparations.
-
Completed?
Vaaru: The first plan: about 1980. Company canceled the plan 30.12.1997
Alta: 1987
Vuotos: Earliest in about 2004.
-
Developer?
Vaaru: Would have been IVO Inc. (Imatran Voima Inc., state owns about 95 %).
Alta: NVE (a national establishment).
Vuotos: Kemijoki Inc. (state owns 2/3, IVO 17 %. IVO owns 62% of the electricity power of the river Kemijoki).
-
Construction costs?
Vaaru: Would have costed about FIM 1,5 billion.
Alta: Was about FIM 1 billion.
Vuotos: About FIM 1 billion.
-
Money used so far by company?
Vaaru: About FIM 10 million (to 1996).
Alta: About FIM 1 billion (completed1987).
Vuotos: About FIM 200 million (to 1996).
-
Promised jobs?
Vaaru: The company's (IVO) promised in 1972: max 300 places. 2-3 permanent ones.
Alta: 1/3 of the promised 200 places/ 8 years realized. 2-3 permanent ones.
Vuotos: Company in 1982: max 600, on average 280/ 10 years. Permanently 100; company in 1995: 3040.
Back to the beginning of the comparison
Changed 12.4.97
-
Main natural features?
Vaaru (c. 7 km2): A nutrient-rich hill on the shore of huge Lake Päijänne. In the boreal forest the Taiga: the green belt of coniferous forests encircling the northern hemisphere.
Alta: The largest canyon in Northern Europe. Tundra.
Vuotos: Large river Kemijoki and Kokonaapa-mire. In the boreal forest: the Taiga.
-
Planned reservoir?
Vaaru: 1 km2, about 2 km long.
Alta: 2,8 km2, 18 km long (1. plan: 120 km, 2 huge damns, Sautso and Kista).
Vuotos: 237 km2, about 70 km long.
-
Classification of the ecosystem?
Vaaru: Internationally valuable. 20 species and 8 habitats are included in Directives of European Union. The area is within or suggested to 7 conservation programmes, e.g. the old forest's, and to Natura 2 000 network in European Union, one on top of the other.
Alta: Internationally valuable.
Vuotos: Internationally valuable. 32 species are included in Directives of European Union. 106 km2 of the area suggested in Finland to Natura 2000 network in European Union.
-
Classification of lake system?
Vaaru: Valuable.
Alta: Valuable.
Vuotos: Valuable.
-
Emission of carbon dioxide?
Vaaru: Would have been little.
Alta: Little.
Vuotos: Would be enormous.
-
Transportation of mercury?
Vaaru: Would have been little.
Alta: Little.
Vuotos: Would be enormous.
-
Classification of flora?
Vaaru: Internationally valuable. 51 territorycally or nationally endangered species, especially rock plants, many of them at the extreme limit of their range. The last habitant of Pannaria mediterranea in Finland.
Alta: Internationally valuable. Many species at the northern limit of their range. The only found of Oxytropis deflexa in the world (1981).
Vuotos: Territorycally valuable. 40 territorycally or nationally endangered species.
-
Classification of bird population (avifauna)?
Vaaru: Internationally valuable. Seven of the bird species breeding in the area are territorycally or nationally endangered in Finland (about 1/5 of the species in Finland). Fourteen of the bird species breeding in the area are included in Annex I of the Birds Directive of European Union or including those proposed to be added to the Annex by the new Member States of 1 January 1995. White-backed Woodbecker observed.
Alta: Internationally valuable. The densest population of predatory birds in Norway..
Vuotos: Twenty-five of the bird species breeding in the area are included in Annex I of the Birds Directive of European Union. An NGO, Birdlife Finland, has stated that this data implies that the planned project is a violation of the Birds
Directive. Among other Greater Scaup and Peregrine.
-
Classification of insects?
Vaaru: Internationally valuable. 20 territorycally or nationally endagered species, and several habitats of butterfly found nowhere else in central Finland. The northest habitant of Plagodis dolabraria in the world.
Alta: ?
Vuotos: ?
-
Nesting of peregrine?
Vaaru: The last nest in central Finland,1958.
Alta: ? (The densest population of gyr falcon in Norway).
Vuotos: Breeding site of three pairs of peregrine would be inundated.
-
Special character of fish populaion?
Vaaru: -
Alta: Was one of the best salmon rivers in the world.
Vuotos: On the route of migrant whitefish.
-
Classification of landscape?
Vaaru: Nationally valuable.
Alta: Obviously nationally valuable.
Vuotos: Partly nationally, partly also internationally valuable.
-
Endangered species of living organisms?
Vaaru: More than 90, including 20 species included in Directives of European Union, six of them are included in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive. At least 25 nationally endangered species. 25 species classified territorycally at least in 'danger' (V). About 5/6ths of the endangered species were in danger zone in 2-3 km2.
Alta: Incl. 6 of the 12 most endangered mammal- or bird species in Europe.
Vuotos: At least 32 species included in Directives of European Union. 94 territorycally endangered species, 11 species classified territorycally at least in danger (V). 36 species nationally endangered. All would be drowned.
-
Environmental impact?
Vaaru: Was greatest single threat to endangered species in Finland beside Vuotos plan. Big indirect impacts.
Alta: Severe.
Vuotos: Greatest single threat to endangered species in Finland. 237 km2 would be drowned.
-
Studies on environmental impacts?
Vaaru: Inadequate.
Alta: Inadequate.
Vuotos: Inadequate.
-
Affected by Finlands new environmental impact assessment legislation (YVA)?
Vaaru: No. Manipulated out with Vuotos plan. But the company canceled the plan.
Alta: -
Vuotos: No. Manipulated out.
Back to the beginning of the comparison
-
Machinery?
Vaaru: Would have been pumped-storage power station in a tunnel.
Alta: In a tunnel.
Vuotos: ? (Conventional).
-
Machinery beneath surface of rock?
Vaaru: Yes. Would have been about 100 metres.
Alta: Yes. About 100 metres.
Vuotos: In a blasted hole.
-
Maximum electricity power?
Vaaru: Would have been 540 MW (= equivalent to a nuclear reactor).
Alta: 150 MW ( about 40-50 MW in winter).
Vuotos: Would be 37 MW (the power plant in the basin).
-
Total electricity production per year?
Vaaru: IVO : 300 GWh but consumption about 400 GWh. (In full basin about 4 GWh = about 78 hours down with maximum power).
Alta: About 400 GWh (mainly in summer).
Vuotos: Would be 140 GWh (+ 219 GWh to new machineries to hydropower plants downriver). The pump-fed power station in Vaaru would use up at least as much electricity as the Vuotos power station would produce.
-
Water drop to machinery?
Vaaru: Would have been 117 metres.
Alta: About 160 metres.
Vuotos: Would be about 17 metres.
-
Lenght of water tunnel?
Vaaru: Would have been about 0,7 km.
Alta: About 2 km.
Vuotos: (Canals would be 3-4 km)
-
Blasting of bedrock?
Vaaru: Would have been 200 000 - 300 000 m3.
Alta: 800 000 m3.
Vuotos: ? ( Canals would be 3,6 milj, m3).
-
Maximum flow through turbines?
Vaaru: Would have been 540 m3/s down. Up about 390 m3/s.
Alta: 100 m3/s in summer; 30 m3/ s in winter.
Vuotos: Would be 250 m3/s (in the power plant in the basin).
-
Maximum height of dam?
Vaaru: Would have been 30 metres.
Alta: 110 metres.
Vuotos: Would be 18 metres.
-
Lenght and volume of dam?
Vaaru: Would have been 4,5 km; about 3 million m3.
Alta: 140 m; about 0,1 million m3.
Vuotos: Would be 17 km; 5,6 million m3.
-
Volume of the basin?
Vaaru: Would have been 17 million m3
Alta: 150 million m3
Vuotos: Would be 1 096 million m3
-
Changes in waterlevel in the basin?
Vaaru: Would have been 20 metres.
Alta: 25 metres.
Vuotos: Would be 8 metres.
-
Replacement of roads?
Vaaru: 5 km (done 1984). (IVO had to pay ca. 40 % about the costs).
Alta: New 20 km (done 1983).
Vuotos: 28 km (+ 5 km done).
-
New bridges?
Vaaru: -
Alta: 2
Vuotos: 4
-
Accidents?
Vaaru: -
Alta: Water release 8.8.1987. Among other people the police comissioner of the territory was very nearly to drown with boat.
Vuotos: -
-
Connection to nuclear power?
Vaaru: Yes. "A battery"", most needed by nuclear power. To satisfy peak demands of electricity and for emergency situations with nuclear power. (The company has two nuclear reactors.) At present the construction of a fifth nuclear reactor is again being discussed at a high level in Finland, but postponed.
Alta: No.
Vuotos: Yes. Especially to season-time regulation of electricity demands. Still, it would not store already produced electricity.
-
Alternatives?
Vaaru: Numerous. Including a compressed air driven plant in a former mine, on the consumer pays principle, and electicity saving.
Alta: Was: a 50 MW gas driven power plant.
Vuotos: Yes: a firewood fuelled power plant.
-
Alternative locations?
Vaaru: Numerous, the nearist and best about 10 km north from Vaarunvuori hill.
Alta: No.
Vuotos: No.
Back to the beginning of the comparison
-
A neutral report about the economics of the plan in the common interest?
Vaaru: No. The plant would have used at least 25-33 % more electricity than it would produce. (Would have used up at least as much electricity as the Vuotos power station would produce.)
Alta: No. The power plan thas been proven to be unnecessary.
Vuotos: Yes: "Barely worthwhile" (VATT, a state-owned centre of economic research 9.6.1992).
-
A neutral report about the economics of the energy production of the plan in the common interest?
Vaaru: No. It would have been running at a loss. The possible profit would have come from the price differencies of electricity during the 24-h period.
Alta: No. The power plant is running at a loss. A 50 MW gas driven power plant would have cost about 1/10 of the Alta power station's price.
Vuotos: Yes: Not profitable from standpoint of common interest (VATT, a state-owned centre of economic research 9.6.1992). No price fixed on environmental hazards.
Back to the beginning of the comparison
Forward