What is the energy transition? And why do we even need one \u2013 why can\u2019t we just continue with oil shale?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":15978,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[249],"tags":[455,416,538,458,265,408,410,583,418],"class_list":["post-16046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-eesti-majandus-en","tag-energeetika-en","tag-energy-sector","tag-estonian-economy","tag-future","tag-green-transition","tag-oil-shale","tag-polevkivi-en","tag-rohepoore-en"],"acf":{"postbuilder":[{"acf_fc_layout":"text","type":"text","text":"
The energy transition means that the environmental damage caused by energy production is increasingly factored into the price of energy. In the past, this was not the case, so prices did not actually cover the costs inflicted on the environment, and there was little incentive to protect it.<\/p>\r\n
The European Union has established a CO\u2082 quota market, where polluters must purchase allowances. Since oil shale energy generates a great deal of emissions, the additional costs have made the sector unprofitable \u2013 except when market prices happen to be very high.<\/p>\r\n
It is true that Estonia could, in principle, continue with oil shale electricity, provided producers are able to offset environmental impacts according to EU rules and still remain sustainable. For example, TalTech, in cooperation with Eesti Energia, has long been developing technologies that capture both carbon dioxide and other emissions. However, satisfactory economic viability has not yet been achieved.<\/p>\r\n
Another issue is whether the quota market or even the electricity exchange, with their pricing mechanisms, are ultimately fair. Probably not \u2013 but no better alternative has been devised so far, and Estonia has been at the table when these rules were agreed.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Why is this all so complicated? First, there are many objectives, and some of them conflict. At one roundtable, I asked representatives of all parliamentary parties about their most important energy-related goals. While everyone agreed on the need for secure supply at reasonable prices, opinions differed sharply on how to achieve this.<\/p>\r\n
Some want 24\/7, 100% self-sufficiency; others favor more cross-border connections. Some prioritize the origin of raw materials, to avoid dependence on undesirable or poorly controlled supply chains. One values larger production units, while another emphasizes more decentralized generation \u2013 households producing and storing electricity, energy cooperatives, and so on \u2013 in order to strengthen system resilience in crises. Some worry most about the environmental footprint, others about job losses linked to the transition, while some stress the need for fast and bold innovation, such as a strong push in hydrogen energy.<\/p>","image":null,"align":""},{"acf_fc_layout":"image","image":11656},{"acf_fc_layout":"text","type":"text","text":"
Second, we do not know exactly which future scenarios we should be preparing optimal solutions for. In recent years, central assumptions about whether Estonia\u2019s electricity consumption will grow significantly, grow slightly, shrink, or remain about the same have repeatedly shifted.<\/p>\r\n