In 2024, its AI readiness was ranked 33rd out of 188
countries, reflecting its readiness to integrate AI in both the public and
private sectors.
AI factory and partnerships. In October 2025, Lithuania
announced plans to establish the LitAI Artificial Intelligence (AI) Factory.
The factory will bring together computing infrastructure, researchers,
businesses, and universities to develop and apply AI solutions in various
sectors, including industry, transport, and defense.
AI startups and investments. The country has a growing AI
startup ecosystem, with €38.8 million in investments in AI startups in 2024
alone. Examples of successful AI-driven startups include Spike (healthtech) and
Unmanned Defense Systems (defense technology). This is just too little.
AI regulation and innovation. Lithuania has created a
regulatory "sandbox" for AI innovation, allowing companies to test
new technologies under controlled conditions. This initiative helps accelerate
the development of AI while ensuring compliance with EU regulations.
“Lithuania planned two 700 MW offshore wind farms, but one
tender did not take place, the other is stuck. This is not bad news, it is just
a sign that the country needs to re-evaluate overly optimistic consumption
forecasts and calculate the real benefits. Without an electricity connection to
Germany, offshore wind would be an expensive project that would harm consumers.
Offshore wind for Lithuania is an expensive illusion, not a
rational solution
Several years ago, Lithuania set an ambitious goal to build
two 700 MW offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea. One was to be developed under
market conditions, the other with a state-guaranteed Contracts for Difference
(CFD) mechanism.
Today, the first project is stalling due to too low
electricity prices, and the second tender did not take place at all. This is
not a failure. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to stop and soberly assess
whether Lithuania needs such a project at all.
Overly optimistic electricity consumption forecasts
Offshore wind plans emerged based on overly optimistic
assumptions about the growth of electricity consumption. According to the
current strategy, Lithuania expects that electricity consumption will increase
by as much as five times in 2050. Meanwhile, neighboring countries predict much
more moderate growth: Poland – up to two times, Latvia and Estonia – up to 2.3
times.
Trends in recent years show that Lithuania's consumption is
also growing much slower than planned – real growth would reach about 2.5
times. In this case, the country would be fully satisfied with the solar and
onshore wind park projects under development, the capacity of which already
exceeds local consumption by about twice.
This means that offshore wind is not necessary for Lithuania
to achieve 100% self-sufficiency from local renewable resources.
Subsidized energy would distort the market
If the offshore park were built with a CFD mechanism, some
producers would operate with guaranteed prices, while the other part – under
market conditions. This would create a dangerous situation where almost half of
the electricity market would be subsidized and would not respond to price
signals.
Today we have:
more than 2 GW of consumer solar power plants that are
essentially no longer participating in the market;
onshore wind and solar parks operating under market
conditions;
and a planned offshore wind park with a CFD, for which a
profit would be guaranteed at the expense of the state.
In this case, the market logic would no longer work – new
projects would not be able to compete, investors would lose incentives to
develop efficient solutions. The real choice would be: either return to
regulated prices for everyone, or subsidize everyone equally.
Offshore wind only makes sense with a connection to Germany
Offshore wind parks could only be considered when the date
and capacity of the electricity connection to Germany are clear. In this case,
the parks could be built for export – the German market is large and can easily
absorb such amounts of electricity.
The current connections to Finland and Sweden do not provide
such an opportunity. In Finland, the price of electricity reaches about 40
EUR/MWh, in Sweden's fourth zone – about 60 EUR/MWh, while the cost of offshore
wind would be about 120 EUR/MWh.
Exporting electricity to cheaper markets means that the
state would pay the difference. In other words, Lithuanian consumers would
subsidize exports to Scandinavia.
3 billion euros for an expensive symbol
If a 700 MW offshore wind farm produced about 3 TWh of
electricity per year, the difference between the production price (120 EUR/MWh)
and the export price (50 EUR/MWh) would be 70 EUR/MWh. This would mean an annual
subsidy of about 210 million euros, and over 15 years – about 3 billion euros.
It is difficult to explain why a country would finance
electricity that would compete with cheap hydro or nuclear energy in Finland
and Sweden. This would not be an investment in energy independence, but a
financial paradox.
Time to get back to real numbers
Thus, the conclusion is that before making decisions on the
development of offshore wind, Lithuania should review the assumptions of
electricity consumption, assess the real production balance and postpone
offshore park projects until the connection to Germany is clear.
In all other scenarios, this would be a project that would
cause enormous damage - expensive, distorting the market and shifting the
burden onto the shoulders of consumers. Today, the energy strategy needs not
ambitious slogans, but rational solutions and real numbers.”
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą