|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
File:Fortum headquarters.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Fortum headquarters.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
The history section says that the firm's predecessor, Imatran Voima, was founded in 1932, but also that Imatran Voima Oy was founded in 1921, If they are different companies, what is the relationship; if they are the same, which is the correct date? DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Nuclear energy and Rolls-Royce
Hi, just wanted to point out that there are at least two different Rolls-Royce companies - one of which is owned by BMW and doesn't produce nuclear equipment. However, the other Rolls-Royce company does make nuclear equipment, along with aircraft engines and marine equipment: . The source does not state that it is the car company that Fortum has made an agreement with, thus I suggest that this is removed. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Fortum network sale
The Finnish government is the majority owner of Fortum networks. EU wants the power companies to sell their shares of the networks in order to have them independent of the power sales. The power network is monopoly.Fortum sells network for 2.55bn yle 12.12.2013Fortum myy sähköverkot 2,55 miljardilla 12.12.2013.
I point out that Fortum has promoted the power sales by pricing the fixed costs higher for small power consumers than big power consumers. In my opinion by selling the network to high electricity consumers it will save its political interests. The normal power user consumption is ca 2MW/year. Many normal electricity users pay more for the power transportation than the actual power. At the same time the cost of big users have been reduced. In this sense it is not neutral that the transportation network is sold to high electricity consumers Australians and Canadians. These countries are high energy producers and high electricity users, i.e. ca 10 000 MWh/capita or more. The EU energy policy promotes energy efficiency. Finnish energy policy has been to increase electricity use more than 15 % from 2005 to 2020. In my opinion this is in conflict with the EU energy policy. At moment in 2013 the Finnish network electricity policy promotes the electricity use - the more you use power the cheaper you get it per kWh. The EU energy policy refers to the fact that the ownership of the network and pricing of the power are political issues. Zero fixed cost would be more neutral to promote energy efficiency. State ownership of the electricity network would be more neutral for the elctricity policy. How is this structured in other European countries? Watti Renew (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed costs of power
If 10 % electricity saving gives 5 % cost reduction, pricing has no intention to promote energy savings. Finnish politicians and authorities could act the fixed costs zero. How is this abroad? Private persons have complained high fixed costs of power in media in Finland. The connection to power line could be seen as a basic right with zero cost. Allocation of the cost in the use of power would encourage better in the energy savings, which politicians and authorities are internationally responsible for. Power deals are subject to competition. Some power companies have offered deals and/or campaign prices were the fixed costs are low or even zero. By successful change of the power provider, one may save significantly. However, the power transport is monopoly. In this respect zero fixed costs is in the responsibility of the authorities and politicians. Watti Renew (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Finnish domestic energy
Fortum is majority owed by Finnish state. Many countries take the climate change seriously. United Kingdom plans to reduce the climate emissions 50 % compared to 1990 until 2020 and Germany reduce CO2 emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Finnish climate and energy strategy 2008 did not tell CO2 emissions. The plan was to increase energy consumption 12.9% from 2005 to 2020.
Renewable energy is domestic energy with low climate energy emissions. Why the state owned power company Fortum does not invest in the domestic energy? Why the Finnish politicians have not acted the demand for the energy companies to increase their share of the renewable energy by 1 percent annually? For example California has acted renewable energy obligations. Public company is responsible of the international energy obligations, is it not? Fortum has made large investments abroad for example in the nuclear power. In my opinion leagality of this is questionable. E.g. according to law Finnish state is not allowed to bring nuclar waste abroad and nor bring it in Finland. In my opinion Finnish state is not allowed by law to own nuclear power plants abroad, has it? These investments reduce the capital in the renewable energy in Finland. Is this not in conflict with the interest of Finnish tax payers? Watti Renew (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)