Talk:Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Plant

Discussion
I made numerous changes to the article as it is very outdated. The project is basically completed aside from some landscaping clean up issues. I added the manhattan island comparison and numerous other things that I amaware of, having been to the site many times. I added that a substantial part of the project is underground and that the power station is deep inside a mountain. Not small details considering a fact sheet for a project this size! As an example of my changes: I see three reasons for an error with the statement that this dam is "at the heart" of the "second largest" untouched wilderness in Europe. First, it is not at the heart of it as many other spots are considered untouchable by most Icelanders and much closer to the geographical center of an untouched(?) wilderness as well. Herðubreiðarlindir and Askja to name just two of those areas. Second, this "wilderness" is not untouched at all, as it has been a part of 1100 years of sheep grazing, from farms causing major soil erosions and wind swept dust bowls where there were trees and shrubbery before. The nearest farms (now deserted) are in fact only some kilometers from the dam site. The best known (Sænautasel) is currently a museum/restaurant only 20-30 km away (20 mi) you can correct me with the exact number. Third, I would like to know about the other untouched wildernesses in Europe, the one often cited is on the Scandinavian peninsula, however there may be parts of Northern Russia fitting this classification, especially nearer the arctic areas. That is well within Europe, which reaches the Asian border at the Ural mountains. That would be a question I am posing. So I deleted the words "At the heart of" as it is stylistic swaying. I also moved the criticism to the bottom of the article. The project is about the Dam and the construction. Criticism is not the center of the subject unless we change the title of the article altogether. Much of the criticim has been shown to be hot air and needs to be looked at systematically by neutral scholars.Veffari (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I cut the following from the main text because it was uncited - putting it here is better than a citation needed stamp.
 * Numerous studies, even ones conducted by the government of Iceland, have shown that the dam will probably not be a profitable project, as everything but the energy has to be imported by ship.

If you can prove this, put it back in. Tyrhinis 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC) The bauxite is shipped from anywhere in the world and smelted in Iceland and it is certainly profitable. Alredy done in Straumsvík smelter since about 1970. Veffari (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I follow the debate in Iceland quite closely and I have never heard this argument before. Also it does not make any sense. The raw material for aluminium production is bauxite which is mined in S-America, Africa and Australia, shipping it to Iceland is hardly more expensive than to any other country in Europe or N-America. It is true that the dam is criticised heavily from the point of economics but that revolves around the dam itself, not the smelter. These two are entirely separate ventures although each one depends totally on the other. Alcoa is not a charity and would not being doing this unless it expected to make a profit. Landsvirkjun however is a government owned company that obviously does make it somewhat suspicious regarding possible political influences in its decisionmaking. Economists have different opinions on Landsvirkjun's profitability study for the project and some doubt that it can make a profit. Meaning basically that Landsvirkjun may be selling the electricity too cheaply considering the investment put into this, but of course they deny this and nobody can know for sure because the negotiated electricity price with Alcoa is confidential... --Bjarki 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shurely shome mishtake... Landsvirkjun wouldn't build the plant solely to power the smelter, would they? Is the only purpose of the massive dam project to provide energy to one aluminium refinery? 82.109.186.194 08:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The plant does connect to the existing electricity grid, but the smelter uses all of the 690 MW. --Bjarki 09:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Power plants devoted to powering aluminum smelters are not that rare in Iceland. Pési 19:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The aluminum smelter pays for electric fees and hence the construction of the dam. After that (x years) or during that time, the dam is paid for and can be resourced where it is most practical, in looking at MWH in relation to income potentialVeffari (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511094510/http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/20090917__wec_krahnjkar_bb.pdf to http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/20090917__wec_krahnjkar_bb.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511094510/http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/20090917__wec_krahnjkar_bb.pdf to http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/20090917__wec_krahnjkar_bb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617061054/http://www.karahnjukar.is/EN/article.asp?catID=323&ArtId=495 to http://www.karahnjukar.is/EN/article.asp?catID=323&ArtId=495
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617061119/http://www.karahnjukar.is/EN/article.asp?catID=371&ArtId=822 to http://www.karahnjukar.is/EN/article.asp?catID=371&ArtId=822
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617061150/http://www.karahnjukar.is/EN/article.asp?catID=171&ArtId=491 to http://www.karahnjukar.is/EN/article.asp?catID=171&ArtId=491
 * Added archive http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20041027171251/www.karahnjukar.is/EN/ to http://www.karahnjukar.is/EN/
 * Added archive http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20060303183656/www.karahnjukar.is/files/2005_11_23_framkv.aetlun_2005_.enskt.jpg to http://www.karahnjukar.is/files/2005_11_23_framkv.aetlun_2005_.enskt.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)