Iceland’s Hydroelectric Power Production

Through humble beginnings, the first-ever hydroelectric power station in Iceland began operations in Hafnarfjörður in 1904. The station’s energy output was a mere 9 kW, which, at the time, was enough to light about sixteen houses.

Over the next century, the country experienced a surge in hydroelectric power production, and today there are approximately 37 large hydroelectric power plants in Iceland, along with about 200 smaller ones. The largest of these, the controversial Kárahnjúkar, has an energy output of 690 MW. In comparison, the total output from the next four largest plants sums to 750 MW, meaning Kárahnjúkar generates more energy than its three biggest counterparts combined.

Interestingly, Icelanders produce more energy per capita than any other nation in the world, with a staggering 53,832 kWh produced annually for each person. To put this into perspective, Norway, the runner-up, produces less than half of that amount, providing 23,000 kWh per person. The average household in Iceland requires between 3,000 to 10,000 kWh of energy each year.

Since Iceland primarily relies on geothermal sources for its energy needs, the question arises: where does all this surplus hydropower go?

Heavy Industry in Iceland

A little over a century ago, Iceland relied on imported coal and kerosene to heat homes, helping residents survive the country’s frigid winters. Geothermal heat has been utilized for direct purposes such as bathing and washing in natural hot springs since the country’s settlement. However, it wasn’t until the early 20th century that this energy began to be harnessed more formally.

In the 1920s and 1930s, local authorities initiated efforts to promote geothermal heating nationwide. Around the same time, the utilization of Iceland’s abundant hydropower began, inspired by practices in Norway, where large industrial firms established massive hydropower stations to fuel fertilizer factories.

By the 1950s, Iceland had already surpassed its energy output needs and created a market for surplus energy, leading to the establishment of heavy industry in the country. This wave began with the Gufunes Fertilizer Factory in 1954 and the State Cement Factory in 1958, both powered by newly constructed hydroelectric stations. While their energy is marketed as ‘green,’ critics argue that it carries hidden environmental costs.

Despite the green energy narrative, industries have faced severe criticism for pollution and hazardous operations. Alarmingly, Iceland currently burns over 160,000 tonnes of coal annually, projecting a 60% increase in the coming years. While local homes have shifted away from coal heating since World War II, the heavy industry still heavily relies on this unsustainable energy source.

Environmental Concerns

One pressing example of industry’s environmental impact is the Gufunes Fertilizer Factory, the first of its kind in Iceland. Now shut down, it consisted of five production units that manufactured hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, acid, and carburetion. This operation faced numerous safety criticisms and a series of incidents, including a fire in 1990 and an explosion in 2001 that produced a shockwave felt in nearby neighborhoods.

Moreover, the factory has been a focal point for health concerns. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman who experienced severe health problems due to ammonia emissions from the factory. Her struggle for justice highlighted serious deficiencies in safety regulations and the environmental oversight of industrial operations.

Current operations are fragmentary, with two factories located in West Iceland’s Hvalfjörður fjord being responsible for notable pollution. These plants—Elkem Ísland’s ferrosilicon plant and Century Aluminum’s Norðurál smelter—have resulted in accusations of contaminating local pastures and harming livestock due to fluoride exposure.

Economic Pressures

The economic landscape has greatly influenced the industrial narrative in Iceland. The departure of American military forces in 2007 left Reykjanesbær in a state of high unemployment, leading locals to increasingly support the establishment of heavy industries. However, residents frequently question if such power sources benefit them or the environment.

A controversial subject is the silicon produced by these factories. While proponents claim it supports solar panel manufacturing, critics argue that this narrative allows investors to maintain a façade of sustainability while profiting largely from industrial operations.

Major shareholders—including foreign investors and local pension funds—continue to financially support these factories, leaving environmental considerations in the background. The recent shutdown of the Helguvík silicon factory has raised eyebrows. The Icelandic National Energy Authority disclosed plans for eight new hydroelectric power plants in the coming years, leading many to suspect they are linked to further industrial expansion rather than local energy needs.

The Future of Iceland’s Rivers

During the construction of the Kárahnjúkar plant, supporters often touted Iceland’s abundant rivers. However, with several new plants on the horizon and existing ones already in operation, questions arise about the sustainability of this supposed abundance. The Þjórsá River, Iceland’s longest river, which sources from the Hofsjökull Glacier, is now targeted for three new power plants.

One of these, the Hvammsvirkjun, will significantly flood the Þjórsárdalur Valley, drawing concern from local farmers, many of whom co-signed an open letter against the development due to potential risks related to active volcanoes nearby.

These new constructions spark fears about the environmental aftermath, particularly concerning the potential failure of dams during natural disasters. Critics argue that historical sites could be endangered as well, with various archaeological assets hidden beneath the valley’s surface.

The continuous expansion of industrial projects raises alarms about the inherent risks to Iceland’s remarkable landscape and wildlife. Many advocates have disputed the supposed necessity for power plants by emphasizing the detrimental impact on local ecosystems and the cultural heritage associated with these areas.

Iceland’s hydroelectric plants and their reservoirs often evade thorough environmental assessments, a situation compounded by hastily implemented industrial policies. The prioritization of industrial development over environmental protection begs the question: what are the real costs of progress?

The Case for Alternative Industries

Claims justifying heavy industrialization posit that it would stimulate job creation and bolster the local economy. Yet investigations have shown that major companies like Alcoa and Norðurál contribute little to local taxes. Their corporate structures allow them to evade significant tax responsibilities while exploiting Iceland’s resources.

Shifting focus, the burgeoning tourism industry presents a viable alternative for economic sustainability. By 2016, tourism accounted for approximately 10% of Iceland’s GDP. The sector’s growth has created local jobs at an impressive rate, contributing significantly to economic recovery post the 2008 financial crisis.

Sustainable tourism offers a green alternative that emphasizes preserving the beauty that attracts visitors, thus generating revenue without the extensive ecological costs associated with heavy industry. Promoting responsible tourism can ensure the protection of Icelandic landscapes while supporting local communities.

Efforts to cultivate awareness among visitors are crucial. Encouraging economic activities that respect the environment can allow Iceland’s unique landscapes to thrive. With thoughtful approaches to both energy production and tourism, Iceland can navigate its future while preserving the natural heritage cherished by its people and visitors alike.

For those passionately interested in the implications of energy production, engaging with local organizations committed to nature preservation is another way to contribute positively to this complex narrative. By fostering awareness and responsibility, both residents and visitors can play crucial roles in the ongoing discourse about Iceland’s ecological future.

What are your thoughts on the implications surrounding power developments in Iceland? Do you find that sustainable tourism could offer a practical alternative? Share your insights and inquiries in the discussion below.