The government is currently engaged in a big debate on how much support should be given to wind energy producers. Last week, discussions within the cabinet were postponed, allegedly as the Ministry of Climate had failed to provide analysis; which reportedly does not exist anyway. At least, that is what Tallinn Mayor and SDE deputy chair Jevgeni Ossinovski claimed in an interview with ERR. Given your strong criticism of recent administrations' energy policies, have you found an ally in him?

Ossinovski stripped both himself and the Reform Party down to their "underwear and vests."

The Reform Party? Ossinovski is a Social Democrat…

Ossinovski was referring himself to the Ministry of Climate, headed by the Reform Party, and to the entire government. The public has now learned, though the experts have probably understood this for a long time, that Estonia lacks any fully-analyzed energy strategy.

Ossinovski conceded that decisions are made based on gut feelings. When there is no analysis or scenarios, how was it possible to pass a law stating that by 2030 Estonia will generate all its electricity from renewable sources? How could such a reckless decision get made? The country's energy security, supply reliability, and economic sustainability are at stake.

I understand the ideological dogma which labels critics of current actions ignorant. This dogma has led to a legally sanctioned goal to produce all electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

There are reasonable people in the cabinet, so the question also involves lobbying. The real issue comes down to whether the lobbying we see in Estonia and Europe contains elements of corruption. There could very well be the case, as these decisions are so contradictory to economic principles and also to the laws of thermodynamics.

However, these policies are being forced upon us. In this sense, Ossinovski's interview was significant. The decision-makers have been stripped down to their metaphorical underwear and vests, and it is up to us, and maybe some authorities, to remove even these.

So without any completely new analysis, we cannot move forward. Does the Ministry of Climate need to finally do its homework?

We need cooperation between the Ministry of Climate and Elering, the Competition Authority, the scientists, and political parties, in order to understand what energy options are truly on the table. The analysis must be carried out by those who understand the field and the latest trends while also comprehending fundamental laws.

There has been a lot of talk about energy since the sharp rise in electricity prices came in 2022. Despite these discussions, are you suggesting a full restart right now?

First, we need to understand how the electricity grid system has specifically supported humanity's development over the past 150 years.

Society needs an electricity system which is functioning at all times. But the system of uncontrollable energy capacities that are being forced upon us as ideological dogma, backed by subsidies and regulations, is that kind of system no more. It is not the system that people, households, or businesses need.

In the Republic of Estonia, with the legally mandated goal for renewable energy, we have created a situation where this service is no longer guaranteed.

Second, we need to talk about costs. Every public speech coming from ministers and the prime minister starts and ends with claims that in the future electricity will be cheap. But it won't.

In fact, the International Energy Agency has hinted, reading between the lines, that the costs of integrating uncontrollable capacities into the system are so high that it will become significantly more expensive. If the system even works at all.

What is the basis for your radical claims?

By handing over control to power sources that cannot be controlled, we will need to build five systems instead of the current single one. Each system's construction will carry massive capital costs. These need to be calculated so that the government can even discuss the issue.

First, we'll need to over-invest massively in a renewable-energy-based system to create the capacities required for peak demand. Not just double the investment, but perhaps even eight-fold, if we look at global projections.

What's more, we will be over-investing in a system whose useful production time is extremely limited. Just to provide some numbers, because there is often some misleading rhetoric here, solar parks at our latitudes, starting from around central Germany northwards, operate effectively for only 10 percent of the time, meaning they stand idle 90 percent of the time.

Onshore wind operates about 20 percent of the time, while offshore wind, based on studies of real wind farms operating off Denmark, operates at around 40–45 percent of the time.

The second system we need is storage. We will need a short-term storage system capable of balancing fluctuations for at least a few hours, or perhaps half a day, to maintain current quality. Simply put, we will need batteries to cover those fluctuations.

100 MW won't be enough in Estonia; we'll need at least 500 MW for Estonia and the other Baltic states.

The 100-MW battery system being built in Kiisa, at great fanfare, costs €300 million. If, at some point in the future, we suddenly have no controllable energy, this plant would cover Estonia's average electricity demand for about six minutes. That's a bit short-term, wouldn't you say?

The third system concerns long-term storage. There is no working solution for this in even the most advanced of the U.S. states or in Europe. In California, they're talking about a 12-week storage capacity at peak demand, and in Germany, it comes to at least six weeks. In Estonia, we can make calculations, but these solutions would cost billions of euros.

Occasionally, in the EU papers there is speculation over using hydrogen, which is perplexing when you look at the physics of hydrogen. Producing it consumes four units of energy, meaning we put in more energy than we get out. And then there's the cost of transporting and storing hydrogen. This is surely a catastrophe!

The fourth system we have to build is a reserve capacity system, to provide controllable power when there is no wind or sunlight. No one even discusses how much reserve capacity will be needed.

If we don't want to reduce the reliability of our energy supply, the reserve must cover peak demand, plus 10 percent. For Estonia, this means 1,800 MW at current consumption.

It is estimated that most of the time these reserve capacities will stand idle, activated only when wind and solar are unavailable.

The Ministry of Climate should present an analysis showing what reserve power options we have and how much each option costs.

And we shouldn't talk about a time frame of 2027 or something, but rather over 20 years. In 2027, we'll still have oil shale plants as a backup. The planning horizon for energy is indeed a long-term one.

A gas power plant has been mentioned. But that would mean reliance on imported fuel. And gas prices in Europe are three to four times higher than in the U.S. I haven't heard any convincing answers from officials about reserve capacities; they tend to gloss over those, but it is a fundamental question.

And the fifth new system would be a completely rebuilt complex electrical grid.

So instead of one existing system, we would need to create five new ones. This must be the basis for Ossinovski's grand future plans; only then can we start realizing the Social Democrats' unique expertise in the energy sector. In reality, though, this would be an absolute path to bankruptcy.

But hasn't the Riigikogu already passed into law the transition to renewables?

This contradicts all common sense, economics, physics, and thermodynamic laws. We will never reach it; it is totally pointless. There's no need for it.

We are in a difficult situation, aligned with the mainstream of EU policy. The reality hasn't sunk in yet, so we need seriously to talk about what steps we can take, right now. Those critics are right who say that nothing meaningful has been done over the past 1o years. This is why the situation is as dire as it is.

Surely the solution can't be a return back to oil shale?

The energy efficiency of the new tech being offered is so low that it can't be viable over the long run. Furthermore, they are not environmentally sustainable when you take into consideration the entire chain of production.

When there is no complete technological breakthrough, it is simply not possible to implement the system planned. These problems wouldn't be so bad if the share of uncontrollable capacity in the system was only in the 5-10 percent range.

Since the planned system can't be gotten underway, there are two options: Either we have an energy revolution with new technology, or we focus on making existing systems more efficient and environmentally friendly.

So then your critics are right, and you just want to keep burning the oil shale?

No, I don't want to. My narrative isn't against one particular technology or resource or another.

Yet just a decade ago, our energy security and supply reliability were very strong. The cost of our oil shale energy was highly competitive.

But now, due to artificial political steps, the situation is entirely different. And who is responsible for that? Our supply security is under threat, our outlook is very bleak, and our current electricity price is outrageous. This is what we have achieved, over the past five to seven years.

We have simply voluntarily given up control over Estonia's energy resources due to a stigma. but in return, we have received a system that actually lowers our quality of life, economic competitiveness, and security.

I'm no energy expert, but could nuclear power prove a compromise? Nuclear energy isn't controllable, but it's mostly operational and adds security to the market. Essentially, this is how the Nordic countries have kept their prices low: Thanks to a combination of nuclear power, hydropower, wind turbines, and solar parks. The combined system forces prices down.

When our problem in Europe is CO2 emissions, we should push forward with nuclear energy. But instead, we're abandoning it, which brings us to the question, why?

By the by, nuclear power has a high production efficiency level. Yet we've wasted 10 to 20 years, both in terms of tech development and investments.

When we want a discussion based on fundamental laws, there really is no other option right now besides nuclear energy. And the EU should take into account the geography of smaller countries.

In Estonia and the Baltic region more broadly, we need to simplify nuclear energy investments.

We can't afford to make a lot of bad investments either. Germany has spent hundreds of billions to find alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. We need to keep our feet on the ground and look at what's really available. We can't afford to waste money on uncertain billion-euro investments, which, by the way, Jevgeni Ossinovski also stressed.

But coming back to Estonia, over the past year and a half, we have been hearing individual sentences from the government, while seeing slides that raise hundreds of questions. All we hear is propaganda. No one answers the fundamental questions about energy.

We, as simple citizens, thought that somewhere there were documents and people that had analyzed the situation, but now it turns out there is nothing. Everything is based on a gut feeling, as Ossinovski said.

As a journalist, I often ponder how large and influential the wind energy lobby really is, to overshadow representatives from other industries. That doesn't seem very likely.

And look at the broader global picture: How the climate-industrial complex has successfully secured endless subsidies, billions in incentives, and countless regulations to support this inefficiency.

There are no answers to common-sense questions, yet we continue down this path. The same is true in Estonia. If you look backward, do you remember how unexpectedly the renewable energy support schemes emerged in 2006?

Now, government members and ministries are caught between two fires. Let's assume they are not corrupt. Let's assume that. And let's assume it again.

Then they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They go to Brussels, where they hear the same rhetoric. Then they realize there is no alternative. And we've tried to be at the forefront of this. But now, it turns out, there's no analysis…

I have a question for the Ministry of Climate: How do we integrate into a system that can't meet the 24/7 requirement for existence? How is that even possible?

Frankly, I don't understand why we're even making procurement bids. We have an electricity market. For example, bread factories don't hold procurement tenders, they're built based on market principles.

But for this, to integrate new producers into the system, they should guarantee the price, and that price should include a guarantee that they can provide electricity to the market 24/7. That should be the responsibility of the investors, not Elering, Juhan Parts, or Indrek Kiisler.

We know that integration will ultimately cost billions. This is nonsense. The situation is worse than a marketplace. We're dismantling the current system and paying to build a new one, yet there's no technology to guarantee affordable electricity in the future.

This is a question for the EU. The final truth will become apparent in three to five years' time.; time will tell. But, looking at the incoming European Commission, it doesn't give us much cause for hope.

What is your simple and practical recommendation for Prime Minister Kristen Michal and Climate Minister Yoko Alender? What should they both do over the next six months?

I would invite the brightest international experts in the energy field and commission a strategy that takes into account political realities and current climate policy while offering recommendations on how Estonia can move forward. We may need to start talks with Brussels on this.

Someone should take on the role of constantly monitoring technologies and providing impartial, objective information on the suitability, economic viability, and environmental impacts of different technologies.

All this talk of the green economy is just that: Talk. But none has materialized.

Look at the recently published report from Mario Draghi. All the new industries have moved elsewhere. The critical raw materials for new industries lie outside Europe, with 85-90 percent of them in places that are not Western-style democracies.

We need a comprehensive analysis of the true picture. And we probably need to start from the beginning on these matters. We have pulled through so much worse. We need to have sufficient backbone to understand what we can afford, and what we should forego.

If the government members are convinced they're doing the right thing, they should spend hours on ETV answering all these questions. Thoroughly, and not just dismissing Juhan Parts as someone who simply wants to burn oil shale.

But they don't dare to: From government ministers to Elering's leaders. Instead, they prefer to enjoy themselves at a conference, which is again sponsored by someone, while they continue to spew forth this nonsense.

Your views have always antagonized those who are highly concerned about the future of humanity and the vanishing environment around us. What do you think they will make of it, when they read this interview?

I am willing to discuss these issues with them publicly. I don't have the patience for yelling at one another on social media.

I am also concerned about the future of the planet. In that sense, we do have common ground. But when it comes to climate alarmism, we don't know what the truth is.

What we do know is that climate alarmism has also become a tool of manipulation. Science doesn't tell us that we need to sound the alarm. There's no scientific consensus on that.

Science clearly tells us that the climate is warming.

Of course, the climate is warming, but even the UN climate report doesn't say how much of that is human-caused. There are many different views, and we'd have to be blind not to see the thousands of scientists who directly oppose the main conclusions of the report.

We'd have to be blind not to be able to distinguish between politicians, from the UN Secretary-General on down, who appear and repeat talking points from UN annual reports, while engaging in scaremongering. Naturally, there's a huge industry behind this alarmism; shaping an apocalyptic mood.

One thing is for sure, the technologies and systems currently being proposed won't resolve the climate problem.

--

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