Professor Alar Konist: Our Energy Policies Should Not Go From One Extreme To The Other
Professor Alar Konist says that solar and wind energy look cheap only when we disregard the costs of construction.
A little Baltic country Estonia has set itself a big target of producing as much renewable energy by 2030 as it consumes. Professor Konist, director of the Institute of Energy Technology at Tallinn University of Technology, based in the country's capital, says these kinds of objectives are not exactly fair. “What it really means is that we will generate this energy in the summer months and perhaps in the spring-autumn period when our energy demand is not at its highest. But in the cold season, when we need energy, we don't get it from these production facilities,” he comments. In other words, we may be able to produce more renewable energy than we consume in total in a year, but in the cold winter weather when there is no wind and we can't get anything from the sun, we would either be literally sitting in the dark or we would have to keep other generating capacity or buy electricity from other countries.
As for the target of generating the energy we need from renewable sources, Konist says it would be fair to set it at a level where renewable energy has to cover consumption at all times. "And if we can't do that, then we're actually engaging in a bit of misdirection today, and we shouldn't be setting targets like that," Konist says.
Is renewable energy cheap?
Renewable energy is also talked about as a cheap solution, explaining, for example, that the more wind energy there is on the market, the cheaper the price of electricity will be. Quite right – the rule of the market, of consumers buying energy from an open market instead of a regulated one, is that if at any point in time, there is more electricity on the market than there is consumption, the price will fall. It is true that over spring and summer, when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, and not a lot of consumption is there, prices on today's electricity exchange can sometimes be even negative. But over the year as a whole, the consumer may not benefit. “What is the use of the summer negative prices in January or February, when our energy needs are at their highest, and when the price of energy could be €400 or even €1,000 per megawatt-hour?” Konist asks.

Another problem with such simple calculations that show the renewables to be cheap, is that they fail to take into account the real costs of building renewable energy capacity. For example, they do not include the subsidies paid to renewable energy producers, which come directly out of the pockets of consumers and taxpayers. And such work is always being subsidised.
Or let's take the cost of grid construction, for example, because when you build up a new distributed capacity, you also have to build a new electricity grid to transport the energy back and forth. "If we build an offshore wind farm today, we need to bring the grid there and we don't include that in the electricity price. But that's not fair. In fact, we should also show how much the construction of this grid will cost," Konist points out.
In addition, because there is no electricity when the wind dies down and the sky is cloudy, there is also a need to invest in other compensating generation capacity that could be in operation at that time – for example, building gas-fired power plants as managed capacity to be turned on. Again, this will mean additional investment to take into account.
Another option would be to store the surplus electricity in windy weather, for example, but this would also make the whole project very expensive, according to Konist. The reality is that the kind of storage solutions we need to survive the winter months do not exist today. And it is worth noting that, in addition to small consumers, i.e. households, we also have to think about the industry. And if a country or region wants to attract industry, then affordable energy which is available at any given time, is a must. Wind and solar alone, or even in combination with today's storage capacity, won't simply provide it.
Texas energy crisis
There is an instructive example of how an electricity exchange system, which allows prices to go negative in windy weather, for example, can collapse under its weight. This happened in February 2021 in the US state of Texas. With prices on the Texas open energy market at their usual low levels in February, many power generators decided to put their equipment on maintenance. This meant that they could not be quickly restored in the event of an emergency or major shortage. The wind turbines that were supposed to be producing at the same time, however, were not frost-proof and stopped working. In the same way, solar panels could not produce energy in the cold weather. In the end, there was simply no more capacity on the market to meet consumption needs. “The best of bad choices was then made, which meant that regions were taken off the grid to prevent the whole grid from collapsing,” Konist explains. However, such outages create huge problems and costs for businesses and domestic consumers alike. In Texas, a shortage of food and drinking water was quickly created. As the pumps failed to work and the water in the pipes did not move, they began to freeze and burst. In other words, the damage was far greater than the gains had been from using the open market over the years. “The bottom line was that the open market system had been in place for over 20 years and all it took was one crisis, which cost citizens and businesses much more than it did in the neighbouring areas where there was a regulated form of price and system,” Konist says.

The aim of providing energy as cheaply as possible to consumers at all times means that, in the end, cheap does not mean available at all times. “They had optimised the system in such a way that they didn't really take into account crisis scenarios where temperatures could go very low, they didn't have a reserve and that was the result,” Konist argues. His simple conclusion from such an example is that an open market based system does not guarantee a constant supply of electricity, but that sufficient reserve capacity needs to be kept permanently to ensure it. This, however, is an additional cost that has to be taken into account.
CO2: the world has no common understanding of it as a problem
While Konist talks about the challenges of renewable energy, he is certainly not against any energy mix. For example, he suggests that storing energy doesn't necessarily have to mean batteries, but that it could be stored in materials we need. Perhaps if there is a lot of wind and a surplus of electricity on the market, we could look at producing synthetic fuels, hydrogen, or the chemicals we need, which are energy-intensive activities. Konist would look at CO2, which is the subject of this massive restructuring of the energy economy, as a raw material, for example as a component in the production of fuels.
Regarding CO2, Konist says the politicians have not yet been able to come up with a better yardstick for tackling environmental problems. However, he thinks it would be important in such cases to apply the measure uniformly around the world. “But this is not done. Take Russia, for example, which basically couldn't care less about the subject, or take America. And then China and India. We should realise that we do not live alone on this planet. This does not mean that we should then waste and pollute the environment in some senseless way, but we must understand that there are different cultures, different opinions. And if we can't think in the same way, then we won't be able to meet these goals," Konist concludes.
In other words, whether we reduce our CO2 emissions here or not, it will have no effect on the atmosphere as a whole because of the contribution of countries like China and India. According to Konist, it would never be possible or sensible to tell India, for example, that although we have built up our economy thanks to fossil fuels, they cannot do the same, but need to adopt these significantly more expensive renewable energy solutions. And even if they had the interest to do so, they certainly do not have the financial means.
Germany's self-inflicted ills: now relying on coal-produced electricity
In fact, no one is going to shut down coal-fired power in Europe just yet. Germany, Europe's leading economy, was heading in the direction of keeping its economy going on Russian gas after the decision to close its nuclear plants, while developing wind and solar power. And on some days, these sources work well, Konist notes. He cites the day before the interview as an example. “Fantastic results. Yesterday, for example, they got almost half of the energy they consumed from the sun. They still have hydropower, they use biomass or wood, they burn it. And then their base load came from lignite, coal, and natural gas. So the baseload for them today is predominantly lignite and coal. So it's not as if fossil fuels weren't used anywhere else in Europe today,” Konist says. In other words, Russian gas has been replaced by lignite or coal, and when it is scarce, they have to buy nuclear power from France, which they themselves decided to shut down.

In such a context, it is difficult for Konist to understand why reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions must necessarily mean a complete abandonment of the current energy economy depending on fossil fuels. Estonia's energy production, for example, has been centered around the burning of oil shale and as part of the 'Net Zero' move, it is being closed down over the next years. But when we talk of CO2 emissions, this wouldn’t even be needed. For example, there are devices with which we can capture CO2 from the top of the stack and then store it or use it for other purposes. Konist says that the price of oil shale electricity, including today's CO2 quota price and the cost of the equipment needed to capture it, would still be around €150 per megawatt-hour. This would certainly not be more expensive than any other solution, considering their hidden costs, he says. It would also mean that Estonia, a country with a considerable power deficit without using oil shale, could continue to use this managed capacity and would not have the problem of frequency maintenance on the grid.
In addition, Konist explains, we should not look at oil shale or other fossil fuels merely as a resource for electricity generation but should have a broader view that would also include the added value of the industry and what that gives us. “If we were to say that we do not only use oil shale for energy, but that oil shale is an input for cement, that we also use oil shale as an input for fertilisers, that we get chemicals from oil shale, and that we also get energy from oil shale, then the synergy that this would create would be something very good,” Konist explains. The same would be true of other fossils as well.
From one extreme to the other
Konist remarks he is aware that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Oil shale, for example, would last for a couple of hundred years in Estonia, according to the current knowledge. However, he notes, there is no discussion whatsoever yet of how the resources required for the construction of renewable energy solutions are also limited. He cites wind turbines as an example. “We need to make a concrete foundation and a steel mast, petrochemical blades. Then there are rare earths used in the magnets and copper in the windings. Again, all of this comes from our earth and we need to mine these resources and they are not renewable," Konist says, adding that the boom in mining it creates will also drive up our energy consumption. “Now I think we are going from one extreme to the other,” he says.
There is also the problem of who will provide us with the raw materials or technological tools required, and under what conditions. For example, in Eastern Europe, fly ash from coal mines is used for the concrete we need for construction. “If we now say that we are no longer using coal, it follows that there will be no fly ash and we will have to start mining more to get the amount of cement we need to produce the amount of concrete we need,” Konist says. On the other hand, we have to take into account that, for example, in the case of rare earths, which are needed for renewable energy technologies, China currently has a virtual monopoly. We have also moved much of the industry we need out of Europe, so we are dependent on other parts of the world for our energy turnaround. And since wind turbines and solar panels are not eternal, and their reuse is also a huge challenge, there are problems to be solved there too.
This begs the question should we really rush headlong into a 'green turnaround'? “We need to look at the world trends, and do things sensibly,” Konist says. If a lot of other countries are saying they are not going to do anything to cut CO2 emissions, we shouldn't be doing it like this either. And even if we leave ourselves a target of no CO2 emissions by 2050, it can still be pursued using common sense, Konist argues. He explains that instead of trying to reduce it step by step we should plan to do it as one big step in 2050 then. “Why I dare to say so is that CO2 capture does allow this. Maybe if in 2050 we see that the whole world has reached a point where nobody is emitting, half the plants in China and India have CO2 capture technology on and the other half are shut down, then that's what we'll do. But we can't say that in 2050 fossil fuels will not be used at all in the world,” Konist explains. And if the rest of the world continues to use fossil fuels, why should Europe not do the same and maximise its value at the same time?

But if we go the other way, we can ask ourselves how much we are prepared to give up in terms of economic competitiveness, for example. “One of the keys to industrial success is cheap energy, but if today we make our energy production so expensive, so costly, then our companies, our industry, will no longer be competitive," Konist says. In the end, he explains, the simplest way to meet environmental and climate targets would be to do nothing at all: “But then there is no life any more. If we want to live here, we need businesses, we need industry, we need lights on in the room, we need a room that is either warm or cool, we need to produce food, and ensure all these other conditions that are necessary for living. And this is the foundation we should base our different choices, different decisions upon,” Konist says.
As sensible, practical and insightful a person as Bjorn Lomberg has been with far less mention of the false narrative that carbon dioxide is threatening a global climate crisis.
We are in a man-made crisis, a threat to the world economy and to each individual economy based upon warnings of impending doom from human use of fossil fuel through a mechanism which cannot do it.
I presume this article is based upon source material which is not in English.
Hannes, can you post the documents or videos upon which you based this commentary so one of us can run it through Google Translate and distribute it to a wider audience?