Energy policy of Finland

This support was increased after European price on coal to compensate the extra cost to industry.

Finland burn wood with peat and processes are developed to use peat (ref voima 9.9.2019) According to Stern report it is cheaper to stop the global warming emissions than pay the climate change costs.

Finland was the first country in the 1990s to introduce a carbon tax, initially with exemptions for specific fuels or sectors.

Finland placed a border tax on imported electricity, but this was found to be out of line with EU single market legislation.

[7] In EU politics Finnish government supported the delay in the banning of incandescent lightbulbs.

According to the national state-owned energy center Motiva banning of incandescent lightbulbs will save 5.8% of households electricity (1.1 TWh) in Finland.

[8] The lightbulbs banning is not restricted in households but concern also other sectors lighting, like industry, service, agriculture and public lighting, making the total national percentage lower and total energy savings higher than the above-given numbers 5.8% of electricity 1.1 TWh.

[9] Finland's five reactors are among the world's most efficient, with an average lifetime capacity factor of over 90%a and average capacity factor over the last ten years of almost 95%, and covers 33% of the country's electricity [10] In 2019 In Finland the nuclear power owners responsibility of major accident is 700 million euros that state can rise by €70 million in maximum.

Representatives of the social democrat party supported in 2008 the 100% state ownership and control of Fingrid including acquisitions from the nuclear and insurance companies.

According to the newspaper discussions in some contracts the fixed cost can be substantial also when there is no electricity use and the power lines are old.

Most often only the remote summer cottages have no connection in the transmission power lines with annual fixed costs.

The electricity feed in policy of government have mainly supported the large energy companies economical interests.

This could be politically controlled since the business interest is to promote high energy consumption.

During 2010, the European solar heating yield was 17.3 TWh with capacity 24,114 MW, saving 12 million tons of CO2.

The district heating systems are mainly monopolies controlled by local politicians or private companies.

In practice the owners of the houses with district heating system have no influence in the choice of energy sources or prices.

For example, the politicians of Espoo sold the public district heating system for the big energy company Fortum in 2006.

In 2010 Fortum lobbied for the total restriction by law of all renewable energy alternatives within the district heating areas.

Further Espoo lent a sum of 82 million euros to the state for a motor way project (Kehä 1) with no interest at all during 2008-2013.

In short, the deal can be considers successful for the nuclear company Fortum, but unsuccessful for the Espoo tax payers.

According to Mr Lauri Myllyvirta Greenpeace (2008) the potential energy savings in the buildings correspond the electricity of three nuclear plants.

[31] The governmental plan 2008 does not address with a clear message the European Union obligation for 20% energy saving by 2020.

[33] The big issue here is that if the industry is allowed to continue its business as usual and increase the energy use, the politicians are obliged to shift the burden of needed energy revolution demand double higher for all the rest of the society.

[36] According to Helsingin Sanomat (Mr. Jyrki Iivonen) the employment reduced in the Finnish paper and cell industry by 3,786 persons during 2006-2010.

In October 2010 under negotiations were additional 850 jobs in plants of Kouvola (Myllykoski / UPM) and Kotka Sunila (Stora Enso).

[36] For prevention of the global warming the emissions of the industry plant in Finland, Russia, China or Brazil are equal.

The overall global carbon emission and energy use change may be small or negative when the international Finnish company move its production from Finland e.g. in Brazil or China.

Among others Friends of the Earth have criticized Stora Enso policy in 2009 of the shift in the Eucalyptus monoculture plantations in Brazil endangering the rain forests and local farmers land ownerships.

[41] At least Greenpeace had criticized the assignment of the major oil company representative in the group leader.

(HS 18.12.2013 A16 Tiainen) Personal car take 90 times the space compared to metro.