Once again, one could write a story whose entire content is that "Isamaa's energy plan is the criticism of everyone else's plans." Or even more briefly: "oil shale, oil shale, oil shale." But the real world has moved on—together with calculations and a plan that anyone can read. Estonia's energy plan, which we are also implementing.

An oil shale power plant is a dead-end plant for the future. In short: no investor, no bank will finance a new oil shale power plant. All of Eesti Energia's oil shale investments have reduced its ability to invest.

If you don't believe me, listen to Eesti Energia CEO Andrus Durejko, who said in an interview that if Auvere cost €600 million, a new one would already cost closer to €1 billion. "Its profitability is always questionable," Durejko said diplomatically. That assessment is based on Excel, not on ideology or demagoguery, which form the backbone of Isamaa's "energy plan."

One billion euros for a plant that, first of all, would likely stand idle for most of the year. At the same time, it would likely be highly unreliable. Oil shale is a very unusual fuel globally, which means there are essentially no standardized, well-functioning technical solutions. This is also the root cause of Auvere's problems.

For the same money, one could build four gas-fired power plants of the same capacity. And here, a far more credible plan begins to take shape. 

What will actually happen?

In addition to being significantly cheaper, a gas power plant is more reliable and responds more quickly (simplifying: it starts at the push of a button). Gas plants are also easier to distribute across Estonia, since they do not need to be located next to oil shale mines.

They do not create massive ash mountains. The air is also cleaner—let us recall that children's lung health in Ida-Viru County remains worse than in the rest of Estonia. There is no such thing as a "clean" oil shale. The dispersion of dispatchable plants is also risk diversification. Ukraine's experience teaches us this as well.

Is electricity generation from gas cheap? Not directly. Nor is electricity generation from oil shale. Gas plants that replace oil shale plants are needed to smooth peak prices and ensure security of supply. In a couple of years, we will also have sufficient domestic biogas production capacity to cover Estonia's gas needs for peak electricity generation.

According to calculations by Tallinn University of Technology, the best average annual final electricity price for Estonia is achieved with a mix in which 70–80 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources. Since we already have enough solar parks, the same calculation says that to reach this target we need only another 100–110 wind turbines.

Already two-thirds of Estonia's energy production comes from renewable energy. The price of renewable energy is not affected by energy crises. It is also distributed across the entire country, making it harder to disrupt.

Over the past five years, about 1,000 megawatts of solar capacity have been added—effectively quadrupling capacity. This is enough to keep prices quite low even in March. The March average was 6 cents/kWh, and April's average so far has been about the same.

Over the same five years, wind power capacity has doubled; we now have just over 200 wind turbines. Not to mention batteries—five years ago their capacity was essentially zero; by the end of this year it will exceed 200 megawatts. In parallel, we are already building gas plants to ensure security of supply, replacing unreliable oil shale plants.

You can read more details about the plan in the Energy Sector Development Plan (ENMAK) published at the end of last year. Don't be intimidated by the name—the core document is only a couple of dozen pages long and not very technical. In short, we don't just have a plan—we are implementing it.

An oil shale power plant can only be built by government order

It is good that it has become clear that Isamaa's (and apparently also the Centre Party's and EKRE's) plan truly is only oil shale. But how this plan would actually work is not explained to us. Nor can it be explained, because it lacks economic logic. The only logic is nostalgia—sighing that things used to be better.

The other possibility is that they genuinely do not know or understand that oil shale has long ceased to be a serious economic alternative for electricity generation, because their knowledge of energy dates back a very long time.

If they were ever to become truly responsible for energy policy, the real world—with real calculations—would hit them very unexpectedly. The question would then arise: adapt to reality, or bulldoze through their hollow "plan"?

Unfortunately, the latter option cannot be ruled out. That would have very bad long-term consequences for Estonia's energy sector and economy, including poorer security of supply and a further decline in Eesti Energia's investment capacity. State failures, sadly, are not excluded if politicians demand them forcefully enough.

Even more schizophrenic is the parallel debate over whether Eesti Energia may sell a mining permit it no longer needs to Viru Keemia Grupp (VKG), which does need it. As always: no plan of one's own, but if someone else has one, they get slapped on the wrist.

In the background, there is also a discussion about nuclear energy. This discussion is notably balanced, but it must be noted that if the first 300 MW reactor comes online around 2035 or later, it would still cover only about a quarter of Estonia's annual consumption under current plans. There is room.

One more note. Urmas Reinsalu, please let's remain polite. Political opponents may be criticized, but personally disparaging civil servants is neither dignified nor professional, nor characteristic of Estonia's political debate. 

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!