Comments on: English http://aleklett.wordpress.com Global Energy Systems, peak oil, etc (Globala energisystem, peak oil, mm) Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:00:40 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: RaeBee http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-2646 RaeBee Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:10:06 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-2646 Yes, there does need to be a new power source and being an Australian I think, and have thought for more years than I care to state, that nuclear energy is the way this country needs to find it's energy source. However. people have fear of this, Chernobyl being the reason and 12 Mile Island. They have been told terrible stories of inadequate precautions etc. Of course in this modern world the precautions and running of nuclear power plants has minor risk factors, taking out human inadequacy, which is what I worry about mainly, not the source, just the producers. Acceptable risk is also a worry. You see it with planes, boats and trains but that is another question altogether. Yes, there does need to be a new power source and being an Australian I think, and have thought for more years than I care to state, that nuclear energy is the way this country needs to find it’s energy source. However. people have fear of this, Chernobyl being the reason and 12 Mile Island. They have been told terrible stories of inadequate precautions etc. Of course in this modern world the precautions and running of nuclear power plants has minor risk factors, taking out human inadequacy, which is what I worry about mainly, not the source, just the producers. Acceptable risk is also a worry. You see it with planes, boats and trains but that is another question altogether.

]]> By: Lars-Eric Bjerke http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-2237 Lars-Eric Bjerke Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:40:30 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-2237 cont. minor but increasing role unfortunately. In addition it is not so easy to quickly replace oil by electricity. That´s why I believe it makes a difference if peak oil has happend or will happen in 20 years. The price of nuclear compared to coal is of course also important. Today the price for a 1100 MW plant is 5 G Eur (Westinghouse AP1000 in Florida). cont.
minor but increasing role unfortunately. In addition it is not so easy to quickly replace oil by electricity. That´s why I believe it makes a difference if peak oil has happend or will happen in 20 years.
The price of nuclear compared to coal is of course also important. Today the price for a 1100 MW plant is 5 G Eur (Westinghouse AP1000 in Florida).

]]> By: Lars-Eric Bjerke http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-2236 Lars-Eric Bjerke Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:22:48 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-2236 Dear Mr Razdan, Nuclear is certainly interesting. Today nuclear constitutes 6 % of the world energy supply.(However only 2 % of these 6 % is electricity, the rest is waste heat.)There are about 450 nuclear plants in operation and about 30 under construction. If you have a site and would order a plant today,it would in the best case produce electricity in 10 years due to low construction capacity and long erection time. My opinion is that in 20 years nuclear like all other non-fossile energy sources would still play a Dear Mr Razdan,
Nuclear is certainly interesting. Today nuclear constitutes 6 % of the world energy supply.(However only 2 % of these 6 % is electricity, the rest is waste heat.)There are about 450 nuclear plants in operation and about 30 under construction. If you have a site and would order a plant today,it would in the best case produce electricity in 10 years due to low construction capacity and long erection time. My opinion is that in 20 years nuclear like all other non-fossile energy sources would still play a

]]> By: PetroJobRecruit.co.uk http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-2233 PetroJobRecruit.co.uk Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:37:28 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-2233 My opinion is that Peak Oil Theory is driven by fundamentals which are based on the 'current' rather than 'future', and all of you will agree that the future will be different. What I believe is that in the next 10-20 years we will witness a paradigm shift in enengy sources, and the Peak Oil Theory will lose much of its significance. The biggest commercially viable Energy Source to solve the Peak Oil issue is Electricity Generation by NUCLEAR FISSION. This will reduce the burden on coal and oil considerablly, and get the price of oil to Cost-plus as it should be for any commodity. With the UK Government recently announcing construction of 10 new Nuclear Power Plants, looks like the paradigm shift has started. with regards, Vikram Razdan Manager PetroJobRecruit.co.uk (http://www.petrojobrecruit.co.uk) My opinion is that Peak Oil Theory is driven by fundamentals which are based on the ‘current’ rather than ‘future’, and all of you will agree that the future will be different. What I believe is that in the next 10-20 years we will witness a paradigm shift in enengy sources, and the Peak Oil Theory will lose much of its significance.

The biggest commercially viable Energy Source to solve the Peak Oil issue is Electricity Generation by NUCLEAR FISSION. This will reduce the burden on coal and oil considerablly, and get the price of oil to Cost-plus as it should be for any commodity.

With the UK Government recently announcing construction of 10 new Nuclear Power Plants, looks like the paradigm shift has started.

with regards,

Vikram Razdan
Manager
PetroJobRecruit.co.uk
(http://www.petrojobrecruit.co.uk)

]]> By: Peak Oil and Climate Change « The Environment Institute http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-1746 Peak Oil and Climate Change « The Environment Institute Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:07:41 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-1746 [...] Oil and Climate Change By mseyfang Learn about Professor Kjell Aleklett’s vision for a transition to a new future in the face dwindling fossil fuel [...] [...] Oil and Climate Change By mseyfang Learn about Professor Kjell Aleklett’s vision for a transition to a new future in the face dwindling fossil fuel [...]

]]> By: Andre Angelantoni http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-719 Andre Angelantoni Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:29:08 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-719 Are the slides from Professor Aleklett's Aberdeen address available? I've looked at the sites he listed at the end but have not found them. Thank you! Are the slides from Professor Aleklett’s Aberdeen address available? I’ve looked at the sites he listed at the end but have not found them.

Thank you!

]]> By: Mikael Höök http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-595 Mikael Höök Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:59:27 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-595 Dear Concerned Analyst, Now you are treading a very dangerous path. Prices are an economical property and therefore very non-linear and hard to predict accurately. Some have even managed to prove that long-term price forecasting is pointless and impossible. Prices do not follow natural laws, physical relations or even logic. A 2% deficiet of coal do not necessarily lead to a 5% price increase. The relation is much more complex and dynamic than that. The prices could very well rockey through the roof and then collapse, just as we have seen with oil, before starting to rise again. Price volatility is probably a much better conclusion as too high prices tend to undermine the market and cause a collapse. To summerize I would say that you cant calculate a "safe price increase range" and the very existence of such a concept is problematic. You can however draw the conclusion that coal supply will decrease in the future, but remember that prices are also dependent on market forces and demand. How demand and market forces will behave is virtually impossible to predict. Instead of talking about a price increase I would recommend you to talk about only about supply deficiet and speculate on possibile effects on price. A minimum and maximum price increase can not be safely predicted from just supply trends. Dear Concerned Analyst,

Now you are treading a very dangerous path. Prices are an economical property and therefore very non-linear and hard to predict accurately. Some have even managed to prove that long-term price forecasting is pointless and impossible. Prices do not follow natural laws, physical relations or even logic.

A 2% deficiet of coal do not necessarily lead to a 5% price increase. The relation is much more complex and dynamic than that. The prices could very well rockey through the roof and then collapse, just as we have seen with oil, before starting to rise again. Price volatility is probably a much better conclusion as too high prices tend to undermine the market and cause a collapse.

To summerize I would say that you cant calculate a “safe price increase range” and the very existence of such a concept is problematic. You can however draw the conclusion that coal supply will decrease in the future, but remember that prices are also dependent on market forces and demand. How demand and market forces will behave is virtually impossible to predict. Instead of talking about a price increase I would recommend you to talk about only about supply deficiet and speculate on possibile effects on price. A minimum and maximum price increase can not be safely predicted from just supply trends.

]]> By: Concerned Analyst http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-590 Concerned Analyst Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:06:51 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-590 Let's assume that the first Uppsala global scenario, assuming that reported reserves do not expand, is correct, and global coal production starts declining 1% per year after 2030. Then, lets assume that the EIA prediction that global coal consumption will increase 1.7% per year after 2015 is correct. Assuming that these two trends occur, by what range can we expect coal prices to increase per year? Oil prices are somewhat easier to expect after global peak, since we had a roughly similar, brief experience in the 1970s (due to a global reduction of supply of roughly 3%, plus oil hoarding and government interference). However, besides the coal price increases of 2008 (which are much more harder to quantify) we have little precedent for how much exactly coal production and demand effect prices. So, how much would a 2-3% coal deficiet increase per year increase coal prices per year, roughly. I have no way of infering how to calculate a safe price increase range. While estimating how much coal prices will increase is hard, estimating the resulting electricity prices will increase is much more difficult. What are the possible minimum and maximum annual coal and electricity price increases that would result from a 2% coal deficiet increase per year? Let’s assume that the first Uppsala global scenario, assuming that reported reserves do not expand, is correct, and global coal production starts declining 1% per year after 2030. Then, lets assume that the EIA prediction that global coal consumption will increase 1.7% per year after 2015 is correct. Assuming that these two trends occur, by what range can we expect coal prices to increase per year? Oil prices are somewhat easier to expect after global peak, since we had a roughly similar, brief experience in the 1970s (due to a global reduction of supply of roughly 3%, plus oil hoarding and government interference). However, besides the coal price increases of 2008 (which are much more harder to quantify) we have little precedent for how much exactly coal production and demand effect prices. So, how much would a 2-3% coal deficiet increase per year increase coal prices per year, roughly. I have no way of infering how to calculate a safe price increase range. While estimating how much coal prices will increase is hard, estimating the resulting electricity prices will increase is much more difficult. What are the possible minimum and maximum annual coal and electricity price increases that would result from a 2% coal deficiet increase per year?

]]> By: Mikael Höök http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-585 Mikael Höök Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:52:37 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-585 Dear Concerned Analyst, Naturally a decreased production rate would potentially postpone the peak, but a economic recession might also decrease the reserves and thereby compensate. It is also true that EIA has adjusted their forcast down quite much now. The lower growth rates will naturally postpone the peak if the reserves remain at present levels, but lower production also means less energy for the society. Also note that logistic curves are useful for determining long-term trends that span over several decades and should not be used as a replacement of meticulous short term economic analysis. In 5-10 years economic factors are probably a greater factor for coal production that reserve limitations, but in the long run geological factors will dominate. The details around or model is described in our latest coal publication. You can locate the study here: http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/USA_Coal.pdf Dear Concerned Analyst,

Naturally a decreased production rate would potentially postpone the peak, but a economic recession might also decrease the reserves and thereby compensate.

It is also true that EIA has adjusted their forcast down quite much now. The lower growth rates will naturally postpone the peak if the reserves remain at present levels, but lower production also means less energy for the society. Also note that logistic curves are useful for determining long-term trends that span over several decades and should not be used as a replacement of meticulous short term economic analysis. In 5-10 years economic factors are probably a greater factor for coal production that reserve limitations, but in the long run geological factors will dominate. The details around or model is described in our latest coal publication. You can locate the study here:
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/USA_Coal.pdf

]]> By: Concerned Analyst http://aleklett.wordpress.com/test/#comment-582 Concerned Analyst Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:16:37 +0000 http://aleklett.wordpress.com/?page_id=12#comment-582 I have some concern about forecasted coal production rates. Yes, those irritating factors that continuously change with every annual prediction by the EIA. However, they play a vital role in calculating the peak of resources. Let us take for example the Energy Watch Group prediction that U.S. coal production will 'peak' near 2025. (Of course, as the Uppsala study on future U.S. production points out, production in Montana may be able to continue a growing supply of U.S. coal for several more decades.) But, the EWG example is quotable. "...total (volumetric) coal production will peak between 2020 and 2030. The possible growth to arrive at peak measured in energy terms will be lower, only about 20% above today’s level.“ So, the EWG predicts that coal production may peak around 2025. However, this assumes that U.S. coal production increases 20% by 2025. However, according to the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2009, coal production in the U.S. will only increase roughly 3.8% from 2007 to 2020. If the EIA forecast is true (perhaps probable due to continued economic recession) then could that not delay the EWG peak coal estimate by over a decade? I ask this with concern for the validity of a report I am currently writing on the subject. I have noticed that the Uppsala report on future U.S. coal production seems to assume that coal production from 2007 to 2020 will also increase roughly close to 20%. How does this reconcile with the EIA forecast of only 3.8% till 2020? I greatly appreciate this blog's speed in responding to my last entry. Keep up the good work! I have some concern about forecasted coal production rates. Yes, those irritating factors that continuously change with every annual prediction by the EIA. However, they play a vital role in calculating the peak of resources. Let us take for example the Energy Watch Group prediction that U.S. coal production will ‘peak’ near 2025. (Of course, as the Uppsala study on future U.S. production points out, production in Montana may be able to continue a growing supply of U.S. coal for several more decades.) But, the EWG example is quotable. “…total (volumetric) coal production will peak between 2020 and 2030. The possible growth to arrive at peak measured in energy terms will be lower, only about 20% above today’s level.“ So, the EWG predicts that coal production may peak around 2025. However, this assumes that U.S. coal production increases 20% by 2025. However, according to the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2009, coal production in the U.S. will only increase roughly 3.8% from 2007 to 2020. If the EIA forecast is true (perhaps probable due to continued economic recession) then could that not delay the EWG peak coal estimate by over a decade? I ask this with concern for the validity of a report I am currently writing on the subject. I have noticed that the Uppsala report on future U.S. coal production seems to assume that coal production from 2007 to 2020 will also increase roughly close to 20%. How does this reconcile with the EIA forecast of only 3.8% till 2020? I greatly appreciate this blog’s speed in responding to my last entry. Keep up the good work!

]]>