Sustainable Urban Infrastructure

Comments

Transcription

Sustainable Urban Infrastructure
s
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure
A view to 2030
Helsinki Edition
A research project conducted by Aalto University and Siemens AG
Upon completion of the “Sustainable Urban Infrastructure – Helsinki Edition” research project, Siemens would like to express its gratitude and thanks to all partners and city and
regional authorities for their fruitful participation in this project and excellent support for it. We would especially like to thank:
• Aalto University for effective support of the research for the study and the elaboration of data and scenarios
• City of Helsinki for its role as sparring partner to discuss ideas and findings of the study
• Helsingin Energia for valuable advice on energy supply, energy distribution and buildings as well as for its contribution during workshops and discussions
• HKL for its participation at workshops and discussions as well as for interesting insights into the regional transport planning
• HSL for its participation at workshops and discussions as well as for interesting insights into the city transport planning
• Palmia for its provision of building-related plans and their advice on building-related technologies and levers
• HKR for its participation in workshops and discussions as well as for interesting insights into the city construction planning
Thanks to complete mutual understanding and frictionless cooperation with our partners from city and regional city authorities and with scientists and academics from
Aalto University, as well as cooperation with other participants, this sustainable urban infrastructure study was realized to the fullest extent possible and within the scheduled
time frame. We are grateful to all project participants for their active collaboration on our effort, as well as for valuable objective advice and consultation provided. For its part,
Siemens hopes that the possible implementation of the project suggested will have a wholly positive effect for Helsinki.
2
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Content
Executive summary
5
Introduction
Current situation and projection of development
Strategies and plans
Helsinki and the Baltic Sea
11
12
14
15
Buildings
Helsinki’s CO 2 profile
Top-down potentials and scenarios
Examples from other cities
Implementation concept
Future outlook
Interview
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
Heat and electricity generation
Helsinki’s CO 2 profile
Top-down potentials and scenarios
Impact of EU legislation on emission reduction
Examples from other cities
Implementation concepts
Interview
Future outlook
29
30
34
38
40
41
42
43
Energy distribution
Distribution in the Nordics and in Helsinki
Top-down potentials and scenarios
Examples from other cities
Implementation concepts
Future outlook
45
46
48
50
51
56
Transport
Helsinki’s CO 2 profile
Street lighting
Top-down potentials and scenarios
Implementation concepts
Examples from other cities
Future outlook
Interview
59
60
66
67
73
74
76
77
Case study: Green Harbor Vuosaari
Current situation and base-scenario projection
Strategies and plans
Levers and recommendations to reduce CO 2 emissions
Examples from other harbors
Conclusion
79
80
83
83
86
87
Financing and funding
89
Methodology
Data collection & estimation of current energy usage
CO 2 footprint
Calculation of base and optimized scenarios
Calculation of implementation concepts
93
94
94
95
97
Appendix
List of levers
Data sheet
Sources
99
100
101
104
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
3
4
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Executive summary
Helsinki’s carbon dioxide
emissions can be reduced
by 60% by 2030.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
5
Executive
Summary
T
he City of Helsinki has set ambitious targets for reducing its CO2
emissions in the near future: the capital wants to reduce its CO2
emissions by more than 20 % by 2020 compared to the level of 1990.
This study was conducted by Siemens, together with Aalto University, to assess the range of technological solutions that could be used
to achieve this target and beyond. This report identifies 26 levers for
reducing emissions in four main infrastructure areas (buildings, transport, energy supply, and energy distribution) and within the Vuosaari
Harbor. The scope of the study is defined so that transport, due to its
regional nature, is analyzed with a regional scope also including Espoo,
Kauniainen and Vantaa, while optimization potentials for the other
three infrastructure areas focus solely on Helsinki.
Helsinki has already taken action to achieve the reduction target on schedule. The progress that the city has already made is
most concretely illustrated by how Helsinki has managed to decouple its energy consumption and related CO2 emissions during
the last decade: consumption and emissions growth are not tied
together anymore.
Our analysis suggests that this trend is likely to continue and
strengthen in the future. The base scenario used in this report expects
Helsinki’s CO2 emissions to reduce by 13 % by 2030 compared to 2010
levels, despite slight growth in total consumption, due to underlying city
and traffic volume growth. This base scenario is calculated by using the
historical emission growth rate of Helsinki and by accounting for the impact of those technological improvements and regulatory changes that
have already been, or have been bindingly decided to be implemented.
These results support the view that Helsinki is already on the right
track toward achieving its ambitious reduction targets. This report aims
at providing a review of existing technologies and solutions as well as
several totally new implementation concepts to enable the city to reach
its reduction targets and beyond.
Base scenario view of 2030 emissions
Base scenario view of 2030 consumption
Transportation
CO2 emissions
(Mt per year)
Buildings Commercial
3,0
2,5
Buildings Residential
1,0
0,0
Transportation
Consumption
(TWh per year)
Buildings Commercial
18
14
1,0
Buildings Residential
0,9
0,9
2010
2030
Base scenario
5
6,1
6,1
6,0
5,7
2010
2030
Base scenario
8
6
4
0,7
4,1
12
10
1,0
1,0
0,5
This study identifies and evaluates 26 levers that can be used to reduce
the CO2 emissions of Helsinki. These levers include both measures Helsinki has already decided to implement or has considered for implementation, as well as new concepts developed by Siemens, Aalto University and in workshops and interviews with over 30 representatives
from various City of Helsinki and regional departments, Helsingin Energia, and Helsinki Region Transport. Aalto University has participated by
enlisting two master students collaborating during the entire project
with the outcome of two master’s theses.
16
2,0
1,5
Report identifies 26 levers to reduce emissions.
2
0
CO2 emissions to diminish by 13 % already in base scenario, despite upward trend in forecasted total consumption due to city growth
6
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
For each infrastructure area, the potential impact of each of the relevant levers is analyzed together with the estimated level of investment
cost (high / low) and general feasibility (easy / medium / difficult). Additionally, detailed implementation concepts from Siemens’ core expertise areas are presented.
Emissions reduced 13 % in base scenario compared to 2010, by
61 % in optimized scenario. The impact of the 26 levers is grouped
to form two scenarios. A more detailed explanation on the methodology used to formulate these scenarios can be found in a separate
chapter of the report.
The base scenario projects Helsinki’s CO2 emissions in 2030. This
scenario was calculated by using Helsinki’s historical emission growth
rate and taking into account the impact of those technological improvements and regulatory changes that are known to be implemented (i.e.
implementation has already started, a commitment for implementation
is in place, or a decision of regulatory change has already been made).
These improvements are referred to as base levers and consist of e.g. rail
traffic improvements already under construction and the impact of new
building regulations and the EU Eco-design directive. The base scenario
alone implies a decline of 13 % or 0.4 Mt in annual CO2 emissions from
the level of 3.0 Mt in 2010 to 2.6 Mt in 2030.
The optimized scenario projects Helsinki’s CO2 emissions in
2030, when additional levers that reduce emissions even further are also implemented (extra levers). Examples of these include new innovative solutions and implementation concepts
such as a demand response system for the electricity distribution grid, increased share of renewable sources in energy supply, and a very high level of electric vehicle usage by 2030.
This scenario implies full implementation of concepts introduced in this study. The optimized scenario results in a further
1.4 Mt reduction in annual CO2 emissions compared to 2010, implying a total decline of 61 % from the current level of 3.0 Mt in 2010
to an optimized level of 1.2 Mt in 2030.
Reduction potential of already 18 % in the short term (by 2015); further potential of 43 % in the long term (by 2030) if all levers are to be
implemented.
The realistic implementation schedule of both base and extra levers
is assessed and an implementation schedule is constructed as follows:
Short-term levers can be implemented within a period of 3 to 5 years.
If all short-term levers would be implemented, CO2 emissions could be
reduced by 0.6 Mt to 2.4 Mt, which represents an 18 % decrease compared to the 2010 level of 3.0 Mt.
Potential to reduce annual CO2 emissions
by 61 % by 2030
18 % reduction potential in the short term,
43 % in the long term
3,0
2,5
2,0
2,0
1,4
3,0
0,1
3,0
0,4
2,5
1,5
2,6
0,4
0,3
1,0
3,0
2,4
1,0
1,0
1,2
0,5
0,0
Base levers
3,5
3,5
1,5
Extra levers
CO2
emissions
Annual CO2
emissions (Mt)
2010
Base levers
2030
(historical growth
Base scenario
rate net of already
decided improvements)
Overview of the base and optimized scenarios
Extra
levers
2030
Optimized
scenario
1,2
0,5
0,0
2010
Base levers Extra levers
(short term)
(long term)
2015
Base levers Extra levers
(short term)
2030
(long term)
Overview of implementation schedule of different lever types
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
7
The impact, complexity of implementation, and investment cost of
the short-term levers differ from lever to lever. For example, wind power
from two offshore wind parks, as planned by Helsingin Energia, congestion charging, and energy-efficient lighting for buildings have the highest CO2 reduction potential. However, the complexity of implementation of wind power and congestion charging projects is more difficult
than lighting due to higher investment cost and regulatory challenges.
Long-term levers are more complex to implement and require longterm planning and/or have long investment horizons. By implementing
all of these levers, the remaining CO2 emissions could be further reduced by 1.3 Mt or 43 % by 2030, resulting in an optimized CO2 emission level of 1.2 Mt by 2030 and implying a total reduction of 61 %
compared to the current level.
The main long-term levers are based on high penetration of electric
vehicle usage, ambitious optimization of heating efficiency in buildings, and the broad use of biomass in energy production. In this report,
we assume a massive replacement of conventional cars with electric
vehicles from 2020 onwards and a 100 % penetration in 2030. Heating optimization bundles a number of different measures, such as better insulation, windows, or advanced heating controls. Gasification of
biomass as the third biggest long-term lever utilizes the biomass from
the forests of Finland, which is gasified outside the city and then transported via already-existing pipelines into the city, where it is used in
conventional gas-fired power plants. All of these measures are rather
complex to implement and have long investment cycles.
Vuosaari Harbor’s efficiency already very good, 4 % further
reduction potential identified.
49,841
Besides the four main infrastructure areas, the improvement potential within the Vuosaari Harbor is also assessed in this report. Given its
recent opening in 2008, the overall status of the port is already very
good, and only minor additional optimization potentials for CO2 reduction have been discovered. The main levers would be the combination
of entrance and operator gates, which could reduce the number of necessary stops for truck traffic into the harbor and save over 860 tons of
CO2 per year. Overall, a 4 % emission reduction potential within the
Vuosaari port was discovered.
-4%
27,506
22,335
84
890
21,361
Total CO2
emissions
Ships
Baseline
in Scope
Green Harbor Vuosaari potentials
8
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Lightining
Transport
Optimized
baseline
Several financing options for sustainability and infrastructure
investments analyzed.
As urbanization is accelerating around the world, infrastructure has
quickly become a popular alternative investment asset class also for private investors. This report includes a chapter that describes the latest
trends in infrastructure financing and provides insights from experts at
Siemens Financial Services. The section covers public-private-partnerships, Siemens Financial Services case examples of past project finance
cases, and an overview of European-Union-specific public financing options for sustainability and infrastructure investments.
Conclusion: 61 % of CO2 reduction potential by 2030 achievable.
In conclusion, this report finds that despite the challenges of accelerating urbanization, population growth, changing lifestyles, and urban
sprawl, Helsinki is already on track to reduce its carbon emissions. In addition, the City of Helsinki has several opportunities to reduce its emissions significantly. Already during the next few years, emissions could
potentially be reduced by up to 18 %, in addition to which further levers
can be applied so that by 2030 emissions would be reduced by a total
of 61 % compared to the current level, resulting in an optimized level of
1.2 Mt of annual CO2 emissions in 2030.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
9
10
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Current situation and
projection of development
12
Strategies and plans
14
Helsinki and the Baltic Sea
15
Introduction
In 2030, the energy consumption will be
16.8 terawatt-hours and carbon dioxide
emissions 2.6 megatons in Helsinki.
The biggest consumers of energy are
buildings and traffic.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
11
Introduction
C
ities are a driving force in our world. Already today, more than
50 % of the world’s population lives in cities, and this figure is
rapidly increasing, especially in the developing world. Besides being
a place to live for most people, cities are also economic superpowers: over 50 % of the global GDP is created in cities with more than
750,000 inhabitants. However, in times of rising concerns about
the negative effects of global warming, it must also be noticed that
cities are responsible for over 80 % of the global greenhouse gas
emissions and, therefore, play a vital role in the global effort to
combat climate change.
Many cities around the world have recognized this and have set
ambitious targets for themselves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within their boundaries. Compared to the emission level of
1990, Munich aims to reduce its emissions by 50 % by 2030, Toronto
by 80 % and London by 60 %. Copenhagen takes this even one step
further by aiming to become carbon neutral by 2025.
Helsinki also belongs to this group of cities that acknowledges
their responsibility to be in the front line to combat climate change.
In 2007, the capital of Finland, together with the other cities of the
metropolitan area (Vantaa, Espoo, and Kauniainen), set a target to
reduce the CO2 emissions per capita in the metropolitan area by
39 % by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. This target is part of the comprehensive climate strategy that has been elaborated for the entire
metropolitan area.
The CO2 reduction target will be one of the guiding principles for
the future development of Helsinki and the entire region, as the region already inhabits more than 23 % of the country’s entire population, which is expected to grow even further. On the city level, Helsinki already hosts a large share of the country’s total population. It has
also decided to relocate its freight harbor outside the city center. This
has relieved large areas right in the city center for urban re-development. These areas (Jätkäsaari and Kalasatama) will undergo tremendous changes over the next decades. In the long term, they will
provide homes for more than 40,000 inhabitants and host more than
25,000 workplaces. This gives the city the opportunity to design and
construct sustainable areas for a significant share of the population.
The projects have the potential to become a landmark in sustainable
development for many cities in developed countries, which have undergone structural changes and have large urban areas available for
re-development.
12
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
The purpose of this report is to help decision makers, as well as
the citizens of Helsinki and the entire metropolitan area, to make
informed decisions to cope with upcoming opportunities and challenges. Siemens and Aalto University, therefore, applied a proven
Siemens-methodology to
• Quantify the current CO2 footprint in four infrastructure areas
(buildings, energy supply, energy distribution and transport) within
the city boundaries – except transport, for which the entire metropolitan area is considered and electricity, which is considered on a
national level - and to extrapolate the CO2 footprint in the projected
future.
• Compare the energy performance within the four infrastructure
areas with benchmarks to identify optimization potentials
• Describe implementation concepts for selected solutions, which
could help Helsinki on its way towards a sustainable future
• Give a picture of the future through separate future outlooks
This report both provides a second opinion on existing plans and
proposes new solutions for Helsinki towards a more sustainable and energy-efficient future. We do hope that this study will give new insights
and new ideas about how Helsinki’s targets to combat climate change
can be achieved. The report does not claim to include all possible solutions, but concentrates on areas where Siemens has competencies.
Current situation and
projection of development
Helsinki, the capital City of Finland, has 589,000 inhabitants, being
similar in size to other capitals of Northern Europe, such as Copenhagen or Oslo. The city is sparsely inhabited with 2,730 inhabitants per
square kilometer, similar again to Copenhagen and Oslo, which have
densities of 2,630 and 3,200. This figure falls significantly to 350 dwellers per square kilometer for the Greater Helsinki Area (which includes
Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen and nine other municipalities), as over 40 %
of this area consists of green areas.
The Helsinki Metropolitan area is one of the most dynamic metropolises in Europe. It expects to have a population of two million
inhabitants in 50 years, implying a significant increase compared to
the present one and half million. The growth is expected to be fueled
by people moving in from other parts of Finland and from foreign
countries. The net immigration from the latter was 3,500 people in
2009, while the net immigration from Finland amounts to 2,000 people. Thereby, the region’s population growth pace is the second highest within the European community behind Dublin. This growth will
require approximately seventy million square meters of new housing
stock by 2050 in the metropolitan area, a development that is reinforced also by the fragmentation of households, noticeable in several European countries (singles, divorced couples, old people living
alone, bigger apartments). This increase raises a real planning challenge as the region’s housing stock is expected to more than double
in the next fifty years. Two of the main districts that will be built in
Helsinki have been freed from their former harbor operations: Kalasatama, with up to 17,000 inhabitants in the future, and and Jätkäsaari,
with 16,000 inhabitants.
The total energy consumption for the base year of 2010 amounts
to 16.1 terawatt hours, releasing 2.9 mega tons of CO2. In the base
scenario of this report, which takes into account the impact of alreadydecided energy efficiency and emission reduction measures, energy
consumption is projected to be 16.8 TWh and CO2 emissions 2.6 Mt
per year by 2030.
As far as current energy consumption is concerned, commercial
and residential buildings account both for approximately 37 % of total consumption and transportation for the rest. The respective weight
of these three infrastructure areas is projected to change by 2030 so
that the consumption of residential buildings diminishes slightly and
consumption of commercial buildings stays almost level. However, the
consumption of traffic is expected to grow by 20 %.
The reason for why the consumption of buildings is expected to
stay relatively level, despite the projected increase of the Helsinki region population, stems from more efficient construction standards for
new buildings, as well as forthcoming regulatory changes that are expected to mandate energy efficiency renovations to the existing building stock. On the other hand, traffic consumption is expected to grow
Base scenario view of 2030 consumption
Base scenario view of 2030 emissions
Transportation
Consumption
(TWh per year)
18
Buildings Commercial
CO2 emissions
(Mt per year)
Buildings Residential
3,0
16
14
4,1
5
12
10
6,1
6,1
6
Buildings Residential
1,0
1,0
1,5
1,0
0,9
1,0
6,0
5,7
2010
2030
Base scenario
2
0
Buildings Commercial
2,0
8
4
2,5
Transportation
Energy consumption in TWh in Helsinki,
current and projection of base scenario (2030)
0,5
0,0
0,9
0,7
2010
2030
Base scenario
Overall CO2 emissions,
current and in BAU-projected scenario
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
13
rather significantly as the kilometers travelled by dwellers are expected
to continue to rise in proportion to the growing population. This trend
is reinforced by the structure of the city that requires relatively long
commuting times.
The share of CO2 emissions represented by the three different
infrastructure areas mirrors their share of total energy consumption.
However, thanks to the impact of the improvement measures that have
already been implemented, CO2 emissions are expected to reduce by
13 % by 2030 in the base scenario.
It is worth noticing that CO2 emissions are overwhelmingly induced
by buildings: in 2010, they were responsible for around 2 megatons
of CO2, compared to the total of 3.0 megatons. This result is due to
significant factors: the importance of services for Helsinki, which leads
to a big share of offices within the city, the fact that different areas
of consumption are encompassed within the generic term of building
(heating, cooling, lighting, IT, appliances, and hot water). Industrial
consumption has not been included into the scope of this report.
Concerning transportation, despite a smaller relative share of the
total emissions, its carbon footprint is not at all insignificant. Its carbon intensity is heavily influenced by car usage, which represents
more than half of the CO2 emitted by the transport sector, and by
the low population density of the Greater Helsinki Area requiring
long commuting distances. This is further reinforced by the relatively
high prices of dwellings in the city center, which drives inhabitants
to live in the outskirts. Unfortunately, the growth rate of the different means of transportation does not indicate a change in the modal
split in the 20 next years on a business-as-usual basis, meaning that
private vehicles will remain the norm in the Helsinki region if the
present trend is not reversed.
Another part of this quantitative analysis covers heat production
within the City of Helsinki, which totals 7.3 TWh per year for 0.87
Mt of CO2 emitted. Even though power plants within the City of Hel-
14
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
sinki are mainly run on gas and coal, CHP technology (Combined
Heat and Power generation), widely adopted within the city, enables
high energy efficiency in heat and electricity production and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity is analyzed on the national
level, as Finland is part of the liberalized Nordic electricity markets,
where all consumers are free to choose their electricity provider
from any seller in Finland.
Strategies and plans
Helsinki can, today, be considered one of the leading cities in Europe concerning environmental protection. In the European Green
City index, issued in 2009, conducted by Siemens and the Economist
Intelligence Unit, it has been ranked seventh in the overall ranking,
and fourth among Nordic cities. The main reasons are its relatively
high carbon emissions and energy consumption, even though the
city has good energy efficiency. Its development towards sustainability can be seen through the numerous targets and policies that
the city and the region have been implementing. Helsinki followed
its environmental path by the enforcement of its Sustainable Action
Plan 2002-2010, containing seven main objectives and twenty-one
decision areas. Apart from these comprehensive policies, the capital
issued plans in several areas: a climate strategy targeted until 2030,
an air protection plan until 2016, an energy policy until 2030, and an
energy efficiency program until 2016. The city has also defined precise objectives in several fields. One of the main targets is the reduction of CO2 emissions by 39 % until 2030 (compared to the level of
1990), supported by the increase of renewable energy, whose share
should grow from 5 % in 2007 up to 20 % in 2020 in the city’s energy
supply. The Green Digital Charter sets the Carbon footprint of ICT sector to be reduced by 30 % by 2020.
Helsinki and the Baltic Sea
T
he Baltic Sea is an important driver of local and international economies. In this report, this aspect is highlighted through a separate
analysis of the Vuosaari Harbor, Helsinki’s main cargo port.
The Baltic Sea is the main trade route for the export of Russian petroleum and is highly used by cargo, cruise ships and ferries, which are
enabled to quickly reach the different coastal cities, such as Helsinki,
Turku, Tallinn, St Petersburg, Stockholm, and Copenhagen. Despite its
natural and tourist assets, the Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted seas
in the world; that is why environmental issues are of real importance.
For instance, many of the countries neighboring the Baltic Sea have
been concerned about the risk of a major oil leak from oil tankers that
could be especially disastrous given the slow exchange of water.
In this context, the European Union (EU) created a Strategy for the
Baltic Sea Region, which aims at coordinating action by Member States,
regions, the EU, pan-Baltic organizations, financing institutions, and
non-governmental bodies to promote a more balanced development
of the Region. The four cornerstones of the Strategy are to make this
part of Europe more environmentally sustainable, prosperous, accessible and attractive, safe and secure. The crucial subjects of sustainable
and economic development are present in all the different forums that
have been set up so far in the region. Helsinki is one of the key partners
of these organizations and endeavors to protect local resources and nature as well as to foster regional development.
The main international agreement that has been implemented in
the Baltic Sea region is the Helsinki Convention, which came into force
in 1980 and was signed by the seven Baltic coastal states. All the sources of pollution around the entire sea were, for the first time in history,
made subject to a single convention and were managed through intergovernmental co-operation. Twelve years later, in 1992, in the light of
political changes and developments in international environmental and
maritime law, a new convention was signed by all the states bordering
the Baltic Sea and the European Community.
Regarding regional interaction, Helsinki is a member of two different
kinds of institutions: the ones whose participants are only cities and the
ones that involve different stakeholders from cities to private companies.
The Union of the Baltic Cities is part of the former group. This union implicates cities in all ten countries surrounding the Baltic Sea and focuses on
democratic, economic, social, cultural and environmentally sustainable
development of the Baltic Sea Region. Among the second group, several
networks have been set up. The first one is the Baltic Metropoles Network (BaltMet), a forum for capitals and large metropolitan cities around
the Baltic Sea, which brings together Berlin, Helsinki, Malmö, Oslo, Riga,
Stockholm, St.Petersburg, Tallinn, Vilnius, and Warsaw. The main goal of
this network is to promote innovativeness and competitiveness as well as
marketing in the Baltic Sea Region by engaging cities, as well as academic
and business partners, into close cooperation. Another regional institution engaging different stakeholders is the Baltic Development Forum
(BDF), an independent non-profit networking organization with members
from major cities, large companies, institutional investors to business associations. BDF facilitates and develops new initiatives, partnerships and
international contacts to stimulate growth, innovation and competitiveness in the Baltic Sea Region. Finally, the Baltic Sea action group (BSAG) is
an independent foundation with a vast network of professionals for help
and guidance, whose goal is to execute the salvation work of the sea and
accelerate the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Operations
are carried out with comprehensive cooperation between the private and
public sectors throughout the entire Baltic Sea area.
As a member of these several forums, Helsinki commits itself to the
construction of the region’s future, both in terms of economy and sustainability. The city aims at cooperating with its partners of the Baltic
Sea Region to achieve the objectives in the joint Baltic Sea policy and
the EU’s Northern Dimension policy. Responding to these challenges
is in the interest of the entire Gulf of Finland development and of its
citizens’ well-being.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
15
Helsinki has also developed many plans and policies together with
the different entities running the city-owned businesses. Beyond its
own boundaries, it is also involved in several regional and European
plans. Thus, the city’s local utility, Helsingin Energia (the official abbreviation is Helen), decided to become CO2 neutral by 2050 through
its development of renewable energy, including offshore wind parks,
and the use of wood-based biomass. In combination, Helen is studying the possibility of CCS (Carbon Capture Storage) to decrease CO2
emissions to their lowest level. Numerous public entities have joined
the environmental plan, including the Helsinki Bus traffic Company
and Vuosaari port. Moreover, Helen’s power plants’ district heating
and electricity grid operate according to ISO 14001, while the city
proposed environmental management standards aiming at helping
organizations to minimize the negative impact of their operations
and processes on the environment. Furthermore, most of the public entities have prepared an environmental report, as Helsinki Textile Services, Helsinki water (Helsingin Vesi), and the education and
public work departments. The city is also involved in sustainable procurement with various criteria regarding, for example, bus traffic and
cleaning services.
On the regional scale, the Finnish capital, together with Espoo,
Vantaa and Kauniainen, have developed a strategy to reduce CO2
emissions per capita by one-third on the entire Metropolitan area
by 2030 (based on 1990 levels) and is now elaborating a climate
change adaptation strategy to be prepared for the inevitable effects
of global warming.
16
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
To cooperate with external stakeholders, the City of Helsinki
adopted the Aalborg Charter in 1995 - a charter signed in 1994 by
European cities and towns declaring their willingness to commit towards sustainability - and the Covenant of Mayors initiative in 2009
to reduce GHG emissions by more than 20 % and to improve energy
efficiency by the same rate until 2030. The Finnish capital also participates in several initiatives to protect and foster the Baltic Sea region.
In order to reach the different goals that the region and the city
have established, different sub targets have been identified. Concerning
buildings, the city has signed, with the Ministry of Trade and Industry,
an energy conservation agreement aiming at reducing energy use by
9 % between 2008 and 2016 in the city-owned buildings. Overall, Helsinki wants to limit the energy consumption in residential buildings
by, for example, reducing hot water consumption and motivating the
separation of the charges for electricity and water from the rent. The
opportunity for the development of new dwellings has been seized
to strengthen building regulations that will now require an A-class in
residential houses (100 kilowatt hours per square meter for heating,
cooling and electricity), a low energy standard in Finland. Nevertheless,
Helsinki already has considerable energy efficiency thanks to its district
heating system, to which nearly 90 % of the building stock is connected.
The 80-90 % energy efficiency for district heating, cooling, and electricity production altogether is already one of the highest in the world, but
the city´s energy supply relies heavily on fossil fuels, namely natural gas
and coal. Given Helsinki’s high energy efficiency, further CO2 emissions
reduction plans have to be found either in renewable energy – already
planned to be developed –, behavioral shifts or smart grid. Concerning
the latter, Helen is already implementing a real-time electricity monitoring option to its customers and showing electricity, heating, and cooling
energy consumption in real time on the Internet. It will complete this
system by installing smart meters in every household by 2013.
Another area on which Helsinki environmental policies is focused
is transportation. CO2 reduction is also a real challenge here, as the
energy use per capita is double the European cities average. The traffic in the city center has decreased since 2000, at the city border and
traverse routes, but in total it has grown by 1 to 2 % per year. This trend
is reinforced by the location of key work environments and clusters,
which gives rise to the excessive level of commuting and by the imbalance between eastern and western parts of the capital. The overall
goal consists in reducing dependence on private cars, developing rail
transport as the backbone of public transport, and replacing current
buses with more efficient ones. Currently, the rail system is largely
under extension with the metro project to the City of Espoo, the metro
or light rail (not yet determined) leading to the new residential areas
in Östersundom, the railway network to the airport, and finally the
new light rail reaching the Kruunuvuorenranta neighborhood. The
reinforcement of public transport can furthermore be supported by
the Helmi system, a satellite positioning system, already installed,
that enables the management of traffic signal priority for trams and
buses and gives passengers real-time information. Regarding vehicle
management, Helsinki created, in 2010, an environmental zone in the
city center applicable to regional and internal bus traffic (compliance
to the €3 standard) and waste transport vans (compliance to the €5
standard). In parallel, a congestion-charging solution is still under review by the city. This solution would aim at improving the flow of
traffic by sufficiently reducing the number of vehicles on congested
stretches of road, cutting travel times and making it more predictable,
transferring drivers to public transport and finally improving road
safety. These results would be accompanied by environmental advantages: the reduction of CO2 emissions (estimated in this report at
126,000 tons) and the improvement of air quality. Taking into account
these outcomes, the socio-economic benefits of congestion charging
would exceed its costs, according to the Helsinki study: “Helsinki Region Congestion Charging Study” (2009). Forward-looking options
are also assessed by the Helsinki region: the City of Espoo, as well as
Helsinki, are leading different e-car projects.
To conclude, Helsinki is undoubtedly an advanced city in terms
of environmental commitment. The main challenges that it faces
concern first the target that has been adopted for CO2 reduction (a
decrease of 20 % by 2020 compared to 1990 levels), which has to be
taken into account in all spheres of decision, including energy mix,
building performances, smart grid projects etc. The second main
issue is the construction of new residential areas (including in the
former port areas) that requires the city to make the right decisions
for its future development today. And finally, the modal split and
city´s structure have to be carefully studied to overturn the increasing commuting time spent by dwellers in their cars in order to contain air pollution and CO2 emissions.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
17
18
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Helsinki’s CO2 profile
20
Top-down potentials and scenarios
23
Examples from other cities
24
Implementation concept
25
Future outlook
26
Interview
27
Buildings
The buildings of Helsinki consume
12.1 terawatt-hours of energy and
produce 1.9 megatons of carbon dioxide
emissions. The share of buildings is
two thirds of emissions in Helsinki.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
19
Buildings
Helsinki’s CO2 profile
The European Union emphasizes that buildings are responsible for
40 % of energy consumption and 36 % of CO2 emissions within the
EU. Improving the energy performance of buildings is a key driver for
achieving the Union’s climate and energy objectives, namely the reduction of 20 % of greenhouse gas emissions and 20 % energy savings by
2020. Similarly, the City of Helsinki is aiming at reaching a reduction of
20 % of CO2 emissions by 2020 compared to the level of 1990 and a
reduction of 9 % already by 2016.
Improving the energy performance of buildings is recognized as a
cost-effective way of fighting climate change and improving energy security that also creates job opportunities, particularly in the building
sector. Nevertheless, making buildings more sustainable in the future
will be a long and stony path for all cities.
In Finland, requirements for buildings are laid down in the National
Building Code of Finland, which regulates, inter alia, thermal insulation
and indoor climate and ventilation. In the Finnish capital, the energy
efficiency of the building stock has been developed, since 1974, under
the administration of Helsinki’s Energy Savings Board, whose mandate
is to monitor and coordinate the energy savings efforts of the city’s real
estate and other energy consuming activities. The city’s policies used to
strengthen energy efficiency in buildings are described in detail further
on in this chapter, but two of them are worth highlighting already here.
First, the energy conservation agreement is aiming at reducing the energy use of city-owned buildings by 9 % between 2008 and 2016. Second,
the strengthened building regulation requires an A-class categorization
in new residential houses. This requires that no more than 100 kilowatt
hours are used per square meter for heating, cooling and electricity.
Regarding the heat consumption of the Helsinki building stock in
the district heating system, the consumption per cubic meter (kWh/m3)
growth rate decreased by nearly a third during the period between 19702007. This is a result of both more effectively insulated new construction
solutions and also improvements in the energy efficiency of existing buildings, such as window replacement, adjusting of the room temperature
and the reduced use of warm water. The energy efficiency of 80-90 % for
district heating is one of the highest in the world, and nearly 90 % of the
Helsinki building stock is connected to this network. However, considerable differences can be seen in the energy consumption of district-heated
residential buildings built in different decades. The most poorly insulated
building stocks were those completed in the period 1950-75.
Even if the district heating system is working efficiently, the energy
production system in the city is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, i.e
Base scenario: 4 % reduction in energy
consumption of residential buildings
Consumption
(Mw per year)
kWh/bm3
60
50
55 56
50
7
53
49
44
47
50
43 44 43 44 44 42
40
40
30
Heating
Appliances
Cooling
IT/Com/Media
Lighting
Hot water
Other
6
5
4
30
3
20
2
10
Weather-adjusted heating consumption per brm3 of
district heated residential building stock
20
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
2006
Entire
building
stock
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2000s
1990s
1980s
1970s
1960s
1950s
1940s
pre
1940s
0
1
0
2010
2030
Base scenario
Energy consumption in residential buildings for 2010 and 2030
(base scenario)
natural gas and coal. This has clear consequences in CO2 emissions of
the heating of the building stock but also shows potential for improvement in the future.
Current situation and base scenario view for 2030
The current energy consumption of Helsinki’s building stock amounts to
around 12.1 TWh per year. Half of this amount is used by residential buildings, while the other half is consumed by commercial buildings. In the base
scenario calculated in this report, the total energy use for buildings would
diminish slightly to 11.8 TWh annually during the next two decades.
In residential buildings, heating currently accounts for 4.0 TWh,
i.e. two-thirds of the total energy usage. Other uses, such as cooling,
appliances, lighting, hot water, and IT represent the remaining third.
Hot water is the second biggest consumption category after heating,
with an annual consumption of 0.9 TWh. In the base scenario, the consumption of heating and lighting are expected to reduce in absolute
terms, whereas the consumption of electric appliances is projected to
increase, as their amount will grow with technological development.
The current consumption footprint of commercial and administrative buildings is slightly different: hot water consumption is similar in
relative terms, but heating represents less than half of all energy consumption. This is mainly because, in absolute terms, the consumption
in other consumption categories, especially lighting, is much higher in
commercial building. The base scenario projection presents a relatively
similar level of energy consumption in 2030, despite significant underlying city growth, thanks to expected efficiency improvements. The
profile of the consumption footprint of different categories is expected
to change in a similar way to that of residential buildings.
In total, CO2 emissions due to energy use in Helsinki building stock
amount to 1.9 Mt, i.e. two-thirds of the annual total of 2.9 Mt estimated
in this report. This figure confirms the weight of buildings in cities’ environmental bill as stated before.
Base scenario: Consumption of commercial
buildings expected to remain stable
Consumption
(Mw per year)
7
Heating
Appliances
Cooling
IT/Com/Media
Lighting
Hot water
Around 44 % of the Helsinki building stock’s total CO2 emissions
are due to heating, a figure that would be much higher without the
efficiency of Helsinki’s CHP system. The other categories represent altogether 56 % of the emissions of both types of buildings.
Already decided upon technological improvements and the impact
of regulatory changes are expected to diminish CO2 emissions significantly in the base scenario: a reduction of 19 % is projected in the emissions of residential buildings and a reduction of 16 % in those of commercial buildings. The main drivers behind this development are the
Base scenario: Residential buildings
CO2 emissions reduced by 19 % by 2030
CO2 Emissions
(Mts per year)
7
Heating
Appliances
Cooling
IT/Com/Media
Lighting
Hot water
Other
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2010
CO2 emissions in residential buildings for 2010 and 2030
(BAU-projection)
Base scenario: Commerical buildings
CO2 emissions reduced by 16 % by 2030
CO2 Emissions
(Mts per year)
1,4
Heating
Appliances
Cooling
IT/Com/Media
Lighting
Hot water
Other
Other
6
1,2
5
1,0
4
0,8
3
0,6
2
0,4
1
0,2
0
2010
2030
Base scenario
Energy consumption in commercial buildings for 2010 and 2030
(BAU-projection)
2030
Base scenario
0,0
2010
2030
Base scenario
CO2 emissions in commercial buildings for 2010 and 2030
(BAU-projection)
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
21
Ormuspelto
Östersundom
2009-2015
2009-2015
2,000 inhabitatnts
1,200 inhabitatnts
Kuninkaankolmio
Regional development
2008-2025
6,500 inhabitatnts
1,000 jobs
The development
areas in the City of
Helsinki
Alppikylä
200955,000 inhabitatnts
10,000 jobs
Viikki
2010-2012
3,500 inhabitatnts
500 jobs
Myllypuro-Roihupelto
2008-2025
5,000 inhabitatnts
5,000 jobs
Arabia-Hermanni
Pasila
2008-2035
12,000 inhabitatnts
40,000 jobs
2010-2012
3,500 inhabitatnts
500 jobs
Töölönlahti
Vuosaari
2008-2015
6,000 inhabitatnts
1,000 jobs
Kalasatama
2008-2030
18,000 inhabitatnts
10,000 jobs
Kruunuvuorenranta
2008-2025
10,000 inhabitatnts
800 jobs
Länsisatama
2008-2030
20,000 inhabitatnts
7,000 jobs
City Quarters
decrease of heating energy consumption, the impact of the EU Ecodesign directive on the efficiency of lighting and electric appliances, as
well as already decided upon improvements in the energy supply infrastructure that reduce the CO2 intensity of the energy mix consumed
by buildings. The impact of each of these levers will be discussed in
detail in the subsequent sections of the report.
Trends and challenges
The population of Helsinki is growing and is projected to increase
from today’s around 600,000 inhabitants to between 650,000 and
750,000 inhabitants by 2050. The current population growth rate of
0.9 % per year is one of the highest within the European Union. Although a well-educated and growing population is a big advantage
for economic growth, it will also require more and more apartments,
houses, shops and administrative buildings. A similar trend also affects
the commercial and offices market: already today 83 of the 100 largest
Finnish companies are headquartered in Greater Helsinki.
Despite the growth of its population, Helsinki is in a lucky position
to have large areas available for re-development close to the city center.
Due to the relocation of the cargo harbor to Vuosaari, areas have been
freed from their former use and will become the home of many new
residents over the upcoming years. For example, Jätkäsaari, in the
South-Western part of the city, is located only 5-10 minutes from the city
center and on the shore. A new district that is planned to host 16,000
residents and 6,000 jobs will be built in the area. Over the next twenty
years, Jätkäsaari, together with more than ten other districts in and near
the city, will provide homes for more than 120,000 new residents.
The changing lifestyles of Helsinki’s residents are another trend
which affects the energy consumption of the city’s building stock. For
example, the living space per person in Helsinki increased by 1 square
meter per person (from 33 to 34 square meters) within only 3 years
(2007-2010). Given the trend to more single households among the
22
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
residents, and a trend towards bigger apartments, this figure can be
expected to increase even further in the near future. Besides these described trends that will already lead to higher energy consumption,
increasing comfort requirements are another factor that increases
the use of energy. For example, air conditioning for apartments and
offices has become more popular and common during the past few
years. Although the current overall consumption for air conditioning is
still low, it might increase to take up a significant share of the overall
energy consumption in buildings. It has been estimated that, in the
worst case, as much as 20 % of a building’s electricity may be used for
cooling in the future. Helsingin Energia, the energy utility company in
the city, aims at taking up the cooling challenge by increasing district
cooling facilities, which would significantly reduce the emissions of
cooling in buildings.
In parallel, the energy consumption for appliances, TV, and media
equipment is also rising. Given the constantly improving efficiency, the
consumption might be expected to decrease. However, since the demand and usage of these devices per inhabitant is expected to grow
hand-in-hand with technological development, the efficiency increase
cannot entirely compensate the increase in the absolute amount of different types of equipment. Thus the consumption of different types of
electric equipment is expected to grow in absolute terms by 2030.
The described population growth, together with the trend towards
more living space per person, will require a significant amount of new
buildings over the next years. The Greater Helsinki Vision 2050 states
an estimated demand of 70 million square meters of new housing
stock by 2050 in the Greater Helsinki region. This growth in demand
represents a true planning challenge, as the amount of new housing
to be built over the next 50 years exceeds the size of the existing stock.
However, the construction of these new buildings also provides an
opportunity for the city to significantly reduce the future energy consumption of its buildings.
Top-down potentials and scenarios
Helsinki has long been aware of the high importance of the environmental performance of buildings. Even though important improvements have already been made, further enhancements are still needed in order to achieve the targets that have been set.
This chapter presents four top-down estimations that are used to
quantify the emission reduction potential within the building infrastructure sector. Two energy consumption areas – heating and lighting – are estimated using top-down models based on Helsinki-specific
data and Siemens’ estimates. The figures for two other consumption
areas – appliances and hot water – have been derived by Siemens
using a database of references in European countries and comparing
other cities’ performances to that of Helsinki.
Hot water optimization
Impact:
114,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Lower operating cost
Implementation timeframe:
Long term (until 2030)
Ease of implementation:
Medium
Cost:
Medium
Source of lever:
Requirement driven by regulation
Energy efficient appliances
Impact:
32,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
More efficient and convenient appliances
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Medium - Easy
Cost:
Medium
Source of lever:
Requirement driven by regulation
Lighting optimization in residential and commercial buildings
Impact:
210,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Lower building operating cost
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of implementation:
Easy
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Requirement driven by regulation
Heating optimization in residential and commercial buildings
Impact:
570,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Lower building operating cost
Implementation timeframe:
Long term (until 2030)
Ease of implementation:
Medium
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
Requirement driven by regulation
The main consumption category for residential and commercial
buildings is heating, which is responsible for 4 TWh and 2.7 TWh,
respectively, of annual energy consumption, and 0.5 Mt and 0.3 Mt of
CO2 emissions. Given the expectation of significant city growth during
2010-2030, these figures would be likely to grow significantly. However, the heating efficiency of new buildings has already been steadily improving, from the 1980’s onwards. This trend is expected to
continue and strengthen, as new construction regulations and those
already in force require very efficient energy usage from new buildings. Moreover, it is expected that EU-level regulations will mandate a
relatively high rate of energy efficiency renovations for old buildings.
The City of Helsinki has set targets for renovation of existing building
stock. Thanks to these factors, substantial emission reductions are estimated to be achievable in the heating of buildings by 2030.
The emission reduction impact attributable to the abovementioned factors is estimated using a top-down model that takes into
account Helsinki’s foreseeable residential building stock growth during 2010-2030, the heating efficiency of existing building stock, and
makes assumptions of the impact of foreseeable building regulations
changes and building renovation rates.
The data and assumptions used in this model are derived from several sources. The data on existing building stock size and its heating
efficiency profile and assumptions on renovation rates are based on
Helsinki environmental statistics. The assumptions on the efficiency
increase available through building renovations are based on the City
of Helsinki report on the Best Practices for Energy Efficiency. The main
challenge in developing the model was that very little public data is
available on the heating efficiency in the commercial building stock in
Helsinki. To overcome this challenge, it was assumed that the heating
efficiency improvement of commercial buildings would follow that of
residential buildings in relative terms.
The model yields an estimation of total improvement potential
in annual CO2 emissions of 570 Mt of CO2 p.a. by 2030, compared
to a scenario where no action is taken. Of this amount, 400 Mt is
expected to be achieved through the implementation of already decided upon improvement measures and is thus included in the base
scenario of the report. Moreover, an additional reduction of 170 Mt
is estimated to be achieved if the renovation rate of older buildings
is accelerated further.
The assumptions behind these figures can be illustrated by taking a look at the model’s results at efficiency per square meter level.
According to Helsinki environmental statistics, the heating efficiency
of the city’s residential building stock is currently 34 Wh/m2/HDD per
year on average. The estimation results of the top-down model imply
that this figure could be reduced to 26 Wh/m2/HDD p.a. in the base
scenario, and as low as 22 Wh/m2/HDD p.a. in the optimized scenario.
This can be compared to a new building for the city environmental
department with 70 kWh of energy consumption per square meter.
Regarding lighting consumption in both commercial and residential buildings, Helsinki’s building stock performance is rather low, as
it consumes 89.4 Wh/m²/a for the former and 10.2 Wh/m² /a for the
latter, which are well above the average level of the pool of reference
values from other European cities. The main reason of such results is
the Nordic climate with long winters and low population density, in
which both increase the demand for lighting.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
23
Examples from other cities
Antwerp, Buenos Aires, London
An attitude change diminishes energy consumption
B
uilding energy management is a key issue in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and a real opportunity for cities to reduce
their environmental impact. According to the IPCC, the International Panel for Climate Change, a scientific intergovernmental
body tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate
change, the buildings sector offers the largest low-cost potential
by 2030. Globally, approximately 30 % of all buildings-related CO2
emissions can be avoided at a net benefit by 2020. Furthermore several side benefits can be found by favoring energy efficiency plans in
buildings, such as job market development or welfare improvement.
The building area encompasses three types of buildings: residential
buildings, commercial buildings and city-owned buildings, for which
new technologies can be installed or different kind of policies can
be issued. A long list of policy exists and can be combined, such as
appliance standards, building codes, energy efficiency obligations
and quotas, mandatory labeling and certification programs, energy
performance contracting.
The London Green Organizations program, which is part of the
comprehensive London climate-change action plan, issued in 2007,
focuses on behavioral education. It targets the commercial and public sector with the aim of implementing energy savings in buildings
by turning off IT equipment and lighting at night. London’s employers, both commercial and public sector, are responsible for 33 % of
the capital’s emissions. If all of London’s employers introduced simple changes like turning off lights and IT equipment at night, emissions would be cut by over 3 million tons a year on the 18 million
tons of CO2 released by London commercial and social buildings. The
London Green Organization Program is based on three pillars: first,
“better buildings partnership”, working with and incentivizing commercial landlords to upgrade their buildings, particularly during routine refurbishments; second, “green organizations badging scheme”
to work with tenants from both private and public-sector organizations to reduce emissions through staff behavioral changes and improved building operations; and third, a lobbying campaign focusing
on key barriers to the uptake of energy savings and clean energy.
24
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Another example of a city which has focused on people awareness
is Antwerp. Together with other municipalities in Belgium, the city hired
an airplane-mounted thermal imaging camera to photograph neighborhoods over a four-night period during the winter. The resulting map
gives a detailed portrait of heat loss through the roofs of Antwerp.
Through a website, residents can enter their address, the heating capabilities of their attic space, and even the type of roof they have to get a
rough assessment of how effective their roof insulation is. Coupled with
the many energy efficiency and building retrofit grants that Belgium offers, this map provides a better idea for locals on how they can make
improvements and receive the help they need to realize those upgrades.
In Argentina, the capital Buenos Aires – 3 million inhabitants – created, in 2008, the Program on Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings as
part of their policy focusing on greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
The objective was to optimize energy consumption in public buildings
with the goal of setting an example for all of society. As a pilot project,
energy analyses have been carried out in public buildings of different
types, taking into account electrical equipment consumption, temperature and humidity records, the number of employees on each floor,
measurements of lighting, and water consumption. Recommendations
were developed, based on this analysis, on how to operate the buildings more efficiently and incorporate into an Energy Management System (EMS). For the EMS application, an energy manager is appointed
by the person responsible for the building. The energy manager ensures the system´s functionality and is accountable for implementing
the recommendations and their monitoring. The program was originally implemented at the Environmental Protection Agency´s head office.
The results were convincing: the potential savings for lighting was 27
%, for computer consumption 54 %, and cooling and heating 37 %. In
the future, the goal is to obtain energy diagnoses for fifteen buildings
representing five different types of public buildings: administrative offices, hospitals, schools, cultural centers, and citizen service centers.
Several actions have been carried out in the Environmental Protection
Agency´s head office, such as electricity disconnection during nonworking hours, replacement of old monitors by LCD screens, the implementation of an energy-saving system in the computer server.
Implementation concept
Weather forecast
Building Management
The easiest solution to decrease lighting energy consumption is
to replace bulbs and devices by more efficient ones. This process is
already underway, driven mainly by the European Union’s Eco-design
directive, which gradually limits the sale of inefficient bulbs and will
cause all existing bulbs to be replaced with more efficient devices
after 2015.
A possible improvement can be found in using for instance, LED
(light emitting diode) technology, which consumes far less energy than
incandescent bulbs. A building’s carbon footprint from lighting can be
reduced by 85 % by exchanging all incandescent bulbs for new LEDs.
One 40-watt incandescent bulb, which is used for 10 hours a day, will
cause around 89 kg of CO2 emission per year, while a 6-watt LED equivalent will only cause 14 kg of CO2 over the same time span.
Other actions can be taken in all types of buildings. For example,
through construction planning the orientation of buildings and windows can be designed to capture as much natural light as possible.
Finally, especially for commercial buildings, lighting control systems
with motion detectors can be implemented in commercial buildings
in order to optimize energy consumption in case people forget to
switch off the light. And to go one step further, daylight-linked lighting control systems with continuous dimming or automatic on/off
functionality can be installed. It can potentially lead, depending on
technologies and design, to a 30-60 % saving in lighting energy.
The estimate of the potential for energy savings from lighting efficiency improvements is based on a top-down model, for which the
assumptions were sourced from a literature review of existing studies. The main sources used in this model are the European commission’s assessment of the projected impact of the Eco-design directive,
and an Aalto university master’s thesis on the potential from adopting LED lighting technologies by 2030 (Sarvaranta 2011).
Overall, Helsinki building stock is of good quality, but given the
Nordic climate and the population growth that the city has experienced, and according to the projections, improvements are needed
to fulfill the city targets in energy efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction. In the field of buildings, the two main drivers towards sustainable development are heating and lighting. Nevertheless, other
potential areas for improvements are, for example, in hot water and
appliances energy consumption. Moreover, the issue of cooling could
also be a major challenge in the near future for the Finnish capital.
Impact:
12,070 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Increased safety on pedestrian sidewalk
sand workers comfort in offices
Implementation timeframe:
Short term
Ease of implementation:
Easy
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Defined by City Study Workshop
In the future, it will be possible to incorporate weather forecasts to
optimize energy usage in buildings. As part of a Building Management
System (BMS system), knowledge about expected weather conditions
can be taken into account when adjusting the functions controlling
the buildings’ indoor environment. The BMS system is designed to control and monitor the buildings’ different equipment to provide the best
possible indoor conditions. The BMS system can control several of the
features of current buildings, e.g. heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting,
and security. These functionalities can be improved by forecasting the
needs according to weather, thanks to BMS. It permits the savings of a
substantial part of energy consumption by making the required adjustments in time. For example, if the BMS system gets information on a
temperature decrease, it can start the heating in advance. By doing so,
the demand of energy is decreased compared to when the heating is
started only once the temperature is already lowered. Furthermore, the
residents’ comfort is improved along with energy savings. Many weather
conditions, such as temperature, rain, humidity, and wind direction, can
be used to save energy in buildings when they are known in advance.
The operation of a BMS system can be seen from the picture. First,
there is the information about the weather forecast. Several institutions provide this data to the customers. The BMS system gets the data
through the internet, and with that it can optimize the energy consumption purposely and save a lot of both energy and the environment.
With the weather forecast information, the BMS system can control
heating, ventilation, and air-condition systems that are directly connected to the system. The typical applications are:
• Night cooling
• Heating optimization
• Cooling and heating demand calculation (for next day)
• Blinds and sunshades control
• Car ramp heating
• Pedestrian area heating in winter.
Pedestrian heating
Snow melting is used to prevent slipperiness in streets and traffic areas
of towns, especially in pedestrian areas and entry areas of shopping
centers. Moreover, traffic areas, e.g. ramps, are heated to prevent accidents as well as to improve the security and comfort of pedestrians. In
the South of Finland, the total operating time of the outdoor heating
systems is about 1,000 hours a year.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
25
The system can be heated by district heat or electricity and a thermal effect of 300 W/m² is enough to keep the surface of the road free
of snow until an outdoor temperature of -13 °C. Existing pedestrian
area control systems are made to follow outdoor temperatures with
a snow sensor. The main impediment concerning this solution is that
if the snow fall has already begun, it is too late to start heating pedestrian areas, and it takes much more energy to melt snow than if
the street temperature was high enough when the snow fall started.
To avoid this problem, it is possible to use weather forecasts to start
heating earlier, so that when snow begins to fall, it melts immediately.
Correspondingly, it is possible to stop heating earlier if the end of snow
fall is known in advance.
A pedestrian heating system consumes about 0.3 kWh/m²/a of energy. The reduction potential of weather forecast control amounts to 10
to 15 % through optimizing start/stop commands and heating temperature (Siemens tests with TABS-control in Germany).
If a street area of 10,000 m² is heated by district heating, the cost
per year is 0.3 kWh/ m²*10,000 m²*€0.02/kWh = €60,000/a, and the
saving potential amounts to €6,000 to €9,000 per year, while the CO2
emissions can be decreased by 80 tons per year. With electrical heating, the annual cost is even €330,000/a due to higher energy prices.
The potential saving in costs and emissions are €35–50 k and 70 tons
respectively.
Commercial buildings
In commercial buildings, the average potential energy reduction of BMS
is approximately 10 % of the energy consumed. If it is considered that
the BMS system is implemented in 20 % of the commercial building
stock in Helsinki, the savings per year are 100 000,000 kWh of heating
energy, corresponding to a reduction of 12,000 tons of CO2.
26
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Future outlook
The world is changing in a way that has a significant impact on our environment and forces us to think in new ways. A networked, integrated,
and intelligent building management system will be at the heart of the
next generation of smart buildings.
A study on the future of building technology shows that requirements are undergoing lasting changes. The need for security will play
an even greater role in the future. Flexibility and dynamics will be basic
requirements for system operation. Maximum efficiency will have top
priority—not only where energy is concerned. In addition, the comfort and well-being of people will need to be increased. Only solutions
which create the greatest synergies between energy efficiency, comfort, and safety and security will be sustainable over the long term.
Modularity is one key solution that easily adapts to the changing needs of their operators and users. Standardized interfaces have
achieved maximum compatibility.
The modules themselves must be flexible as well. Space is divided
as needed and assisted by mobile equipment that integrates seamlessly
into the logistics concept; a big step forward toward greater efficiency
because flexible usage is suddenly possible over the entire life cycle.
The focus will no longer be only on energy distribution. An intelligent energy management system will control the interplay between
internal consumers, producers and the energy mix of public power
grids. New types of storage concepts will make it possible to purchase
excess energy from the grid at competitive prices; energy that enables
load peaks to be equalized safely and efficiently. Increasing water treatment requirements also offer potential in the truest sense of the word.
Additional energy storage is possible through intelligent networking.
Consumption optimization will, of course, also be a key.
New types of functional construction materials and techniques offer potential in the areas of lighting and climate control. However, the
possibilities cannot be fully realized until they are integrated into the
building management concept. Intelligent networking of disciplines
creates outstanding synergies where security is concerned. Discrete
access controls according to the open-door concept not only increase
security, but also allow for dynamic logistics.
People are guided quickly and safely to their destination
through personalized assistance. A wide range of control and
navigation solutions point the way comfortably and, at the same
time, improves discretion in defined building zones. In the future,
all flows will be monitored - including supply lines. And safety
measures will be initiated automatically as needed. Intelligent
networking provides maximum security. Occupancy sensors in the
lighting system do more than just turn the lights on and off. In an
emergency, they also assist in organizing a fast, orderly and thus
safe evacuation.
Escape routes are defined according to the situation. Lighting installations operate in emergency mode and point the way dynamically.
Acoustic signals and voice prompts provide additional support. Subsystems support the evacuation scenario.
Intelligent systems help detect flows of people and separate them
when escape routes are about to become overloaded. Intelligent use
of installations and networking with the surrounding area allow for information to be exchanged in real time. Only when all systems work
together in a network can the security requirements of the future adequately and efficiently be met.
Along the way to the future, classic domains will be completely and
intelligently networked. And synergies will be created that make new
functions possible. A building management system for greater efficiency,
comfort and security. Open and accessible from anywhere.
On the way to sustainable cities, new expertise in building technology and architecture of networked systems will enable the connecting
of buildings into building clusters via the IT backbone. And significant
improvements are being achieved in energy efficiency. Smart grids and
smart consumption will shape the future. Networking city districts and
even entire cities will also mean more security. Security that growing
urbanization urgently needs.
Intelligent, sustainable solutions will shape the future. And the
future has already begun.
Interview
Helsinki is committed to a 9 % energy savings target in the
city’s real estate by 2016. City real estate has already implemented various measures to save energy, and this 9 % savings
target will also be surely reached.
One of the most important measures was to match usage
times and usage purposes of the real estates. A very important
factor in the whole energy savings program is the involvement
of the users in the buildings in the energy savings. This is still
a challenge, but ideas are under development.
One interesting technology could also be integrating the
weather forecast to building automation systems in order to
optimize the energy needs for coming weather changes.
Veikko Saukkonen, Project Director,
Real Estate Department
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
27
28
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Helsinki’s CO2 profile
30
Top-down potentials and scenarios
35
Impact of EU legislation
on emission reduction
38
Examples from other cities
40
Implementation concepts
41
Interview
42
Future outlook
43
Heat and electricity
generation
The current carbon dioxide emissions are
0.86 Mt in Helsinki. The city aims at
being carbon neutral by 2050.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
29
Heat and electricity generation
Helsinki’s CO2 profile
Because of the city’s northern location, with cold and dark winters, Helsinki is notably dependent on energy supply. Heating consumption is
intrinsically related to heating degree days, which, according to the meteorological institute, in 2010 was 4,376 for Helsinki (with a base temperature of 17 °C), for Helsinki compared to Paris with 2,702 and Rome with
1,253 (base temperature of 18 °C). Heating degree days are an accurate
indicator for comparing the energy needed for heating buildings in different areas. The unit is defined relative to a base temperature - the outside
temperature above which a building needs no heating. The comparison
of such values between Helsinki, Paris, and Rome gives an idea of the gap
in temperature between Nordic countries and other European places,
and gives a basis for understanding Helsinki’s heating consumption.
In the 19th century, gas was used as the main source of energy in
Helsinki. Afterwards, electricity provided by utility companies created,
at the turn of the 20th century, was started to be produced in several
coal-fired plants. However, since commissioning of the Vuosaari power
plant units, gas has been the main source of energy. In 1909, the electricity companies were assigned to the city’s ownership, and Helsinki’s
communal electricity company was founded. By 1914, all of the city’s
tramlines had changed their power source from horses to electricity.
In the early 20th century, heating was building-oriented and produced
either by wood or coal. At that time, the air was filled with smoke.
Power plants (squares) and
heat centers (circles)
in the metropolitan area
30
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
The era of district heating, a system that provides heating for
large amounts of buildings through a network of pipes and hot water, started in the 1950’s. At first, district heat customers were supplied with steam heat. Later on, a new power plant was built that
utilized the excess heat from electricity production and completely
transformed the way of heating. The district heating network expanded along with Helsinki, and today it covers almost the entire city
with over 1,230 km of piping underground. Thanks to this network,
around 85 % of the heating needs of commercial and residential
buildings in Helsinki is produced with district heating. The capital is
one of the major cities using district heat in Europe.
District heating answers the core questions of supply security as
well as energy efficiency and cost effectiveness. The network is supplied by the Combined Heat and Power – or CHP – plants that jointly
produce both heat and electricity.
There are three CHP power plants (Hanasaari, Salmisaari and
Vuo-saari) in the Helsinki area. Hanasaari and Salmisaari are powered by coal and Vuosaari by natural gas. By utilizing the excess
heat from electricity production, CHP technology increases the operating efficiency of the plants: fuel savings can amount to over
30 %. Cogeneration is also beneficial to the environment, as CO2
emissions are low compared to other types of gas and coal plants.
Moreover, thanks to district heating, the chimney stacks of individual buildings have disappeared from the city and the air quality in
Helsinki has improved.
CHP-units
Fuel
Capacity electricity (MW)
Capacity heat (MW)
Built
Hanasaari B
Coal
220
445
1974
Salmisaari A, B
Coal
160
480
1953, 1984
Gas
630
580
1991. 1997
Vanha kaupunki hydro
power
Water
0.2
1876
Kellosaari reserve unit
Gas
118
1975
Vuosaari A, B
Data on Power plants in
Helsinki area
Electricity units
Heating and cooling plant
Katri Vala
Waste water and
heat pumps
90 heat, 60 cooling
2006
Heat units
Vuosaari
Gas
120
1989
Lassila
Gas
334
1977
Patola
Gas
240
1982
Alppila
Oil
164
1964
Jakomäki
Oil
56
1968
Hanasaari (2 units)
Oil
282/56
2009/1977
Munkkisaari
Oil
235
1969
Myllypuro
Oil
240
1978
Ruskeasuo
Oil
280
1972
Oil
120/8
1978/1977
Coal
180
1986
Salmisaari (2 units)
Salmisaari
The Finnish capital also features the Katri Vala power plant that
produces heat from waste water and cooling from sea water with heat
pumps. The plant features high energy efficiency and has a relatively low
environmental impact. In parallel, there are ten oil and gas power plants
(without CHP technology) available to produce additional peak-load
heating during the coldest periods in winter. The old historical hydro
power plant from 1876, located in Vanha kaupunki, is also worth mentioning. Its annual production is approximately 500 MWh of electricity,
which corresponds to the consumption of around 250 apartments.
The main heat provider in Helsinki is the city-owned energy utility Helsingin Energia, which also uses the abbreviated name Helen. It
provides heat to the district heating network and also sells electricity.
Besides the power plants located in the Helsinki area, Helen has shares
in hydro power, nuclear power, and wind power produced outside of
the city. However, within the city borders, fossil power plants are overwhelmingly represented. This is because of the lack of space in the
city center. The plants are designed to use fuel that is high in energy
intensity and hence does not take so much storage space. If Helen’s
overall energy mix is taken into account, its electricity’s CO2 intensity
was around 260 gCO2/ kWh in 2010.
This feature of Helsinki, relying especially on fossil fuel for energy production, has not deterred the city and Helen from setting ambitious targets:
the city intends to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by 20 % by 2020
compared to 1990, and Helen is aiming at being CO2 neutral by 2050.
Current situation in heat and electricity production
The efficiency of Helsinki’s building stock has increased significantly during the past years, and it is projected that new construction
regulations and improvements in building technology will draw this
positive trend much further. This means that the demand for heating
in residential and commercial buildings is expected to decrease compared to the current level, even though the city is expected to grow
significantly during the same time.
Today, in 2010, the total district heating supply provided by Helen’s
infrastructure within city boundaries amounts to approximately 7.3
TWh. As the total heating demand is expected to reduce slightly by
2030, it is reasonable to expect the demand for district heating to follow this trend. As a reduction in consumption also reduces emissions,
the emissions from Helen’s heat production can be expected to reduce
slightly by 2030. However, there is more that can be done: Helen is currently very dependent on fossil fuels in its heat production. By taking
action to change the fuel-mix used for producing district heating, Helen
can reduce the CO2 emissions of Helsinki’s heating consumption further.
Currently, the energy sources used in producing district heating are
divided primarily between gas (54 %) and coal (41 %), which are the
main fuels used in CHP plants. Apart from these main energy sources,
a slight amount of oil is also used in the secondary power plants used
during very cold periods. Additionally, the Katri Vala power plant produces around 165 GWh of energy with waste water and heat pumps.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
31
The current heat CO2 emissions of Helsinki are estimated to be
about 0.85 Mt. Coal is responsible for 54 % of the emissions, gas for
42 %, and oil for 4 %. These respective weights, in terms of carbon
dioxide emissions, are not proportional to their importance in the energy mix. The fuels’ CO2 intensities differ, as coal releases 0.35 kg of
CO2 per KWh of energy content, oil 0.29 and gas 0.2. The current
trend of fossil fuel growth rates shows that energy production from
gas is developing faster than production from coal, thus lowering Helsinki’s energy CO2 intensity.
With the use of CHP, the plants’ energy efficiency is remarkably improved, and CO2 emissions - as well as NOx and SO2 emissions - are con-
siderably lower than they would be without this technology. Currently,
the CO2 intensity of district heating is 0.12 CO2/kWh. The co-production
of electricity and heat allows lowering CO2 intensity, thanks to the use
of excess heat from electricity production in district heating. Therefore,
heating does not need to be produced individually, and the energy content of fuels can be almost entirely utilized. With the use of CHP, Helsinki
annually saves the amount of energy and emissions that corresponds to
the heating of 270,000 one-family houses.
Helen can also produce heat from renewable sources at the world’s
biggest heat pump plant, Katri Vala. It supplies around 40,000 residents with heating and cooling. The production output of the plant
Heating demand expected to slightly decrease
through efficiency improvements
Relative district heating consumption
TWh per year
KWh/m3
70
10
60
8
50
6
4
40
8,1
7,4
30
20
2
Current and projected heating demand of Helsinki’s residential
and commercial buildings
Production TWh
Coal
Oil
Gas
Waste water
8
6
Emissions
CO2 Mt
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0
District heating production and related CO2 emissions in 2010
32
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
0,2
0,0
Coal
Oil
Gas
Waste water
2010
2009
2008
2002
2001
2000
1992
1991
1990
1982
1981
Relative district heating energy consumption 1970 to 2008
(Not adjusted for weather conditions)
4
2
1980
0
1972
2030
Base scenario
1971
2010
1970
0
10
is around 90 MW of district heating and 60 MW of cooling. A high
volume of purified wastewater, the heat of which is utilized in district
heat production, flows in the wastewater outfall tunnel 24 hours a day.
During the winter, heat energy is obtained with heat pumps from purified wastewater, and the necessary district cooling energy is obtained
directly from the sea with heat exchangers. During the summer, heat
energy is transmitted from the return water in district cooling, in which
case the heat pumps produce both district heat and district cooling. If
all of the heat produced during the summer or winter seasons is not
needed, the extra heat can be condensed into the sea. Thanks to this
symbiotic system, carbon dioxide emissions of the Katri Vala heating
Fuel energy
GWh
Fuel saved by using CHP
30000
Used natural gas and coal
24000
18000
12000
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
6000
Fuel saved by Helsinki by using CHP 1990 – 2009
and cooling plant are 80 % lower than those of alternative production
solutions, such as separate heat production with heavy fuel oil or building-specific cooling production with compressor technology.
Regarding the use of electricity in Helsinki, the pie chart below
shows the Finnish national electricity mix, which is also representative
for the average electricity consumed by inhabitants of the city. The
chart presents the national mix, as the electricity market in Finland
is open for competition, and the consumers can choose whichever
supplier they want.
The main source of electricity is nuclear power followed by coal,
which precedes hydropower and natural gas. More than 200 hydropower plants are currently operating in Finland. The main potential
sources are generally well exploited and conservation reason makes
further development unlikely. There is only one hydropower plant
located in the Helsinki area: the previously mentioned historical Vanhakaupunki hydropower plant.
Thanks to Finland’s utilization of a mix of gas, coal, and biomass, together with hydro power and nuclear power, its electricity CO2 intensity
is then relatively low – about 220 g CO2/kWh, whereas, for instance,
Germany reaches about 450 g CO2/kWh and China 750 g CO2/kWh.
Some countries have better results: e.g. France relies heavily on nuclear
energy, which represents 78 % of the total electricity production, while
Norway produces almost all of its electricity from hydro power.
Just a few kilometers from Helsinki’s city center, hidden in an excavated rock cave some 30 meters underground, the world’s largest heat
pump plant is located. The plant, named Katri Vala, is special because it
provides both district heating and cooling, using the sustainable inputs
of warm treated wastewater and cold seawater.
The city’s purified wastewater varies in temperature between 12-17
degrees Celsius – heat energy that was previously lost – and Katri Vala
draws enough to cool it by seven degrees as it flows out to sea. This
heat, which is generated through heat exchangers, is then captured
Electricity production by source
Oil 0.7 %
Coal 18.5 %
Hydropower 16.6 %
Helsinki
Windpower 0.4 %
Norway
Peat 6.8 %
France
Natural gas 14.2 %
Germany
Biomass 13.5 %
OECD Europe
Waste 0.9 %
China
Nuclear power 28.4 %
0
Electricity mix from the Finnish grid in 2010
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Comparison of carbon intensity of electricity in different countries
Unit in graph: CO2 g per KWh per year
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
33
for use in district heating, while the necessary district cooling can be
provided directly from seawater. For half of the year, the heat pump
provides district heating using the returned water from the district
cooling system as a heat source.
The scale of the project is impressive. Katri Vala can produce 90 MW
of district heat, enough to provide the annual heating needs of 400
large residential buildings, and 60 MW of district cooling, enough to
cool 60 large office buildings.
Trends and challenges
Given Helsinki’s heavy dependency on fossil fuel and the city’s energy
consumption, the city’s plan to improve its environmental footprint is
dependent on energy efficiency measures but also on the development of further introducing renewable energy sources. The Finnish
capital is then considering different options to develop renewable
energy projects (as underlined in its Action Plan for Sustainability), in
particular wind power and forest-based biofuels.
The Finnish target, in terms of wind power production, is 2,300 to
2,600 MW in 2020 and 5,000 MW in 2030. Currently there is a total
capacity of 200 MW of wind energy in Finland. Helen is part of a joint
venture, Suomen Merituuli Oy, aiming to build two marine offshore
wind farms of significant size (500−1,000 MW) located in the western
and southern parts of the country: one in Inkoo Raasepori, in the Gulf of
Finland, and the other Siipyy, in the sea area between Kristiinankaupunki
and Pori. Suomen Merituuli Oy has already signed an agreement on the
reservation of two sea areas for the construction of these wind parks,
which amount to approximately 50 square kilometers. Wind power
production could be launched in the currently reserved areas in 2012–
2014. These farms could eventually have a capacity of up to 2,000 MW
combined, which at best could provide 5.6 TWh of electricity annually
(more than the amount consumed in Helsinki: 4.8 TWh in 2010). The
final decision on the scale of development of wind power in Helen´s
electricity mix compared to other solutions, such as current power plants
or nuclear energy, is a decision that the city will face in the coming years.
Another option, carefully studied by the city energy provider, is biofuel,
which could replace gas or coal in power plants and help to shift the energy mix towards a green future. For instance, Helsinki Energy is consider-
34
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
ing the possibility of using wood pellets or other refined biofuels as fuel in
one of the furnaces of the Hanasaari power plant, which now burns coal;
but the project is still in an early stage. Several questions remain open,
such as where the pellets would be stored, whether or not there is enough
of the raw material available on the market, and what the price would
be. There are also different options of biofuels, especially including biogas
that is produced from biomass, transformed in a Syngas (Synthetic gas),
containing varying amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This gas
can be used directly into a gas-fired plant without any threshold and with
the same energetic capacities. But here again, the questions of logistics,
price, and availability of the biomass are under consideration.
The use of renewable energy production, such as solar collectors, could also be taken into account, even for a Nordic city such as
Helsinki: it has been calculated that solar energy devices can provide
approximately 10–25 % of a building’s heating needs in Finland. In
Helsinki, the penetration of district heating is approximately 90 % with
very efficient heat generation. Solar collectors are already economically profitable alternatives for residential use, particularly in fuel oil
and electrically heated buildings, and their cost is expected to fall as
they become more common. But until now, solar heating and photovoltaic systems have not been widely used in Helsinki, except for the
pilot residential area called Eko-Viikki.
Finally, geothermal energy is an option to consider, knowing that
it could help to achieve energy savings of two-thirds compared with
heating by fuel oil or electrical heating. In Finland, however, geothermal heat pumps have been adopted at a much slower rate than
in some other countries, such as Sweden. In 2006, there were only
95 geothermal heating systems in Helsinki, whereas there were some
17,000 buildings with fuel oil and electrical heating.
Overall, Helsinki is dotted with many resources that can help
the city to come closer to its climate policy goals. The above mentioned sustainable energy supply systems based on renewable
biofuels and wind are still under development and need to be improved before competing with fossil fuels. New CCS-technologies
for capturing and storing carbon emissions are being developed to
further improve fossil power generation. A city such as Helsinki has
the capabilities to be a leader on improving these new sustainable
energy supply systems.
Top-down potentials and scenarios
In order to make the future look different, this study also investigates
options to change the course of energy production. Options for shifting
from coal, which is the main energy source contributing to Helsinki’s
CO2 emissions, gas, and oil to less carbon-intense energy must be found
in order to reduce the city’s emissions at a faster pace. The change of
fuel can and is necessary to be realized in stages to ensure the security
and reliability of the energy supply in the city. As a basis of this examination is Helen’s target to be carbon neutral by the year 2050, i.e. their
climate program towards a carbon-neutral future. Given this target, the
current way of producing energy could be improved and some key possibilities are described through four different scenarios. The ideas for the
scenarios are based on Helsingin Energia’s climate program towards a
carbon-neutral future. Implementation concepts bring insight from a
technology provider on how such technologies can be put into use.
Scenario 1: Increased utilization of biomass
In the Helsinki area, there are two CHP power plants that use coal as
fuel. They are located close to the city center in Hanasaari and Salmisaari. In order to reduce emissions of heat generation in the short
What does it mean when
an energy source is considered
to be carbon neutral?
An energy source that is considered to be carbon neutral is
a source that does not in any way produce carbon dioxide emissions. These kinds of renewable energy sources are, for example,
solar, wind, and hydro power. Nuclear power is also carbon free.
Biomass is a different kind of energy source. While burning, it
produces carbon dioxide, but these emissions are not taken into
account because the production of biomass neutralizes the emissions. Indeed, biomass growth (forests, fields etc.) counterbalances the emissions from burning biomass through photosynthesis,
i.e. plants use carbon dioxide and sunlight to produce nutrients
and oxygen. Therefore, the biomass life cycle as a whole is considered to be carbon neutral.
run, coal needs to be replaced with a fuel that is considered carbon
neutral. The possibilities are among different types of biomass. The
most optimal fuel would be the so-called torrefied biomass, which can
be burned along with coal and eventually even replace coal entirely.
With the use of biocoal, the energy production would be stable and
well secured. Biocoal is manufactured from organic material using the
torrefaction process and is stable and preserves for hundreds of years.
Nevertheless, for the time being, the costs of the manufacturing of
biocoal are rather high, so it is a long-term solution, and other forms
of biomass should be considered for the near future.
Wood pellets or sawdust could be a short-term option on the way
to carbon neutrality. These renewable fuels cannot entirely replace
coal but can be burned with it in small proportions. Gasifying biomass
is another option. In this form, biomass becomes usable along with
natural gas in the Helsinki CHP gas-power plant in Vuosaari. A description of this technology and of its impact is described later on in the
implementation concept called gasification of biomass.
Helen set up a strategy to reach a 40 % share of biofuel by using biomass in existing CHP coal-fired plants by 2020, meaning to decrease
the city CO2 emissions already by approximately 20 % compared to
the 1990 level, which is the short-term target of Helsinki. In this scenario, carbon intensity for district heating would then decrease from
116 g CO2/kWh to 92 g CO2/kWh from the current level and district
heating CO2 emissions decreasing from 0.85 Mt to 0.68 Mt. According to a study carried out by Helen, the estimated investment costs of
such a solution would be €470 million, to which €18 million of annual
operational costs should be added.
Given the technological challenge of corrosion that can be induced by the addition of biomass, a 40 % share of biomass in the
existing CHP coal-fired units could be a hard task. If the 40 % is then
replaced in the short term by 20 %, the decrease of CO2 emissions and
CO2 intensity would be respectively 9 %, i.e. from 0.85 to 0.78 Mt and
8 %, i.e. from 116 to 106 g CO2/kWh. The results can be easily seen
from graph on next page.
Overall, by replacing part of the gas and coal used with biomass,
the existing infrastructure could still be utilized, and the advantages
of CHP production, in terms of energy efficiency, could be maintained.
At the same time, CO2 emissions, different type of pollutants, as well
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
35
as the dependency from gas and coal suppliers, would decrease in
correlation with the increase of biomass. Nevertheless, some issues
will have to be studied as the production capacity of biomass, the storage of the different fuels, and the operational reliability.
Scenario 2: New multi-fuel power plant
Another option towards a carbon-neutral Helsinki is to build a new
multi-fuel power plant to replace one of the existing coal-fired plants.
In this way, the latest technology and future energy needs can be best
harnessed in the battle against CO2 emissions. This new type of power
plant could use carbon-neutral fuel, such as biomass or waste as well
as traditional natural gas or coal, as a so-called multi-fuel power plant,
without any threshold due to technological constraints. In this context, the security of energy supply can be ensured by reintroducing
fossil fuel if necessary. The main issue concerning multi-fuel power
plants is their relatively high price.
Relative district heating consumption
CO2 emissions
(Mt per year)
CO2 emissions (Mt per year) intensity (g/kWh)
0,9
CO2 intensity (g/kWh)
0,8
CO2
0,85
116
0,7
0,78
106
120
0,73
0,68
99
92
0,6
140
0,63
100
80
0,4
60
0,3
40
0,2
20
0,1
20 %
Biomass
40 %
Biomass
Multifuel
All in one
Heating CO2 emissions and CO2 intensity for all the scenarios, 2010
36
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Scenario 3: Combination of scenarios 1 and 2 plus 20 % of syngas
85
0,5
Baseline
By building a new unit, at least one of the oldest units can be shut
down. Since the coal-fired plants create most emissions, it is reasonable to shut down one of those. Also, the age of the plant and the
investment required to fulfill the LPCD EU-directive have an impact
on the decision of the shut-down plans. The Large Combustion Plan
Directive (LPOCD) aims to reduce acidification, ground level ozone,
and particles throughout Europe by controlling emissions of sulphur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and dust (particulate matter:
PM) from large combustion plants (LCPs) in power stations, and other
industrial processes running on solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel. These
pollutants are major contributors to acid deposition, which acidifies
soils and freshwater bodies, damages plants and aquatic habitats, and
corrodes building materials. As the new power plant may, for the moment, be built in Vuosaari, it would also free the land for new housing. Furthermore, the new multi-fuel CHP-unit, when designed large
enough, could also respond to the growing needs of energy. Helen
assumes that the capacity of the new plant could be 500-700 MW,
which is enough to replace the Hanasaari plant.
In this scenario, the new plant is considered to use biomass as the primary fuel, with a 60 % share of biomass and would replace the Hanasaari
power plant. If such a scenario was implemented today, the result would
be a decrease of 16 % of CO2 emissions for heating from the current 0.85
Mt to 0.73 Mt per year. Carbon intensity would also be lowered from 116
to 99 g CO2/kWh, i.e. a reduction of almost 21 %. In this solution, the existing district heating infrastructure can continue to be utilized.
Combination of scenarios 1 and 2 plus 20 % of syngas
Impact:
220,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Independence from gas imports
Implementation timeframe:
Long term
Ease of Implementation:
Medium
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
City of Helsinki Development Plan
This scenario assumes that the multi-fuel power plant is built, and
the Hanasaari coal plant would be shut down. Moreover, 40 % of bio-
mass is introduced into the energy mix of the remaining CHP coal power plant, as well as 20 % of syngas in the CHP gas power plants. In this
case, the CO2 emissions would decrease of from 0.85 Mt to 0.68, and
the CO2 intensity from 120 to 85 g CO2/kWh.
In the above chart, all the scenarios are displayed compared to the
baseline. In terms of CO2 emissions, the highest reduction is possible
through the last scenario (“all in one”), featuring a decrease of 26 % compared to the baseline. The scenario with 40 % of biomass reaches a reduction of 20 %, and the scenario with the multi-fuel power plant attains a
14 % reduction of CO2 emissions.Another option currently under research
is the carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology, where CO2
emissions are not released into the air but captured, for example, by liquefying it or absorbing it to a suitable chemical and then stored. There is
a potential to decrease 90 % of the plant’s CO2 emissions. This technology
is currently under intense development in many regions of the world.
Scenario 4: Wind power for electricity production and renewable
sources for heating
Combination of scenarios 1 and 2 plus 20 % of syngas
Impact:
220,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Independence from gas imports
Implementation timeframe:
Long term
Ease of Implementation:
Medium
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
City of Helsinki Development Plan
The fourth scenario first takes a deeper look at the future prospects
of wind energy in electricity production and then investigates the possibilities of heat production from renewable sources. As stated earlier,
electricity is produced and sold on the market on a national level. Therefore, this examination must also be made at the national level when it
comes to the effects of the wind power. For Helsinki, we look at the
situation from Helen’s point of view as a producer of electricity. Concerning heating from renewable sources, the new residential buildings
planned in Helsinki are in a key position.
Wind energy is the kinetic energy of wind transformed into electricity by using wind turbines. The production depends on the wind conditions at a given time, and therefore the amount electricity produced
cannot be absolutely estimated. At the moment, there are not yet applicable means to save the produced electricity for later usage in large
amounts, but this technology is developing at a fast pace.
In Finland, wind power has recently become more attractive since
regulations for the feed-in tariffs became valid in the beginning of the
year 2011. The feed-in tariff is a policy mechanism designed to increase
the utilization of renewable energy by compensating the higher costs
of renewable energy compared to fossil energy. It means that a fixed
price is promised to the producers by the State regardless of the price
in the electricity market. The tariff price is now set to be €83.5/MWh,
when the average market price for electricity in 2010 was €57/MWh.
The current tariff is valid for 12 years, and early engagement is awarded
by €103.5/MWh for the first three years.
The tariff is the same for all wind electricity and does not take into
consideration the different costs of shore, land, or sea located wind turbines. A windmill built off shore has twice the costs as one built on land,
mainly due to more difficult building and maintenance circumstances
. On the other hand, a turbine built on land works at approximately
2,500 h/a, while a turbine built on sea can work up to 3,500 h/a. Before
the feed-in tariff price was determined, the Ministry of Employment and
Economy published a report where the different costs and incomes of
wind power were estimated by VTT. The tariff was set as a medium,
based on the costs of on-shore, land and arctic hill -located turbines.
The report shows that in the current electricity market, the tariff is too
low to get new off-shore projects started. The correct tariff, based on
the report, for off-shore wind electricity would have been €118.9/kWh,
though costs are harder to evaluate than those for building on land.
Nevertheless, there are still plans to build off-shore wind parks, despite the low tariff level. One of these, as previously mentioned, is the
plan of Suomen Merituuli Oy (SMT) to build two off-shore wind farms
off the coast of Finland. The construction of these wind farms has not
yet began, but their potential impact on Finland’s electricity supply can
be studied. These wind farms would affect both Helen’s and Finland’s
shares of renewable energy as well as the national electricity mix.
In a short-term perspective, and based on the current ongoing
projects, by 2016, the capacity of these two wind farms would be
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
37
Impact of EU legislation on emission reduction
How does EU legislation direct cities’ emission reduction measures?
Globally, cities are very important in the mitigation of climate
change. The EU estimates that about 80 % of energy consumption and
related CO2 emissions stem from activities in cities in the EU.
The Kyoto protocol of the UN/FCCC, signed in 1997, is the first international legislation which sets country-specific GHG reduction commitments. One of the main instruments of the EU towards the Kyoto
commitments is the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), which started
in 2005. It is the largest emission trading scheme in the world, covering
some 11,000 power stations and industrial plants in Europe. It covers about half of the total CO2 emissions in the EU. The idea of emissions trading is very good: it directs the measures to where they are the
cheapest. In other words, we maximize the amount of emission reduction achievable with a certain amount of funds. Additionally, the CDM
and JI mechanisms allow the implementation of emissions reductions
outside the EU, for instance in developing countries where very costeffective reduction measures can often be found.
The Kyoto commitment of the EU-15, 8 % from 1990 emissions
to the period 2008-2012, was further allocated to member countries based on their estimated abilities to reduce emissions. For instance, Finland’s “burden sharing” target is a stabilization of emissions to the 1990 level.
During the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (20082012), the emissions under the ETS, i.e. large-scale energy production
and industry, were still included in the national emissions ceilings. For
the third ETS period, 2013-2020, the system will undergo a very significant change. As part of the efforts towards further international emission reduction, the EU has committed itself to a 20 % reduction of GHG
emissions by 2020 from the 2005 level. The EU ETS sector as a whole
will contribute -21 % emission reduction, and country-specific emission
ceilings will comprise only sectors outside the ETS, i.e. small-scale energy production (<20MW), transportation, waste management, agriculture, and forestry. Finland’s emission ceiling is -16 % by 2020.
So, how should cities really act in this legislation framework?
Large-scale energy production and industrial facilities belong to the
ETS, and starting in 2013, they are not included in national emissions
ceilings. Participants in the ETS need to assess their own emission
reduction possibilities and associated costs. Only measures with costs
below the ETS price levels should be realized. If there aren’t any such
possibilities, it is meant that the installations buy the allowances from
the market. One main diffi-culty arises from the estimation of future
ETS prices. Up until now, we have seen prices ranging from a few
38
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
cents per ton CO2 in 2007 to maximum levels around €30/ton CO2
in 2005 and 2008. Currently, the price is below €10/ton CO2, and as
long as economic problems continue in the EU, it does not seem likely
that prices would rise considerably.
If we imagine that a city would commit an energy production or industrial facility in its ownership to realize emission reduction measures
above the ETS price level, the money spent above the ETS price level
would not bring any additional environmental benefits: the allowances
corresponding to the avoided emissions could be sold at the market
price, and anyone else in the EU would then use them.
Investments in emission reductions outside the ETS, such as conversion of small-scale heating systems from fossil fuels to renewables,
measures in the transport sector and in waste management, contribute
directly to the reduction of GHG’s at the national level as well, and this is
where cities can make very significant contributions. In addition, energy
efficiency measures are often very cost-efficient ways to reduce energy
consumption and associated emissions, and cities are in an important
position, both via ownership of public buildings and via their role in
planning and setting of building norms. Energy efficiency measures can
bring very important long-term reductions in the energy needs of our
cities, and therefore also protect from the impacts of possibly increasing
energy prices in the future.
In 2008, the European Commission launched the Covenant of Mayors to activate the local and regional authorities to take action towards
sustainable energy policies and emission reductions. To date, more than
3000 cities, including cities outside Europe, have signed. In Finland,
Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Oulu, Tampere and Turku are signatories. The
Sustainable Energy Actions Plans are targeted mainly to sectors outside
EU ETS, i.e. small-scale electricity and heat production, energy efficiency
measures in buildings, waste management, and local transport.
A further instrument targeting additional energy efficiency measures is the Commission’s proposal, in summer 2011, on the EU Energy Efficiency Directive. This would set new requirements, especially
for the public sector, concerning energy-efficiency renovations of
buildings and acquisition of energy-efficient equipment and services.
It would also push member states towards increased use of efficient
co-generation – an area where Finland shows a success story since
the early 20th century.
Sanna Syri, Professor, Energy Economics,
Aalto University, School of Engineering
around 500 MW. That means that 140 turbines, sized 3.6 MW, would
be built. 3.6 MW represents a current state-of-the-art turbine: but if the
plans are delayed, even larger turbines can prove to be suitable for the
projects. The electricity produced in these two wind farms is estimated
to amount up to 1.4 TWh in calculations carried out by Motiva. This
would approximately represent a share of 1.6 % of the energy consumed nationally. Compared to the current 0.4 % share of wind power
in the national electricity mix, this would already be an evident change.
In a long-term perspective, these two wind farms could grow up to
1,000 MW each. This target is stated in Helen’s climate program towards a carbon-neutral future. It is estimated that in 2030, the total
electricity consumption in Finland would be around 100 TWh. In proportion to that, the 2,000 MW capacity of the planned wind farms
would represent a 5 % share of all the electricity consumed nationally. The estimated amount of electricity produced is 5.6 TWh per year.
Compared to the current share of wind electricity, this growth would be
considerable. The increased amount of wind power would put up the
national share of renewable electricity from the current 31 % to 36 %,
and the share of carbon-free energy from the current 60 % to 65 %. As
a reference, the national level of planned projects adds up to over 6,000
MW of wind power capacity, based on statistics collected by the Finnish Windpower Association. This estimate includes only the short-term
plan of the Helen and Suomen Merituuli Oy windpark projects.
The main drawback of wind power is its inherent intermittence.
That is why the share of wind power or other unstable forms of electricity supply must be maintained to an acceptable level in the total
electricity mix. The 5 % share used in this scenario is considered a moderate one. The Finnish Energy Industries, an industrial policy and labor
market policy association representing the electricity and district heating industry in Finland, sees that by the year 2050, there could be a
10–15 % share of wind power out of electricity production in Finland.
In this perspective, smart grid could have a major role by enabling the
integration of fluctuating energy sources as wind into the grid without
causing major disequilibrium.
The construction of wind power is not planned as a solution to replace the current way to produce electricity but to complement it in
a renewable form. With the construction of these wind farms, Helen
will increase its share of electricity produced with renewable sources
significantly. As a city, Helsinki’s share of renewable energy is the same
as the share of national electricity production. The existing CHP plants
are needed to provide the heating energy for households. However, the
options to increase heating energy provided from renewable sources
can be studied.
A first step could be the development of the existing Katri Vala heat
plant, which produces heat with pumps from wastewater, is one option.
The method is very efficient: by using one unit of electricity, as much
as 3 units of heat can be produced. This power plant also produces district cooling from sea water with very good efficiency. Since cooling is
quickly becoming more common in Finland, district cooling is an environmentally friendly way of covering the increased consumption. At the
moment, the district cooling network covers 40 km (in comparison, the
heating network covers 1,230 km) and has a capacity of 60 MW. However, the network has grown with a remarkable rate of 10 % per year
since the start of operations in 1998.
Another opportunity to increase the share of heating from renewable
sources is the new building areas that are currently under planning in
Helsinki. These areas could be capable of producing their own heating.
Both solar and geothermal heat can be utilized as technologies and are
already available. Another option is to rely on central geothermal heating, which would be produced in new power plants and then fed to the
existing district heating network, taking, in this case, advantage of the efficient network covering the city. The main challenge would then be the
cost of construction, as the return on investment for this kind of technology is calculated in decades. These new building areas are, in any case,
in a key position leading the way towards a more energy-efficient society.
Ultimately, the solution for Helsinki may be a combination of all
these scenarios. As mentioned, Helsingin Energia has made plans to
both begin with biomass in both of the coal-fired plants and then shut
one of them down if the new multi-fuel CHP unit that has been studied is
ready to be used, (approximately planned for mid-2020). If wind power
is adopted with, for example, 600 GWh by 2020, the share of renewable
energy of Helen would reach 21 % compared to the current 7 % and
then achieve the 20 % target set by Helsinki. The major obstacle is the
cost, which is estimated by Helen to be in total almost €1,100 million
for implementing the previous solutions, which could increase the price
for district heating by 27 %. By the year 2030, when further investments
would be required for the new power plant and, for example, CCS technology, the price of electricity may rise up to 50 % from the current level.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
39
Examples from other cities
Chicago
Solar and wind energy for household needs
A
s the concerns over GHG emissions and climate change are growing, the issue arises of the development of the city’s current energy infrastructure being based on fossil fuel power plants. This has
been easily manageable, cheap and in sufficient quantity available for
centuries. But given their heavy impact on air pollution and also their
impact on nature and biodiversity, the energy mix is changing both in
terms of supply and distribution.
Chicago, featuring two and half million inhabitants, is leading a
comprehensive action entitled Chicago Climate Action Plan, which
targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 15.1 million tons of
CO2 equivalent by 2020, which is equivalent to a 25 % reduction compared to the level of 1990. The unit CO2 equivalent describes, for a
certain amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that would
have the same global warming potential. The program is composed
of five strategies: energy efficiency for buildings, clean and renewable
energy, improved transportation options, reduced waste and industrial pollution, and finally adaptation. For each of them, clear targets
are defined. Concerning energy consumption, until 2020, the City of
Chicago aims at reducing energy use by 30 % by retrofitting 50 % of
buildings and adding 500 green roofs and more than 83,000 trees
each year. These improvements are greatly needed, as buildings are
responsible for 70 % of GHG emission in Chicago. The progress report,
40
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
published in 2010 by the City of Chicago, reveals that within two years
(2008 and 2009), 13,341 housing units and 393 commercial and industrial buildings were retrofitted, corresponding to a 12-fold increase
in building retrofitting compared to 2007. Heavy projects are also under review, such as upgrading and re-powering the two coal power
plants within the city boundary. Another part of its energy strategy regards renewable energy supply: 20 % of energy supply and 5 % of the
housing stock fitted with household-scale renewable power by 2020.
The main renewable energies that are planned to be implemented are
solar photovoltaic on roof tops or gardens, solar domestic hot water,
and wind power. Illinois state is already featuring six wind farms and
plans to build new ones in the near future. The latter solutions would
help Chicago to close its coal fire plants and could have a CO2 reduction potential of 3 million tons in total. The former solutions, namely
solar panels and heating, are part of a new trend called distributed
power that the city would like to follow. It includes developing small
on-site power plants using CHP and household-own energy generation from the sun or wind. Incentives and grants are proposed by the
city and the energy provider to help Chicagoans to embark on this
journey. After one year, the city carried out a first assessment of its
climate action program and noticed that 8 % of the global target in
CO2 reduction was achieved.
Coal
Biomass
Torrefaction
Milling
Gasification
CO-Shift
Gas Clean up
Methanation
SNG
ASU
Gasification process
Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that significant changes will take
place in the near to medium-term future. Indeed, certain criteria will be
taken into account, such as the EU CO2 emissions trading scheme: in
this case, the future development of CO2 allowance prices, in addition
to primary energy prices, will determine when each of these energy
production scenarios become economically realistic and when the investments should be made. Helsinki has also signed the agreement of
the Covenant of Mayors, which encourages European cities to pay more
attention to environmental issues. city-level measures are then required
for activities which are outside the EU emissions trading scheme, i.e.
transportation, small-scale heating, and waste management. Global
warming is a shared challenge concerning the whole world, and everyone is expected to take part in the fight against it.
Implementation concepts
Emission control
Upgrade or replacement of existing semidry Flue-gas-desulphurization
equipment (FGDs) at Salmisaari and Hanasaari power plants.
In order to achieve the IE directive (Industrial Emissions Directive) or
the Best-available-technology (BAT) targets, SO2 emissions have to be
significantly reduced at both plants by beginning of the year 2016. Considering the situation that Hanasaari might be shut down a few years
after 2016, a combined solution for both plants could be attractive: by
radically increasing the absorbent molar ratio in the existing Hanasaari
semidry FGD plant, the SO2 emissions could be substantially reduced.
As a result, the absorbent utilization efficiency would become poor; big
amounts of unused absorbent would be ‘lost’ with the FGD residues.
By transporting these FGD residues to Salmisaari and using them as
absorbent in the new wet FGD plant, these ‘losses’ from Hanasaari could
be utilized to a very great extent. Thus, the integrated absorbent utilization efficiency of both plants would be rather high again. A careful and
comprehensive evaluation of all relevant boundary conditions will be necessary to evaluate the feasibility of such a concept. With this approach,
the investment costs for the Hanasaari FGD would be reduced to the very
minimum, but operational costs (absorbent & transport) would increase.
Gasification of biomass
Natural gas is one of Helsinki’s main energy sources. The main gas-fired
power plant in the city is located in Vuosaari. The use of natural gas as fuel
for electricity and district heat generation has many advantages compared
to other fossil fuels: it is transported to Vuosaari via pipeline with no negative effect on road or waterway congestion, and it is less harmful to the
environment and the climate, as it burns more efficiently than e.g. coal.
Although not blessed with natural gas reserves, Finland has, with
its vast forests, another natural and renewable resource, which can be
utilized to provide electricity and heat just with the same comfort as the
use of natural gas.
To achieve this, wood from forests around Helsinki has to be collected and to be transformed into synthetic natural gas. This synthetic
natural gas can then be used in the existing power plants such as the
gas-fired power plant in Vuosaari. To avoid additional traffic on the roads
to the power plant, and given the size of the available land next to the
power plant, it would make the most sense to produce the synthetic
natural gas near the forests from which the wood is harvested. For this
purpose, a torrefaction unit and a gasifier are needed to transform the
biomass into synthetic natural gas, which is then fed into the existing
pipeline, which transports the gas to the Vuosaari power plant. There
it can be utilized, just as fossil natural gas, to produce electricity and
district heat. Helsingin Energia has launched, in autumn 2011, an initiative to evaluate the possibility of constructing a biorefinery for biogas
production in Joutseno.
As it is shown in the figure, the thermal-chemical process from fresh
wood chips to synthetic natural gas can be divided into six main parts:
• Drying and Torrefaction unit
• Milling Unit
• Gasification Unit
• CO-Shift
• Gas-cleaning unit
• Methanation unit
The combined drying and torrefaction unit has the target to pretreat the wood for the following milling and for the later core process of
gasification. For this torrefaction process, a special Multiple Hearth Furnace (MHF) may be used, which is currently the most beneficial process
for such kind of wood treatment.
The fresh wood chips enter into the top of the MHF to be distributed and transported by rabble blades from the upper hearth downwards reciprocal from the border to the center of the hearth and opposite. During this relatively slow transport process, the bulk is passed
through a heated inert gas stream enriched with overheated steam
in direct counter flow, which all together ensure a smooth and saving drying the wood chips from up to 50 weight % of moisture to
approximately 3 weight %. After passing the drying zone, the wood
chips enter the torrefaction zone downwards from the drying zone.
The transport of wood chips is similar to the drying zone, but the gas
stream passing the bulk of wood chips is relatively dry with a higher
temperature and operates in counter flow. As a result of this process,
the wood chips are torrefied with about 30 % mass loss but only about
10 % energy loss. The energy loss from wood chips is going into the
gas phase and reused for heating of the total process.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
41
After passing the torrefaction process, the wood chips are prepared
to enter the milling unit. The torrefaction process has destroyed the
hemicellulosic structures of the wood chips and the wood chips have
been carbonized with increasing specific energy content. These are
necessary conditions for a higher grindability and leads also to a better particle structure for the following dry feeding method within the
gasification unit. The necessary structure of particle sizes and its distribution has to be defined after special fluidization and transport tests,
which ensure the safe and smooth transport via the dense flow feeding
system to the burner of the gasification reactor.
Gasification as the core process for transformation of biomass
into synthetic natural gas can be described as a partial oxidation. The
Siemens Fuel Gasification Process for biomass and other solid feedstock
is based on a dry dense flow feeding system, which ensures a highly
efficient transport of solid dusts to the reaction chamber of the gasifier
itself. Depending on the amount of ash within the feedstock, the gasifier
is equipped with a cooling screen (ash content >2 weight %) or with a
refractory. Using the cooling screen design ensures a high flexibility of
the gasifier, whereas the refractory lined design has to be used for low
ash contents. After entering the gasification chamber via the burner on
the top of the gasifier, the feedstock is mixed with oxygen and gasified
under reduction conditions. During this process, all organic components
from feedstock will be transformed mainly to Carbon monoxide CO and
Hydrogen H2, and a certain amount of Carbon dioxide CO2 and all inorganic feedstock components (the ash) will be molten and form the slag.
After passing the reaction chamber, the produced gas as well as the liquid slag will enter the quench chamber to be cooled by water injection.
The raw gas will be completely saturated with water vapor and leave the
gasifier for further mechanical cleaning treatment, whereas the liquid
slag solidifies and will be discharged for further use or disposal.
The raw gas coming from the gasifier enters the CO-shift process
with the goal to adjust the necessary ratio of 3:1 between the components of H2 and CO for the methanation. This process takes place under
support of the catalyst and effectuates production of H2 and the reduction of CO by several different chemical reactions.
After the CO-shift, the raw gas has to be cleaned of most impurities.
The main target is the removal of an amount of CO2 which is more or
less ballast for further reactions. The selection of the different possible
cleaning steps depends on the request of the following reactions and
mostly of the sensitiveness of the catalyst to be used. Currently, the
mostly preferred cleaning method is the Rectisol process, which ensures the requested removal of impurities and CO2 in a safe and flexible
way. After leaving the cleaning section, the raw gas has been changed
to properties of synthesis gas and can be used for synthetic reactions
like Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG).
The conversion from synthesis gas to SNG takes place in a catalytic
reaction. During this reaction, CO and H2 react to form methan CH4 and
water. The process itself is a well-known and proven technology but seldom used in the past because Natural Gas has been available and is less
expensive. Nowadays, the SNG-synthesis has become more interesting
and important, not only for the conversion of biomass but also for the
conversion of coal, e.g. in China.
The concept for using the biomass by gasification to produce
Synthetic Natural Gas is based on the intention to reduce or replace
the use of fossil Natural Gas for power generation in the gas power
plant. The processing of the fresh wood takes place in the a. m.
Interview
Helsingin Energia is one of the largest energy companies in
Finland, with about 400,000 customers. The company’s goal is to
generate 20 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources
in 2020. The company intends to be carbon neutral by 2050. The
year 2020 is very close already, so the question is more about
implementation and schedules than new solutions. But by 2050,
we can expect a breakthrough of new technologies.
Utilization of renewable energy is one of the future’s biggest
questions. We have one of the world’s most efficient combined
power and heat generation in Finland. District heating covers
over 90 percent of the Helsinki region’s heating demand. In combined heat and power generation, the fuels’ energy content can
be utilized efficiently; this increases efficiency and diminishes
emissions. We have to consider what effect new solutions will
have on an efficient co-generation system.
Co-combustion of renewable energy and fossil fuel in power
plants is an interesting alternative. Biomass can be used in multi-fuel power plants, in addition to traditional fossil fuels. Torrefied biomass, pellets, and gasification are examples of solutions
that are being studied at the moment.
42
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Solar energy will undoubtedly be one alternative to be considered in the future. Due to its costs, it is not a real alternative
today, but it will play an important role in power generation and
possibly also in heat production. Helsingin Energia has already
started pilot projects in the new residential area Östersundom.
Security of supply and predictability of operational environment
set the framework within which the company is ready to try out
new solutions. Cutting subsidies to wind power is one example
showing that risks also exist in energy industry.
We will not start trying things that involve too many uncertainties. Usually, energy companies take part in new experiments, if it can be assumed that profits can be expected from
the trial. So far, the energy sector has been the engine of, for
instance, electric mobility pilot projects
Markus Lehtonen, Director of Business Development
Helsingin Energia
plant, which is located outside of urban areas that neither space
requests nor environmental issues will influence the acceptance
within the population. Preferably, the plant should be located with
good access to the wood resources as well as with sufficient ability
for connection to the Natural Gas net. The advantage of this concept is the chance to use the already-existing power plant so that
no modification or adaptation is necessary. The SNG plant itself is
environmentally friendly and works with low emissions and then
governmental permits can be reached without difficulties. Using
such progressive technology can also open chances for other applications, e.g. in chemical industry.
The impacts of the implementation of a multi-fuel power plant and
the use of biomass as energy sources in Helsinki can be found previously under scenario 3.
Future outlook
The future landscape of the energy supply in Helsinki is largely interconnected with the future of the Finnish and European grid. If local solutions, such as using biomass instead of gas or coal in Helsinki
power plants – thanks to torrefaction and gasification processes- may
play a role in the forthcoming energy mix, the picture for 2030 could
also include an extreme decentralization of energy production outside
of Finland. The Desertec project may have an important impact on the
future energy supply in Finland.
The Desertec concept aims at promoting the generation of electricity in Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, using solar thermal
power plants in the desert and wind farms off the coasts of Africa and
Europe. The electricity produced would be transmitted to the consumption centers. This concept is led by a joint venture of a group of European companies and the Desertec Foundation, called Dii (founded
in Munich in 2009). It was initiated under the auspices of the Club of
Rome (a global think tank, author of the report “The Limits to Growth,”
modeling the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and
finite resource supplies) and the German Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC).
This megaproject will use mirrors to harness the sun’s rays to
produce steam and drive turbines for electricity generation in the
Sahara region within the next decades. The carbon free electricity
produced would be transmitted to European and African countries
by a high-voltage super grid. The currently ongoing Estlink II project
to increase the energy transmission capacity between Estonia and
Finland is one of the EU-funded
projects which are developing
this regional infrastructure.
The first phase of the project
will start in 2012 with the construction of a concentrated solar power plant, costing around
€600 million. This first facility,
expected to produce 500 MW
by 2015, will be built in Ouarzazate, Morroco, south of Rabat.
In total, 400 megawatts of the
project will be concentrated solar power, with the other 100
reserved for photovoltaics.
By 2050, the electricity supply of the Desertec project could be from
15 to 20 percent of Europe’s energy needs, while the investments into
solar plants and transmission lines would total €400 billion, invested
both as public funding and private investment. The exact plan for the
realization and the development of the Desertec supergrid should be
defined in 2012. The potential of this project could be enormous: it has
been calculated that more energy falls on the world’s deserts in six hours
than the world consumes in a year.
Such a breakthrough in the European energetic landscape would
improve possibilities to reach the Helen target of being carbon neutral
by 2050. Once the super European grid will be in use, and when the
Finnish grid is being part of the network where 15 % of energy is supplied by Desertec, the national share of carbon-free energy could potentially pass from the planned 60 % even up to 75 %. Together with the
wind farm projects led by Helen and the improvement in solar power
technology, the CO2 intensity of Helsinki electricity can decrease even
to zero, and the city would reach the carbon neutral target.
Nevertheless, several challenges remain on the path of Desertec. One
of the main issues is the water requirement for the solar plant to clean dust
off panels and for turbine coolant. It may be detrimental to local resources
and populations. A solution is expected from the production of fresh water by the solar thermal plants or from alternative technologies such as
dry cleaning or dry cooling. Transmitting energy over long distances could
be another impediment, even if electricity losses using high-voltage direct
current transmission amount to only 3 % per 1,000 km (25 % per 10,000
km). One solution proposed to limit
losses is to cascade power between
neighboring states, a relay-supply
running from North Africa and the
Middle East to the northern part of
Europe. Political stability and stable
relationships between the different
countries will also be needed to
carry out this project in a very long
term. Concerning cost, the overall
return on investment and the detail plans will be issued in 2012 and
will probably help to give a better
picture of the economic efficiency
of this impressive project.
Possible infrastructure for a sustainable supply of power to Europe
from the Middle East and North Africa
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
43
Distribution in the Nordics and in Helsinki 46
44
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Top-down potentials and scenarios
48
Examples from other cities
50
Implementation concepts
51
Future outlook
56
Energy distribution
Smart grid can reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by 9% in the EU. The annual
energy consumption of households
would be reduced by 10 %.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
45
Energy distribution
Distribution in the Nordic
countries and in Helsinki
Electricity distribution in the Nordic countries
Electricity distribution is ensured by electrical grids: a vast, interconnected network for delivering electricity from suppliers to consumers. A
grid consists of three main components: generating plants that produce
electricity, transmission lines that carry electricity from power plants to
demand centers, and finally transformers that reduce voltage for final
delivery. Grids are divided into three main levels: the main grid, the regional grid, and the distribution network.
The first fully integrated Nordic electricity market, in which Finland
took part together with Sweden, Norway and Denmark, was Nordel,
a body for cooperation between the transmission system operators.
In 2009, Nordel was wound up, and all operational tasks were transferred to ENTSO-E (the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity), an association of 42 of Europe’s transmission
system operators (TSOs) for electricity from 34 countries, including the
Finnish national grid operator Fingrid.
Effective interconnection of the Baltic Sea region was identified
as one of the six priority energy infrastructure projects in the Second
Strategic Energy Review, adopted by the Commission in November
2008. The two main goals of the BEMIP initiative are: the full integration of the three Baltic States into the European energy market
and the strengthening of interconnections with their EU neighboring countries by 2015. As part of this program, the currently implemented Estlink II will improve the interconnection between Finnish
and Estonian national grids.
A second set of projects establish interconnections between Nordic
countries, including the Fenno-Skan II between Finland and Sweden.
Fenno–Skan is the designation of the high-voltage direct current transmission between Dannebo in Sweden and Rauma in Finland (built in
1989), which was then the longest submarine power cable in the world.
The connection is operated by both Fingrid and Svenska Kraftnät, the
respective national grid operators of the two partner countries.
Fenno-Skan II is a new submarine cable connection, which is an
extension to the existing Fenno-Skan. This high-voltage direct current
(HVDC) link with a transmission capacity of 800 megawatts (MW) was
completed in 2011. It responds to the needs of the electricity market,
as the submarine cable will increase the electricity transmission capac-
Households electricity prices (excl. tax)
€ per kWh
0,16
0,14
0,12
0,10
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
Grid connections in Europe, current and future
46
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Prices for electricity for households and industrial users in 2007
Sweden
Poland
Norway
Lithuania
Latvia
Germany
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
EU 15
EU 25
0,00
Electricity distribution
As explained in the above description, the Finnish grid is part of the
Nordic power system. The Nordic system is connected to the system in
Continental Europe through direct current connections. A similar connection also exists from Russia and Estonia directly to Finland. Fingrid
is the Finnish national electricity transmission grid operator responsible
for the operational planning and supervision of the main grid, for grid
maintenance and grid development. The Finnish sector-specific regulator, the Energy Market Authority (EMV), supervises the distribution
business and the reasonableness of distribution pricing.
The Helsinki electricity network is made up of a regional network,
i.e. transmission network of 110 kilovolt (kV), which connects the power
plants to the substations in Helsinki. This regional network is connected
to the 400-kV main grid, which is a nationwide, high-voltage power trans-
mission network. The regional network is continued by a medium-voltage
network and a low-voltage network. With medium-voltage lines, electricity is transmitted from substations to distribution substations, of which
half of them are owned by Helen Sähköverkko and the rest by customer
firms, where high voltage is converted into low voltage (400 volts). Most
of the Helsinki residents receive their electricity, with a voltage in household use of 230/400 V. Electricity is transmitted from the low-voltage network to buildings and outdoor lighting points via electricity cabinets.
Even though electrical networks are in general relatively reliable in
Northern Europe, including in Finland, disturbances can sometimes occur also in the local network in Helsinki. For instance, automatic separation of faulty parts from the electricity distribution system can cause
power distribution disturbances in switching substations. However, the
most common experience of a power cut happens in the medium-voltage network, which in Helsinki is mainly cabled underground. Disturbances are then caused typically by an excavator hitting and breaking
an underground cable. Equipment breakdown is the second most common type of disturbance causing power cuts in Helsinki.
Currently, losses in Helsinki’s grid amount to 3 % of the total electricity conveyed, while the capacity of the distribution and transmission
network is around 5–6 TWh per year, and the annual capacity growth
has been between 0 to 2 % during recent years.
The interconnection of the grids and Finland’s electricity market
opening to competition (after the passing of the Electricity Market Act
in 1995) enables, since late 1998, all electricity users, including private
households, to choose their preferred electricity supplier. However,
the electricity distribution is local and exclusive to the license owner.
Around one hundred regional distributors are engaged in electricity
transmission in the distribution networks, and they also have an obligation to ensure the electricity supply and maintain and develop the
network. The electricity distribution is supervised and licensed by the
Energy Market Authority in Finland
Prices for industrial users (excl. tax)
Helsinki distribution network chart
ity between Finland and Sweden and integrate the Nordic electricity
market even more closely together.
This close interconnection is also aimed at offering a more harmonized price to consumers, either industries or private citizens. As it can
be noticed in the figures below, even though the electricity market is
interconnected in Europe, some relatively high differences in price can
be observed. Finland is situated in a relatively low range of price in the
panel of Northern countries, being well below the EU 25 average with
a price of around €0.09 per kWh vs €0.12 per kWh for households, and
larger differences for industrial users.
Today, power grids are facing new challenges. They will not only
have to regulate local demand/production together with importation/
exportation and market prices, but also incorporate an increasing
number of small, decentralized power production and enable a smarter
energy management based on flexibility.
Current situation in Helsinki
€ per kWh
0,10
Main grid 400 kV
0,09
Transmission/
Regional network
110 kV = korkeajännite
Power plant
0,08
0,07
Substation
0,06
0,05
0,04
Medium voltage
network
10/20 kV
Distribution substation
0,03
0,02
0,01
Low voltage
network
0-4 kV
Electricity cabinets
Sweden
Poland
Norway
Lithuania
Latvia
Germany
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
EU 15
EU 25
0,00
Helsinki electricity distribution network
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
47
Trends and Challenges
Given the development of a more interconnected grid between Finland
and the rest of Europe, together with the growth of the population and
the construction of new neighborhoods, the Helsinki electrical network
will need to follow the current trend by developing and improving its
capacity and efficiency while incorporating future functionalities.
On a general level, today’s main challenges for grids are: the integration of renewable energy, among others, solar and wind power,
including for individual properties, the optimization of energy distribution by minimizing losses on the network, to increase its flexibility,
equilibrate demand and energy supply on the network, and finally to
develop solutions enabling the storage of electricity, which will allow
more flexible management.
Currently, one of the main developments concerning energy distribution is the smart grid. Basically, a smart grid is a type of electrical grid
which predicts and intelligently responds to the behavior and actions
of all electric power users connected to it - suppliers, consumers, and
those that do both – in order to efficiently deliver reliable, economic,
and sustainable electricity services. Smart grid is an umbrella term that
covers modernization of both the transmission and distribution grids.
The modernization is directed at a disparate set of goals including facilitating greater competition between providers, enabling greater use
of variable energy sources, establishing the automation and monitoring capabilities needed for bulk transmission cross-continent distances,
and enabling the use of market forces to drive energy conservation.
48
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Despite several positive outcomes, smart grid systems have still
to overcome several issues before being widely implemented. The
first step is, of course, to handle technological challenges, i.e. realize
an interconnected real-time grid able to deal with millions of demand
and supply orders and coordinate at the national and supra-national
level the equilibrium of the electrical network. There are also obstacles
concerning final users, such as for companies that install advanced
metering systems, or any type of smart system: they must first make
a business case to study the return of investment. For private users,
the question of privacy and liberty is of importance. Consumers are
MW
300
280 MW
230 MW
200
170 MW
90 MW
100
39 MW
Cooling production in Helsinki, past, current and extrapolated
Sea water
(6 months a year)
Heat pump
Absorption
(Heat otherwise
would be wasted)
Energy mix in cooling production
2030
2027
2024
2021
2018
2015
2012
2009
2006
0
2003
16 MW
2000
Heat distribution
Heat distribution in Helsinki is ensured by the district heating network
developed in the 1950s. The district heating network expanded along
with the city, and at present, the total length of the network is around
1,230 kilometers. Some 27 kilometers of new district heating network
is being built annually. Thanks to this network, around 85 % of heating
in Helsinki is produced by district heating (for residential and commercial buildings).
Helsinki district heating is mainly supplied by gas and coal CHP
plants and is distributed to around 13,000 customer facilities by Helen.
The amount of heat distributed in 2009 was 6.7 TWh. The capacity of
the transmission and distribution network is of 15 TWh per year, with
a growth rate of 1.3 %. The heating network is built in a loop, so there
are alternate routes to the customers in the event there is an interruption along one branch; this feature may also be a reason for the over
capacity of the electric grid. The network is monitored 24 hours a day,
and as a result, the average customer experienced a heating outage of
just three hours in 2007.
Helen has also built a cooling network, which represents, in 2011,
over 170 customers, connection capacity over 100 MW, an annual
growth of approximately 30 %. These figures remain small compared
to heat capacity, but the demand is growing rapidly and the system
will probably expand in the Helsinki area. The main cooling production
plant is Katri Vala. This strategy leads to a cooling production coming
for 60 % from renewable energy.
In its district heating and cooling network, Helen has also installed
heating accumulators and cooling water stores. The heat and cold are
stored in large water tanks, which enable regulation of 24-hour district
heat production.
reluctant to be watched through their consumption and may look unfavorably on the remote control devices, which are taking the lead on
their electrical appliances.
Top-down potentials and scenarios
A smart distribution grid for electrical power would enable the creation of numerous new services and features concerning energy distribution and transmission, energy efficiency, and the environment. This
section presents an overview of the major opportunities that a smart
grid could provide.
The first advantage of such a smart electrical network management
system would be to harmonize and smooth peak load and demand. It
would require being able to plan the demand according to numerous
criteria, such as weather, seasons, or time (peak load demand occur during winter time at mornings and evenings). In order to efficiently reduce
demand during the high-cost peak usage periods, communications and
metering technologies are necessary to inform smart devices in homes
and businesses when energy demand is high and to track how much electricity is used and when it is used. It also gives utility companies the ability
to reduce consumption by communicating directly to devices in order to
prevent system overloads. This service is available only if electronic control, metering, and monitoring devices have been installed in dwellings,
offices or factories. Currently, Helen is providing its customers a real-time
electricity monitoring option. First, 150,000 households were able to get
hourly electricity consumption from the internet in 2010, and installation
of smart meters in every household will be completed by 2013. Moreover,
Helen is already able to show electricity, district heating, and cooling energy consumption of the city in real time on the Internet.
These new smart networks also offer customer-based services. Indeed, many smart grids feature readily apparent information to consumers. The approach is to make it possible for energy suppliers to
charge variable electric rates so that charges would reflect the large
differences in the cost of generating electricity during peak or off-peak
periods. Such capabilities allow load control switches to control large
energy-consuming devices, such as hot water heaters, so that they
consume electricity when it is cheaper to produce. Then consumers
actively participate in grid management through intelligent energy
management devices and have the possibility to see the consumption
online, adjust it, and produce it.
In parallel to end consumer savings, savings are also possible in the
network itself. Indeed, currently losses in the Helsinki grid amount to
3 %, a rather low level, as in Europe and North America, average network losses are around 7 %. Nevertheless, ameliorations are still possible, for example, through the improvement of transformer efficiency.
Future distribution networks should also give room to decentralized energy production, especially for renewable energy such as
wind or solar energy. Today, the main drawback concerning these
types of energy sources is their integration in the overall grid, as it
is impossible to plan the amount of energy that will be injected into
the network. Considering Helen’s wind parks plans, the integration of
the electricity produced will require a smart network able to handle
power variations.
By facilitating energy management and efficiency and the integration
of renewable energy, smart grids also lead to a CO2 emissions decrease.
Estimates show that smart electricity grids could reduce CO2 emissions in
the EU by 9 % and the annual household energy consumption by 10 %.
Finally, a future advantage of the roll-out of smart grids would be
the potential to use the e-car development in Helsinki as a storage so-
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
49
Examples from other cities
Bornholm
A live laboratory of an intelligent energy system
T
he widespread goal to tackle climate change by switching cities’
energy mixes towards renewable energy implies the ability to
monitor and run the electric grid with intermittent energy sources, a
challenge that has to be overcome to allow cities to lower their environmental impact.
From a technological perspective, the Danish island of Bornholm is
an experimental ground for energy distribution and energy mix. The
city is currently a full-scale laboratory for an intelligent power system,
where over half the island’s electricity consumption will come from
renewable energy. Bornholm, with 43,000 inhabitants, has the goal of
becoming a 100 % sustainable and CO2-neutral society, a vision called
Bright Green Island. The main goal of its ambitious energy strategy is
to attain 77 % of renewable energy in its energy mix by 2025.
Presently, local energy resources are divided into approximately
four equal parts: straw, biomass, waste incineration, and wind.
24 % of the energy used on Bornholm comes from the island’s wind
turbines, covering 33 % of the electricity use alone, compared to the
current average for the rest of Denmark of 20 %; nevertheless, serious
efforts are being made to increase the number of wind turbines and
generate more wind energy for the power grid. In terms of energy
supply, the new woodchip-fired district heating plant (constructed in
2010) is expected to generate 23,000 MWh a year and supply heat to
around 1,300 households. This corresponds to a reduction in carbon
emissions by about 5,700 tons a year. In parallel, 435 households
are supplied with straw-fired heat from district heating plants located
50
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
in the neighboring area. All the plants are supplied with local fuels
only: the straw is supplied by local farmers and the woodchips are
chipped from sawmill surplus wood and surplus wood felled as part
of ordinary forestry operations. In return, the farmers receive the operation’s only residual product: ashes, used as fertilizer in the fields.
These specific features, and the fact that the island’s isolated grid is
connected with the world outside only by a cable to Sweden, has led
to its selection as a test area for a project of real-time grid. By disconnecting the cable to Sweden, it is possible to make Bornholm energy
independent. It received €100 million in funding from the EU under the
Eco Grid EU project (part of the seventh Framework Program). The aim
of this European program, in partnership with private businesses, is to
create a large-scale demonstration of a real-time marketplace for distributed energy resources and at the same time a demonstration of a real
power system with more than 50 % renewable energy, leading to a “fast
track” option towards market-based smart grids in Europe. This Eco grid
in real-time would enable suppressing the current restriction on the size
of units bought on the market and set a price every 5 minutes that result
in a certain quantity of fast response from smaller units. The Bornholm
project aims at enabling ”intelligent” control of household appliances,
the implementation of electric vehicles, the development of heat pumps
with smart-grids applications, and the construction of micro CHP. It will
be completed by the roll-out of other projects, such as electric vehicles,
solar photovoltaic, smart heating and cooler controllers, transforming
the Danish island into a living laboratory for the future of energy.
Finally, a future advantage of the roll-out of smart grids would be
the potential to use the e-car development in Helsinki as a storage solution for the future. One of the features of electricity is the difficulty to
store it, a characteristic that makes it even more complex to avoid disequilibrium on the network. For example, electric cars could indeed be
a possibility to store electricity into car batteries during off-peak times
when they are plugged to the grid and use it during peak times.
Overall, smart grids promise numerous opportunities that are intrinsically mixed with technical challenges and behavior changes, which
will ask for innovation, adjustments and patience. But given the increasing reliance of society on energy and electricity, together with the
growing threat of irreversible climate change, smart grids will be highly
needed on the path towards a smart and efficient society.
Implementation concepts
Typical no-load
Transformer- losses of a
rating
standard
transformer
Combination of scenarios 1 and 2 plus 20 % of syngas
Impact:
220,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Independence from gas imports
Implementation timeframe:
Long term
Ease of Implementation:
Medium
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
City of Helsinki Development Plan
Energy-efficient transformers
Transformers are an important part of every electricity grid since they
transform the voltage level coming from the power stations to a level
suitable for usage in cities. However, every transformer also has electricity losses, which are a source of CO2 emissions. A standard trans-
-38%
14,290
8,900
14,290
Baseline
(tCO2/a)
Saving
potential
(tCO2/a)
CO2 reduction potential from new transformers
former with 630 kVA in Helsinki has losses up to 57,000 kWh per year,
which equal 12.7 tons of CO2. With over 1,800 transformers in the area,
these losses add up to 23,000 tons of CO2 per year.
A standard transformer with high losses can be replaced by a more
efficient version with an amorphous core. In a special manufacturing
process, where melted alloy is rapidly cooled, the process leads to a
non-crystalline disordered atomic structure (amorphous metal), which
has extremely low losses at a competitive price. The random molecular
structure of amorphous metal causes less friction than other materials,
and the very thin laminations of around 25 micron result in lower current
losses. On the other side, this High-Tech procedure also requires higher
effort and care during the fabrication process. The following table shows
the possible loss reduction with amorphous metals transformers.
Optimized
baseline
(tCO2/a)
Typical no-load
losses of
amorphous
metals
transformers
Loss reduction
in percent
160 kVA
210
100
-52 %
630 kVA
600
220
-63 %
1,000 kVA
770
350
-55 %
If all existing transformers would be replaced with the more energyefficient amorphous metals transformers, the following potential could
be realized:
A replacement of existing transformers with more efficient models
could save up to 8,900 tons of CO2 and reduce the overall CO2 emissions from transformers by 38 % to around 14,000 tons of CO2.
Consumer behavior and demand response
Energy consumers are inherent elements of an energy ecosystem and
important stakeholders in energy management. The behavior of consumers affects their energy usage and thus conditions energy load. In
the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) and residential sector loads,
that assume some flexibility and may be affected by consumer behavior,
typically include space heating, water heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, some appliances, etc. Some part of these loads can be shifted in
time or just reduced, thus reducing load peaks and overall consumption.
This consideration explains why consumer behavior becomes an
important lever in reaching sustainability goals in urban development.
SME and residential consumers consume more than 80 % of electricity
in Helsinki, and thus changes in consumer behavior may bring considerable contribution in meeting goals on:
• Energy consumption and CO2 emissions reduction
• Energy spending stabilization
• Reduction of risks for grid stability
The focus here is this sector of SME and residential consumers,
which from the one hand promises considerable potential for load
peaks and overall consumption reduction, but from the other hand is
complex to handle because it unites hundreds of thousands of individual agents with limited technical expertise and resources.
The Helen Sävel Plus –service provides a platform for personal energy management services for its customers. Several techniques may
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
51
be used to affect consumer behavior. The following techniques are considered here:
• Feedback to consumers on energy consumption, energy costs,
and environmental impact
• Demand response techniques, based either on price signals based
or incentives to consumers
• Prepaid energy
• Home automation
• Social engagement
• Personal Energy Management (PEM) that integrates different
techniques in a consumer-friendly and engaging way.
Feedback on energy consumption, energy costs,
and environmental impact
Customer feedback
Impact:
17,600 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Transparency of energy consumption
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Medium - Easy
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Concept defined in City Study Workshops
This technique is based on the idea that knowledge of actual consumption, costs, and environmental impact enables a consumer to reduce
his/her consumption – and not just enables, but also motivates to act.
Numerous research studies show that such transparency indeed results
in consumption reduction by up to 10 %. Key findings of these studies
are listed below:
• The key motivating factor for consumers is cost reduction. Other
factors, such as environmental impact reduction are much less
influential.
• Depth of consumption reduction depends on the level of
transparency of consumption and costs. Overall consumption
figures, available only for some past periods of time (e.g. overall
consumption for the day before), are least affecting consumption.
On the other hand, near to real-time figures, showing load dynamics (e.g. reduction in load as result of switching off of some
appliance), allowing for breakdown to individual groups of loads
(e.g. individual appliances, or lighting in individual rooms) opens
the highest potential for reduction.
• Convenience and ease of use are critical for engagement of
consumers, e.g. web-based tools may inspire initial interest in
consumption/cost management, but lose consumers’ attention
after a rather short period of time. On the other hand, convenient, proactive, engaging mobile applications may ensure
prolonged attention from a consumer’s side
Concrete implementation of consumption/cost/impact feedback
may differ in many aspects. First of all, data may be collected in many
ways. The most typical options here include a traditional smart meter
measuring overall consumption of a household, a so-called “fingerprint” measuring device that uses special data processing techniques
52
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
to distinguish loads from different appliances (e.g. refrigerator, washing machine), and sub-meters that directly measure consumption
by individual groups of loads (e.g. rooms, appliances, etc.). Next,
information may be delivered to a consumer through different displays: a smart meter’s own display, special purpose in-house display
for energy information, traditional in-house TV screen (via a set-top
box), web-based application (via a PC or a tablet), and mobile application (via a smartphone or tablet). Finally, data consumption/cost/
impact may be preprocessed differently. The simplest option here is
to present only the current data. A more powerful option is to provide
historical data. Even more useful may be forecasts of the future, i.e.
“What will the costs be by the end of the month if I continue consuming like this”. And the most powerful analysis is possible with “what-if”
scenarios: “What will the benefit be if I run my washing machine at
night instead of during the daytime?” Another approach to the analysis of personal consumption is benchmarking against peer consumers. The conclusion here is that the depth of consumption reduction
obviously depends on the type of data collected, the type of information displayed, and the preprocessing/analytics applied to the data.
The estimation of the effect of the consumption/cost/impact feedback technique is based on the following assumptions:
• Residential consumers in Helsinki consume 1.6 TWh/a of electricity
• There are 303,982 households in Helsinki
• The average consumption reduction achievable by residential
consumers due to consumption/cost/impact feedback technique
is 5 %
• The average wholesale price per MWh is €57, the average retail
price is €106
• Smart meters and advanced metering infrastructure with MDM
system is already in place
The positive effect of consumption/cost/impact feedback introduction may then constitute:
• Reduction of electricity consumption by 0.08 TWh/a
• Reduction of total electricity costs is €4.56 million per annum
in wholesale prices or €8.48 million in retail prices; savings per
household is €27.9 per annum (in retail prices)
• Reduction of CO2 emissions is 17,600 ton per annum
Investment into consumption/cost/impact feedback introduction
may be estimated in the range between €5 and tens of euros per customer, depending on specific requirements.
Demand response
Demand response
Impact:
2,900 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Improved grid stability
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of implementation:
Difficult - Medium
Cost:
Medium
Source of lever:
Concept defined in City Study Workshops
Balancing of an electricity system needs to take into account several
sources of uncertainty:
• Variability of consumption by electricity consumers (load)
• Unpredictable supply contingencies, such as the loss of a
transmission line or a generation unit
• High share of renewable generation with stochastic output –
such as wind
• Distributed generation that is usually operated at the owner’s
discretion, not the utilities of system operator’s will
Balancing of variable and unpredictable load with variable and
unpredictable supply may be done both by managing supply and by
managing demand. Demand reduction from the point of view of grid
balancing brings the same result as supply increase – with the obvious difference that demand reduction does not create additional CO2
emissions. The investment costs into demand reduction, as well as the
operational costs of demand reduction, are also typically much less
than investment costs for additional peaking power plants and costs
of running a peaking power plant.
The task of grid balancing becomes even more difficult as shares
of renewable energy sources with stochastic generation (e.g. wind)
increase, especially when it is accompanied by a general shift towards
less-flexible base-load generation, such as nuclear plants and plants
with carbon capture and storage. The wide spread of some energy efficiency techniques – e.g. heat pumps for heating – also negatively
affects grid balance: though heat pumps help to reduce overall energy
consumption, they make electricity consumption peaks even worse.
As a result, it becomes less and less feasible to maintain electricity
system balance using only supply-side solutions – demand management is fast becoming essential for maintaining this balance.
The key task of demand response techniques is to affect consumers’
behavior so that their consumption is altered in a way that helps to maintain electricity system balance. From this point of view, demand response
(DR) itself does not target to reduce consumption – rather to redistribute
consumption in time, shift the load from some time periods to other time
periods. The most obvious application of DR is shifting loads from peak
time to off-peak time. Another application of DR in a power system with a
high share of wind generation is to shift loads from times with a low supply of wind power to times with a higher supply of wind power.
Still, such load shifting solves many important problems:
• Improves power quality
• Reduces average power costs
• May be used to replace peaking power plants needed to compensate wind power variability
DR brings reduction of average power costs, because peaking power
plants used to compensate for demand peaks or supply variability typically produce the most expensive power. At the same time, replacement
of peaking plants by CO2-free demand response reduces CO2 emissions.
There are two major approaches to DR:
• Price-based DR
• Incentive-based DR
With the price-base DR a consumer receives price signals (e.g. higher power price during a peak time and lower prices during the off-peak
time) and adjusts consumption according to his/her own cost/benefit
analysis of using energy at this price. Price changes need to be communicated to a consumer in advance, and there are different options concerning how much in advance energy prices are communicated: with
so-called Time-of-Use tariffs, prices are fixed at the time a consumer
signs a contract, and with dynamic pricing prices are communicated
a few hours (or even just one hour) prior to price change. In the latter
case, an efficient communication channel should be used in order to
bring the price signal on time.
With incentive-based DR, a consumer is rewarded for modifying his/
her demand or allowing his/her demand to be modified (e.g. installing
a load-switching device controlled by a utility or a third-party service
provider). In this case, a consumer agrees to receive a definite reward,
either in exchange for modifying the demand accordingly to requests
sent to him/her or in exchange for granting direct control over some
groups of loads to an external party (a utility or a third-party service
provider). In the latter case, there may be some conditions allowing
a consumer to intervene into direct control in special cases. As in the
case with dynamic pricing, an efficient communication channel should
be used with incentive-based DR in order to ensure efficient operations
while minimizing inconvenience for a consumer.
Technology-wise, a residential DR system requires a smart-meterbased data collection network, a special application that manages all
DR-related activities, integration with grid automation systems, integration with billing and CRM systems, communication channels to consumers to deliver DR information (e-mail, SMS, web, mobile apps, inhouse displays, etc.), some automation at the customer premises (e.g.
load-switching device, an in-house controller, etc.), and communication gateways between various actors (DNO, retail supplier, third-party
service provider, etc.).
The estimation of the DR effect is based on the following
assumptions:
• Demand Response events take place, on average, every half an
hour during a day
• Depth of consumption reduction during a Demand Response event
is 40 %
The positive effect of residential DR introduction may then constitute:
• Reduction of electricity consumption (or shift to the time when it
can be covered by a zero-emission energy source) by 0.013 TWh/a
• Reduction of total electricity costs of at least €0.76 million per
annum in wholesale prices
• Reduction of CO2 emissions is 2,933 ton per annum
Investment into DR may be estimated in the range between €50 and
€300 per household, depending on specific requirements.
Prepaid energy
Prepaid energy
Impact:
5,300 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Better control over energy consumption
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Difficult
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Concept defined in City Study Workshops
Prepaid energy is similar to prepaid telecommunications: it allows for
the consumption of energy only within the limits of a payment that has
been made in advance, before consumption starts. Besides various fi-
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
53
nancial benefits for an energy provider, the key benefit for a consumer
and for the community is better control over energy spending, which
results in the reduction of energy consumption.
From a technological point of view, prepaid energy implementation
needs a metering device, a load switching device, a billing system with
prepaid functionality and top-up system, and integration of all these components. Smart meters with load-switching functionality may be utilized.
The estimation of the prepaid energy effect is based on the following assumptions:
• The average consumption reduction due to prepaid energy is 10 %
per household
• 15 % of all households will adopt prepaid energy (households
adopting prepaid energy will be spread equally across all consumer
segments – e.g. segments with low and high consumption)
• The positive effect of prepaid energy introduction may then
constitute:
• Reduction of electricity consumption by 0.024 TWh/a
• Reduction of total electricity costs is €1.37 million per annum in
wholesale prices or €2.54 million in retail prices; savings per household at a prepaid tariff is €55.79 per annum (in retail prices)
• Reduction of CO2 emissions is 5,280 tons per annum
Investment into prepaid energy tariffs may be estimated as tens of euros per household, depending on specific requirements.
Home automation
Home automation
Impact:
12,300 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
More convenience for inhabitants
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Difficult - Medium
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
Concept defined in City Study Workshops
54
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
(HA) allows automating some energy management tasks performed by residential consumers at their homes – e.g. starting a washing machine at an off-peak time, changing intensity of heating/cooling
according to external conditions and DR signals, and switching off/on
water heater with respect to DR signals, etc. HA may be programmed in
such a way that some parameters are optimized (e.g. energy cost, DR
incentive, or CO2 emission, etc.) while maintaining some acceptable
level of comfort.
HA typically allows reaching much higher levels of consumption
savings and peak reduction than manual energy management. For
example, energy consumption/cost/impact feedback coupled with HA
may deliver 30 % more savings than consumption/cost/impact feedback interpreted by a human.
On the other hand, HA requires an investment many times higher than investment in other techniques described above, which may
result in a much slower adoption of home automation compared to
other techniques.
The estimation of the effect of HA coupled with the consumption/cost/impact feedback technique is based on the following assumptions:
• The average consumption reduction achievable by residential
consumers due to HA coupled with consumption/cost/impact
feedback technique is 40 %
• Penetration rate of HA is 10 % of households
• The positive effect of HA may then constitute:
• Reduction of electricity consumption by 0.056 TWh/a (additional,
on top of the effect of pure consumption/cost/impact feedback)
• Additional (on top of the effect of pure consumption/cost/impact
feedback) reduction of total electricity costs is €3.19 million
per annum in wholesale prices or €5.94 million in retail prices;
savings per household with home automation is €195.27 per
annum (in retail prices)
• Additional reduction (on top of the effect of pure consumption/cost/impact feedback) of CO2 emissions is 12,320 ton per
annum
Investment in HA depends on technology used and may be in the
range from several hundreds of euros per household to several thousands of euros per household.
Social engagement
The Social engagement technique uses popular social networks to
engage consumers into energy management and thus affect their behavior and ultimately their consumption. Typical approaches of such
engagement through social networks are:
• Benchmarking against groups of peer consumers within a social
network
• Energy efficiency contests
• Exchange of tips / experiences on energy efficiency
These techniques are relatively new and are still awaiting research to
deliver quantitative estimations of their effect.
Conclusions
Consumer behavior is an important lever in reaching several goals
of energy management: reduction of CO2 emission, stabilization of
energy costs, and improvement of power quality. There are various techniques that allow influencing consumer behavior. A brief
analysis of these techniques in application to residential consumers
in the City of Helsinki shows that they may bring a considerable
reduction of CO2 emissions, positively affecting such parameters as
power costs and power quality
Ship-to-shore connection
Personal energy management
Personal Energy Management is an approach that integrates all of the
above-mentioned techniques in a single portal or application, thus facilitating various synergies between different techniques and making
energy management more convenient and comfortable for residential
consumers.
These synergies and better consumer experience result in further
reductions of energy consumption and even more consumption distribution. However, the volume of such an additional effect heavily depends on the composition of other techniques unified under the umbrella of Personal Energy Management – and thus cannot be reliably
estimated without a discussion of a concrete implementation scenario.
Home automation
Impact:
12,300 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
More convenience for inhabitants
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Difficult - Medium
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
Concept defined in City Study Workshops
Ship-to-shore connection principle
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
55
Even if ocean-going vessels represent an undoubtedly efficient
mode of goods transportation, they also represent a major source of
air emissions, mainly because of relatively low controls over maritime
emissions and the quantity and quality of the fuel used. Concerning
passenger ferries and cruise ships, it is estimated that their emissions
make up 9.2 % of the total emissions from global shipping, and that
the latter accounts for 3.3 % of global CO2 emissions. Ships have also
been recognized as being responsible for the emissions of several other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
particulate matter (PM). These pollutants impact visibility, air quality,
and human health. Considering the growing concern about sustainable development, a number of technologies are emerging as tools
for ships to reduce their emissions. Different on-board techniques can
then be applied, such as electronic controls over engines or catalyst
converters. Shore power connection is a shore solution which can be
highly efficient for drastically diminishing air emissions when ships are
at berth or “hotelling”.
When a ship is hotelling, the main propulsion engine is turned off,
while the auxiliary engines and boilers continue to operate. These engines, as well as boilers, are necessary to run the on-board equipment,
such as lighting, ventilation, heating, pumps, loading and unloading
activities, refrigeration, or communications. In this context, the use of
a shore power connection, i.e. supplying electricity to the ship from the
shore, allows the auxiliary engine to be turned off, but the boilers remain still necessary. By switching off the auxiliary engines, the air emissions associated are eliminated, and the ships use the local grid for electricity needs, in this case, the emissions of the ship-to-shore solution are
then highly dependent on the electricity mix and air emissions intensity.
A shore-power system consists of three main components: first,
a shore-side electrical system and infrastructure (industrial substations and power transmission lines to bring power from a local grid
to the port); second, a cable management system at berth (electrical
cables and conduits, wharf-side electrical vault, and connectors for
ship connection); and third, an electrical system on ships. The cost of
this kind of installation varies widely depending on the infrastructure
already existing at the port, the grid capacity, and the number of
berths to equip.
A major challenge for ship-to-shore projects is the lack of standardized voltage and frequency. Different voltages, e.g. 440 V, 6.6 kV or
11 kV, are used by ships as well as different frequencies (e.g., 50 Hz vs.
60 Hz, i.e. European and American standards). Electrical demands are
also different depending on the type of ship (300 kWe to 8 MWe).
In the evaluation of the potential of implementing a ship-to-shore
connection in the port of Helsinki, it is assumed that the average time
spent at berth by ships was 10 hours, according to the information gathered at the port. Nevertheless, this average can highly fluctuate depending on the type and size of the ships. The electricity consumption of the
different types of ships is evaluated according to the theoretical average
load capacity of each type of vessel. It is also assumed that the ships do
not have any emission reduction technology, such as a catalyst converter.
It is also considered that the system will only be able to supply energy for
either 50 Hz or +60 Hz ships, and that most likely not all the berths will
be equipped. Nevertheless, considering the low CO2 intensity of Finnish
electricity (220 g CO2/kWh), shore power seems to be a highly valuable
solution to decrease emissions from maritime activity in Helsinki.
The advantages of Ship-to-shore connection are numerous, but the
main benefit is the reduction of pollutants, i.e. CO2, NOx, SO2, and PM,
decreasing health risks and the impact on the environment. The assessment of the potential reduction for the port of Helsinki (North, South
harbors and Vuosaari) leads to a possibility to reduce the CO2 emissions
by at least 62 % and NOx emissions by 92 %. It corresponds to a reduction of 40,000 tons of CO2 and 1,200 tons of NOx. Another benefit
from the ship-to-shore solution is that by turning off the auxiliary engines, it also diminishes noise for surrounding communities.
-63%
-92%
66,000
1300
41,700
1200
24,300
100
Total CO2 emissions
from ship at berth in
Helsinki
CO2 abatment
with Ship-to-shore
Final CO2
emissions
Potential reduction of CO2 emissions from Ship-to-shore solution
56
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Total NOx emissions
from ship at berth in
Helsinki
NOx abatment
with Ship-to-shore
Final NOx emissions
Potential reduction of NOx emissions from Ship-to-shore solution
Future outlook
The smart grid offers features that make power distribution even more
reliable, economically efficient, environmentally advantageous, flexible, secure, and above all, accessible to everyone through market
mechanisms. Grids have always been smart, but smart grids are much
more than intelligently configured power transmission paths.
They allow for optimized control of fluctuating in-feeds and loads.
The evolution to a second-generation smart grid was a genuine paradigm shift: through consistent application of information and communication components and systems, a static network design and its “as
is” utilization have developed into a dynamically adaptable, living infrastructure, which can be proactively managed. An important feature of
smart grids is their ability to intelligently integrate distributed power
generation by means of so-called virtual power plants: various power
producers are interlinked through energy automation technology and
form a virtual balance circle that allows for easy, optimized operations
management. On top of that, the intelligent automation and control
features of intelligent smart grids ensure equilibrium among adjustable
generation, fluctuating in-feed, and consumption. Through systematic
management of the power flow, smart grids efficiently support energy
exchanges over long distances in the transmission sector as well as in
distribution networks.
As expanded and increasingly complex networks are potentially
more vulnerable to malfunctions, the 2030 smart grid has modern
power control centers which monitor, forecast, and optimize the actual and future network status precisely. Hence, critical situations can
be systematically avoided, and preventive responses can be initiated in
advance to avoid outage propagation. To reduce operational expenses,
smart grids incorporate a modified service concept. Conventional periodic maintenance has been replaced by condition-based monitoring
and maintenance. Maintenance activities are related to a scaled importance of the assets and will only be performed if requested or if required
by the equipment’s criticality to the grid. Furthermore, status monitoring and diagnosis are largely handled by automated sensor systems
linked to remote monitoring centers with specific data expertise.
Smart grids are able to deliver different quality levels of electricity,
which are adapted as close as possible to the load downstream. De-
pending on whether the consumer is an industrial customer or a simple household, various reliability, voltage, and frequency stability levels
stipulated in contracts between stakeholders, suppliers, regulators, and
consumers are available at various prices. With automated price signals
that are frequently communicated throughout the grid, a smart grid enables smart users to control their energy consumption and costs precisely
and efficiently through in-house load monitoring, selection of preferred
electricity suppliers, and trading the surplus of electricity produced.
Any strategy towards a Smart Grid can only be viable if it can be
broken down into specific actions. To implement a Smart Grid, one
needs to have guidance just like the seafarer has his compass to direct
him to the next port of call. Safe navigation towards the network of the
future is a requirement that one cannot do without. The Smart Grid of
the future can only be viable to reach the goals of a sustainable urban
infrastructure if the correct decisions are made now.
When Jukka has his breakfast in the morning, a lot
of decisions regarding energy have already taken
place. These decisions have an economical and an
environmental impact. This is all through the choices
which have been made by Jukka in advance and which
he has set according to his own preferences. His clothes
in the tumble dryer were dried during the night. His
smart meter has negotiated the best possible deal to get
cheap and green energy as he has defined it when he
discussed his preferences with his utility. The use of the
smart meter has also allowed his micro power plant in
the basement to generate power and to sell it into the
network at the best possible price. Jukka can be assured
that on this windless day, he is contributing energy into
the network as his micro power plant produces electricity,
which is automatically sold to the utility, while the
generated heat is either stored in an insulated water tank
or sold to the district heating network.
Either way, he will have a nice payback for his
investment.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
57
58
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Helsinki’s CO2 profile
60
Street lighting
66
Top-down potentials and scenarios
67
Implementation concepts
73
Examples from other cities
74
Future outlook
76
Interview
77
Transport
The capital region passenger traffic
consumes 2.8 terawatt-hours on an
annual basis, and produces 0.67 million
tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
59
Transport
Helsinki’s CO2 profile
Current situation
The Helsinki region consists of the capital of Finland, Helsinki, and its
surrounding areas. In the transportation part of this study, we concentrate on the Helsinki Metropolitan area, which consists of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen. These four cities have, in total, one
million citizens. The smallest of these cities is Kauniainen, which had
around 8,700 citizens in 2010. Throughout this study, Kauniainen is
included in Espoo. Kauniainen consumes approximately 1 % of the
total fuel in the Helsinki metropolitan area (VTT – LIPASTO).
Fuel consumption is the most essential data needed for carbon dioxide emission estimation. Burning one liter of gasoline causes 2,350 grams
of carbon dioxide, and burning one liter of diesel causes 2,660 grams of
carbon dioxide. In addition, carbon dioxide is one of the final products
of a complete burning process, and it cannot, in comparison to most of
the other compounds in exhaust gases, be filtered by catalytic converters
or removed from exhaust gases by any commercially available method.
Therefore, the most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from
vehicles using gasoline or diesel is to reduce their fossil fuel consumption.
Based on Helsinki environmental statistics, the total number of
cars in the Helsinki metropolitan area was about 430,000 in 2009. The
number of cars per 1,000 citizens is lower in Helsinki than in its surrounding cities, Espoo and Vantaa. Detailed information is presented
in table 3. In the whole area, the number of cars per 1,000 citizens is
below the whole country average. The number of private cars in the
whole area has grown with a rate of 3.4 % per year between the years
2000 and 2011.
The increasing number of cars is partly a consequence of population growth and partly a consequence of increasing car density. If
the current development of the total number of cars in the Helsinki
metropolitan area continues, there will be 560,000 private cars in
2020 and 670,000 private cars is 2030. Political and public initiatives
might have an effect in this development trend, but their impacts are
not considered in this estimation.
The greatest need to have a private car seems to be in Vantaa,
where car density growth is also the highest. Explanations for this
development can be found from population structure, average income, attitudes, and the transportation system. In this study, we will
especially focus on the transportation system and on the behavior
and choices of individual users.
Number of private cars in
Helsinki Metropolitan area 2000 -2011
More than one car
One car
1000
cars
No car
Vantaa
500
56 %
400
30 %
Helsinki, suburbs
9%
300
48 %
43 %
200
Helsinki, inner city
4%
100
36 %
59 %
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Share of households
Car owning in Helsinki metropolitan area 2000
60
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Total number of private cars in Helsinki Metropolitan area
2010
Private cars
[total]
Car density
(cars /
1,000 citizen)
Car density
growth
(%/a)
Helsinki
224,897
386
2.0 %
Espoo
111,947
458
2.1 %
Vantaa
94,304
477
2.5 %
the traveling time per day in Finland is quite independent of the place
where the resident is living. In addition, the traveling distance per day is
significantly lower in the Helsinki metropolitan area than in its surrounding areas, but traveling in the surrounding areas equals the average for
the whole country. The characteristics and modal shares for the Helsinki
metropolitan area are presented in table 4.
Table 3: Number of private cars, car densities in 2009 and annual growth rate of
car density 2000–2011
During spring 2010, Helsinki Region Transport, HSL, asked about
the most important reasons for the modal choice of work trips. It is
reasonable to assume that the reasons are valid for all types of trips,
excluding long-distance and recreational traveling, but the weightings of reasons between trip types may vary. The four most important
causes for modal choice were traveling time, fluency, convenience
and traveling cost. Among the other reasons were e.g. reliability of the
service and the availability of parking places. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that decreasing the number of parking places in central
areas, charging a high price for parking in the city center, and increasing the supply of cheap parking places near metro and railway stations
is likely to decrease the number of private cars in the city center.
An extensive traffic survey (LITU 2008) was carried out in the Helsinki
region in 2007-2010 (HSL 10 / 25.5.2010). The number of respondents
was over 20,000 in the whole survey region. An essential observation
was that an average citizen in the Helsinki metropolitan area traveled
25 kilometers per day, while the traveling distance in other parts of the
Helsinki region was about 40 kilometers per day. The average number of
trips was slightly over 3 per day, and the traveling time was 71 minutes
per day in the metropolitan area and 73 minutes per day elsewhere in
the region. An average Finnish resident travels 42 kilometers per day
and spends 71 minutes per day for traveling (HLT 04/05). As a result,
Kilometers
Walking
Minutes
Number
of trips
16
0.9
1
Share
of trips
27 %
Cycling
1
4
0.2
6%
Public transportation
8
27
0.9
27 %
Private car (incl. taxi)
13
23
1.3
39 %
Other
1
2
0.1
3%
Total
25
71
3.3
100 %
Table 4: Characteristics and modal shares in Helsinki metropolitan area for
an average citizen per working day
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has collected information
about the car fleet in Finland. Most of the private cars currently in use
are gasoline cars with catalytic converters. The traveled kilometers,
using different car types, are presented in figure 36. The use of cars
without catalytic converter has decreased annually by 11 % between
the years 2001 and 2009. The use of cars with catalytic converters and
diesel cars has, in the same period, increased annually by 5.5 % and by
11 % respectively. The figure below shows these in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. About 33 % of all trips were made by walking or cycling in
the Helsinki metropolitan area during 2008. For motorized transportation, only the share of public transportation in the Helsinki Metropolitan area was 38–39 % between the years 1995 and 2005, while e.g. in
Travelled kilometers (Mkm/a)
Cars, without
catalytic converter
600
Helsinki
Espoo
Vantaa
500
Cars,with
catalytic converter
Cars, diesel
5000
4000
400
3000
300
2000
200
1000
100
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Cars per 1,000 citizens in Helsinki Metropolitan area 2000–2011
2010
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Travelled kilometers for cars in Helsinki Metropolitan area 2001–2009
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
61
the Tampere region, the share of public transportation has decreased
from 19 % to 16 % during the same period of time. A detailed view
of Helsinki public transport can be seen in a survey published by HSL,
made jointly with an external consultant, about energy efficiency development possibilities during October 2010 (HSL 27 / 25.10.2010). The
resulting report included current shares of different public transportation modes. Most kilometers are currently travelled by buses and commuter trains. Anyway, trams have a special importance in the Helsinki
city center, and many short trips are made using trams. In addition, the
importance of metro trains is growing, because of a new metro line
from Ruoholahti to Matinkylä, which is currently under construction.
Passenger transportation in the Helsinki Metropolitan area annually
consumes 2.8 terawatt hour of energy and causes 0.67 million tons of
CO2 emissions, while individual transportation consumes about 81 %
of the total energy and causes about 85 % of the personal trafficbased CO2 emissions in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions for different transportation modes are
presented in the following table.
(TWh/a)
Share (of
energy)
CO2 (ton)
Share
(of CO2)
Passenger, individual
2.23
81 %
564,877
85 %
Passenger, bus
0.33
12 %
85,308
13 %
Metro
0.04
2%
4,438
0.7 %
Tram
0.03
1%
2,790
0.4 %
Bus, gas
0.05
2%
8,956
1.3 %
Commuter trains
0.09
3%
0
0%
Total
100 %
Table 5: Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Helsinki Metropolitan area
2009. Shares are for personal transportation only
Individual transportation consists of cars, motorcycles and mopeds.
In this study, we have omitted motorcycles and mopeds, because their
shares of the total traffic on Finnish roads are quite small. Similarly,
electric cars and hybrid cars are still quite rare. During the year 2009,
about one-third of the fuel consumed in private cars was diesel and
about two-thirds was gasoline.
In addition, freight transportation by trucks and vans is consuming
1.18 TWh energy per year (2009) and causing around 300,000 tons
of CO2 emissions. There is also freight transportation by rail from the
port of Vuosaari to other parts of Finland, but VR Group is using hydropower, and rail transportation is, therefore, causing no CO2 emission.
CO2 emissions for personal and freight transportation are presented in
the following table.
A diesel car consumes less fuel and causes less CO2 emission than
a corresponding gasoline car, but diesel cars are usually more expensive than corresponding gasoline cars. During earlier years, a diesel
car was causing significantly more small particles than an average
corresponding gasoline car, which made diesel cars more harmful for
health especially in dense commercial and residential areas. Today,
diesel cars with particulate filters are available, but still most of the
diesel cars in Finland are sold without the particulate filter. The Automobile and Touring Club of Finland (Autoliitto) informed that introducing CO2-based registration tax in the beginning of the year 2008
caused a rapid increase of diesel cars among the new registrations.
During the first months of 2008, about half of all the new private cars
were using diesel.
CO2 (ton)
Passenger, individual
Passenger, bus
Metro 19 %
Tram 5 %
Bus, diesel 48 %
Commuter train 24 %
Shares of public transportation modes in Helsinki region
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
58.1 %
87,747
9.0 %
4,438
0.5 %
Tram
2,790
0.3 %
8 956
0.9 %
Freight, truck
303,617
31.2 %
Total
972,425
100 %
Table 6: CO2 emissions for personal and freight transportation
in Helsinki Metropolitan area
Bus, gas 4 %
62
564,877
Metro
Bus, gas
Public transportation, travelled kilometers (%)
Share (of CO2)
The reason for that development was a new taxation pattern. Today, car
taxation in Finland is divided into four separate taxes: registration tax,
vehicle tax, driving power tax and fuel tax. Gasoline cars are not paying
driving power tax, but the fuel tax for gasoline is higher than the fuel tax
for diesel. The diagram below gives an overview of car taxation in Finland.
The registration tax has to be paid before a car can be registered or
used. Its amount is depending on the carbon dioxide emission of the
car, but independent of the technique. The registration tax is higher for
a car with high CO2 emission than for a car with low CO2 emission, but
equal for e.g. gasoline and diesel cars, if their CO2 emissions are equal.
In 2009, which is the base year for transportation in this study, the
annual vehicle tax was based on the type and the weight of the vehicle until a new taxation system was introduced during 2010, which
is based on carbon dioxide emissions. The same taxing standards are
valid for both gasoline and diesel cars. In 2010, the lowest possible basic tax for a private car (below 67 g CO2/km) is €19 per year, and the
highest tax (for over 400 g CO2/km) is €606 per year. 80 % of all cars
in use in Finland cause 131-200 g CO2/km, which means that their basic tax is €70–160. In order to support public transportation, especially
buses, the price of diesel has been kept lower than gasoline. That is
why private diesel car owners are annually paying a driving power tax
for having a diesel car.
For a private car owner, it is worthwhile to buy a diesel car, if he or
she is driving many kilometers in a year. Driving power tax is independent of driven kilometers, but fuel tax for both diesel and gasoline are
paid by liters. The higher fuel tax of gasoline makes use of gasoline cars
economically less favorable, if the driven kilometers per year are numerous. Taking environmental impacts into account would support lowering the driving power tax, because diesel cars consume less fuel and,
therefore, cause less CO2 emissions than corresponding gasoline cars.
Particulate filters in the newest diesel cars and increasing bio-shares in
fuels will additionally contribute to decreasing local emissions.
Fuels can be taken into use gradually by mixing new bio-based components with the old fossil-based ones. The gradual method has two
major advantages compared to the quick method: most of the vehicles
are already able to use the new fuel, if the shares of new components
are low, and the delivery network already exists. VTT Technical Research
Centre of Finland has reported on the fuel consistencies in its LIPASTO
project, in which the purpose is to calculate all types of emissions from
Finnish transportation. Gasoline contained 6.55 % bio-based components, and diesel contained 2.78 % bio-based components during the
year 2009. The European Union has set a mandatory target that this
share must be at least 10 % for fuels by 2020, but Finland has set a
more ambitious target to reach 20 % in 2020. The shares are based
on the energy contents of fuels. Fuels in Finland had to include 4 %
bio-based components in 2010, and it will include 6 % bio-based com-
Car taxation
Registration tax
CO2-based
since Jan 1.2008
Annual vehicle tax
CO2-based
since Mar 1.2010
Basic tax plus
driving power tax
for diesel cars
Basic tax
for gasoline cars
Fuel tax
Car taxation in Finland
ponents in 2011–2014. After that, the shares of bio-based components
should linearly increase, and the target of 20 % bio-based components
in fuels will be achieved by 2020. A three-year (2008–2010) bio-fuel
trial, so far the largest in the world, was recently completed in the Helsinki region. About 300 buses took part in the trial, and the total driven
kilometers exceeded 50 million. At the start of the trial, buses used a
blend of 30 % biodiesel and 70 % standard diesel fuel. After the starting
phase, some buses were using 100 % biodiesel. As a result, local emissions were significantly reduced: particulate emissions were reduced by
30 % and NOx emissions by 10 %. Buses running solely on renewable
biodiesel achieved the best results in reducing emissions. No changes
to the bus fleet were needed, which was a great financial advantage,
and the tested renewable bio-fuel also worked well in older buses and
in winter conditions.
Introducing new fuels has also caused controversial discussion.
Large-scale production of bio-fuels can cause environmental and social problems. If the liability in their production is missing, deforestation, nutrient losses, toxic emissions, and biodiversity losses are possible consequences. Especially deforestation, in the countries where
bio-fuel are produced, can destroy the benefits of bio-fuels in reducing
CO2 emissions, because forests are absorbing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and, therefore, slowing down the ongoing climate change.
Some of the raw materials of bio-fuels can also be used for food production. The production of bio-fuels can also lead to scarcity of food, increasing food prices, and serious social problems. HSL has decided not
to use palm-oil-based or corresponding raw materials during 2011. On
the contrary, it will be using renewable bio-fuel from the waste material
of the Finnish food industry.
Buses in the Helsinki Metropolitan area caused about 14 % of the
total CO2 emissions from passenger transport in 2009. Helsinki Region
Transport, HSL, has a target to decrease the total CO2 emission by 80 %
between the years 2011 and 2018. HSL has estimated that, during 2015,
half of the buses will be in the best emission classification. In addition,
renewable diesel fuel and biogas will be used in the buses. The two main
bus types currently in use are diesel buses and gas buses. Gas buses are
able to use both natural gas and biogas. Biogas can be collected from
landfill sites and from wastewater treatment plants, but it has to be purified for transportation use. Hybrid buses have also been tested, and
their share is expected to rise in the future. No trolley buses are currently
in use. Their use has been evaluated by the authorities City of Helsinki,
but during 2011 a decision not to introduce trolley buses in Helsinki was
made. HSL is also taking part in a project, where one of the goals is to find
new electrical solutions for public transportation. Those solutions could
include charging electric buses by fast charging or battery switching.
In this study, 8 % of all bus kilometers are assumed to be traveled
by gas buses using natural gas and 92 % by diesel buses using conventional diesel fuel, based on the bus type shares of the total bus amount
in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. The bio-share of the conventional
diesel fuel was 2.8 % in 2009. A gas bus using natural gas consumes
more fuel than a diesel bus, but its CO2 emissions are quite close to
the CO2 emissions of a diesel bus, because carbon intensity for natural
gas is lower than the carbon intensity for diesel. About 300 buses in
the Helsinki region took part in a biodiesel trial during 2009, but it has
been taken into account in the calculations, which are based on the fuel
consumptions statistics by VTT.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
63
Rail transportation in the Helsinki Metropolitan area consists of metro
trains, trams and commuter trains. If we look at the passenger transportation only, ignoring the impact of freight transport, rail transport consumes
6 % of the total energy and causes 2 % of the total CO2 emissions from
passenger transportation. Electricity for the commuter trains is produced
in hydropower plants, which is assumed to produce no CO2 emissions,
but trams and metro trains are using electricity from Helen, which in turn
buys most (94 %) of its electricity from Nord Pool. In this case the CO2
intensity used for calculation was 103 kg of CO2 per kWh; HKL using the
same figure in 2009 for its own CO2 calculations. Nevertheless, the calculation method of CO2 emission by HKL has changed from year to year.
Helsinki Region Transport, HSL, has currently one metro line, which
has two branches. The total length of the metro line is 21.1 kilometers,
and there are 17 stations. The existing subway network is built underground only in central areas.
Currently, a western extension from Ruoholahti to Matinkylä in Espoo is being constructed, and the new line will be in use during 2015.
Mellunmäki
Kontula
Myllypuro
Itäkeskus
Kalasatama
Sörnäinen
Kulosaari
Puotila
Siilitie
Herttoniemi
Rastila Vuosaari
Hakaniemi
Kaisaniemi
Rautatientori
Kamppi
The new metro line will be completely underground. On the information
page of the West Metro project (http://www.lansimetro.fi/en/frontpage),
the length of the new metro line is 13.9 kilometers, and the traveling
time between Ruoholahti and Matinkylä will be 16 minutes. Bus stations
for feeder transportation will be built in Lauttasaari, Tapiola, and Matinkylä
Lauttasaari and Koivusaari will be in the Helsinki area, while all
other new stations are located in Espoo. An extra side track for turning
will be built in Tapiola, which will enable termination of some metro
lines at Tapiola.
The new metro line map will include two metro lines. The first of
the lines will operate between Tapiola and Mellunmäki and the second
line between Matinkylä and Vuosaari. The planned interval between
departures will be 5 minutes, except 2.5 minutes between Tapiola and
Itäkeskus. The maximum length of a metro train will be two units (four
cars), while the current maximum length is three units (six cars).
Currently, there are two types of metro trains in use: M100 and
M200. The M100 metro trains were manufactured in 1977–1984 and
the M200 metro trains in 2000–2001. During the year 2009, HSL had
45 metro trains in daily use. 80 % of all line kilometers were driven with
M100 trains and 20 % with M200 trains. Metro transportation between
Ruoholahti and Matinkylä will require buying new metro trains. The maximum length of a metro train on the current network is six cars, and the
longest possible metro train in Helsinki can take up to 900 passengers.
Therefore, one metro train can take the same amount of passengers as
700 private cars. In 2009, the average number of passengers in a metro
train was 20 % of its capacity. At any rate, metro trains are most crowded
during the peak hours. Today, a metro train in Helsinki needs a chauffeur,
but HSL has set a target to begin driverless metro transportation.
The tram network in the Helsinki Metropolitan area covers the central areas of Helsinki. The total length of the tram network for passenger
transport was 91.3 km at the end of 2011. In January 2012, a new light
Ruoholahti
2005
4500
2006
2007
2008
2009
2011
2010
4000
Subway network in Helsinki city.
3500
3000
2500
Otaniemi
10,000
2000
Keilaniemi
10,000
1500
Koivusaari
10,000
Helsinki
The new metro stations and their estimated passengers per day
64
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Espoo
Kauniainen
Vantaa
Greater
Helsinki
Tampere
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Row
houses
Apartment
houses
Ruoholahti
0
Apartment
houses
Matinkylä
30,000
500
Row
houses
Niittykumpu
Lauttasaari
20,000
Apartment
houses
Tapiola
30,000
1000
Row
houses
Jousenpuisto
10,000
Turku
Housing prices per square meter in different parts of Finland 2005-2011
rail to Jätkäsaari has been taken into use. There are plans to build new
tracks and add new stations to the tram network. The three main types
of trams in Helsinki Region Transport are Nrv I, MLNrv, and Variotram.
There are, in total, 82 trams of the types Nrv I and MLNrv in operation
and 40 trams of the type Variotram. MLNrv trains have been recently
increased in length by adding an adapted part between the old cars. The
adapted part is 6.5 meters long, and its low floor improves tram accessibility. HSL has made a decision to buy 40 new energy-efficient trams
from a local producer. The first two trams will be tested during 2013.
HSL also has commuter train lines. The main railway stations are
both Helsinki and Pasila, where all of the commuter trains are stopping.
After Pasila, the rail network continues to three different directions:
Karjaa, Vantaankoski and Riihimäki. There is a new rail, “Kehärata”, under construction, and it will connect two of these branches.
Trends and challenges
When the use of public transport is compared, it can be noticed
that within the area encompassing the metro stations in Helsinki, the
share of public transportation was 60 % of all motorized transportation
during the morning peak hour in 2005, while its share in the northern
parts of Espoo and Vantaa, far away from metro and railway stations,
was only 22–35 % (LVM 55/2007). In the Helsinki Metropolitan area,
the rail transportation system, consisting of commuter trains, metro
trains and trams, offers a good level of service because of its rapidness
compared to private cars, especially during the peak hours. Nevertheless, some problems remain within the central areas; they are related to
accuracy, insufficient capacity, lack of chauffeurs, lack of safety, and untidiness. In all cases, offering a good level of service in public transportation leads to an increasing demand of public transportation services.
From 1966 to 2008, private car journeys have increased about 350 %
within the region. At the same time, public transport usage has increased only about 35 %. In 1966, the total number of trips in Helsinki,
30%
Espoo, and Vantaa was about 320 million per year, of which about 34 %
were made by private cars and about 66 % using public transport. After
that, the modal share of public transport has been decreasing, while the
modal share of private car usage has been increasing. A main reason for
that development is the increased traveling in the peripheral parts of
the Helsinki metropolitan area, where private car usage is much more
popular than within the central areas. During the last twenty years, the
number of inhabitants in the Helsinki metropolitan area has increased
by 38 %. The increasing population, associated with the increasing
number of private cars, indicates an increase of private car usage-related
problems, including e.g. congestion and CO2 emissions, even if the modal share of public transport, would no longer decrease.
Kaupunkitutkimus TA Oy, an urban research company, researches characteristics of metropolitan areas. One of its research areas is the number of
working places. Working places within the Helsinki region have increased
by 10 % from the year 2000 to the year 2010, 55 % of the working places
are located in Helsinki, 16 % in Espoo and Vantaa and 14 % in the surrounding areas. During the recent years, the number of working places has
been especially increasing in Espoo and Vantaa. Work is one of the main
reasons for people to travel and one of the main reasons of transportation
network usage. Within the Helsinki Metropolitan area, the average length
of a working trip was 12 kilometers and within the rest of the region 25
kilometers during the year 2008. The number of people commuting to the
Helsinki Metropolitan area from the rest of the country has also been clearly increasing during the last decades.Statistics Finland collects information about housing prices in Finland. Housing prices in the Helsinki region
have been rising during recent years. During 2009, a square meter in a
row house cost around €2,900 and a square meter in an apartment house
around €3,500 in Helsinki city. From 2005 to 2009, the nominal price of
a square meter in an apartment house in the Helsinki city area had risen
around 27 %. Meanwhile, a square meter in the Helsinki region outside
the capital area cost around €2,100 in a row house and around €1,800.
Helsinki region
Central areas
25%
20%
A lot of
working places
15%
Good
public transport
Extremely high
housing prices
Metropolitan area
10%
5%
Helsinki
Espoo
Kauniainen
Vantaa
Greater
Helsinki
Tampere
Nominal housing prices in different parts of Finland 2005–2009
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Apartment
houses
Row
houses
Working places
Turku
Average
public transport
High
housing prices
Surrounding areas
Few
working places
Poor
public transport
Medium housing
prices
Challenges in Helsinki region
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
65
1980
1985
1990
2000
2005
2009
2010
Espoo
137,409
156,778
172,629
213,271
231,704
244,330
247,970
Helsinki
483,036
485,795
492,400
555,474
560,905
583,350
588,549
Kauniainen
7,203
7,746
7,889
8,532
8,457
8,617
8,689
Vantaa
132,050
143,844
154,933
178,471
187,281
197,636
200,055
Total
759,698
794,163
827,851
955,748
988,347
1 033,933
1 045,263
Table 7: Population in Helsinki metropolitan area 1980–2010
in an apartment house. Housing prices are affected by supply and demand. In the Helsinki region, the demand of apartment and row houses
is higher than in other parts of the country, because the Helsinki metropolitan area concentrates working places, which causes people to seek
within the Helsinki region.
The population in the Helsinki region has been growing, while population in some other parts of Finland has been decreasing. The supply of apartments and row houses has lower than their demand. High
housing prices cause people to seek houses that are further away from
the central areas. This could be affected by increasing the urban density
in city planning. Arranging public transportation services to people who
are living far away from the city center is a great challenge. Prices are
for used houses only. “Greater Helsinki” refers to communities outside
Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen.
Among the greatest challenges in the Helsinki Metropolitan area are
high housing prices and the problems in arranging public transportation services for people who are living outside of the central areas. A
private car is still the best alternative in most cases for people who have
a working place in Helsinki, but who are living in rural or suburban areas. Private car usage is the major reason for transportation-related CO2
emissions and the major reason for congestion in the Helsinki region.
Commune
Percentage of
employees (%)
Distance to
Helsinki (km)
The trips to and from central areas are numerous, which makes
arranging public transportation to central areas successful. Housing prices in central areas are statistically high, which makes them
suitable residential areas mostly for people with higher incomes or
plenty of property. Single households in the Helsinki metropolitan
area cope more easily with high prices per square meter better than
big families. Arranging public transportation becomes more challenging when the distance to the metropolitan center increases. On
contrary, the average price per square meter decreases when the
distance to the center increases. It causes families and people with
lower incomes to move away from central areas and even from the
metropolitan area. In any case, people are not only looking for an
affordable place to live, but they are also seeking space and peacefulness. Therefore, even people with a very high income tend to
move to the surrounding areas of Helsinki metropolitan, which is a
problem for the authorities of the central city, because the central
city is losing some of its tax payers. Arranging public transportation
to a distant area is complicated, and in some conditions, the question of whether there should be any public transportation at all to
the most distant and rural areas could be asked. Figure on page 65
shows the characteristics and challenges of different kinds of areas
in the Helsinki region. Green boxes are representing a good situation, yellow boxes an average situation and red boxes are representing potential problems.
Tuusula
50
28
.
Kerava
54
31
Street lighting
Kirkkonummi
61
31
Sipoo
51
35
Järvenpää
45
36
Nurmijärvi
53
37
Vihti
44
49
Porvoo
23
50
Siuntio
44
51
Pornainen
40
54
Hyvinkää
25
56
Lohja
23
57
Inkoo
33
58
Mäntsälä
30
61
Riihimäki
19
69
Orimattila
8
93
Kouvola
2.4
134
Tampere
2.6
176
Table 8: Commuting to the Helsinki Metropolitan area and commuting distances.
66
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Street lighting is an essential part of traffic safety and city image.
It represents an important responsibility for the city. At the same time,
the demands of energy saving are increasing. New regulations are also
forbidding ambient light, which wastes energy and disturbs both residents and nature.
Conventional lighting technologies are incandescent lamps and
gas discharge lamps. Incandescent lamps were widely used in households during recent years, but most of them are no longer available on
the market because of EU regulations. They have not been used in outdoor lighting either. In street lighting, gas discharge lamps have been
the practical standard. Gas discharge lamps come in many subcategories: e.g. fluorescent lamps, low- and high-pressure sodium lamps,
high-pressure mercury lamps and metal halide lamps.
In 2010, street lighting consumed a total 55 GWh in Helsinki and
caused 12,100 tons of CO2 emission, if the Finnish electricity CO2 intensity of 0.22 kg CO2 / kWh is used. The total number of street lamps
in Helsinki was 81,000 and the annual operating time per lamp ap-
proximately 4,000 h (Sarvaranta). The illuminated street length was
1,050 km in 2009. The energy consumption per lighting point has decreased from 1997 to 2009, but at the same time the number of lighting points has been increasing. Annually 1,000 new lighting points are
installed and 2,500 rebuilt. When a lighting point is rebuilt, the whole
luminary is usually replaced with a new one.
Mercury vapor
Metal halide
High-pressure
sodium
Wattage
Wattage
Wattage
Number
Number
Number
50
406
35
902
50
906
80
1,619
70
1,613
70
7,529
125
27,105
100
12
100
12,444
250
3,736
150
527
150
9,971
400
420
250
154
250
10,748
Total
33,286
400
14
400
2,362
72
121
600
35
Total
3,343
110
337
210
92
350
231
Total
44,655
Table 9: Lamp types and wattages in Helsinki 2010
(based on Sarvaranta)
The luminous efficacy is a measurement in lumen per watt (lm/W)
for describing the efficiency of converting electricity into visible light.
Lumen describes the perceived power of light. The luminous efficacy
of mercury vapor lamps is 50 lm/W, whereas for high-pressure sodium lamps and metal halide lamps it is even better, 100 lm/W for
both. In 2010, most of the street lights in Helsinki were high-pressure
sodium lamps and mercury vapor lamps (Sarvaranta). In Helsinki, the
remaining mercury vapor lamps will be replaced with high-pressure
sodium lamps by 2016. Because of EU regulations, mercury vapor
lamps will not be available on the market after 2015 (Sandström).
Mercury
vapor
average
wattage (W)
Metal
halide
High
pressure
sodium
All
lamps
139
83
159
148
luminous efficacy
(lm/W)
50
100
100
80
perceived power
of light (lm/lamp)
6,970
8,302
15
905
11
933
energy consumption
(kWh/lamp)
558
332
636
592
CO2-emission
(kg/lamp)
123
73
140
130
Table10: Average characteristics of street lamps in Helsinki 2010.
Estimated operating time for each lamp is 4,000 hours per year.
If the perceived power of light (in lumens) was kept at the current state, replacing mercury vapor lamps with high-pressure sodium
lamps would reduce half of the CO2 emission caused by street lighting.
That is actually not happening, because the wattage is not significantly
lowered, when the lamps are replaced with more efficient ones; instead, the street lighting is brighter. Nevertheless, high-pressure sodium lamps, contrary to mercury vapor lamps, can be dimmed, which
can decrease their energy consumption. The average characteristics
and estimated yearly CO2 production of different lamp types in Helsinki
are presented in table 10.
Solid-state lighting (SSL) is a new lighting technology. In solid-state
lighting, LEDs, OLEDs, or LEPs (light-emitting polymers) are used. In this
study, we focus mainly on LED technology. LED technology generates
light energy efficiently compared to old technologies and is, therefore,
environmentally friendly. Solid-state emitters also have good durability.
Emission properties in LED lighting can also be customized. Flicker or
warm-up times do not exist in LEDs. They are also made of non-toxic
materials and, therefore, recyclable. The current luminous efficacy of
LED lamps is on a medium level, 60 lm/W (Sandström), but it is estimated to increase significantly (Sarvaranta).
The lifetime of a lamp varies depending on the lamp type. Characteristics of different lamp types are presented in the table 11. The lifetime of a luminary is about 30 years, but the newest luminaries might
last even longer.
Energy can be saved by switching off lamps during limited traffic.
A commonly used way to save energy is to switch off, for example,
every second luminary between 10 pm and 6 am. Another way for energy savings is dimming control. Dimming control for mercury vapor
lamps is not possible. On the contrary, high-pressure sodium lamps and
metal halide lamps can be dimmed. Dimming is done by dropping the
voltage. In Helsinki, dimming control is installed in one-fourth of the
new lighting points. The brightness of street lighting can be controlled
based on the amount of traffic, weather conditions or the availability
of natural light.
Lamp type
Incandescent
Luminous
efficacy
(lm/W)
10
(very low)
Lamp life
Cost of
installation
Cost of operation
(not used in
street lighting)
Low
Very high
3 months
Mercury vapor
50
(low)
3-4 years
Moderate
Moderate
High-pressure
sodium
100
(high)
4 years
High
Low
Metal halide
100
(high)
2-3 years
High
Low
60
(medium)
12 years
Very high
Low
LED
Table 11. Estimation of the characteristics of different lamp types (based on
Sarvaranta and Sandström). Estimated annual operating time 4,000 hours.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
67
The first street LED lighting in Finland was implemented in the ski
center Levi, which is located in Kittilä, northern Finland. LED lighting
in Levi consumes only 41 watts per luminary and works well in the
temperature of -35 degrees Celsius. The total amount of luminaries
is 64. The light is said to be comfortable to the eyes and at the same
time efficient. In any case, during 2009, most of municipalities were
not willing to make large-scale LED installations (Sarvaranta). Among
the main reasons for this decision were high cost, luminous efficacy,
reliability, lacking standards, and limited user experience. As a conclusion, LED lighting would significantly decrease energy consumption of
street lighting, but the technology is not yet mature and the lacking
experience of LED lighting causes municipalities to hesitate. LED lighting can be seen as a very promising new technology, and new testing
areas for street LED lighting should be encouraged.
been a gradual and quite a slow process. As a part of this scenario,
the effects of adding bio-based components into conventional fuels
are also assessed.
In this scenario, we concentrate on the effects of replacing gasoline
and diesel cars with electric cars. Their emissions and environmental
impacts are affected by the energy source used for the electricity production. The consumer in Finland has the freedom to choose the electricity supplier for his or her household. When an electric car is charged
using the electricity plug-in of the house of the car owner, the actual
emissions and environmental impacts of a single electric car are strongly depending on the choices of the car owner.
2) Rail transportation scenario
The second of the scenarios includes an extensive use of rail transport.
This scenario will require effective feeder transportation to the metro
Top-down potentials and scenarios
In this study we assess three alternative scenarios for the future.
1) Individual transportation scenario
The first of the scenarios includes a transition from the use of gasoline
and diesel cars into the use of electric cars. The decrease in the CO2
footprint of transport will be a consequence of efficient energy usage
in electric cars.
Electric cars are not the only possibility to improve the energy
efficiency and to decrease the CO2 emissions from vehicles. Other
alternatives currently under consideration are hybrid cars, hydrogen
cars, flexi-fuel cars and bi-fuel cars. Hybrid cars are able to use electricity or conventional fuels, hydrogen for the hydrogen cars can by
produced by different ways, each of which has its characteristic environmental impacts, and the flexi-fuel cars can either use a special
fuel with a high percentage of bio-ethanol or typical gasoline. Bi-fuel
cars have two fuel tanks, one for gasoline and one for gas. If biogas
is available, bi-fuel cars can use solely renewable energy. Otherwise,
it can use either natural gas or conventional gasoline. More environmentally friendly fuels for the conventional gasoline and diesel
cars have also been developed, but putting them into use has so far
68
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Personal and freight transportation emissions
expected to stay level
CO2 Mt
per yer
1,2
Vehicle
Tram
Bus
Commuter trains
Metro
Freight (road)
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
2010
2030
base scenario
Personal and freight transportation emissions, 2010 and 2030 (BAU)
and railway stations. Otherwise, residential and commercial areas that
are not directly connected to the stations of rail transport will be in danger of losing their value and confront social and economic problems.
When the existing metro rail to eastern Helsinki was built, housing
prices in e.g. Laajasalo declined, because the direct bus connection to
Helsinki city center was lost.
3) Intelligent Transport Solutions scenario
The third scenario includes an extensive use of advanced technical solutions. It will increase benefits for public transport and include a comprehensive, real-time information system. Technically
advanced parking systems near metro and rail stations are applied
and a congestion fee during the peak hours is charged. Today, the
only kilometer-based cost for a car owner is the price of fuel. Fuel
prices in Finland include fuel tax, but a survey by the Ministry of
Transport and Communication has shown that the current price
policy is not able to prohibit congestion in the Helsinki metropolitan area during the next decades. Furthermore, a private car can
be considered the only alternative for many of the people who
are living in the rural areas of middle and northern Finland. An
extremely high fuel tax might negatively affect the people living
in the Finnish countryside. As a conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that driving a kilometer in the Helsinki city center should
be more expensive than driving a kilometer in the countryside of
middle or northern Finland. If people were paying a reasonable
price for the kilometers driven by their cars, it would encourage
them to leave their cars at home and use public transportation in
the areas with good public transportation.
The energy efficiency of private cars can be improved by using electric or hybrid cars or choosing a gasoline or diesel motor with low fuel
consumption. Unfortunately, people have been moving into more effective but bigger cars. One of the reasons for this development has
been traffic safety: bigger cars are usually perceived to be more secure
in accidents. Therefore, there is a great challenge to increase the safety
of a vehicle without increasing its weight.
Walking and cycling are the most environmentally friendly ways to
move when the distances are short. Walking and cycling cause no CO2
emissions, and they need significantly less space than motorized trans-
portation modes. It is estimated that in a congested city, cycling is also
the fastest way to move, if the length of the journey is less than seven
kilometers. In order to significantly increase walking and cycling, the
distances between homes, working and studying places, and services
have to be short enough. In Finland, city planning is an important way
to affect the attractiveness of cycling. During winters, snow removal
and slipperiness prevention are essential. Profoundly considered parking places and storage rooms for bicycles are also needed. Cycling
routes have to be safe, unbroken and in good condition. The Poljin
network (on the Internet http://www.poljin.fi/) has collected information about cycling in Finland. The average length of a cycling trip in the
whole country is 3 kilometers. At the same time, in the Helsinki region,
43 % of all trips are shorter than 3 kilometers. In addition, around 25 %
of those trips, which are shorter than 3 kilometers, are traveled by private cars in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. The first kilometers by a car
with a cold engine are especially critical, because the first kilometers
are consuming more fuel and causing significantly more local emissions than the following kilometers. Catalytic converters in gasoline
cars are especially not working properly during the first kilometers after a cold start.
Most of the buses in the Helsinki Metropolitan area are nowadays
using diesel, but there are also about a hundred gas buses in use. The
energy efficiency of diesel buses can be improved by hybrid technology, but hybrid buses are more expensive to buy than ordinary diesel buses. One of the possibilities to improve the energy efficiency of
buses is to replace diesel buses with trolley buses. Trolley buses use
electricity instead of fossil fuels, and their energy efficiency is, therefore, better than the energy efficiency of diesel buses. In addition, trolley buses cause no local emissions, which is especially important in
city centers. The modern trolley buses can also travel short distances
without wires, which is one of their advantages compared to trams.
Currently, there are no plans to introduce trolley buses in the Helsinki
region. Gas buses can use natural gas or purified biogas. Natural gas
is imported, but biogas can be collected from Finnish sources. Sources
of unpurified biogas are landfill sites and wastewater treatment plants.
It has been calculated that about 600 buses (about half of all buses in
use within the Helsinki region) could operate using biogas gathered
from the landfill site Ämmässuo. Nowadays, the biogas from Ämmäs-
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
69
suo is used for electricity production, but it’s not the most energy efficient use for it. HSL will begin using biogas in about 50 buses during
2012. Biogas will be collected from the Suomenoja wastewater treatment plant, which is located in Espoo.
Rail transport, consisting of metro trains, trams and commuter
trains, is the most energy-efficient choice for passenger transport. The
actual energy efficiency of rail systems still depends on the efficiency
of the transportation units, and replacing old metro trains, trams, and
commuter trains with new ones can ensure the rail transportation sys-
Number of cars in Helsinki Metropolitan area
Total
Electric cars
1000
700
tem achieves the best possible energy efficiency. The CO2 footprint
caused by rail transportation systems, in the end, depends on the efficiency and on the ways of electricity production.
1) Individual transportation scenario
E-Mobility
Impact in base scenario:
160,000 tons CO2 per year
(20 % of bio-fuels in fuel-mix)
Impact in optimized
scenario:
590,000 tons CO2 per year
(100 % electric car penetration)
Additional impact:
Reduced local emissions
Implementation timeframe:
Long term (until 2030)
Ease of Implementation:
Difficult
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
Concept defined in City Study Workshops
600
500
400
300
200
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
100
Total number of cars in Helsinki Metropolitan area
Among the greatest challenges in replacing gasoline and diesel cars
with electric cars are the prices of electric vehicles, attitudes, the network of rapid-charging points, the suitability of electric cars in cold climate conditions, and battery capacity. The electric cars must be tested
in the cold climate before they are ready for mass use in Finland and in
other northern countries. Mass production and political initiatives are
needed to overcome the high price compared to gasoline and diesel
cars, and the network of rapid-charging points is essential before electric cars can be used for long trips instead of only short-distance travel
inside the cities.
In this scenario, it is assumed that there will be 560,000 private cars
in 2020 and 670,000 private cars in 2030.
In 2009, there were 430,000 private cars in the Helsinki Metropoli-
Electric cars would substantially diminish emissions
of private cars
Base scenario (no e-cars)
Optimized scenario (100 % e-cars)
CO2 emissions
(Mt per year)
CO2 Mt
per year
0,7
0,7
0,6
0,6
0,5
0,5
0,4
0,4
0,3
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,0
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
0,59
CO2 emissions using conventional (gasoline and diesel) cars and alternative
scenarios
70
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
0,59
0,63
0,04
2010 level
2030 base
scenario
Electric cars
2030 optimized
scenario
Potential savings of 100 % electric cars and (20 % bioshare in bensin and diesel
included in base scenario)
tan area, and they caused a total of 590,000 tons of CO2 emissions in a
year. The average travel length for a private car was 10,500 km and its
average CO2 production 1.3 tons in a year.
A commercial electric plug-in car has a maximum charge of 16 kWh,
and it can drive up to 140 kilometers by one full charge, which implies
an average consumption of 0.11 kWh/km. If the share of electric cars
will develop as expected in this scenario, CO2 emissions from private
cars will be as shown in figure 46. The model uses a Finnish Energy
Industries projection to account for the expected development of the
carbon intensity of electricity during 2010–2030.
All of the alternatives are based on the expected traveled distance
by personal cars and development until 2030. In the first and the second alternatives, all of the cars will be conventional gasoline and diesel
cars, while in the third alternative, all of the cars will be electric in 2030.
The first of the alternatives can also be called worst-case alternative,
because the bio-share of fuels is supposed to stay at the level of 2009.
In the first alternative, the total CO2 emission from cars will be 780,000
tons in 2030. In the second alternative, the target of having 20 % share
of bio-fuels will be met in 2020, and the total CO2 emission from cars
in 2030 will be 630,000 tons, which is 20 % less than in the worst-case
alternative. In the third scenario, all cars are electric at the end of the
period, and they cause a total of 40,000 tons of CO2 emissions, which is
95 % less than in the worst-case alternative.
2) Rail transportation scenario
Rail Infrastructure Projects – Long term
Impact:
Additional 16,500 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
More efficient, predictable,
and convenient transport system
Implementation timeframe:
Long term
Ease of Implementation:
Easy - medium
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
City of Helsinki Development Plan
Rail Infrastructure Projects – Short term
Impact:
29,200 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
More efficient and predictable
transport system
Implementation timeframe:
Short term
Ease of Implementation:
Easy - Medium
Cost:
High
Source of lever:
City of Helsinki Development Plan
There are currently two rail transportation projects under construction:
West Metro and Ring Rail Line. The West Metro will extend the metro
line from Ruoholahti to Matinkylä. It will increase the electricity consumption, but decrease the diesel consumption, because many of the
direct bus lines from southern Espoo to Helsinki city center are replaced
with the metro line and the feeder lines to the metro stations. There
are also plans to continue the metro network further from Matinkylä
to Kivenlahti.
In addition to West Metro, we have, in this scenario, five other
projects under consideration.
• The Ring Rail Line is already under construction, and it will connect
two of the currently existing railway branches to Vantaankoski and
to Riihimäki. It will also be important to the international transportation needs, because it will have a station for Helsinki-Vantaa
international airport.
• Jokeri is an important bus line to horizontally connect areas in the
Helsinki Metropolitan area. Moving Jokeri into rails would decrease
the energy consumption of diesel buses. There are plans to replace
the Jokeri buses with light rail.
• Pisara Rail Loop will be constructed under the Helsinki city center
and it will connect the rails to Espoo with the rails to the northern
parts of the Helsinki region. It will enable more commuter train
transportation than before and decrease the possibility for delays.
Short-distance commuter trains stopping at each station will be
moved to the new Pisara railway, which will free space for the
middle-distance and long-distance trains in the central railway
station of Helsinki.
• The Metro network will be continued from Mellunkylä to Majvik.
Majvik is located in Sipoo, near of the eastern border of Helsinki. It
is currently a rural area, but there are plans to make a new, quite
dense residential area for about 12,000 people.
• A new light rail connection to Laajasalo will be constructed. Laajasalo is located southeast from the Helsinki city center. There are
plans to build a new residential area for 10,000 people in Kruunuvuorenranta, which is a part of Laajasalo.
VR Group is currently using electricity from hydropower plants, in
which the CO2 intensity is zero, and HSL is using Nordpool-energy, in which
the CO2 intensity is 103 g CO2 / kWh. Therefore, all of the rail transportation projects presented in this chapter will have an effect on the energy
consumption as presented in tables 12 and 14 and an effect on the CO2
emissions as presented in tables 13 and 15. Additional energy savings beyond these estimates are possible, because adding new rails to the existing
network or making operational changes are not taken into account in this
scenario. Furthermore, changes of the CO2-intensities of energy production also have an effect on the CO2 emission from rail transportation.
In 2009, the total CO2 emissions from personal transportation was
670,000 tons. The rail transportation scenario reduces the total CO2
emissions by 45,000 tons, which is 7 % from the total CO2 emissions
caused by personal transportation. At any rate, 85 % of all emissions
from personal transportation were caused by private cars and only 15 %
by public transportation.
3) Intelligent transport solutions scenario
Congestion Charging
Impact:
126,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Additional revenues
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Difficult
Cost:
Medium
Source of lever:
City of Helsinki Development Plan
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
71
Rail
Project
Diesel buses
Summary
Private cars
Transportation
Stations
+10 GWh
+5 GWh
-45 GWh
+2 GWh
-28 GWh
Under construction
Ring Rail Line
+6 GWh
-
-2 GWh
-31 GWh
-27 GWh
Under construction
Laajasalo light rail
+5 GWh
-
-1 GWh
-13 GWh
-9 GWh
+21 GWh
+5 GWh
-48 GWh
-42 GWh
-64 GWh
West Metro
Total
Total effect
Situation 2011
Planned
Table 12: Energy effects of short-term (by 2015) rail transportation projects
Rail
Project
Diesel buses
Transportation
West Metro
Total
Total
Stations
+1,000 ton
+520 ton
-12,000 ton
-530 ton
-11,000 ton
0
-
-6,900 ton
-8,200 ton
-15,000 ton
+520 ton
-
-270 ton
-3,400 ton
- 3,200 ton
+1,520 ton
+ 520 ton
-19,170 ton
-12,130 ton
-29,200 ton
Ring Rail Line
Laajasalo light rail
Private cars
Table 13: Effects of short-term (by 2015) projects on CO2 emissions..
Project
Diesel buses
Rail
Private cars
Summary
Transportation
Stations
Metro Matinkylä-Kivenlahti
+10 GWh
+5 GWh
-15 GWh
-
0
Planned
Metro Mellunmäki-Majvik
+45 GWh
+6 GWh
-45 GWh
-
+6 GWh
Planned
Pisara Rail Loop
-1 GWh
-
-5 GWh
-9 GWh
-15 GWh
Planned
Jokeri light rail
+9 GWh
-
-17 GWh
-
-8 GWh
Planned
+63 GWh
+11 GWh
-82 GWh
-9 GWh
-17 GWh
Total
Total effect
Situation 2011
Table 14: Effects of long-term (by 2030) rail transportation projects on energy
Project
Diesel buses
Rail
Private cars
Total
Transportation
Stations
Metro Matinkylä-Kivenlahti
+1,000 ton
+520 ton
-4,000 ton
-
-2,480 ton
Metro Mellunmäki-Majvik
+4,600 ton
+620 ton
-12,000 ton
-
-6,700 ton
0
-
-1,300 ton
-2,400 ton
-3,700 ton
+930 ton
-
-4,500 ton
-
-3,600 ton
+6,530 ton
+1,140 ton
-21,800 ton
-2,400 ton
-16,480 ton
Pisara Rail Loop
Jokeri light rail
Total
Table 15: Effects of long-term projects (by 2030) on CO2 emissions
72
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
The Ministry of Transport and Communications has made a study
about congestion charging models in the Helsinki region. The study
was published on June 17. 2009, and it suggested that the most effective charging model in the Helsinki region would be the so-called zone
model, where a driver is charged based on the traveled kilometers (LVM
30/2009). The inner zone would include Ring III and all areas inside it,
and the outer zone would include other areas in the Helsinki region.
During peak hours, the fee for the inner zone would be 10 cents per
kilometer and inside the outer zone 5 cents per kilometer. Between peak
hours, the fee for the inner zone would be 5 cents per kilometer and
there will be no fee for the outer zone. During evenings, nights, and
weekends, there would be no congestion charges. Implementing this
model would cut the transportation-based CO2 emissions by 21 % in the
Helsinki region by the year 2017. However, this model is not included in
the current transportation policy.
Congestion charging would not only decrease transportation-based
CO2 emissions, but also make traveling smoother by decreasing congestion and shortening travel times. The modal share of public transportation would increase, and the level of service in public transportation
could be improved by offering more departures and shorter intervals
between departures.
4) Street Lighting
Street Lighting – Long term
Impact:
6,400 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Lighting quality improved and lower
operating cost for the city
Implementation timeframe:
Long term
Ease of Implementation:
Easy
Cost:
Medium
Source of lever:
City of Helsinki Development Plan
If the current development of street lighting continues, 1,000
new lighting points are installed annually, there will be about
100,000 lighting points in Helsinki by 2030. One lighting point consumed approximately 680 kWh in a year during 2010, which means
that using current technology and current CO2 intensity of electricity
production, street lighting would consume 70 GWh of energy and
cause 15,000 tons of CO2 emissions in 2030. It is estimated (Sarvaranta) that the luminous efficacy of LED lamps would significantly
improve and achieve the average value of 140 lm/W by 2020. In this
study, we make a conservative estimate that the luminous efficacy of
LED lamps will also be 140 lm/W in 2030. Using LED technology, 40
GWh of energy would be consumed and 8,600 tons of CO2 emissions
produced in 2030. This means that when assuming current CO2emission density, the emission reduction by LED technology would
be of 43 % in street lighting, i.e. 6,400 tons.
Summary and conclusions
Congestion is presumed to become a growing problem in the future. Without any reduction to the number of cars on the streets and
roads, journeys from the Helsinki city center to other parts of the region will take much more time in the future than they are taking today.
Congestion will also increase the CO2 emissions from single travelers
by increasing the total traveling time, decelerations and accelerations
for each of them. Helsinki is aiming to become CO2 neutral and, therefore, it would be especially beneficial to lower the number of private
cars with high CO2 emissions. Therefore, a congestion-charging model with a high congestion charge for high emission cars and a lower
congestion charge for low CO2-emission cars could be adopted. At
any rate, CO2 emissions are not the only impact under consideration.
The effects of space required by a vehicle should also be evaluated.
Therefore, no vehicle can be completely free of charge in the crowded
metropolitan area.
Efforts to increase walking and cycling in short-distance traveling
should be made. People should also be encouraged to leave their private cars at parking lots near subway and rail stations and continue
their journeys using public transportation. Subway and rail stations
should also contain parking places for bicycles. Possibilities to take a
bicycle to the metro train during rush hours should be investigated.
Taking a bicycle on the metro train for no fee has been allowed since
1.1.2010, but it’s still not allowed during rush hours from Monday to
Friday 7–9 and 15–18.
Public transportation and cars with low CO2 emissions should be
preferred when planning an intelligent transportation system. This
can be done by giving special advantages and permission to public transportation and to the environmentally friendly cars with low
CO2 emissions. Parking fees can be cheaper for low CO2-emission
cars than for other cars, and a congestion-charging model with a low
congestion charge for low CO2-emission cars and a higher congestion charge for high CO2-emission cars can be adopted. The city of
Helsinki is already giving a 50 % discount of parking fees for cars with
low CO2 emissions.
Public transportation is already prioritized over private cars e.g.
by giving public transportation devices advantages at traffic lights
and reserving some lanes for buses and taxis. In any case, space is a
scare resource, especially in city centers, and more prioritizing should
be done. Some streets can be completely reserved for cyclists and
pedestrians, and some streets can be allowed for environmentally
friendly vehicles only. CO2 emissions cause global effects, but gasoline and diesel cars also have a local effect on the air quality. Therefore, some of the streets in the city center should be reserved for
environmentally friendly vehicles only to encourage people to buy
environmentally friendly cars and to reduce local emissions caused
by exhaust gases.
If congestion charging is taken into use, the level of service
when traveling by public transport and the use of money collected
by congestion charging will be critical issues among decision makers. The use of money collected by congestion charges have to be
properly planned to avoid confrontation. If it’s just another fee, it
probably will not be accepted by the public. In addition, the public
transportation system has to be properly prepared for the increasing demand to avoid capacity problems and to remain reliable.
Otherwise, people might shift back to their private cars, and the
congestion problem will remain.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
73
Examples from other cities
Guangzhou, Malmö, Stockholm
Clean transportation by electric cars and bicycles
M
obility is a real challenge for cities. Over 50% of the population
already lives in urban areas, and the share is rising steadily. The
consequences include traffic jams, pollution, and waste of time for private and professional drivers. Public transport is reaching maximum
capacity. Solutions are then required to improve air quality and human
health, and reduce noise pollution. The development of air quality and
healthy living conditions, as well as restriction on noise pollution require speedy actions.
In Stockholm, more than 4 million journeys are made per day. In
addition, 10 million tons of goods come in, out, or transit through the
city each year. The number of private cars on the roads continues to
increase. Road traffic is the main source of pollution, between 70 and
80% of total CO2 emissions. The transport sector is also the largest energy consumer in the city accounting for 20% of total energy consumed.
Since the mid-1990s, the city has been working to increase the proportion of clean vehicles on the market and the use of renewable fuels in vehicles. This occurs in close cooperation with manufacturers and retailers
of renewable fuels and clean vehicles. From the beginning, the city has
tried to work closely with the different stakeholders to give the appropriate incentives, information, and support.
Stockholm cooperates with fuel companies to set up stations for
electric charging, ethanol and biogas. The city also worked on the creation of common procurement of electric vehicles together with other
cities. The different incentives proposed included test vehicles available
for free, economic subsidies, cost calculation service on the city website, and free parking and charging for electric vehicles. Concerning
Stockholm´s fleet, the target is for 100% of the city vehicles to be clean
by 2011. All petrol sold in Stockholm contains 5% ethanol. In 2008, lowblend fuels comprised half of the city’s use of renewable fuels. However,
in the long term, low-blend fuel will not be sufficient to achieve Stockholm’s goal of being fossil-fuel-free by 2050. Since 2008, Stockholm
has been particularly involved in the establishment of infrastructure for
electric cars and testing of plug-in hybrids that can be both charged and
driven on various fuels.
In the city of Guangzhou, located in southern China, about 120 km
northwest of Hong Kong, a new BRT system opened in February 2010.
One year later, it won the 2011 International Sustainable Transportation Award from ITDP (Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy). There are 11 million inhabitants in Guangzhou. Over 800,000
passengers use the fast bus line each day. This is enabled by the 22.5 km
network and 26 stations. Even today, the Guangzhou system is by far
the largest BRT system in Asia, but comes behind Capital of Columbia,
74
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Bogota’s Transmilenio system. Both BRT Guangzhou and Bogota include
robust stations and heavily dedicate right-of-way, built in combination
with other forms of transport. For example, in Guangzhou, three metro
stations were integrated with BRT stations, as well as public bicycle sharing stations together with bike parking capacities. This strong interconnection was one of the objectives of the project. The city´s commuters
buy their tickets in advance, decreasing the time spent by the bus at the
station. Payment has also been simplified. The same card is also used
in other forms of public transport, and it can also be used for shopping.
This BRT system intends to decrease carbon dioxide emissions of the
highly populated city, traffic jams, and improve air quality. In the autumn, there are regular acid rains in the Guangdong province They are
raising serious concerns from the Chinese authorities and the Guangdong provincial environmental protection department. Health problems are also widespread in the city, leading to shortness of breath,
coughs, dizziness, and nausea. The phenomenon is common not only
in Guangzhou but also in the entire Pearl River delta. The number of
bus users is doomed to rise, considering the several future extensions
under planning. The aim is to overcome air pollution and health issues
together with environmental challenges
Malmö is taking another route towards green mobility by trying to
change inhabitants’ behaviors. Five years ago, the city launched a marketing campaign called “No ridiculous car trips in Malmö!” The aim was
to increase bicycling. The campaign was a success and it is still running.
Especially short-distance drives can easily be traveled by bicycle. In
2003, less than 5-kilometer journeys accounted for up to 50% of all car
journeys in Malmö. The campaign is based on humor. It urges people to
answer the question, “What is a ridiculous car trip?” and to share their
own examples. The people with the most absurd entries are rewarded
with bicycles.
The city also demonstrated the ease and speed of biking by having
cyclists, wearing distinctive orange vests. They ride typical routes and
time their journeys. In 1995, the modal share for bicycles was 20%; today it is 30%. Bicycle traffic has increased by 1-2% each year. The reason
for this increase is also a sensible investment in separated bicycle infrastructure. For instance, the city has built protected bike paths, installed
railings for cyclists to hold on to when waiting for green lights and
erected bike traffic counters. There are now around 420 km of bicycle
infrastructure.
Cities throughout the world are taking steps towards a sustainable
urban scheme. The cities can learn from each other, to solve their problems through most efficient means.
Implementation concepts
Braking energy recovery in the metro system
Impact:
1,060 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Reduction of energy cost for the city
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Easy
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Concept defined in City Study Workshops
Input
block
Ease of Implementation:
Railway Network,
Topography
Schedule
Traction Unit
Electrical
Network
Missions
Driving Curves
Calculation
block
Power demand of
Traction Units
Static Network
Dynamic Electrical network
Loadflow
Calculation
Output
block
Train movement
according to
available power
Graphical Control of Traction Units Results
- Mechanical
Input Data
- Electrical
Electrical
Network Results
Energy recovery from braking simulation model
10
42
32
Without braking energy
recovery (MWh/a)
Saving potential
(MWh/a)
Energy saving potential from braking energy recovery
With braking energy
recovery (MWh/a)
As mentioned before, Helsinki currently has two types of metro trains
in use, which operate on a metro system. The metro system consumes
43 GWh of electricity per year. Not all of this energy consumption is
necessary though. With a modernization of the metro trains, energy
can be recovered from braking and can be used by other trains for acceleration or support processes.
The older metro train type M100, which was built between 1977
and 1984 has choppered DC voltage drives and will be in operation for
probably another 10 to 15 years. The M100 train type is not able to
regenerate energy from braking without technological upgrades and
reacts quite sensitively to overvoltage. The M200 trains, which were
built between 2000 and 2001, already have AC drives with asynchronous machines. These machines are still state of the art and already
suitable for the recuperation of braking energy.
Although the M200 trains are suitable, in principle, for energy
recovery from braking, the challenge is the operation of these trains
together with the older M100 trains. During the braking process, the
voltage in the supply system might increase too much for the M100
trains. In 2008, Siemens carried out simulations in order to find an optimal solution for further extensions. As a side result, a significant energy-saving potential was identified by using braking energy recovery.
Various factors, like the rail network and its topography, the train
schedule, information about the traction units and the electrical network, are fed into the simulation tool first. The power demand of every
traction unit is calculated. The power supply has to provide this demand. A combined simulation gives the results for the dynamic power
flow in the system. Via the calculation of the loadflow in the system, as
well as the train movement, output information for the traction units,
as well as the electrical network, are derived.
In the specific situation of the metro system in Helsinki, the following conditions have been applied for the simulation:
• A headway of 2 minutes in the inner system and
four minutes on the outer system branches
• Two M205 trains with full loads of 60 tons
and full auxiliaries of 120 kW
• An all-out driving mode with no time reserve
for the schedule of the trains
The results of the simulation are very promising: up to 24 % of
the electricity consumption can be saved if energy is recovered from
the braking process. For the entire metro network, this would mean
a reduction of 10.3 GWh electricity consumption per year, i.e. 1,060
tons of CO2.
To utilize this saving potential the old M100 trains have to be refurbished with actual drive technology and the regeneration has to be activated in the M200 trains. The metro lines would have to be upgraded
with a 3rd aluminum rail and additional substations. In addition to the
“low hanging fruit” of energy recovery from braking, additional savings
can be utilized from inverters, energy storages and the optimization of
system parameters. The optimization of these parts could save another
10 % of the energy consumption.
The metro system in Helsinki has huge potentials for energy-saving
measures. With little effort, already 24 % of the consumption can be
saved, while another 10 % can be saved by a bundle of additional measures. So a reliable, energy-efficient, and environmentally friendly metro
system for Helsinki can easily become a reality.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
75
South and West harbor – Traffic management improvement
Traffic management for arriving and departing ferry passengers
Impact:
1,400 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Improved traffic flow to and
from passenger ferries
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Medium
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Concept defined by City Study Workshops
The City of Helsinki features three locations for harbor activities: South
and West harbors located in the city center together with the Vuosaari
port. The central position of the first two ports can provoke traffic jams
when ferries and cruise ships berth. In 2010 9 765,000 passengers and
1 111,100 passenger cars transited by Helsinki ports (mainly through the
central ports, as Vuosaari had only 332,000 passengers in 2010).
In this context, the optimization of traffic lights in the city, together
with the implementation of a traffic management system, could largely
improve traffic fluidity. The principle would be to implement a special signal plan when a considerable flow of vehicles is expected, such as when
ferries arrive or depart from Helsinki harbors. Such an optimization of traffic lights, together with an adequate traffic management system, could
save approximately 1 400,000 kg of CO2 per year, i.e. 1,400 tons of CO2.
Traffic management model for the City of Helsinki
Traffic management for the city
Impact:
10,400 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Improved traffic flow in the city
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Medium
Cost:
Medium
Source of lever:
Concept defined by City Study Workshops
An option available to lower traffic density and improve its fluidity
in Helsinki is an optimized traffic management system. Such a system
would include:
Traffic control with:
• coordinated fixed time:
Also called green wave, for example, on a main road, cars will
have several green lights in a row, enabling them to drive without
stopping throughout the road length
• rule-based signal plan selection:
• The priority is given according to previously defined parameters
according to traffic plans, for example, if a football match is taking
place in a stadium, the traffic light on the road leading to it will be
configured in order to give green lights to these streets.
Traffic information with:
• variable message signs: traffic information is displayed in real time
on electronic message boards located on the roads
76
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
• parking guidance system: provides information on the availability
of parking solutions
• traffic information via internet/mobile devices
Several advantages are ensued from the implementation of an
optimized traffic management system. First, it reduces travel time for
citizens, in this case around 900,000 hours would be saved per year,
allowing workers to spend more time on other activities. Second, it
consequently decreases the traffic and the amount of fuel used, saving
costs for travelers and improving the urban environment, thanks to the
reduction of noise disturbance and pollution. If all the traffic management solutions described above would be implemented, the CO2 emissions would be decreased by 10,400 tons per year.
Bus priority and P&R management system
Bus priority and P&R system
Impact:
2,000 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Increased attractiveness of public transport
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Medium - Easy
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Concept defined by City Study Workshops
This solution is made of 2 components:
• a public transport prioritization, which gives the green light in
priority to public means of transport such as trams or buses
• Park and Ride (P&R) facilities, which consist of parking facilities
located in the outskirts of the city center, allowing car users, which
intend to go to the city center, to park their car a few kilometers
away and use public transportation to reach their final destination.
The main benefits from such a bus priority – the P&R solution would
be to favor a modal shift, from car to public transport, to decrease traffic jams, and by doing so, the pollution induced by private vehicles.
The total reduction of CO2 emissions would be of 2,000 tons, and the
management costs would be covered by the benefits.
Future outlook
Moving around the city has never been easier. The biggest challenge now is to decide how I want to make my journey. Since the
establishment of the regional transport authority, we have seen
some major improvements in the public transport infrastructure
but most importantly in the integration of different modes of transport within the same journey.
In the olden days, it was never a question of thinking about the journey. It was simply about getting into the car, getting on the train or the
tram and heading into the center. I never asked the question “Do I have
to make this journey?”, but now I can decide whether I need to travel,
and when I do, I can design my own journey – to get to where I need to
be, quickly and efficiently.
Public transport has always been good in Helsinki, but it was clear
that the car was taking over. When the electric car was introduced in
2013, it improved the air quality but did nothing to reduce the congestion. By the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, public transport
accounted for less than 45 % of all journeys, although we were all still
paying for the maintenance of the public transport network and for the
wasted time that we spent traveling or in traffic jams – this was estimated to cost the city over €4.5 billion per year – more than enough to
pay for a radical rethink on city transport.
The breakthrough came when it was decided to combine the concept of the integrated journey with a range of measures to help encourage travelers to make the right decisions. This included the introduction
of congestion control at the same time as investment in safe, clean, and
efficient public transport. By providing a range of information-based
services, travelers were able to create custom travel plans which were
automatically optimized to reduce waiting time and congestion. By
making this data available anywhere, through the use of public wireless networks, travelers were able to be guided at connection points
and for transport providers to modify and synchronize their arrival and
departure times. The telecommunications network also had a secondary benefit, as it enabled many tasks that previously required travel to
be carried out remotely or at a local location. As well as making my journey easier, this interoperability makes it simple to pay – I use my smart
phone although I could prepay or use a contactless card. The main difference is that I now pay for an “end-to-end” journey. I don’t have to
make separate payments for the car hire scheme, the tram and train – I
make one payment for the entire journey. At the end of the month I get
a single charge and the guarantee that my journeys have been planned
using the lowest cost route.
Now we are in 2030, my approach to travel is completely different.
Rather than long-distance commutes, I spend the majority of my time
in the local area conducting business remotely and with local partners.
I still make a number of important journeys, each with a purpose
and each planned for convenience. I use the car-sharing schemes and
public transport to get to where I need to go; we meet at hubs in the
city around the public transport interchanges, and we plan our diaries
around the outcomes rather than the travel plans.
The benefits have been enormous; I no longer need to own a car
and pay the high costs of ownership even when I don’t use it. If I need
a car, I book a pluggable electric hybrid through the city hire scheme, or
if I need something different, I can hire a van or even an electric bike – I
can match the vehicle to the purpose of the journey and save money
into the bargain. The biggest changes have been in the quality of life:
the city is cleaner, the air is purer, and many of the car parking spaces
have been turned back to parks and play areas – but best of all, I have
more time to spend doing what I want to do rather than sitting in traffic
in crowded streets watching the world slipping away.
Interview
In the future, Helsinki will focus more on applying intelligent traffic
solutions in order to improve the traffic environment. Also, development of traffic solutions for new downtown areas, like Jätkäsaari,
Kalasatama, Hernesaari and Central Pasila, are important issues. Increasing traffic volumes will be taken care of in many ways, but, for
example, new street tunnels are needed. Development of biking and
walking conditions are also an essential part of more attractive traffic environment, as the target set by the city council is to double the
modal share of biking. In addition, Helsinki will have a new concept
regarding parking solutions in total. The needs and future parking requirements are taken into consideration when such a comprehensive policy is developed for the first time in the city. Public
transport will also have a very important role in Helsinki’s transport
policy, as it has had since the 1970’s.
Ville Lehmuskoski,
Director of Transportation and
Traffic Planning Division; HSL
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
77
78
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Current situation and
base-scenario projection
80
Strategies and plans
83
Levers and recommendations
to reduce CO2 emissions
83
Examples from other harbors
86
Conclusion
87
Case study:
Green Harbor Vuosaari
The Vuosaari Harbor can reduce the carbon
dioxide emissions by 2 %. It would save
1,060 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
79
Case study:
Green Harbor Vuosaari
T
he economical weight of marine transport has been increasing and,
thus, marine infrastructure has been progressively invested in. From
the mid-1990s to 2007, the Baltic Sea region, as a whole, witnessed
enormous growth in maritime transports. Between 1997 and 2007,
the aggregated volume of cargo handled increased by 42 %, an average of 3.6 % per year. In 2010, one-fourth of the country’s cargo traffic was transported through the Ports of Helsinki, excluding liquid and
solid bulk cargo. By that time, the Ports of Helsinki held a market share
of 33 % in container traffic, 57 % in rubber-wheeled traffic (truck and
trailer), and 75 % in passenger traffic. This growth, a worldwide trend,
highlighted the increasing impact of ports and their infrastructure on
the environment. In parallel, focusing on sustainability has highlighted
the major role ports could play in the future to tackle climate change.
This case study on Vuosaari Harbor intends to provide an approach
on sustainable port management. It focuses on the evaluation of the
optimization levers of the four key areas, building, lighting, transport
logistics and the container terminals, and aims at presenting the abatement potentials for all of the above-mentioned areas.
The Vuosaari Harbor is used by the following types of ships:
• Tanker: a ship designed to transport liquids in bulk. Major types
of tank ships include the oil tanker, the chemical tanker, and the
liquefied natural gas carrier
27,506
49,841
11,031
11,305
Total
Ships
CO2 emissions of the harbor in tons per year
80
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Traffic
Cargo handling,
Machinery
• Bulk cargo: a commodity cargo that is transported unpackaged
in large quantities
• Cargo ships: any sort of ship or vessel that carries cargo, goods,
and materials from one port to another
• Ro-ro: a name which is an acronym for Roll-on/roll-off. A ship or
vessel that is used to carry wheeled cargo
• Cruise ship: a passenger ship used for pleasure voyages, where
the voyage itself and the ship’s amenities are part of the experience, as well as the different destinations along the way
• Container ship: cargo ship that carries its load in truck-size intermodal containers, in a technique called containerization.
• Ferry: a form of transportation, usually a boat, but sometimes a
ship, used to carry primarily passengers, and sometimes vehicles
and cargo as well, across a body of water
Current situation and base-scenario
projection
Vuosaari Harbor is located on the northern shores of the Gulf of Finland, 14 kilometers east of the Helsinki center in the suburb of Vuosaari, a neighborhood populated by 40,000 inhabitants. The harbor
opened in November 2008 and concentrates freight operations that
have been formerly handled at the ports close to the city center (west
and north harbors). They have been transferred in order to give room
for building new residential areas. The Vuosaari project is the largest
investment ever in the port sector in Finland and created 7,000 jobs for
the region. The cost of the investment, including fairway and hinterland connections, totaled nearly €700 million.
Vuosaari Port, covering 240 ha, provides the basic harbor infrastructure, including quays, storage areas, roads, networks and lighting. The three terminal operators, Finnsteve, Steveco, and Multi-Link
Terminals, made the investments regarding their respective terminals
and run cargo handling equipment and systems.
Currently storage and terminal buildings cover an area of 140,000 sqm.
The port has an annual container turnover of 403,000 TEU. The port and
its logistics center have been designed to adapt to the growth and development of global trade. It has been designed in a long-term perspective
and has, due to economic development in the recent years, a considerably higher cargo volume capacity than being used at present.
More than 480,000 trucks and semi-trailers exchange their goods
per year. Seventy percent of these trucks will be identified to their respective gate automatically by ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition.
On 11 km of rail track length, an average of five trains per day enter the
port area, transporting a share of 10 % of the entire cargo of the port.
Vuosaari port has a high growth potential. Both ro-ro and container
handling require large areas for the storage of units. The infrastructure allows an estimated annual ro-ro handling capacity of between
700,000 and 800,000 trucks and trailers. The harbor is designed for
an annual container turnover of approximately 1.3 million TEUs. The
port will be capable of handling 10 million tons of cargo per year, with
ro-ro accounting for 60 % and containers 40 %. Hence, the volume can
be raised to the threefold amount of the current handling capacity and
only an increase in equipment will be necessary. In the future, the handling of ten trains and 4,000 vehicles is planned as well as the handling
of an estimated volume of 450,000 containers.
To improve its eco-friendliness, Vuosaari port has made various efforts. It has been rewarded with the ESPO award for environmental
friendly ports for its activities such as noise prevention by road and
railway tunnels and for providing basins for leaking containers. It has
closable rain water drains, odor elimination plants, and sewage connections in each berth. Also, Vuosaari port has the readiness to provide
facilities for connecting vessels to the land power system. To prevent
irritating the nearby living fauna, the port chose the technology for
illumination with minimal scattered luminance. In addition, the port
has established an elaborated system of environmental monitoring for
observing surface and groundwater, waterways and fish, bird life, and
plant life. When planning and building the port area, the use of sustainable construction material has been attended. Vuosaari port does
not only have high-quality architecture, it has also been taking care of
stripping down the former port areas in an eco-friendly manner and
cleaning and freeing them from harmful soil.
The port has a comprehensive energy-saving strategy and operates in accordance with the ISO 14001 Environmental Management
Standard. It attends the relevant environmental regulations and their
requirements for all port activities. The energy performance of lighting is measured, and the total traveling time at the port is low. Also,
the port administration prepares a port-wide set of CO2-emission and
energy-reduction targets. This set of measures has been communicated
to all the stakeholders of the port. Still, there is room for improvements
as this process, for energy optimization has not yet been set up as a
continuous improvement process but as a set of one-time measures
so far. Also, the port has not applied the tools from the ESPO. Also, the
port has derived and communicated CO2 goals, but it does not align
and plan its future investments accordingly. The findings and measures
are not consolidated in a sustainability report so far.
The port measures the energy consumption and has implemented a
review system to monitor the effect of the energy-efficiency measures
it has applied for lighting. The port managed to significantly decrease
its energy consumption in 2010, reducing 10 % on an annual level.
Yet, the energy consumption is not measured for other energy-consuming facilities, such as offices, storehouses, and road gate systems.
Thus, these areas of significant energy-saving potentials are not in the
scope. There is no review system to monitor the impact of the implemented energy measures.
Also, due to the fact that the terminal operator gate inside the port
area is operated manually, the process of trespassing is not efficient.
Also, only 10 % of the cargo is transported by train. There are no geo-
thermal heating or cooling systems installed and no continuous and
standardized process for energy optimization. CO2 emissions are not
thoroughly analyzed.
Over 40 % of the total purchased electricity is based on gas and 8 %
of the energy mix consists of renewables. The port solely uses conventional energy instead of wind, solar, biomass, or geothermal energy.
Also, the indirect emissions caused by the service providers are not in
the scope. It neither utilizes waste-to-energy systems nor energy efficiency guidelines when purchasing energy. The energy mix is based on
the supply from the city utility.
Lighting
The outdoor area of 260 ha is covered by luminaries (pylons), 80
of which are 40 m high pylons and 40 of which are 30 m high. Floodlights are installed at the top of each. On average, there are eight pieces
of floodlight on top of each pylon, one of which has two HID lamps
(1 pcs 600 W high pressure sodium lamp (NAV) and 1 pcs 400 W metal
halide lamp (HQI-T)) with a total consumption of around 3,4 MWh per
year. The lighting is controlled by a SCADA (Supervisory control and
Data Acquisition) system. Luminaries can be operated either manually
(via PC program or GSM) or automatically.
The eight halls of the maintenance area total 31 pieces of 1x49 W
T5 luminaries (Philips Idman 471 TMS) with ECGs. These are controlled
by manual switch on/off. The rooms are being used relatively rarely and
switching them off can be easily forgotten.
The double-docks VC1 and VC2 have light ramps on the each side
equipped with 300 luminaries of the type 2x58 W + CCG with T8 FL for
cold temperatures. The total power of the installation is 34.8 kW + CCG
losses. The ramps are switched on or off manually. At VC1, the luminaries
are operated approximately 100h/month and at VC2 approximately 150
h/month, which equals 21 MW per year at VC1 (12 month * 100 h/month
x 17.4 kWh) and 31 MW at VC2 (12 month * 150 h/month x 17.4 kWh).
Transport
The transport in Vuosaari Harbor is organized as follows: The trucks
enter the port through the entrance gate operated by the harbor administration, either by electronic or manual permission. At the entrance gate,
APNR cameras identify if a truck has permission to enter the port and, if so,
electronic signals will lead them in the right direction to the destination
terminal. If the truck had not been signed up for electronic processing,
it stops at the entrance and applies for trespassing at the harbor office.
The analysis of the port has provided promising results. Regarding
logistics, the Vuosaari port delivers good results. Several efficient facilities have been established, e.g. a fully automatic port area gate system.
Thus, the overall traveling time at the port is low. Via a tunnel system,
the port is well linked to the highway and, in case of traffic jams, the
trucks may switch to an alternative route. Still, the port also needs
some improvements, as the terminal gates are operated fully manually,
which causes delays in traffic and increased CO2 emissions. Also, there
is no parking guidance system for the trucks, and only 10 % of the cargo
is transported by train. The port vehicles are not driven electrically.
Regarding traffic, the port has to face several challenges. As the
number of roads in and out of harbor area is limited, these roads in and
out of the harbor area are often crowded. The expansion of capacity
close to large cities is expensive. Turnover must be as short as possible,
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
81
as the container storage area is limited within the harbor area. Since
road congestion is the bottleneck to all other harbor processes, the capacity of other transportation modes should be increased.
An optimized traffic concept will lead to an improved use of the harbor area due to fluent arrivals and departures of the trucks. It will also
solve the congestion problems around the harbor. It will create competitive advantage based on improved acceptance by truck operating
and shipping companies and thus lever the growth potential according
to future business.
Concerning the three terminals, run by three operators – Steveco,
Multilink and Finnsteve, they run ten container cranes situated on the
container quay at a length of 1.5 km. The container quay also provides
room for fifteen ro-ro berths, two double ramps and a service area for
heavy vehicles. The operators serve the port 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. The terminal operators Steveco and Multilink do not own any
buildings or premises while Finnsteve owns 3 terminals for a total of
55,000 sqm, of which 40,000 sqm belong to the port area.
To give a broad overview of the sustainability of Finnsteve’s operations, it is to say that regarding logistics and energy mix, Finnsteve operates very thoroughly. Yet regarding its energy consumption, and its
energy-saving strategy, Finnsteve could conduct some improvements.
Regarding logistics, Finnsteve has already installed a number of
measures to make its processes efficient, as it has equipped its gates
with automatic license plate recognition, automatic container number
recognition, and automatic radiation detection. The truck gates are
equipped with camera surveillance, and the terminal is connected to
rail. Still even if logistics are concerned, there is room for improvement
as the gates are neither equipped with automatic X-ray scanning, automatic weight recognition, nor with automatic driver recognition.
The terminal annually issues a reporting of its energy savings and CO2
emission reductions. It intends to adopt the ISO 14001 standard, and all
its stakeholders are informed about energy objectives and measures.
Still there is not a terminal-wide target to reduce CO2 emissions or
energy consumption yet. Also, there is no specific budget for environmental issues at present, and the CO2 footprint data is not verified by
an independent third party.
In terms of energy consumption, the Finnsteve terminal still needs
to improve its actions. Although it has installed continuous metering
82
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
equipment for electric drives (cranes) and uses a review system to monitor the impact of implemented energy efficiency measures, it has not
installed continuous metering equipment for lighting systems and controls. Also, the energy performance is not measured for single areas and
emissions are not included in calculations (In the future, fuel, electricity,
and heating consumption will be included).
The energy-saving potential of major facilities is known and Finnsteve runs very new and efficient facilities as its IT is only two years old
and its cranes only three. Yet, Finnsteve suffers from a lack of energyrecovery potentials as its energy management system is not connected
to the management execution system and no online monitoring system
for the energy efficiency and performance of buildings and equipment
is in use. Through adoption of a management execution system, the terminal can optimize operational efficiency and reduce its own emissions.
The terminal vehicles utilize preheating, which improves the emissions
during cold-climate conditions, especially when starting the engines.
For the optimization of its energy mix, Finnsteve has invested in
both the energy recovery technology for cranes and the cogeneration
(combined heat and power, CHP) of energy, which is used at the terminal. Of the total purchased electricity, 43 % is based on gas, while 8 %
of energy mix consists of renewables. Still, it would be reasonable to
follow an energy-efficiency guideline when purchasing energy. Unfortunately, this is not done as of today. The energy procurement is based
on the supply provided by the harbor.
Among the main challenges that ports have to face, goods and traffic management, within and outside the port area, ranks high. Cargo
handling, traffic control, and storage activities require optimal organization to reach a smooth and efficient management. Vuosaari Harbor has
implemented cutting-edge processes in that regard in order to optimize
environmental and economic efficiency. In terms of traffic management
within the port, a pattern-recognition system upon entry identifies vehicles permitted to enter the port area and allows for strict monitoring
of traffic. Access permits are also required to enter the different gates
located within the port. This traffic management system reduces operating expenses, optimizes safety and security, and increases throughput
capacity at the gates. Similarly, an efficient transportation network has
been designed outside the Vuosaari Harbor area. A motorway-type road,
with two lanes in both directions, leads to the main gate. When leaving
the port, the trucks are directly on the orbital road with its junctions to
the main highways, and the railroad track from the port is connected to
the main railroad network at Kerava (30 kilometers north of Helsinki).
From the port, wagons are combined into trains on the marshaling yard
outside the port area and sent straight to their destinations. This transport network improves both road and rail traffic, avoiding traffic jams
and bottlenecks and allows the minimization of transport risks.
Strategies and plans
Sustainable development has become a real concern for harbors, but
achievements vary widely among harbors. Vuosaari port has been committed to environmental initiatives, notably by issuing a report in 2009
entitled “Environmental responsibility and innovation” that provides an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) revealing the importance given to the environment in the decision-making process, and by getting
the environmental management standard ISO 14001 label. Although
the port has implemented numerous measures to reduce the environmental impact of its operations, some are of special importance and are
described in more detail below.
As revealed by “The ESPO/ecoports port environmental review
2009”, noise is the number one environmental priority for ports, especially for those that are located near living areas, like Vuosaari Harbor.
The necessity for noise mitigation has been moreover underlined by
the Environmental Noise Directive (END), issued by the European Union
in 2002. This directive aims at avoiding, preventing, or reducing on a
prioritized basis the harmful effects of noise, including annoyance, and
has several implications for agencies and institutions responsible for
the health and environmental management of port areas.
In order to mitigate and prevent any harmful consequences from
traffic noise, several measures have been implemented, such as tunneling the road and railway, speed reduction, and noise protection barriers. Concerning operation noise reduction, the port has been equipped
with new material designed to decrease noise and energy consumption.
Another kind of pollution likely to disturb the ecosystem of the Natura 2000 site (effects on birds and nocturnal species), and potentially
nearby inhabitants, is light pollution. To minimize the impact of ports’
outdoor lighting, a balanced combination of cold white and warm orange light was chosen for color rendering and safety. The port also set
up 40-meter mast lights with efficient glare shields and stray light limits
that were tested in the field and with measurements in order to minimize the amount of stray light on the recreational and conservation
areas. Moreover, a light control system directs the harbor lights with the
MicroSCADA system, optimizing lighting and electricity consumption.
All berths in the harbor have reception facilities for black and grey
water and are equipped with connections to the sewer system. Thus,
cargo ships are able to empty their sewage into the Helsinki city sewer network to be cleaned.
Levers and recommendations
to reduce CO2 emissions
The following chapter will give an overview of the levers and recommendations to improve the efficiency and sustainability of the
Vuosaari port. First, key levers and recommendations related to
building technologies improvements will be presented, followed
by the findings regarding lighting and transport improvements.
Lighting
Harbor Lighting
Impact:
80 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Reduced operating cost
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Medium - Easy
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Concept defined by City Study Workshops
Starting from the BAU situation, several measures can be applied in order to improve the energy consumption of the port.
Regarding the outdoor lighting in the area, a combination of
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
83
two HPD lamps is strongly recommended as HPD lamps provide up
to 150 lm/W, which is much more than the most powerful outdoor
LED luminaries can provide, which is only up to 50 lm/W.
The main potential is in the harbor warehouses, although lighting is rarely used. If the lights are turned on and off only when
needed, the annual consumption is about 4.4 MW. If the lights are
forgotten to be switched off and left on, the annual consumption
is about 106 MW. The transformer and maintenance halls consume
roughly between 4.4 – 106 MW. Adding a motion sensor would
save approximately up to 96 % of the energy consumed, although
the evaluation of the maintenance halls was quite inaccurate, because lighting is controlled manually.
Dock C requires about 52 MW (21 MW + 31 MW). By adding
motion sensors, combined with daylight detection, up to 50-70 %
savings can be achieved. Furthermore, if T8 lamps are substituted
with OSRAM LED, up to 80 % of the currently consumed energy can
be saved.
The indoor lighting in the offices and buildings is already optimal. The luminaries are modern ECG luminaries with T5 FL and CFL
light sources. There are currently no measures for improvement. As
the lighting control system is already optimal, it does not need to
be improved.
E-Cars for harbor cars
Impact:
18 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
Reduction of other air pollutants
at the harbor
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Medium
Cost:
Medium
Source of lever:
Concept defined by City Study Workshops
Transport
The main levers for improving the transport to and within Vuosaari port
are firstly, to optimize traffic flow to and from the port, secondly, to
optimize waiting times at the gates, and thirdly, to optimize travel time
to the port area.
The truck traffic from the cargo harbors linked to the highway network produces traffic jams. These traffic jams, on the one hand, can be
reduced and avoided by optimizing the traffic flow through dynamic
routing, highway telematic systems, and providing dynamic information to the navigation systems.
Location of traffic light with special signal plan
Transport
Gate handling fee for manual ticketing
Impact:
Emissions caused by harbour office
1%
4 tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
More efficient harbor operations
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Easy
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Concept defined by City Study Workshops
Truck driving
at harbour
47 %
Combination of gates
Impact:
860,tons CO2 per year
Additional impact:
More efficient harbor operations
Implementation timeframe:
Short term (within 5 years)
Ease of Implementation:
Easy
Cost:
Low
Source of lever:
Concept defined by City Study Workshops
84
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Truck-related CO2 emissions at the harbor
Trucks stopping
at second gate
53 %
-28%
3200
Total
Automatic number
plate recognition
Variable
message sign
Traffic lights
867
One automatic
gate system
9
18
2306
Fee for manual
ticketing
Use e-cars
CO2 left
CO2-abatement potential from truck-related harbor traffic
Intelligent traffic management at the harbor
Automatic number
plate recognition
Additionally, an interface to radio stations, variable message signs,
and the expansion of the current rail capacity would reduce congested
traffic, although the latter requires long-term effort
The harbor causes CO2 emissions of 3 217,600 kg per year in total,
of which 1 700,000 kg per year are emitted due to trucks having to stop
at the manually operated gates, and 1 500,000 kg per year result from
the trucks driving in the harbor area.
Taking a closer look at the gates, there is potential for improvement.
First, it is to differ between the entrance gates and the operator gates.
The entrance gate to the harbor is operated fully automatically. Thus,
only a few truck drivers who do not have permits have to enter the
harbor office by foot. On the other hand, the operator gates are run
manually leading to a high amount of CO2 emissions. due to running
engines while waiting for entrance permission.
One possible option to reduce CO2 emissions is to combine the entrance gate and the operator gates. The combination of the two types
of gates will save two to four stops per vehicle and can lead to a CO2
eduction of more than 860,000 kg per year if we take the following assumptions into account:
Variable
message sign
Gate combination map
CO2 emission due to trucks
Trucks per day
days per year
stops per vehicle
CO2 emission due to harbor office
2,000
2,000
7
7
365
365
365
365
4-8 (average of 6)
6
3
km per truck on harbor area
6
fuel per stop or km (in liters)
0.15
0.26
0.03
0.045
CO2 per liter (in kg)
2.64
2.64
2.4
2.4
1 700,000
1 500,000
1,100
16,500
CO2 emission per year
Table 16: Truck-related CO2 emissions
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
85
Examples from other harbors
Hamburg, Portsmouth
Less noise and emissions
The Port of Hamburg
Regarding efficient transport solutions, the Port of Hamburg serves as
a good example in having reduced CO2 emissions by having improved
the traffic flow.
The Port of Hamburg has implemented a unique geothermal railway point heating system, ensuring safe and reliable winter services
for the port railway. To protect residents, noise mitigation measures are
promoted.
At Container Terminal Altenwerder, the Port of Hamburg started a
pilot test with the manufacturer of AGVs (Automated Guided Vehicle)
of a zero emission, battery-powered vehicle. The AGVs are locally emission free, need almost no oil, and are reliable and quiet. The battery
packs are equipped with 360 cells, a volume of 3.5 m³ and 12 h operating capability.
Model of automated guided vehicle
The Port of Portsmouth
The Port of Portsmouth has implemented several measures for improving their energy efficiency. In this regard, they wanted to install a heat
pump system, as the sea is at a relatively constant temperature and,
therefore, provides an efficient “source” for heating and cooling over
the year. The installation includes a dockside plant room with first stage
heat exchangers. The main plant room contains the heat pumps
and associate control equipment. The system performance is now being monitored.
The current system’s “coefficient of performance” equals about
4 i.e. 1 kW of electricity consumed yields 4 kW of heating or cooling.
Still, the Port of Portsmouth is equipped with back-up boilers for
extreme winter conditions.
Heat pump at the Port of Portsmouth
86
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Efficiency at the gates can be further improved by charging a fee
for manual ticketing. Experience shows a significant amount of truck
drivers will shift to electronic ticketing to avoid an increase in cost
subject to the fee. This will save approximately 3 stops per truck,
switching to e-ticketing, per day and lead to a CO2 reduction of more
than 8,600 kg per year
Trucks per day:
2000
Days per year:
365
Saved stops per vehicle:
Fuel per stop (in liters):
CO2 per liters (in kg):
Saved CO2 emission per year:
2-4 (average of 3)
0.15
2.64
860,000 kg
Table 17: Gate combination data
Trucks having switched to e-ticketing per day:
Days per year:
Saved stops per vehicle:
Conclusion
The Vuosaari port has established a comprehensive set of sustainable measures to improve its eco-friendliness and harness our resources.
Especially in the fields of logistics, as well as its energy-saving strategy,
and accordingly its energy mix, the port has realized significant efforts
on its way to a green port, whereas regarding the energy consumption,
improvements are still possible.
By applying the above recommended measures, Vuosaari port will
be able to reduce its CO2 emissions by approximately 2 %, saving an
amount of approximately 1,060 tons of CO2 per year.
10
365
2-4 (average of 3)
Fuel per stop (in liters):
0.15
CO2 per liters (in kg):
2.64
Saved CO2 emission per year:
Also, if the harbor administration would switch from conventional
cars to e-vehicles and the harbor operator purchases eco-friendly CO2free electricity, CO2 emissions of 16,000 kg per year can be saved.
49.841
-4%
27.506
22.335
84
890
4,300 kg
Table 18: E-ticketing lever data
The waiting time at the gates is caused by the slow processing of relevant information for the truck driver, i.e. which terminal to go to, which
slot to unload at, etc. If an automatic system identifies each truck and variable message signs show the right way, in combination with only a few
traffic lights, waiting time at the gates would be decreased significantly.
Furthermore, connecting the harbor with a light rail or metro system, in addition to a relocation of the passenger ferries, would lead to
complementary CO2 savings due to reduced individual traffic between
the harbor and city and, thus, reduced congestion in the city center.
Therefore, the harbor must be connected with the metro today ending
a few kilometers before the harbor area.
21.361
Total CO2
Ships
Baseline in
Scope
Lighting
Transport
Optimized
baseline
Overall saving potential at Vuosaari Harbor
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
87
88
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Financing and funding
The development of ecologically sustainable
infrastructure requires investments by the
private sector. Technology plays an important
role in promoting sustainability in cities.
New funding models and alternatives are
needed, as well as investments in technology
and funding for clean technology.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
89
Financing and funding
O
ne in two people worldwide currently lives in a city, a trend which is
only expected to become more pronounced with recent forecasts
predicting two billion new city dwellers by the year 2030 and roughly 60
percent of the world’s population living in urban environments. Already
responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions, it’s hardly
surprising that urban centers will increasingly be responsible for the rising demand for energy and resources around the world.
Coping with the demands of an ever-increasing population, however, puts tremendous strain on the infrastructure of these cities. They
are, therefore, under intense pressure to invest in both improving basic
infrastructure, including energy, water, and transport, and enable better living standards to sustain their economic competitiveness. While
mature markets in the west, such as the US and the Nordic Countries,
are channeling investments into rebuilding and modernization efforts
of their existing infrastructure, countries like China and India are investing heavily in new infrastructure to fuel their economic growth.
The question is: who will bear these costs? While governments
and public-sector entities remain the main drivers behind infrastructure growth, there is a clear recognition of the needs for private-sector
participation to pull off this feat. This could explain the surge in public
private partnership (PPP) deals worldwide; about 224 PPP deals worth
$75.3 billion were closed in 2010, according to Dealogic Projectware,
in comparison with 179 deals worth $56 billion in 2009 – a rise of more
than 30 percent. “Stable demand is an important pre-requisite for the
success of PPP models”, says Roland Chalons-Browne, CEO of Siemens
Financial Services. “Given the long service life of infrastructure investments, which in many cases exceeds 10 years, investors expect a reliable long-range planning of demand for the relevant infrastructure.
Such a secure demand base exists, for example, in energy and water
supplies as well as in the case of transportation infrastructure.”
Conclusively, private investments have received a boost from the
fact that infrastructure, traditionally not considered a mature investment class, is steadily and increasingly finding favor among investors.
In a recent survey by Deloitte, fund managers across Europe pointed to
the emergence of infrastructure as a separate and distinct asset class
within the alternative investment space. The survey also found evidence backing this claim: over the last 12 months, private-sector investments in infrastructure assets in Europe alone totaled over €20 billion.
Emerging economies, with their astounding urban growth and
strong economic performance, are attracting strong investor interests
in this area. India is a prime example. The country’s urban population
90
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
is expected to balloon to 590 million, or nearly twice the current population of the United States by 2030. Helped by government plans to
encourage private investments, the country accounted for more than
one-fifth of the global project finance volumes, or about $81.4 billion,
last year, as per the Dealogic Global Project Finance Review for 2010.
This was the highest project finance volume for any country.
In mature markets too, there is a growing realization that any plans
for sustainable infrastructure development will have to include private
sector players. Take the City of New York’s plans to improve its infrastructure as an example. Recognizing the challenges posed by its growing population and its ailing infrastructure, the city adopted PlaNYC
2030, a comprehensive plan for infrastructure development and driving down its GHG emissions. As part of this plan, New York is working
towards providing improved infrastructure, including transportation,
waterways, housing and solid waste disposal mechanisms, and reducing its emissions by more than 30 percent by 2030. The plan envisages
a strong role for the private sector in achieving its objectives, offering
regulatory support in return to potential and existing investors. PlaNYC
2030 can be considered ambitious, yet it serves as a prime example
for municipal efforts all around the globe. Helsinki, for example, is on
an equally aspiring timeline aiming at a reduction of CO2 emissions in
the metropolitan area by 30 % until 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
Although different in size and location, Helsinki is facing similar challenges, going through a major process of renewal as former industrial
and harbor areas are being transformed for new uses.
All these developments and efforts towards creating sustainable cities will further increase the need for private-sector financing. However,
investors will have to be nimble in order to tap this opportunity. Different markets and evolving infrastructure needs will require that they do
business in a more innovative way than before. For instance, investors
may have to change the structure of projects or develop new funding
models and financing options, such as technology investments, especially clean technology financing. From reducing traffic congestion to
implementing alternative fuel technologies for mass usage, and from
promoting the adoption of electric vehicles to devising efficient waste
disposal systems, technology will play a pivotal role in realizing sustainable cities around the world. “Investing in technology will not merely
offer another avenue for investors to participate in the urbanization
opportunity but will also enable them to route efficiency gains made
from technology towards financing infrastructure projects”, says Roland Chalons-Browne. In fact, suitable solutions for infrastructural chal-
lenges lead to mutual benefit for both municipality and investor; like it
was the case with the Kulturforum Potsdamer Platz in Berlin: The Neue
Nationalgalerie (New National Gallery) and six other internationally renowned buildings, all dating back from the 1960s, were in urgent need
of modernizing their technical equipment. But no funds had been allotted for this in the mid-term. However, Siemens’ Financial Services (SFS)
unit was able to offer a financing model of energy-saving performance
contracting to finance the needed investments without impacting the
budget. With this approach, Siemens was not only able to take the pressure of the public funds, but to enhance the building’s energy efficiency
in a way the investments amortize from guaranteed energy and operating cost savings in due time.
SFS does not only provide financial solutions for the public sector
but also for companies focusing on investment challenges, like the
example of the Finnish Talvivaara Mining Company Plc. demonstrates.
The internationally significant base metal producer placed several orders to Siemens e.g. for the supply and installation of substations and
transformers that were financed by SFS. Additionally, SFS financed part
of a conveyor project delivered by Siemens´ reseller to Talvivaara. With
the help of facility-financing options as leasing, the company was able
to obtain the capital needed. In addition to calculable monthly payments, adjustments to operational requirements can be assured and an
unnecessary tie-up of capital in facilities avoided.
As with these examples, Siemens Financial Services implements its
knowledge of key Siemens’ markets, such as energy to provide financing solutions for diverse needs. Capital provided can range from earlystage development capital to construction/term debt. Its portfolio of
efficient financing solutions, including loans and leases, working capital, project finance and equity, is aimed at supporting companies and
institutions to meet their overall capital requirements.
Additionally, the European Investment Bank (EIB), for example, is an
institution of the European Union, which provides long-term lending.
Its task is to contribute towards the integration and balanced development as well as the economic and social cohesion of the EU Member
States by making long-term financing available for sound investments.
The EIB pursues priority objectives like environmental sustainability or
sustainable, competitive, and secure energy supplies. According to EIB,
the bank provided loans for nine projects in Finland, totaling €1bn in
2010 – with industry, transport, and energy accounting for more than
two-thirds of the total amount. One of the EIB’s activities in industry in
Finland, in 2010, was emissions reduction in Rautaruukki. But transport
projects were also represented - the Vantaa airport railway line can be
mentioned here. When it comes to the energy sector, the EIB supported
the innovative Lahti Energia waste-to-energy plant.
Besides financing, cities – or generally public and private infrastructure investors – have the opportunity to apply for funding. The EU provides funding and grants for a broad range of projects and programs.
According to the European Commission, the Structural Funds and the
Cohesion Fund are financial instruments to implement the Regional policy of the European Union. Their goal is to reduce regional disparities in
terms of income, wealth, and opportunities. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) are the two
elements of the Structural Funds. The current programming period still
runs until December 31. 2013. The overall budget for this period, since
January 1. 2007, is €347bn - thereof €201bn for the European Regional
Development Fund, €76bn for the European Social Fund, and €70bn
for the Cohesion Fund. When applying for these funds, three objectives
for the current programming period need to be considered: convergence objective, regional competitiveness, and employment objective
as well as territorial cooperation objective. The ERDF, for example, supports programs addressing regional development, economic change,
enhanced competitiveness, and territorial co-operation throughout the
EU. Environmental protection is one of the funding priorities.
The question is this: how can these funds be accessed? In general, the overarching priorities for the Structural Funds are set at the
EU level and then transformed into national priorities by the member
states and regions. At the EU level, the overarching priorities are established in the Community Strategic Guidelines (CSG). These set the
framework for all actions that can be taken using the funds. Within this
framework, each member state develops its own National Strategic
Reference Framework (NSRF). The NSRF sets out the priorities for the
respective member state, taking specific national policies into account.
Finally, Operational Programs for each region within the member state
are drawn up in accordance with the respective NSRF, reflecting the
needs of individual regions. There exist several Operational Programs
2007-2013 for Finland - Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western Finland
and the Åland Islands operational programs can be mentioned here,
as well as the Central Baltic or the Baltic Sea Region Program with a
transnational and inter-regional focus. One project example from the
transport field was “Bringing Helsinki closer to Saint Petersburg”, which
supported a direct line connecting Helsinki, Kerava and Lahti as an integral part of the Trans-European Transport Network.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
91
92
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Data collection & estimation
of current energy usage
94
CO2 footprint
94
Calculation of base and
optimized scenarios
95
Calculation of
implementation concepts
97
Methodology
The approach of the report contains information
collection and estimate of energy consumption,
carbon dioxide foot print, basic scenarios and
optimum scenarios, as well as the calculations
for implementation models. The methods used to
create the calculations are explained in this section.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
93
Methodology
T
his chapter explains the methodology and approach used for producing the calculations in this report. The project consisted of the
following steps:
• 1. Data collection and estimation of current energy usage in the
four assessed infrastructure areas and within Vuosaari Harbor;
• 2. Calculation of the CO2 footprints of the infrastructure areas
based on the results of step 1;
• 3. Identification and assessment of 26 different emission reduction levers in workshops and interviews together with over 30
representatives from various City of Helsinki and regional departments and Helsingin Energia, and by Siemens and participating
Aalto university representatives;
• 4. Calculation of the emission-reduction impact of each lever and
assessment of related investment cost levels and potential implementation schedules;
• 5. Grouping levers into base levers (whose implementation is
certain or which are known to be implemented with a very high
degree of certainty) and extra levers (whose implementation has
not yet been decided / which are new concepts);
Calculation of the base and optimized scenario based on the breakdown between base and extra levers.
Data collection and estimation
of current energy usage
The first phase entailed collecting data from public sources (City of Helsinki, Finnish and EU statistics and reports) in order to build a model of
the current energy usage and emissions of the different infrastructure
areas of Helsinki.
Of the four infrastructure areas, buildings, energy distribution, and
traffic were considered as sources of energy consumption. Transport
and street lighting were studied on a regional scope due to the operating structure of Helsinki Region Transport, whereas other infrastructure
areas were analyzed focusing only on Helsinki. The energy supply was
studied on two different levels: heating at the city level, as heat consumed in Helsinki has to be produced locally, and electricity at the national level, as the Finnish electricity market is open, and consumers can
94
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
freely choose their providers from throughout the country. Additionally,
various other data required for further calculations were also collected,
e.g. population figures, the carbon intensity of different fuels, traveled
kilometers per type of transportation within the Helsinki region, etc.
After the collection process, an analysis toolkit was used to calculate
and deduce the current energy consumption levels of the analyzed infrastructure areas based on the assembled data and statistics.
CO2 footprint
The CO2 emissions of the four infrastructure areas were deduced from
the energy consumption results calculated in step 1. The calculation
process is based on using the CO2 intensity of the different kinds of
fuels and sources of electricity as well as the kinds of technologies used
for energy production in each infrastructure area.
Different parameters and approaches were considered and used
throughout this calculation process.
For example, in order to take into account the CHP technology used
for heat production, a factor of 0.4 is applied to heating emissions in
order to integrate the efficiency of producing heat and electricity at the
same time. This factor is a generally accepted calculation based on the
European standard EN 15316-4-5:2007, which is also applied by Helen.
The CO2 emissions from electricity usage have been deduced by using
the national electricity mix CO2 intensity. Concerning electrically powered public transportation, the CO2 intensity of electricity was taken
from the specific provider.
As a detailed example from the calculation of transport emissions,
the calculation of car emissions is explained in the following:
Burning diesel or gasoline causes carbon dioxide, CO2, and water
vapor, when the burning process is complete. Carbon monoxide, CO,
which is caused by an incomplete burning process, also converts into
CO2 after a short time of its production. Carbon dioxide has no effects
on health, but it’s a major cause of climate change. Currently, there is
no technology for removing carbon dioxide from exhaust gases. The
amount of CO2 produced is directly connected to the amount of fuel
consumed. One liter of gasoline causes 2,350 grams of carbon dioxide, and one liter of diesel causes 2,660 grams of carbon dioxide. Some
properties for diesel, gasoline and natural gas are shown in table 19.
Energy
content
(kWh / l)
Density
(kg / l)
Carbon
intensity
(kg CO2 / kg fuel)
Bensin
8.96
0.75
3.17
Diesel
10.05
0.845
3.15
10
0.723
2.71
Gas
the sources of the lever impact calculations are shown in a separate table.
In the identification of levers in interviews and workshops, there
were three categories of levers. The origin of the lever is either a regulatory requirement, which needs to be implemented in due time, or a
lever already included in the City Development plan, which is already
planned in the city future activities to be implemented, or the lever was
identified during the work in this study.
Table 19: Properties of diesel, gasoline, and natural gas (liquid form)
Energy content [kWh / l], density [kg / l], and carbon intensity [kg
CO2 / kg fuel] are constants for each fuel type and characteristic properties for those fuels. Characteristic properties for fuels can be found in
literature, and based on those characteristics, energy contents and CO2
emissions can be easily calculated, if the amounts of fuels consumed
are known. The bio-shares of fuels have been omitted from their CO2
emissions.
Here is an example of calculating the CO2 emissions of a diesel car in
2009:
Diesel cars consumed a total of 80 607,428 liters of diesel, and diesel contained 2.78 % bio-based components during 2009. The energy
content of diesel is 10.05 [kWh/l], density 0.845 [kg / l], and carbon
intensity 3.15 [kg CO2 / kg fuel].
Energy consumption =
10.05 kWh/l * 80 607,428 l = 810 104,651 kWh = 0.81 TWh
CO2 [kg] =
(1 – 0.0278) * 80 607,428 l * 0.845 kg/l * 3.15 kg CO2 / kg =
208 592,142 kg, ie. 209,000 tons
Calculation of base and
optimized scenarios
The calculation methodology of the base and optimized scenarios
is explained below. Lever-by-lever emission reduction impacts and
To calculate the base scenario, the following steps were taken:
1. First, the current emission level of 2.9 Mt of CO2 in 2010 was
extrapolated to 2030 based on the historical emission growth
rate of 0.8 % p.a. during 2000-2010.
- This historical growth-rate-based method was used for all
consumption areas except transportation, where a more
accurate bottom-up estimation model was applied.
This model was also used in the related Aalto University
master’s thesis.
2. After this, the total reduction impact of base levers (i.e. the levers
that have already been decided to be implemented and / or that
can be estimated to be implemented with a high degree of
certainty) was calculated.
3. The base scenario for 2030 emissions was calculated by subtracting the total impact of base levers from the baseline calculated in
step 1. This subtraction results in an estimate of 2.5 Mt of CO2
emissions in 2030 in the base scenario.
- The reduction impacts of improvements in energy production
are accounted for by dividing their total impact between different consumption areas (residential and commercial buildings
and transport) according to the different areas’ respective
weights. This implies that only the improvements in energy
production carried out in Helsinki are accounted for, as energy
production improvements elsewhere in Finland are outside the
scope of this report
The optimized scenario was, thereafter, calculated by subtracting
the impact of all extra levers (total extra impact) from the base scenario’s estimate of 2030 emissions. This subtraction results in an estimate
of 1.1 Mt of CO2 emissions in 2030 in the optimized scenario.
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
95
Lever
Base
impact
(Mt CO2)
Extra
impact
(Mt CO2)
Calculation methodology
/ source
Heating optimization in residential and
commercial buildings
404,700
165,300
Lighting optimization in residential and
commercial buildings
148,112
64,163
32,300
0
Potential estimated using Siemens Toolkit based on benchmarks from a pool of
European cities
Hot water optimization
0
114,000
Potential estimated using Siemens Toolkit based on benchmarks from a pool of
European cities
Weather Forecast
0
12,070
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert
Customer feedback
0
17,600
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on estimated
impact of 5 % reduction in electricity consumption
Energy efficient transformers: Replacement of standard transformers
0
8,900
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert
Demand response
0
2,900
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on assumptions
that consumption can be covered by zero-emission electricity production
4,170
37,530
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on estimation of
average power consumption of ships at berth and estimation of replacement of fuel
power with grid power
Prepaid energy
0
5,300
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on assumptions
about adoption of prepaid energy and estimated reduction in consumption
Home automation
0
12,300
Wind power
(2 offshore farms – 560 MW)
0
132,000
Estimated by Aalto University M.Sc. Eng. thesis worker
120,000
100,000
Estimated by Aalto University M.Sc. Eng. thesis worker
Combination of gates
0
860
E-Cars for harbor cars
0
18
Gate handling fee for manual ticketing
0
4
Energy Efficient Appliances
Ship-to-shore connection
Combination of scenarios
1 and 2 plus 20 % of syngas
Top-down estimate based on analysis of new construction standards and heating
efficiency of existing Helsinki building stock
Top-down estimate based on analysis of the impact of the EU EcoDesign directive and
estimates of LED technology penetration speed
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on reduction
in consumption through higher automation level in control of energy usage and
assumptions on adoption level
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on amount of
trucks per day and reduction of stops by trucks at gates within harbor area
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on estimation of
traveled kilometers by harbor cars and reduction of stops in harbor area and reduction
in fuel consumption
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on estimated
reduction of stops at gate for trucks with manual ticketing
0
80
6,400
0
Estimated by Aalto University M.Sc. Eng. thesis worker
E-Mobility (20 % of bio-fuels in fuel mix
in base scenario, 100 % of electric car in
penetration in optimized scenario)
0
591,000
Estimated by Aalto University M.Sc. Eng. thesis worker
Rail Infrastructure Projects – Short term
0
0
Estimated by Aalto University M.Sc. Eng. thesis worker
Rail Infrastructure Projects – Long term
0
5,445
Estimated by Aalto University M.Sc. Eng. thesis worker
Congestion Charging
0
126,000
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on assumption that 21 %
of emissions from personal vehicle transportation would be reduced by 2017
Traffic management for the city
0
10,400
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on improved traffic
flow and reduction on stops and emissions during stops in traffic
Traffic management for arriving and
departing ferry passengers
0
1,400
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on improved traffic
flow and estimation of number of cars and reduction in stops in traffic
Braking energy recovery in the metro
system
0
1,060
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert
Bus priority and P&R system
0
2,000
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert – Based on estimated
reduction in traveled personal vehicle kilometers due to improved public transport
service
Harbor Lighting
Street Lighting – Long term
Total
96
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
715,682
1 410,330
Potential estimated by Siemens technology / sector expert
Calculation of
implementation concepts
The impacts of the implementation concepts in terms of energy reduction and CO2 reduction calculated throughout this report for different technologies have been carried out by Siemens’ experts in their related field of expertise. The calculations were made through internally
developed toolkits, based on statistical data on Helsinki city, provided
by the first energy analysis phase or by the city departments, and internal technical figures. The levers were identified thanks to the analysis
carried out by Aalto University and the workshops organized with the
different city departments. The prioritization of the levers was also defined during these workshops, from which some have been selected as
implementation concepts.
Net impact of already decided improvements
Potential to reduce annual CO2 emissions
by 63 % by 2030
0,4
3,5
0,3
3,0
0,2
0,3
0,3
2,6
2,5
0,1
1,4
2,0
0,0
1,5
-0,1
-0,4
-0,2
-0,3
1,2
1,0
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,5
-0,4
-0,5
3,0
Emissions by 2030
(estimated using
historical growth
rate)
Impact of already
decided measures
Net impact for
base scenario
0,0
2010
2030
Base scenario
Extra levers
2030
Optimized scenario
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
97
98
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
List of levers
100
Data sheet
101
Sources
104
Appendix
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
99
Appendix
List of levers
Infra
Lever
Impact
Schedule
Ease of
implementation
Cost
% of impact in scenario
CO2 (t)
Long (2030) /
Short(2015)
(1 = easy,
5 = difficult)
High /
Medium /
Low
Base
scenario
Optimized
scenario
Buildings
Heating optimization in residential and
commercial buildings
570,000
L
3
H
71 %
29 %
Buildings
Lighting optimization in residential and
commercial buildings
212,275
S
5
L
70 %
30 %
32,300
S
4
M
100 %
0%
114,000
L
3
M
0%
100 %
Buildings
Energy-Efficient Appliances
Buildings
Hot water optimization
Buildings
Weather Forecast
12,070
S
5
L
0%
100 %
Distribution
Customer feedback
17,600
S
4
L
0%
100 %
Distribution
Energy-efficient transformers: Replacement
of standard transformers
8,900
S
3
L
0%
100 %
Distribution
Demand response
2,900
S
2
M
0%
100 %
Distribution
Ship-to-shore connection
41,700
S
3
H
10 %
90 %
Distribution
Prepaid energy
5,300
S
1
L
0%
100 %
Distribution
Home automation
12,300
S
2
H
0%
100 %
Energy Supply
Wind power (2 offshore farms – 560 MW)
132,000
S
2
H
0%
100 %
Energy Supply
Combination of scenarios 1 and 2
plus 20 % of syngas
220,000
L
3
H
43 %
57 %
Harbor
Combination of gates
860
S
5
L
0%
100 %
Harbor
E-Cars for harbor cars
18
S
3
M
0%
100 %
Harbor
Gate handling fee for manual ticketing
4
S
5
L
0%
100 %
Harbor
Harbor Lighting
80
S
3
L
0%
100 %
Transport
Street Lighting – Long term
6,400
L
5
M
100 %
0%
Transport
E-Mobility (20 % of bio-fuels in fuel mix
in base scenario, 100 % of electric car in
penetration in optimized scenario)
591,000
L
1
H
21 %
79 %
Transport
Rail Infrastructure Projects –
Short term
0
S
4
H
100 %
0%
Transport
Rail Infrastructure Projects –
Long term
16,500
L
4
H
67 %
33 %
126,000
S
1
M
0%
100 %
10,400
S
3
M
0%
100 %
Transport
Congestion Charging
Transport
Traffic management for the city
Transport
Traffic management for arriving and departing ferry passengers
1,400
L
3
L
0%
100 %
Transport
Braking energy recovery in the metro
system
1,060
S
5
L
0%
100 %
Transport
Bus priority and P&R system
2,000
S
4
L
0%
100 %
100
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Data sheet
General
Variable
City Population
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Helsinki
2010
Growth rate
Units
588,549
0.9 %/a
61.85
3 %/a
Source
Inhabitants
Helsinki statistics center
€bn
Helsinki statistics center
Energy consumption
Variable
2010
Buildings
Transport (incl. street lighting)
Total
2030
Base scenario
Units
Source
12
11.8
TWh
Helsinki statistics center , Siemens/Aalto University
4
5.2
TWh
Helsinki environmental statistics , Siemens/Aalto University
16
17.0
TWh
Greenhouse gases
Variable
2010
2030
Base scenario
Units
Source
Buildings
1.9
1.60
Mt CO2
Helsinki statistics center , Siemens/Aalto University
Transport (incl. street lighting)
1.0
1.0
Mt CO2
Helsinki environmental statistics , Siemens/Aalto University
Total
2.9
3.4
Mt CO2
Buildings
Variable
2010
Emissions total
1.9
Commercial & administrative
Residential
Variable
Floor space total
2030
Base scenario
2.2
Units
Mt CO2
Source
Helsinki statistics center, Siemens/Aalto University
1
0.7
Mt CO2
Helsinki statistics center, Siemens/Aalto University
0.9
0.9
Mt CO2
Helsinki statistics center, Siemens/Aalto University
2010
Growth rate
38 952,037
Units
m
2
Source
Helsinki statistics center, Siemens/Aalto University
Commercial & administrative
12 299,423
0.6 %/a
m2
Helsinki statistics center, Siemens/Aalto University
Residential
26 652,614
0.9 %/a
m2
Helsinki statistics center, Siemens/Aalto University
Heating degree days
4,376
Degree days
Finnish Meteorological Institute
Cooling degree days
16
Degree days
Estimated, Siemens/Aalto University
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
101
Transport
Variable
Emissions total
Cars
2010
2030 Base scenario
1.0
Tram
1.0
Source
Mt CO2
0.59
0.63
Mt CO2
VTT Technical Research Centre, Siemens/Aalto University
0
0
Mt CO2
Helsinki environmental statistics , Siemens/Aalto University
0.32
0.31
Mt CO2
VTT Technical Research Centre, Siemens/Aalto University
0.006
0.003
Mt CO2
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Rail
Road Freight
Units
Commuter train
0
0
Mt CO2
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Bus gas
0.009
0.00
Mt CO2
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Metro
0.009
0.005
Mt CO2
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Energy consumption
per passenger km
kWh / passenger /km Siemens/Aalto university
Buses
0.33
kWh /
passenger /km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Cars
0.37
kkWh /
passenger /km
Helsinki environmental statistics, Siemens/Aalto University
Tram
0.24
kWh /
passenger /km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Commuter train
0.23
kWh /
passenger /km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Trolley bus
0.52
kWh /
passenger /km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
0.1
kWh /
passenger /km
HSL Public transport unit reports, iemens/Aalto university
Metro
Total passenger or
freight kilometers
11,497.6
Traveled passenger km
growth rate
Million
passenger km
Siemens/Aalto university
Buses
1,008.6
-0.069 %/a
Million
passenger km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Cars
6,038.6
1.3 %/a
Million
passenger km
Helsinki environmental statistics, Siemens/Aalto University
22.8
-7.97 %/a
Million
freight km
Helsinki environmental statistics, Siemens/Aalto University
3,405.6
0.79 %/a
Million
freight km
Helsinki environmental statistics, Siemens/Aalto University
114.2
-0.6 %/a
Million
passenger km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Commuter train
402
4.46 %/a
Million
passenger km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Trolley bus
87.7
-0.07 %/a
Million
passenger km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
418.2
0.54 %/a
Million
passenger km
HSL Public transport unit reports, Siemens/Aalto university
Rail
Road Freight
Tram
Metro
102
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Energy supply
Carbon intensity of energy generation
Coal
2010 Units
Source
0.35
kg CO2 / kWh
Official statistics of Finland, Siemens/Aalto university
Gas
0.2
kg CO2 / kWh
Official statistics of Finland, Siemens/Aalto university
Oil
0.29
kg CO2 / kWh
Official statistics of Finland, Siemens/Aalto university
Nuclear
0
kg CO2 / kWh
Official statistics of Finland, Siemens/Aalto university
Renewables
0
kg CO2 / kWh
Official statistics of Finland, Siemens/Aalto university
0.22
kg CO2 / kWh
Official statistics of Finland, Siemens/Aalto university
Bensin
0.235
kg CO2 / kWh
Lipasto traffic emissions, Siemens/Aalto university
Diesel
0.266
kg CO2 / kWh
Lipasto traffic emissions, Siemens/Aalto university
Electricity
Electricity share of generation
Variable
2010
Unit
Coal
18.5
%
Gas
14.2
%
Finnish energy industry, Siemens/Aalto university
Oil
0.7
%
Finnish energy industry, Siemens/Aalto university
31.4
%
Finnish energy industry, Siemens/Aalto university
Renewables
Peat
Nuclear
Source
Finnish energy industry, Siemens/Aalto university
6.8
%
Finnish energy industry, Siemens/Aalto university
28.4
%
Finnish energy industry, Siemens/Aalto university
2010
Unit
Heat generated (within the city)
Variable
Source
Coal
3
TWh
Helsinki environmental statistics, Siemens/Aalto university
Gas
4
TWh
Helsinki environmental statistics, Siemens/Aalto university
Oil
Renewables
Total
0.1
TWh
Helsinki environmental statistics, Siemens/Aalto university
0.17
TWh
Helsinki environmental statistics, Siemens/Aalto university
7.3
TWh
2010
Unit
Heat share of generation
Variable
Coal
Source
41
%
Helsingin Energia, Siemens/Aalto university
Gas
54
%
Helsingin Energia, Siemens/Aalto university
Oil
1.4
%
Helsingin Energia, Siemens/Aalto university
Renewables
2.2
%
Helsingin Energia, Siemens/Aalto university
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
103
Sources
Helsinki’s CO2 and energy efficiency performance
Statistical Yearbook of Helsinki 2010
Helsinki Region Statistics (helsinginseutu.fi)
Energy and Buildings
City of Helsinki Urban Facts (Helsingin kaupunki Tietokeskus)
Finnish Meteorological Institute (Ilmatieteenlaitos)
Helsingin Energia (www.helen.fi)
Helsingin environmental statistics (www.helsinginymparistotilasto.fi)
City of Helsinki: State of the Environment in the City of Helsinki – Theme Report 1/2008
City of Helsinki: Helsinki New Horizons
Eurima 2007: Ecofys VII – U-values for Better Energy Performance in Buildings. Annex 1
HSY: Pääkaupunkiseudun Ilmastoraportti, Päästöjen kehitys 2009
Energiateollisuus: kaukolämpötilasto 2010
Helsingin Energia: Energian Yhteistuotanto
Helsingin Energia: Kehityshankkeet
Teollisuuden voima (www.tvo.fi)
Finnish Energy Industries (www.energia.fi)
Energiateollisuus: Haasteista mahdollisuuksia – sähkön ja kaukolämmön hiilineutraali visio vuodelle 2050
European Commission Directorate General Environment Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based
Instruments Task 2a – Shore-Side Electricity Final Report August 2005 Entec UK Limited
Energy use and CO2 emissions from cruise ships — A discussion of methodological issues, Hans Jakob Walnum
AAPA: Use of Shore-side Power for Ocean-going Vessels, White Paper
Sarvaranta, Anni. 2011. Impacts of new lighting technologies on redu¬cing energy use and CO2 emissions in Finland during 2020-2050,
Aalto University School of Technology Master’s Thesis
Adato Energia Oy: Kotitalouksien sähkönkäyttö 2006
Energy Distribution
Wikipedia High voltage direct current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HVDC_Europe.svg)
European Commission, DG Energy and Transport: Assessment of the electric markets in the Baltic region
Helsingin Energia: District Cooling in Helsinki (http://www.helen.fi/pdf/kj/en/General_Presentation_January_2011.pdf)
European Commission Communication on next steps for Smart Grids, 12.04.2011
104
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
Transportation
HSL - Helsingin seudun liikenne (www.hsl.fi)
Yhteisellä matkalla Vuosiraportti 2009
Suomen Satamaliitto (www.finnports.com)
Tilastokeskus: Ajoneuvokanta
LIPASTO liikenteen päästöt
HSL, Helsingin seudun liikenne: Liikkumistottumukset Helsingin seudun työssäkäyntialueella vuonna 2008
Tilastokeskus: Asuntojen hinnat
HSY, Helsingin seudun ympäristöpalvelut: Pääkaupunkiseudun sukkulointi 2008
HSY, Helsingin seudun ympäristöpalvelut: Työmatkasukkulointi pääkaupunkiseudulle
Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön julkaisuja, 55/ 2007: Suurten kaupunkiseutujen joukkoliikenteen kilpailukykyinen palvelutaso
HSL, Helsingin seudun liikenne: Joukkoliikenteen yksikkökustannukset 2010
Kaupunkitutkimus TA: Kaupunkitutkimus
HSL, Helsingin seudun liikenne: Johdinautoliikenteen toteutettavuusselvitys
YTV, Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council: Helsinki Metropolitan Area Transport System Plan PLJ 2007
Ympäristöministeriö: Liikenteen ympäristöhaitat
Autoalan tiedotuskeskus: Autoilun verotus
VTT Research Notes 2482: Assessing the sustainability of liquid biofuels from evolving technlogies
Poljin, Pyöräilykuntien verkosto ry (www.poljin.fi/tilastoja)
HKL, Helsingin kaupungin liikennelaitos: HKL-Metroliikenne
Länsimetro Oy (www.lansimetro.fi/)
HSL, Helsingin seudun liikenne: Työmatkan kulkutapaan vaikuttavat tekijät
HSL, Helsingin seudun liikenne: Helsingin seudun liikenteen ympäristöraportti 2010
HKL, Helsingin kaupungin liikennelaitos: Ympäristöraportti 2010
Helen, Helsingin Energia: Sähköautoilu
Center for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy (3CSEP) Central European University Climate Change Mitgation in the building sector:
the findings of the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC
Master’s thesis
Huuskonen, Maija. 2012. Sustainable Urban Energy Infrastructure Study for Helsinki. Aalto Yliopisto
Liukkonen, Anne. 2012. Alternatives to reduce transportation based greenhouse gases in Helsinki metropolitan area. Aalto Yliopisto
Sustainable Urban Infrastructure | Helsinki Edition
105
Further information:
Siemens Osakeyhtiö
Sustainability Office
Lars Maura
[email protected]
Pictures:
Siemens Osakeyhtiö,
Siemens AG,
Port of Vuosaari aerial photos:
Port of Helsinki, Suomen Ilmakuva Oy
Siemens Osakeyhtiö
Communications and
Government Affairs
P.O. Box 60
FI-02601 ESPOO Finland
Tel. +358 10 511 5151
www.siemens.fi

Similar documents