Transitioning to a climate-neutral electricity generation in Estonia

The document evaluates seven electricity generation scenarios for Estonia, concluding that 'All technologies' and 'Renewable + Storage' pathways offer the best balance of feasibility and benefit. It identifies a gap of 2.7 GWh to 7 GWh in renewable electricity for 2030 objectives and recommends streamlining planning processes, deploying batteries, and developing offshore wind to meet climate goals.

• Current renewable auctions are insufficient to meet 2030 objectives, leaving a shortfall of between 2.7 GWh and 7 GWh of renewable electricity. To attract the necessary private investment, the document suggests risk reduction instruments such as public co-investing and extending state guarantees.
• Investing in nuclear power is deemed a high-risk strategy due to historical cost overruns, long delays, and negative public perception. Even in optimistic scenarios, nuclear power would likely not be available until the mid to late 2030s.
• To make offshore wind parks feasible by 2030, Estonia must implement three priority actions: reviewing the planning process via a single application procedure, providing government-funded baseline studies (e.g., geological and wind resource assessments), and defining technology-specific price support mechanisms.
• All examined pathways are projected to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, utilizing direct air capture for remaining emissions. By 2030, all pathways are expected to exceed the 40% renewable energy target, achieving over 70% RES and reducing emissions by 95%.
• The 'All technologies' and 'Renewable + Storage' pathways are identified as the most balanced options regarding costs, risks, and feasibility. While the 'Renewable + Storage' scenario performs well on CO2 emissions and security of supply, its primary drawback is high cost.
• To reduce project timelines for renewables and storage, the document recommends updating the legal framework to create a single approval procedure, establishing maximum time-limits for planning stages, and providing more administrative and financial resources to local authorities.
• Retrofitting Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) at Auvere and TG11 is technically feasible for approximately €1 billion, but the investment would yield negative returns without external CO2 storage sites.

APA

Stockholm Environment Institute (n.d.). Transitioning to a climate-neutral electricity generation in Estonia. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/transitioning-to-a-climate-neutral-electricity-generation-in-estonia-frequently-asked-questions.pdf

Chicago

Stockholm Environment Institute. Transitioning to a climate-neutral electricity generation in Estonia. n.d. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/transitioning-to-a-climate-neutral-electricity-generation-in-estonia-frequently-asked-questions.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Stockholm Environment Institute |title=Transitioning to a climate-neutral electricity generation in Estonia |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/transitioning-to-a-climate-neutral-electricity-generation-in-estonia-frequently-asked-questions.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stockholmenvironmentinstitutendtransitioning, author = {{Stockholm Environment Institute}}, title = {{Transitioning to a climate-neutral electricity generation in Estonia}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/transitioning-to-a-climate-neutral-electricity-generation-in-estonia-frequently-asked-questions.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }