Analys
Getting to zero, getting the job done

Politicians have been talking and talking for decades but with only marginal improvements in terms of emission reductions. Primarily because actually doing the job has earlier been technologically and economically almost impossible. Now suddenly renewable energy has come of age with prices set to decline yet further. And onshore transportation can soon be electrified cost efficiently. For politicians there is now a viable path. It is still a large task but now it is more and more about just getting the job done. In rough terms some € 150 – 250 bn per year to 2050 is probably needed to build EU’s new power system.

In 2019 the EU + UK consumed 15,000 worth of fossil fuels. It all needs to be gone by 2050. In 2019 the EU + UK produced 3,200 TWh of electricity of which 1,295 TWh (40%) was fossil fuel based. Thus 60% of the power supply is already non-fossil. However, if we look at the larger picture of energy we see that the region consumed nearly 15,000 TWh of raw (evaluated pre-combustion) fossil fuels that year of which only 3,000 TWh was used for power. The remaining 12,000 TWh of fossil fuel consumption was consumed for heat, transportation, petrochemical and industrial uses. I.e. the lion’s share of fossil fuel consumption in the region is non-power related.
Thus getting to zero by 2050 is far more than swapping out of the 3,000 TWh of fossil fuels (pre-combustion) used for power supply today which post combustion creates 40% and 1,295 TWh of the regions electricity supply. The challenge is also about replacing the other 12,000 TWh of fossil energy for non-power uses.
As most know the conversion of fossil fuels to useful energy and work done is highly inefficient. In cars one rarely get more than 30% of the energy converted to useful driving with the rest just lost as heat. In large, power plants the conversion ratio is usually around 35% to 55% but mostly below 50%. Gas for heating purposes is of course highly efficient as almost all of it naturally is converted to heat.
The region is now aiming to go green by 2050 and that mostly means going electric. This again means that some 15,000 TWh of fossil energy spent today needs to be replaced by non-fossil based electricity. Given the highly inefficient burn of fossil energy to useful work it is no surprise that we don’t need the same amount of electricity output to replace it but rather something like only 30% to 50% as much.
When it comes to synthetically generated “electric fuels” (power to liquids or hydrogen) we are talking about an up to 200% replacement ratio because up to 50% of the electricity is lost in the conversion of power to liquids. But for most other purposes like electrifying transportation and replacing the burning of fossil fuels for power etc. the replacement ratio is often more like 30% to 50%. When it comes to replacing gas for heating purposes it is a one-to-one replacement.
In our calculations the region is going to need 6,731 TWh of new non-fossil based electricity by 2050 in order to replace the 15,000 TWh worth (pre-combustion) of fossil energy spent today. I.e. a replacement ratio of 46%. It is thus good news that we don’t need at total of 15,000 TWh of new non-fossil based power supply by 2050 but instead “only” 6,731 TWh.
This replacement is still huge! In comparison the supply of electricity in 2019 was 3,200 TWh (including fossil based power). I.e. the region needs to build its total power supply of today more than two times over by 2050 and at that point in time reach a total power supply of 8,574 TWh.
If we equate the challenge to the number of nuclear power units needed to cover it we are talking 570 new nuclear power units each of 1,500 MW capacity. In 2013 there were 131 operational nuclear power plants and today we are probably closer to 110. Thus to do the job by nuclear we need to increase nuclear power by more than 500% by 2050.
While the job is challenging it is by no means impossible. If we take the new UK Hinkley nuclear power plant as an example in terms of capex we have the following. It will generate about 25 TWh of electricity per year and cost about € 27 bn to build. I.e. €1.1 bn for a 1 TWh/year supply rate. Multiply by the needed 6,731 TWh/year of new power supply by 2050 and we get a needed capex € 7,147 bn in total which again equates to € 238 bn/yr over the next 30 years. Nuclear power is today considered to be a quite expensive source of new electricity with renewable energy often being significantly cheaper (up to 50% cheaper) though not providing baseload supply and rather intermittent supply.
Capex spending in the EU + UK should be in the ball-park of € 150 – 250 bn per year or 1.3% of GDP. Capex spending on new power supply over the coming 30 years should probably be in the ball-park of $ 150 – 250bn/year. And then some additional investments for a lot of infrastructure adaptation. EU and UK thus needs to spend some 1.3% of its GDP per year for the energy transition (€ 238 bn/yr divided by GDP of € 18,292 bn in 2019). But that of course assumes that there is no further declines in the cost of new renewable energy which by most measures is projected to continue to fall year by year. And going electric in the transportation sector (on land) will in not too long be a pure net saving as electric cars becomes cheaper than fossil cars while electric cars are also much more energy efficient than fossil cars.
The example of nuclear energy is for simplicity purposes. It is not in the cards at all today that the region is going big-time nuclear. The direction is rather much more renewable energy.
On the table we already have a pledge of 2,100 TWh/year of offshore wind by 2050. On the drawing table we already have an announced build-out of 300 GW of new offshore wind by the EU and 100 GW of offshore wind by the UK. Both by 2050. What does that mean? At a 60% offshore wind utilization ratio this equates to 2,100 TWh/year of new power supply by 2050. Thus already today a total of 31% of the new, needed 6,731 TWh by 2050 is firmly on the drawing table.
For many decades there has been endless political discussions about climate change. As a result we have moved a little forward but not all that much. We have gotten the European emission trading scheme (EU ETS) which is good and where we now have a decent carbon price of € 42/ton which starts to matter and where abatement (carbon reductions) is happening on the margin.
We have now come to the point where it is all bout getting the job done. To actually build what needs to be replaced. However, we have now gotten to the point of crunch-time. The time to act. The time to start the real change. Now it is about figuring out how to get to zero by 2050. Now it is all about getting the job done for real. Our sense is that thousands of engineers across Europe today suddenly are mapping out detailed plans of what we actually need to do to get there. It is not easy. It does not happen by itself. But it is absolutely doable and it will require some €150 – 250/bn per year in capex spending on new non-fossil based power supply over the next 30 years. But probably less than that as the cost of renewable energy continues to decline.
The region is not going to get to zero by 2050 by marginal abatement in the EU ETS emission system. The region is going to get there by outright building the alternative and then increasingly retiring the current system. And what it looks like already is that offshore wind is going to be a major part of the solution with plans already in place to solve 30% of the challenge.
IEA estimated in a report from 2019 that technical offshore wind power resources in Europe is 60,000 TWh worth of power supply. That is almost 10 times as much as what is needed to solve EU + UK’s goal of zero emissions by 2050. And as stated above the two have already committed to build 2,100 TWh/year of offshore wind power supply by 2050. So on the drawing table we are already one third of the way.
Norway is not really on the map here yet but it could easily offer to build 2,000 TWh of offshore wind power supply if EU agreed to buy it and pay for it at an agreeable price. If so this would lead to a real offshore wind bonanza over the coming 30 years equal to the build-out of the oil and gas on the NCS.
The EU + UK needs to kick the habit of consuming close to 15,000 TWh worth of fossil fuels per year by 2050 (evaluated pre-combustion). The replacement is going to happen by building the alternative and governments will be involved big-time to get it done. The current power supply for the region needs to be build more than two times over by 2050 to get the job done.

The EU + UK produced a total of 3,200 TWh of power in 2019 of which 1,295 TWh (40%) was generated by fossil fuels. In total the EU + UK will need 6,731 TWh of new non-fossil based power supply by 2050 in order to kick 15,000 worth of fossil fuels (evaluated pre-combustion) out the door. At that point total power supply in the region needs to be 8,574 TWh/year in order for the region to go green. Of the 6,731 TWh of new non-fossil power needed we already have a pledge by the EU and the UK together of 2,100 TWh of new offshore wind power supply by 2050. Thus 31% of the power needed to go fully green by 2050 is already pledged for through offshore wind. In the following graph ”EU” is short of ”EU+UK” for the sake of abbreviation.

The following graph shows how much new non-emitting power supply the EU + UK needs for each sector to go electric and green by 2050. Today’s consumption of 15,000 TWh (pre-combustion) is mostly outside of the power sector. Some 1,900 TWh of current power supply can be kept for the future as it is non-emitting like nuclear, wind and other renewables. Total non-emitting power supply in the region needs to be 8,574 TWh by 2050 in order to go green.

Technical offshore wind potential in Europe is close to 60,000 TWh per year according to a recent report by the IEA published in November 2019. Almost 10x of what the EU + UK needs to go fully green by 2050. And much of the capacity is in the North Sea between the UK and Norway.

Analys
TACO (or Whatever It Was) Sends Oil Lower — Iran Keeps Choking Hormuz
Wild moves yesterday. Brent crude traded to a high of $114.43/b and a low of $96.0/b and closed at $99.94/b yesterday.

US – Iran negotiations ongoing or not? What a day. Donald Trump announced that good talks were ongoing between Iran and the US and that the 48 hour deadline before bombing Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure was postponed by five days subject to success of ongoing meetings. Iranian media meanwhile stated that no meetings were ongoing at all.
Today we are scratching our heads trying to figure out what yesterday was all about.
Friends and family playing the market? Was it just Trump and his friends and family who were playing with oil and equity markets with $580m and $1.46bn in bets being placed by someone in oil and equity markets just 15 minutes before Trump’s announcement?
Was Trump pulling a TACO as he reached his political and economic pain point: Brent at $112/b, US Gas at $4/gal, SPX below 200dma and US 10yr above 4.4%?
Different Iranian factions with Trump talking with one of them? Are there real negotiations going on but with the US talking to one faction in Iran while another, the hardliners, are not involved and are denying any such negotiations going on?
Extending the ultimatum to attack and invade Kharg island next weekend? Or, is the five day delay of the deadline a tactical decision to allow US amphibious assault ships and marines to arrive in the Gulf in the upcoming weekend while US and Israeli continues to degrade Iranian military targets till then. And then next weekend a move by the US/Israel to attack and conquer for example the Kharg island?
We do not really know which it is or maybe a combination of these.
We did get some kind of TACO ydy. But markets have been waiting for some kind of TACO to happen and yesterday we got some kind of TACO. And Brent crude is now trading at $101.5/b as a result rather than at $112-114/b as it did no the high yesterday.
But what really matters in our view is the political situation on the ground in Iran. Will hardliners continue to hold power or will a more pragmatic faction gain power?
If the hardliners remain in power then oil pain should extend all the way to US midterm elections. The hardliners were apparently still in charge as of last week. Iran immediately retaliated and damaged LNG infrastructure in Qatar after Israel hit Iranian South Pars. The SoH was still closed and all messages coming out of Iran indicated defiance. Hardliners continues in power has a huge consequence for oil prices going forward. The regime has played its ’oil-weapon’ (closing or chocking the Strait of Hormuz). It is using it to achieve political goals. Deterrence: it needs to be so politically and economically expensive to attack Iran that it won’t happen again in the future. Or at least that the US/Israel thinks 10-times over before they attack again. The highest Brent crude oil closing price since the start of the war is $112.19/b last Friday. In comparison the 20-year inflation adjusted Brent price is $103/b. So Brent crude last Friday at $112.19/b isn’t a shockingly high price. And it is still far below the nominal high of $148/b from 2008 which is $220/b if inflation adjusted. So once in a lifetime Iran activates its most powerful weapon. The oil weapon. It needs to show the power of this weapon and it needs to reap political gains. Getting Brent to $112/b and intraday high of $119.5/b (9 March) isn’t a display of the power of that weapon. And it is not a deterrence against future attacks.
So if the hardliners remain in power in Iran, then the SoH will likely remain chocked all the way to US midterm elections and Brent crude will at a minimum go above the historical nominal high of $148/b from 2008.
Thus the outlook for the oil price for the rest of the year doesn’t depend all that much of whether Trump pulls a TACO or not. Stops bombing or not. It depends more on who is in charge in Iran. If it is the hardliners, then deterrence against future attacks via chocking of the SoH and high oil prices is the likely line of action. It is impacting the world but the Iranian ’oil-weapon’ is directed towards the US president and the the US midterm elections.
If a pragmatic faction gets to power in Iran, then a very prosperous future is possible. However, if power is shifting towards a more pragmatic faction in Iran then a completely different direction could evolve. Such a faction could possibly be open for cooperation with the US and the GCC and possibly put its issues versus Israel aside. Then the prosperity we have seen evolving in Dubai could be a possible future also for Iran.
So far it looks like the hardliners are fully in charge. As far as we can see, the hardliners are still fully in control in Iran. That points towards continued chocking of the SoH and oil prices ticking higher as global inventories (the oil market buffers) are drawn lower. And not just for a few more weeks, but possibly all the way to the US midterm elections.
Analys
Oil stress is rising as the supply chains and buffers are drained
A brief sigh of relief yesterday as oil infra at Kharg wasn’t damaged. But higher today. Brent crude dabbled around a bit yesterday in relief that oil infrastructure at Iran’s Kharg island wasn’t damaged. It traded briefly below the 100-line and in a range of $99.54 – 106.5/b. Its close was near the low at $100.21/b.

No easy victorious way out for Trump. So no end in sight yet. Brent is up 3.2% today to $103.4/b with no signs that the war will end anytime soon. Trump has no easy way to declare victory and mission accomplished as long as Iran is in full control of the Strait of Hormuz while also holding some 440 kg of uranium enriched to 60% and not far from weapons grade at 90%. As long as these two factors are unresolved it is difficult for Trump to pull out of the Middle East. Naturally he gets increasingly frustrated over the situation as the oil price and US retail gas prices keeps ticking higher while the US is tied into the mess in the Middle East. Trying to drag NATO members into his mess but not much luck there.
When commodity prices spike they spike 2x, 3x, 4x or 5x. Supply and demand for commodities are notoriously inflexible. When either of them shifts sharply, the the price can easily go to zero (April 2022) or multiply 2x, 3x, or even 5x of normal. Examples in case cobalt in 2025 where Kongo restricted supply and the price doubled. Global LNG in 2022 where the price went 5x normal for the full year average. Demand for tungsten in ammunition is up strongly along with full war in the middle east. And its price? Up 537%.
Why hasn’t the Brent crude oil price gone 2x, 3x, 4x or 5x versus its normal of $68/b given close to full stop in the flow of oil of the Strait of Hormuz? We are after all talking about close to 20% of global supply being disrupted. The reason is the buffers. It is fairly easy to store oil. Commercial operators only hold stocks for logistical variations. It is a lot of oil in commercial stocks, but that is predominantly because the whole oil system is so huge. In addition we have Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPRs) of close to 2500 mb of crude and 1000 mb of oil products. The IEA last week decided to release 400 mb from global SPR. Equal to 20 days of full closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Thus oil in commercial stocks on land, commercial oil in transit at sea and release of oil from SPRs is currently buffering the situation.
But we are running the buffers down day by day. As a result we see gradually increasing stress here and there in the global oil market. Asia is feeling the pinch the most. It has very low self sufficiency of oil and most of the exports from the Gulf normally head to Asia. Availability of propane and butane many places in India (LPG) has dried up very quickly. Local prices have tripled as a result. Local availability of crude, bunker oil, fuel oil, jet fuel, naphtha and other oil products is quickly running down to critical levels many places in Asia with prices shooting up. Oman crude oil is marked at $153/b. Jet fuel in Singapore is marked at $191/b.
Oil at sea originating from Strait of Hormuz from before 28 Feb is rapidly emptied. Oil at sea is a large pool of commercial oil. An inventory of oil in constant move. If we assume that the average journey from the Persian Gulf to its destinations has a volume weighted average of 13.5 days then the amount of oil at sea originating from the Persian Gulf when the the US/Israel attacked on 28 Feb was 13.5 days * 20 mb/d = 269 mb. Since the strait closed, this oil has increasingly been delivered at its destinations. Those closest to the Strait, like Pakistan, felt the emptying of this supply chain the fastest. Propane prices shooting to 3x normal there already last week and restaurants serving cold food this week is a result of that. Some 50-60% of Asia’s imports of Naphtha normally originates from the Persian Gulf. So naphtha is a natural pain point for Asia. The Gulf also a large and important exporter of Jet fuel. That shut in has lifted jet prices above $200/b.
To simplify our calculations we assume that no oil has left the Strait since that date and that there is no increase in Saudi exports from Yanbu. Then the draining of this inventory at sea originated from the Persian Gulf will essentially look like this:
The supply chain of oil at sea originating from the Strait of Hormuz is soon empty. Except for oil allowed through the Strait of Hormuz by Iran and increased exports from Yanbu in the Red Sea. Not included here.

Oil at sea is falling fast as oil is delivered without any new refill in the Persian Gulf. Waivers for Russian crude is also shifting Russian crude to consumers. Brent crude will likely start to feel the pinch much more forcefully when oil at sea is drawn down another 200 mb to around 1000 mb. That is not much more than 10 days from here.

Oil and oil products are starting to become very pricy many places. Brent crude has still been shielded from spiking like the others.

Analys
Buy Brent Dec-2026 calls with strike $150/b!
Closing at highest since Aug 2022. Brent crude gained 9.2% yesterday. The trading range was limited to $95.2 – 101.85/b with a close at $100.46/b and higher than the Monday close of $98.96/b. Ydy close was the highest close since August 2022. This morning Brent is up 2% to $102.4/b and is trading at the highest intraday level since Monday when it high an intraday high of $119.5/b.

A military hit at Iran’s Kharg island would be a big, big bang for the oil price. The big, big risk for the weekend is that oil infrastructure could be damaged. For example Iran’s Kharg island which is Iran’s major oil export hub. If damaged we would have a longer lasting loss of supply stretching way beyond Trump’s announced ”two more weeks”. It will make the spot price spike higher and it will lift the curve. Brent crude 2027 swap would jump above $80/b immediately. An attack on Kharg island would naturally lead Iran to strike back at other oil infrastructures in the Gulf. Especially those belonging to countries who harbor US military bases. I.e. countries who essentially are supporting the attack by US and Israel towards Iran. Though if not in spirit, then in practical operational terms. An attack on Kharg island would not just lead to a lasting outage of supply from Iran until it would be repaired. It would immediately endanger other oil infrastructure in the region as well and additional lasting loss of supply.
No one in their right mind would dare to sit short oil over the coming weekend. Oil is thus set to close the week at a very strong note today.
Prepare for another 400 mb SPR release next week. This week’s announcement of a 400 mb release from Strategic Oil Reserves totally underwhelmed the market with the oil price going higher rather than lower following the announcement. For one it means that the market expects the war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to last longer than Trump’s recent announced ”two more weeks”. 400 mb only amounts to 20 days of lost supply to the world through Hormuz and we are already at day 14. So next week when we are getting close to the 20 day mark, we are likely to see another announcement of another 400 mb release of SPR stocks to the market. Preparing for the next 20 days of war.
Global oil logistics in total disarray. We have previously addressed the issue of the huge logistical web of the global oil market which is now in total disarray. The logistical disruption started to fry the oil market at the end of last week. Helped to spike the oil market on Monday. What we hear from our shipping clients is that the problems with supply of fuels locally in Korea, Singapore, India and Africa are getting worse with physical availability of fuels there drying up. It is getting increasingly difficult to find physical supply of bunker oil with local, physical prices shooting way higher than financial benchmarks. To the point that biofuels have become the cheap option many places. Availability of fuels in the US is still good. Not so surprising as the US is self-sufficient with crude and refineries.
The disruption in global oil logistics doesn’t seem to improve. Rather the opposite. If you cannot get fuel to run your ships, then how can you distribute fuels to where it is needed.
Buy Brent Dec-2026 calls with strike $150/b!! As the days goes by the oil price is ticking higher while Trump is getting one day closer to US midterm elections. Trump was betting that he could put this war to bead well before November. But that will probably not be up to him to decide. It will be up to Iran to decide when to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. It is very hard to imagine that Iran will let Trump easily off the hock after he has killed its Supreme Leader. This will likely go all the way to November. Buy Brent Dec-2026 calls with strike $150/b!!
Brent closed at highest since 2022 ydy. Will end this Friday at a very strong note! Consumers still dreaming of $60/b oil

-
Nyheter2 veckor sedan40 minuter med Javier Blas om hur världen verkligen påverkas av energikrisen
-
Nyheter3 veckor sedanElpriserna fördubblas, stor osäkerhet inför sommaren
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedanMP Materials, USA:s svar på Kinas dominans över sällsynta jordartsmetaller
-
Nyheter2 veckor sedanDet fysiska spotpriset på brentolja har slagit nytt rekord
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedanStudsvik har idag ansökt om att få bygga 1200-1600 MW kärnkraft i Valdemarsvik
-
Nyheter2 veckor sedanMarknaden måste börja betrakta de höga kopparpriserna som det nya normala
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedanMatproduktion är beroende av gödsel, Gulfkriget skapar brist
-
Analys4 veckor sedanTACO (or Whatever It Was) Sends Oil Lower — Iran Keeps Choking Hormuz

