Visa resultat

Fredrik Hedenus, FFR170

1. Which program are you in?

Sustainable energy systems»		36		44%
Industrial Ecology»		15		18%
Elektroteknik»		11		13%
Erasmus»		14		17%
Other masters program»		5		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.22

- The course "Sustainable Energy Futures" is really well-adapted to the program "Sustainable Energy Systems". » (Sustainable energy systems)
- E2» (Elektroteknik)
- second year» (Elektroteknik)
- But I"m following the Sustainable energy Systems Master courses.» (Erasmus)
- Exchange student from a master program in sustainability» (Erasmus)
- environmental measurement and assessment» (Other masters program)
- From Master Program in Nanoscale Science and Technology doing the course as an elective.» (Other masters program)
- scm» (Other masters program)

The course in general

2. State two things that were particulary good with the course

3. State two things that would improve the course

4. What did you think about the course in general

bad»		3		3%
ok»		22		27%
good»		43		53%
very good»		13		16%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.81 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I have heard most of this before, in sustainable development. » (bad)
- Did not learn much new stuff in this course and it did not consist of any challenges.» (bad)
- The most difficult thing was to collect the right data to solve excercises. Is the first time in my live that I used wikipedia (and that is not a good thing). Besides check the answers of the different teacher, as I have different solutions (with different outcomes) for excercise 4.6» (bad)
- to similar to sustainable development» (ok)
- The content of the course, and the teachers, were all great, and I think that I learnt quite a bit. But I did not like the calculation exercises. As I wrote before, there weren"t any examples to look at, at all, and there weren"t a whole lot of exercises to practice on either. It made it a lot more difficult to learn when you had such limited ways of learning the calculation part of it» (ok)
- I"m interested in these things but parts of it was largely the same as in previous course (SD).» (ok)
- See point 3» (ok)
- Det mest negativa med kursen är att den tar upp samma sak som två tidigare kurser. (Ja, jag vet att det är viss skillnad men det är alldeles för mycket som är samma) Däremot tycker jag att detta är den bästa kursen av de tre, så behåll denna, hämta lite av det som saknas från Sustainable development och ta sedan bort Sustainable develepment helt och håller från de obligatoriska kurserna.» (good)
- If you have taken the courses "sustainable development" and "miljö- och energiteknik" you get a bit tired of repeating the same subjects.» (good)
- I liked the calculation exercises» (good)
- I felt that the course compendium was unnecessary to complete the course, perhaps more emphasis should be on that.» (good)
- Very interesting course !» (very good)
- The course was definitely very good, however doing it just after the course "Sustainable Development" might not be a so good idea, it might be better to put it during another quarter. » (very good)

5. What did you think about the course content

bad»		3		3%
ok»		16		19%
good»		40		49%
very good»		22		27%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- To much repetion» (bad)
- Repetition...» (bad)
- Too much already known information and too little depth in the studies» (bad)
- The course content is a bit too much the same as in "sustainable development" » (ok)
- kunde inte riktigt se den röda tråden, hade kanska varit bra att lägga upp föreläsningarne och samarbeta så det inte känns som att nu pratar vi lite om det här och lite här. Hade kanke varit kul och gått in lite djupare på vissa saker och i stället struntat i lite av det väldigt allmänna. Jag kan tycka att man kanske skulle ha satt ihop kurserna sustainable development och dett och förutsatt att alla hade grundkunskaper från den tidigare kursen.» (ok)
- It is too much alike the Sustainable development curse. but this one is the better of them.» (ok)
- too similar to sustainable development. too easy too similar to miljö och energi (maskin)» (ok)
- A part of the lectures were almost the same as in the previos course (sustainable development)» (ok)
- Could be better since it"s so much like the course Sustainable Development. » (ok)
- se föregående kommentar.» (good)
- Good coverage of important subjects.» (good)
- sometimes during lecture the teacher was a little bit too active in discussing his point of view instead of a neutral discussion. » (good)
- i would like to hear more about renewable energy, such as solar.» (good)
- There are some repetitions between the course "Sustainable Development" and "Sustainable Energy Futures", it might be a good idea to spend more time on renewable energies & nuclear.» (good)
- good in itself. many interesting angles of approach to a variety of energy problems.» (good)
- very interesting» (good)
- See comment below. Very "wide" lectures some of them. I would have appreciated more details knowledge in some areas, more calculations» (good)
- As i said before it was very interesting to learn about energy systems and the pros and cons of the different technologies and how nothing is perfect but need to complement eachother.» (very good)
- maybe we have studied to many different energy technologies but in a superficial way. i would like to go further in some fields» (very good)

6. How much did the course improve your understandning of energy systems in general

very little»		4		5%
little»		10		12%
a fair amount»		44		55%
a lot»		21		26%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.03 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I did learn to do some, what I belive, simple calculations but other than that not much more than what I learned in the course Sustainable Development. » (very little)
- som sagt, tycker kursen är bra och den adderar lite till föregående kurs, men fortfarande drar den förra kursen ner denna kurs eftersom det är denna kurs som blir upprepningen.» (little)
- Most has already been taught» (little)
- Some of the topics I already have discussed in another course in my program» (a fair amount)
- I still find myself unsure of what is the real situation today and what was only scenario assumptions.» (a fair amount)
- Most thing about electric production and the market» (a fair amount)
- It was really new for me this kind of approach of energy systems and I liked it.» (a lot)
- Quite a lot of people really ignore the tools and methods of energy systems, the course was really nice since it helped me to get a deeper knowledge on it.» (a lot)
- Good with the effects of taking away/bulding new plants, how it affects the price etc..» (a lot)

7. How much did the course improve your understandning of sustainable energy futures

very little»		3		3%
little»		14		17%
a fair amount»		41		51%
a lot»		21		26%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.01 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- learned basic calculations in co2 emissions and thinking about the system boundary. » (a fair amount)
- I"ve had other courses about the environment, so I knew a lot before this course, but I do think I"ve learnt quite a bit through this course anyway» (a fair amount)
- Lectures on today but also tomorrow, thats good» (a fair amount)
- It is hard to say how the future will be but now I have more consepts to argue proos and cons for future energy systems... I might have learnt more if I read more of the articles...» (a fair amount)
- The professors presented both opinions on the different energy resources, the advantages and the drawbacks, thus, this is really fair since everybody is free to have his own opinion and to justify it.» (a lot)
- You could say that my understanding was quantified!» (a lot)
- I wish there was a final answer to all the questions the energy sector has today.» (a lot)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.96

The lectures

8. The quality of the content in Fredrik Hedenus lectures was

poor»		0		0%
ok»		10		12%
good»		42		53%
very good»		26		33%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- Good discussions, but still too much repetition of already known stuff» (ok)
- Mostly good, some material maybe can be presented i a better way. » (good)
- Gjorde ett bra jobb. » (good)
- about nuclear was quite difficult to follow» (good)
- there will be a nuclear programme within CTH shortly, surely doing calculus on what happens on a subatomic level belongs there instead.» (good)
- I guess that as all young professor, the pedagogic skills can improve during the time... but good interaction with opinion in class» (good)
- I think that Fredriks lectures were the most giving lectures actually. » (good)
- Very stringent approach, suits me perfectly. No bullshit! :)» (very good)
- Really clear and interesting lectures» (very good)
- I like the discussions taking place on your lectures and excercices, very rewarding.» (very good)
- Could have known more in details about how nuclear plants work, specific the waste handeling and the time span that are involved. The middle stage where it is for ~40years and now that the "solution" with copper containers might errode... Read the lates facts» (very good)
- Made the lectures very participative» (very good)

9. The pedagogical quality of Fredrik Hedenus lectures was

poor»		0		0%
ok»		14		17%
good»		38		48%
very good»		27		34%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- Språket verkar göra det svårare att ställa frågor och svara på ett pedagogiskt sätt.» (ok)
- I think he likes to teaching and thats very good. He also listen to some critics during the course» (good)
- Always interesting to listen to yuor lectures» (very good)
- Clear&precise» (very good)
- Really good lectures on nuclear energy and energy scenarios! Knows a lot and knows how to captivate people!» (very good)
- dealing with philosophy for engineers is ungrateful and didn"t make enough sense, but other than that they were very good. brilliant discussions.» (very good)
- good way to teach some important notions, making students participate» (very good)

10. The quality of the content in Daniel Johansson lectures was.

poor»		0		0%
ok»		15		20%
good»		45		60%
very good»		14		18%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 2.98

- Good, but maybe you can get in more deeper in your subjects, sometimed to oversight lectures.» (ok)
- Too simple to be interesting» (ok)
- Studying economics is quite a good thing but maybe it was too much, especially because a lot of students did the course "Sustainable Development" which already deals with discounting...» (ok)
- I guess that as all young professor, the pedagogic skills can improve during the time» (ok)
- Sometimes things went by very quick and sometings got lost on the way. » (ok)
- Gjorde discounting intressant samt opportunity costs m.m.» (good)
- A little fast though» (good)
- Godd examples on the blackboard» (good)
- Though he talks VERY FAST and when he asks questions to the audience he dont wait for us to answer (or maybe he gets nervouse). So a feedback for him is that learn to waitat least 10s until students will answer. Especially in big lecture halls.» (good)
- I enjoyed discovering tools&method I"m not used to.» (very good)

11. The pedagogical quality of Daniel Johanssons lectures was

poor»		1		1%
ok»		21		27%
good»		41		53%
very good»		13		17%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- Slow down the speed!» (poor)
- Could be a bit more structured» (ok)
- Kunde ha varit lite tydligare. Färre ord på slidsen kanske.» (ok)
- too fast...impossible to understand everything» (ok)
- too fast» (ok)
- bra!» (good)
- Sometimes it goes too fast so students can´,t understand. I am sure you have a clear thought of what you mean, but try to structure it a little bit more so that you can present it better. » (good)
- A bit too quick» (good)
- talk a little bit slower!» (good)
- speaks a bit fast soemtimes...but so do I.» (good)
- Daniel has experience, but their lectures need more discussion, I think.» (good)
- It would be better maybe if you could speak more slowly, sometimes it was difficult to follow.» (good)
- Daniel"s laugh makes my day! :)» (very good)

12. The quality of the content of Erika Ahlgrens lectures was

poor»		11		14%
ok»		26		34%
good»		31		40%
very good»		8		10%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 2.47

- We feel that for some lectures Erik does not know the subjet enough.» (poor)
- The toppics were intresting but it felld like he just mentioned everything and did not describe any thing in detail, that would hav been moore interesting.» (poor)
- Sometimes it felt like repetition at least for those who study mechanical engineering at bachelor level.» (ok)
- Lack of details» (ok)
- The slides should be improved, they are boring.» (ok)
- Since he is covering a lot in one presentation, sometimes the content is very superficial.» (ok)
- I didn"t learn that much more new on his lectures since he only touched the surface on his different subjects. » (ok)
- Some new interesting topics were discussed! Like the lecture about Developing world» (good)
- could have been a little more informative» (good)
- to hours to talk about renewables energies is very little. » (good)
- a bit fuzzy but covering a large area which requires a brief intro rather than in depth.» (good)
- He was good and knowledgeable . Though could maybe learn to be aware of that he say uhhh..uhhh... uhhh... in almost every sentence he use.» (good)
- easy to understand, very good lectures.» (very good)

13. The pedagogical quality of Erik Ahlgrens lectures was

poor»		21		26%
ok»		29		37%
good»		25		32%
very good»		3		3%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.12

- Erik really needs to work on his pedagogic skills, be more structured and decide in what to say some time before the lecture. That would reduce the amounts of "eeeh".» (poor)
- It was difficult to understand what he said many times. The lesson about hydrogen and fuel cells was much better the other lessons. » (poor)
- Ganska rörigt i början av kursen, bättre mot slutet.» (poor)
- the lectures with him was always in the morning, and his voice is making people soo asleep...» (poor)
- He speaks very low, sometimes you cannot follow what he is talking about and makes you loose interest. The presentations show sometimes more text.» (poor)
- He is not interesting and sometimes you think about if he know what he speaks about. Often he have short lectures and finish half hour before.» (poor)
- He is a good teacher when speaking Swedish, but would need some learning in how speak English without small noices all the time.» (poor)
- needs to aprove his retorical skills» (ok)
- Maybe not enough interaction with students» (ok)
- need a better power point» (ok)
- potentials presented sometimes in TW, sometimes in TWh, sometimes not at all. Real (currently) installed capactiy comparisons or market increases comparisons would set things in perspective.» (ok)
- should try to help students to take part in the lecture (more discussions...)» (ok)
- It would help to include more information in the lecture slides, so they would be more helpful while studying.» (ok)
- Måste verkligen förbättra sitt flyt i språket, lyssnaren tappar snabbt koncentrationen annars.» (good)
- Lite svårt att lyssna på dig ibland. Tror engelskan hindrar lite. Ta det lugnare och andas oftare så är det inga problem. Själva pedagogiken är bra!» (good)

14. The quality of the content of Frances Spreis lectures was

poor»		0		0%
ok»		10		14%
good»		46		64%
very good»		15		21%
No opinion»		10

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- Very good, but had heard it all before.» (ok)
- Her slides were very good!» (good)
- Interesting presentation.» (good)
- Good lectures on energy efficiency, maybe there is a bit too much theory and not enough examples during the lectures.» (good)
- similar slides in miljö o energiteknik» (good)
- Was very slow the lecture about efficiency.. I in one way think it is waist of time when we students should discuss with our neighbours for a couple of min. Many ovious things » (good)
- Good lectures with alot of good information and she"s good at making you think in a different way on things. » (very good)
- Missed her lecture, but I has her in sustainabe developmend, where she held good ectures. The PPT fr om the lecture gave a good insight on what the lectuure was about.» (No opinion)
- missed her lecture» (No opinion)

15. The pedagogical quality of Frances Spreis lectures was

poor»		0		0%
ok»		8		11%
good»		44		61%
very good»		19		26%
No opinion»		9

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- Very dynamic teacher. » (very good)
- Really good presentations, looks really competent in her domain.» (very good)
- missed her lecture» (No opinion)

16. The quality of the content of David Bryngelssons lecture (bioenerg) was

poor»		1		2%
ok»		8		16%
good»		22		45%
very good»		17		35%
No opinion»		29

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- Great slides.» (good)
- Had a much higher pace during the lecture, which made it interesting until the end! Brought up some new stuff as well» (very good)
- Kanske främst för att jag minns mycket av det.» (very good)
- Sadly this is the lecture I missed.» (No opinion)
- Wasn"t here, still not used to check the portal to see if courses have been displaced... Maybe the old good emails could sometimes be good...» (No opinion)

17. The pedagogical quality of David Bryngelssons lecture (bioenergy) was

poor»		0		0%
ok»		8		16%
good»		19		38%
very good»		23		46%
No opinion»		28

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- The best presentation in the course» (very good)
- Bra engelska, bra engagemang, kul att lyssna på!» (very good)
- Very good lecturer, keeps you interested all the time. The best.» (very good)

18. The quality of the content of Anders Lyngfeldts lecture was

poor»		2		3%
ok»		17		28%
good»		36		60%
very good»		5		8%
No opinion»		20

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- could have been a little more economic aspect» (good)
- seems an specialist» (good)
- missade honom» (No opinion)

19. The pedagogical quality if Anders Lyngfeldts lecture (CCS) was

poor»		2		3%
ok»		22		36%
good»		33		55%
very good»		3		5%
No opinion»		19

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Couldn"t attend, so couldn"t see his way of teaching» (No opinion)

20. How large part of the lectures did you attend?

1-25%»		5		6%
26-50%»		1		1%
51-75%»		16		20%
76-100%»		58		72%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- For me, I find it easier to learn on my own, or if there"s anything in the litterature that I don"t understand, I ask a teacher about that particular thing. So I haven"t been to a whole lot of the lectures, for that reason.» (1-25%)
- Many lectures similar to privious courses and lectures on otherwise free days caused lower attendance.» (51-75%)
- Haft andra kurser som krockade.» (51-75%)
- I"ve just missed one lecture due to a misunderstood of the schedule.» (76-100%)
- The overlap between different lectures (same pictures but I also heard a discussion about several topics for 3 times (the same story, the same words). Maybe a little bit less lectures if you don"t have anything new to say. » (76-100%)
- but could have been enough with 50 %» (76-100%)

The excercises

21. The quality of the excercises was

poor»		4		5%
ok»		10		12%
good»		48		60%
very good»		17		21%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.98

- as said, when giving a little bit more information, more can be learned from different excercises. This gave my the incentive to watch the excercise sessions and than making the excercieses (with all data available). » (poor)
- Not so interesting exercises and some of them had been included in earlier courses (= not ok)» (ok)
- Sometimes they were really hard to understand, they need to be improved!» (ok)
- I"m just giving it an ok because of the discussion exercises, which I found really helpful» (ok)
- Could be better, you need to focus more on the discussion rather than the calculations. » (ok)
- But.. Little variation from other courses.» (good)
- DOck för mycket tid åt beräkningarna. Annars bra upplägg, mer diskussioner hade varit önskvärt. Jag vet dock att det är svårt att få klassen att diskutera, har troligen en del att göra med att man måste prata engelska.» (good)
- Some data are missing. » (good)
- Uppgifterna hade för många fel och var för inkonsekventa.» (good)
- konstigt koncept med att vi skulle räkna på tavlan. Kände inte att jag kun de tillgodogöra mig de lösningar som läraren visade riktigt. Hade varit bra för min del om räkningarna delades upp i flera delsteg och inte ett stort uttryck. Men man är olika.» (good)
- some miscalculations and lack of time to finish all exercises for some of the meetings» (good)
- Interesting to really apply what we see during lectures.» (good)
- Some exercises were too easy, some were too hard.» (good)
- exercises themselves were good, the book with it"s problems needs revising. include more data, tidy up the formulation of problems. hints to solutions could be posted in advance isntead of just a number.» (good)
- Good to calculate but the exercistime could be more focus on discusion» (good)
- Some calculations were really difficult to do AND to understand (even with the answer). Especially all the things related to efficiencies.» (good)
- good with mandatory exercises. Good with lots of student influence regarding the content of the exercises (daniels group).» (very good)
- make sure that it is enough time to go through the exercises» (very good)
- Good with discussion part» (very good)
- sad that so many people didn"t take the discouss serious» (very good)
- Maybe sometimes we were in kind of a rush.» (very good)

22. The relevans of the excercises was

poor»		3		3%
ok»		14		17%
good»		39		48%
very good»		24		30%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- Had been much more interesting with more open questions where we are supposed to figure out which data that is needed and find it ourself. It feels very far from reality, the kind of problems that we were solving. And the main task in the reality is to find proper data and not to do simple calculations, correct me if I´,m wrong. » (ok)
- Provide more excercises. (not mandatory) As I did all calculations of nuclear and still did not understand how it works. » (ok)
- It"s not sure that doing the calculations is really important compared to the results and the analysis behind. Of course it shows us how we manage to get these results, but some may not be relevant but just confusing. It could be interesting to teach the general rules of calculations: what we should do when our goal is this, with that kind of data, etc. It could be useful to have a clear method when we"ll do this kind of calculations in the future.» (ok)
- Try to make a summary of the important calculated values » (good)
- The discussion questions were very good, David had many interesting thought about them.» (good)
- Always in relation with the lectures.» (good)
- In regards to the exam they were very relevant.» (good)
- Very good to the exam, but I think its a good idea to put the solution on the coursepage.» (good)
- But more of them would be nice» (very good)
- Could be more calculations in the course!!!! That is what we are going to use in real life» (very good)
- Good repartition between calculations and » (very good)

23. The quality of the teaching assistant was

Totalt:

poor»		0		0%
ok»		9		11%
good»		26		33%
very good»		43		55%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.43

Fördelat på olika grupper:

Group 1 (Fredrik Hedenus): (32 st)

poor		0		0%
ok		3		9%
good		10		32%
very good		18		58%
No opinion		1

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- good participation» (good)
- I would have prefered less calculations on tje board and moore discusions. It had been enught with those calculations that you did which always wre thos that had been difficult.» (good)
- To much focus on the calculations. » (good)
- Lots of discussions, teacher opened to all kind of ideas, good explanations...» (very good)
- great job presenting issues, solving problems, making ppl come up and solve it on the board, encouraging discussions and debates.» (very good)
- Again I feel that Fredrik like to teach and thats good. There was a good athmosphere on this time.» (very good)

Group 2 (Daniel Johansson): (21 st)

poor		0		0%
ok		0		0%
good		7		33%
very good		14		66%
No opinion		0

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- try to be a bit more structured, otherwise good teaching» (good)
- Nice and relaxed. No problems in asking questions. Though he talks very fast and could slow down alot.» (good)
- Daniel was a brilliant teaching assistant. He made the atmosphere of the exercises really friendly and open. » (very good)
- Daniel always took the time to present answers so that everybody could understand, even when time was scarce...» (very good)

Group 3 (David Bryngelsson): (13 st)

poor		0		0%
ok		1		7%
good		2		15%
very good		10		76%
No opinion		0

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- He had a very good monoloog about biofuels (unfortunatly just before the debate). Not a good start, but he improved every week, as well for the debate sessions as the excercise sessions. » (ok)
- David är helt enkelt väldigt bra.» (very good)
- !» (very good)
- Toppen! Tack!» (very good)
- David is really good showing how the exercises are done and he knows a lot and can give a very good idea of what is happening.» (very good)
- David did a very good job at the exercises.» (very good)
- really good, » (very good)

Group 4 (Maria, Jonas, Johan and Ulrika): (13 st)

poor		0		0%
ok		5		38%
good		7		53%
very good		1		7%
No opinion		0

Genomsnitt: 2.69

- The quality of the exercise session was dependent on the teacher we had. I particularly enjoyed the sessions led by Jonas & Johan.» (ok)
- We did"nt have one teacher, for me the best was Maria.» (ok)
- Lot of different assistants» (ok)
- in my opinion i didnt like the division between erasmus and the rest of the chalmers student. I think it would have been more interesting if we had mixed all. Also there was a lack of information about the rooms of the assignment lectures. » (good)
- too assistant change» (good)

The debates

24. The relevanse (for the course) of the debate on climate targets for developing economies was

poor»		2		3%
ok»		16		26%
good»		22		36%
very good»		21		34%
No opinion»		19

Genomsnitt: 3.01

- Didn"t gave me anything useful honestly. Since you were only obligated to attend one. » (poor)
- I would say that the group that are supposed to be against should have there own proposal, instead of saying no all the time.» (ok)
- Since it is the first debate, probably the information was poor.» (ok)
- felt like it was more about winning and losing rather than facts. would probably not help on the exam to soak knowledge from what someone has read on monsanto"s homepage (dubious sources not examined during the debate). no assurance any numbers presented were correct. this holds for all debates as it is my only opinion on them as a whole. other than that debates are fun.» (ok)
- Tyckte dock att Fredriks egna åsikter lyste igenom lite för mycket eftersom han i min mening som moderator borde varit objektiv.» (good)
- bra men en upprepning från tidigare kurs» (good)
- it was good that you only hads to participate in on debate» (good)
- All of the debates were great in my opinion. You got to see a lot of different views on different subjects, and made you question what you thought beforehand as well. It was really educating. And this goes for all of the debates, not just this one.» (very good)
- In general it would have been more fun if more people came to listen to them. » (very good)
- It is very important to always hear both sides of the story. One of the best things in the course. I think they should be compulsory.» (very good)

25. The relevanse (for the course) of the debate on nuclear power was

poor»		0		0%
ok»		13		20%
good»		24		38%
very good»		26		41%
No opinion»		17

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- I would say that the group that are supposed to be against should have there own proposal, instead of saying no all the time.» (good)
- I learned a lot» (good)
- By far the best» (very good)
- This was the one I was in, and I also found it helpful to find information on your own and then having to defend your views on the matter. You had to think strategically on what you wanted to say, and what you didn"t want to say during the debate, so it was good in a lot of different ways.» (very good)
- felt like it was more about winning and losing rather than facts. would probably not help on the exam to soak knowledge from what someone has read on monsanto"s homepage (dubious sources not examined during the debate). no assurance any numbers presented were correct. this holds for all debates as it is my only opinion on them as a whole. other than that debates are fun.» (No opinion)
- Didn"t attend. » (No opinion)

26. The relevanse (for the course) of the debate on CCS was

poor»		2		2%
ok»		14		20%
good»		29		42%
very good»		23		33%
No opinion»		12

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- I did this debate and my group and the other one hade different approach on the subject wich made the debate not so giving. » (poor)
- difficult to be against CCS» (ok)
- Good to think about a speciel topic» (ok)
- Good to get the key points of the lecture on CCS» (good)
- All of the debates were great in my opinion. You got to see a lot of different views on different subjects, and made you question what you thought beforehand as well. It was really educating. And this goes for all of the debates, not just this one.» (very good)
- felt like it was more about winning and losing rather than facts. would probably not help on the exam to soak knowledge from what someone has read on monsanto"s homepage (dubious sources not examined during the debate). no assurance any numbers presented were correct. this holds for all debates as it is my only opinion on them as a whole. other than that debates are fun.» (No opinion)

27. The relevanse (for the course) of the debate on biofuels in the transport sector was

poor»		1		1%
ok»		9		15%
good»		29		50%
very good»		19		32%
No opinion»		22

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- No debate at the end» (ok)
- Good to sum up the lecture on bioenergy» (good)
- really interesting to not be able to choose side. it becomes more fun to be "told" what to think and then argue for it» (very good)
- All of the debates were great in my opinion. You got to see a lot of different views on different subjects, and made you question what you thought beforehand as well. It was really educating. And this goes for all of the debates, not just this one.» (very good)
- felt like it was more about winning and losing rather than facts. would probably not help on the exam to soak knowledge from what someone has read on monsanto"s homepage (dubious sources not examined during the debate). no assurance any numbers presented were correct. this holds for all debates as it is my only opinion on them as a whole. other than that debates are fun.» (No opinion)
- Didn"t attend. » (No opinion)

The litterature

28. The quality of the compendium was

poor»		13		18%
ok»		27		38%
good»		23		32%
very good»		7		10%
No opinion»		10

Genomsnitt: 2.34

- The texts in the course compendium can be choosen to match the learning targets in a better way. The texts are REALLY boring to read since most of them are too fundamental or too advanced. It would be interesting to know how many who have actually read the compendium...I haven"t...» (poor)
- det första kapitlet var bra, thinking about the energy... Men för mycket strötexter som inte känns relevanta» (poor)
- Had basically no use at all for this, except for the schedule and the exercise problems.» (poor)
- Ekonomigrejerna var luddiga, ibland hette två formler samma sak, och begrepp tycktes säga emot varandra. Artiklarna var många, långa och oöverskådliga. » (poor)
- As always with these kind of compendiums, about 0% of student read the whole material. Most, inkluding myself, find the most of the articles to take waaaay to much time in comparasion to what they give in regards to understandig. It seems like a bit of more effort should be put in to come up with good course material. » (poor)
- The exercis and Azars first chapter was enough togheter with lecture notes.» (poor)
- Much too much material that is more advanced than the course. » (poor)
- Didn"t even read it. Only used it for the exersices. » (poor)
- It"s not very useful, it"s rather just for fun. It"s too much work using it to study courde related stuff - probably since us chalmers students are spoiled with books written specificaly for a course, like kvm 013.» (ok)
- Maybe too much information, try to select » (ok)
- Många fel i övningsuppgifterna.» (ok)
- Interesting reading, but unnecesary to complete the course.» (ok)
- some articles were a bit irrelevant or felt like they needed som futher explination. » (ok)
- It is too extense. It should not be compulsory: the exercises and solutions must be published on the webpage» (ok)
- The articles were not really needed to do the exam. » (ok)
- Did not think that all the articles were relevant. Maybe there were too many articles.» (ok)
- Not so good connection between the lectures and articles» (ok)
- Some articles should be updated. Some of them probably should be removed since they don"t give new information.» (ok)
- Most of the texts are probably very good. The truth is though that there is no chance havning time to read all of it.» (ok)
- Did not read or use much of it.» (ok)
- maybe too much text, it seems to be impossible to read all of them, maybe try to indicate which texts are the most interesting» (ok)
- Some articles were a bit heavy. The course would benefit from a proper course book.» (good)
- Interesting and recent articles.» (good)
- But there really should be examples before each calculation exercise, so you have at least something to go on before you try to do it yourself. I mean, in some of the exercises, NO ONE in the entire class had managed to get the right answer. Doesn"t this tell you that we, the students, would need something more to have a fighting chance before attempting to solve it ourselves?» (good)
- Did not have time to read that many though» (good)
- But the compendium felt very seperate from the course, not needed was the feeling. » (very good)
- Köpte inte kompendiet, däremot lästa jag Azars förklaring av begrepp vilket var mycket nyttigt. Saknade dock inte kompendiet och erfarenheten från förra kursen säger mig att jag inte missade något. Givetvis tillför artiklarna en del i diskussionerna, men det kanske är värt att se över upplägget med artiklar. Samtidigt brukar jag inte läsa kurslitteraturen så jag kanske inte är rätt person att kommentera detta.» (No opinion)
- did not read it» (No opinion)
- Didn"t read it» (No opinion)

29. The quality of the Christian Azars book Solvning the climate challange was

poor»		3		4%
ok»		4		6%
good»		23		35%
very good»		34		53%
No opinion»		15

Genomsnitt: 3.37

- did not read it» (?)
- overlap with Azars articles in compendium. And then I preffer the more academic literature. But as reading book in bed it is quite ok, but not for studying. » (poor)
- Lots of speaking for nothing... Why using two pages speaking about Napoleon when the following has nothing to do with him?? And there are lots of examples like that ! It would be better just to have the useful content, without the spreading of knowledges of the writer.» (poor)
- More for the layman than an engineer.» (ok)
- Nice reading. Also, a book that"s fun in general and not used as literature.» (good)
- Köpte faktiskt denna för den verkade bra. Har läst 1/3 och den har varit riktigt intressant! Ska läsa återstående delen på jullovet.» (good)
- very attractive book» (good)
- It"s good to have a small book that gives a quick overview of the situation.» (good)
- Original way to describe energy futures, easy to read, separation of topics in chapters was a good thing» (good)
- Christian Azar is brilliantly providing the reader with a huge amount in information that is very accessible. It make a great difference to be able to read something that really gives that kind of overview in a way that is easily absorbed.» (very good)
- Easy to read!» (very good)
- Mycket bra och intressant läsning men skulle inte kalla de för en kursbok, gav mer en allmänbildande bild av hur världen fungerar och bör fungera.» (very good)
- Men kändes inte som om det var något som var så relevant till kursen att det hjälpte att ha läst det på tentan.» (very good)
- Same as for compenium. The connection was there but not directly connected to the lectures.» (very good)
- really good reading. many american similar books are full of meaningless bullshit just to cover lots of pages. azar"s book is interesting all the time, and to the point, on less pages which is apretiated.» (very good)
- easy to read and sums up the most important thoughts about the problem - keep it in the literature» (very good)
- Toppen! Läste hela. Informativ och underhållande.» (very good)
- It"s the perfect book for beginners...but it should perhaps be in sustainable development or science of environmental change aswell (or instead)» (very good)
- I like this one, good reading.» (very good)
- gave it to my family for reading afterwards.» (very good)
- very interesting» (very good)
- really nice student literature, light and interesting» (very good)
- Sort of sums up the course in a good way. » (very good)
- Didn"t read it yet.» (No opinion)
- Didn"t even buy it.» (No opinion)
- Didn"t read it» (No opinion)

30. How large part of the litterature did you read?

1-25%»		26		32%
25-50%»		21		26%
51-75%»		18		22%
76-100%»		14		17%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- the very beginning : questions, concepts and issues» (1-25%)
- Azars förklaring av begrepp.» (1-25%)
- Azar"s book and his articles. This was the most pedagogical content.» (1-25%)
- Almost only Azars book» (1-25%)
- första delen.» (1-25%)
- If you have a lot to other things to do, you don´,t read the litterature if it is not needed to pass the course with good results.» (1-25%)
- I basically just read the PDFs from the lectures.» (1-25%)
- Azar» (1-25%)
- I read Christians book and maybe 3 articles.» (1-25%)
- The book and the first pages in the compendium that is written by Christian were good and the only thing that I have read.» (1-25%)
- The parts from Christian Azar concluding the course» (1-25%)
- I read the book by Azar and the first chapter in the compendium by Azar. Also one part about CCS since we had the discussion about that.» (1-25%)
- Azar book and the things needed to be looked up for questions.» (1-25%)
- bioenergy (corresponded to my debate) azar"s book» (1-25%)
- The chapter after the exercises. » (1-25%)
- Jag läste bara Azars bok.» (25-50%)
- azar"s book and only some of the most important articles» (25-50%)
- Thinking about energy systems.» (25-50%)
- A bit of everything. I think it"s quite hard to read everything !» (25-50%)
- Azar"s book» (25-50%)
- The parts that interested me the most I think, and the things I needed to know before the exam» (25-50%)
- Read Azars book but not so many articles» (25-50%)
- All except developing countries, nuclear power and storage and intermittancy.» (51-75%)
- I"ve tried to read regularly all the articles but some texts are really long and I didn"t have the time at the end of the semester» (51-75%)
- biofuels, neclear power,..» (51-75%)
- Renewable Energies (Solar) Carbon Capture Storage Nuclear Energy Energy Efficiency» (51-75%)
- book and relevant (for exam) articles. it"s nice to have a ready made compendium with interesting articles for the future though. » (51-75%)
- Azar´,s book, the first part of the compendium, calculations and articles in the compendium that interested me.» (51-75%)
- to get an overview and understanding, not details» (76-100%)
- I skipped the literature about developing countries. and some about fuels (as there where a lot of articles about fuels fossil vs biofuel). » (76-100%)
- What I found interesting. The book was nice to read.» (76-100%)
- the book and then as many articles I had time to read.» (76-100%)
- ccs» (76-100%)
- nuclear» (76-100%)
- Only Azar» (No opinion)

The exam

31. How well did the exam correspond to the course content?

poor»		3		3%
ok»		23		28%
good»		46		56%
very good»		9		11%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- Var besviken på tentan medan jag skrev den men i efterhand tycker jag ändå att den var helt ok.» (poor)
- I did not think it reflected the course. Two of three theory questions were about cap and trade, even though the course covered so much more. The calculation questions were not really similar to what was in the course and I spend way too much time thinking about 7c (that was wrongly written), which in the end ment that I did not have time to answer all the other questions. The exam surprised me. But maybe I was just focusing on the wrong things all the time I was studying for the exam.» (poor)
- Lite väl mycket kärnkraft. » (ok)
- as mentioned, the exam was too narrow and the course was broad...» (ok)
- Very few questions on the material from Erik or Anders. Always good to let someone try the exam before handing it out, avoiding misstakes like the one on task 7. » (ok)
- I didn"t correspond to the exams that were given out before, the exam was much more difficult! The questions were phrased in a way so it was difficult to understand. The Cap and trade questions was a bit too much. The focus in the course was different from the exam.» (ok)
- Hard to solve the last exercise with a pocket calculator» (ok)
- some questions was hard» (ok)
- harder then the one before.» (ok)
- .. but the nuclear energy question was a little rough, wasn"t it?» (good)
- It was harder than the ones from previous years. It wasn"t too funny that there was a mistake among the questions...» (good)
- blev lite tokigt med fel i uppgiftstexten. Synd men inte så mkt att göra något åt.» (good)
- The exam was pretty well formulated.» (good)
- i think most of us, however, were kind of surprised how different it was from the older exams.» (good)
- overall good examn but some very specific questions. the last question was really not what we had done in the exercises.» (good)
- No surprise. The exam was shaped like the old exams and was dealing with questions we were prepared to answer.» (good)
- boring exam. » (good)
- I don"t understand why we have to know by heart some numbers (maybe not in this exam but in the previous ones, like the energy content of biomass, the energy consumption of a swede today, or things like that) or some physical quantities (Avogadro number, or conversion between MeV and J). In real life we will have access to these numbers !» (good)
- I think there should be more theory questions rather than calculations» (good)
- Some problems, specially the last one, could be very tough for thinking in the time of an exam.» (good)
- I thought it was a bit silly to have a calculation about breeder technology though. It feels kind of marginal.» (good)
- The exam was, for the most part, just and relevant.» (good)
- I think the exam did correspond well except from the the breeder task. every nuclear task during the curs has been on regular reactors. ofcourse they is a part of the ours but my oppinion is that to do calculations on them did not correspond to the curse.» (good)
- Some difficulties and twists but i think it was okej.» (good)
- Not always clear description» (good)
- I heard many student talking about the exam to have very hard calculation exercises. I do not think so. They where simple and straight forward if you know your dimension analysis. BUT that might be the problem! I suggest that you give a real good teaching in dimension analysis in the first calculation exercise because people is not using it today. » (very good)
- Really well I thought. It was a good mixture of calculation exercises and more theory-based exercises on it, as it should be in a course such as this one» (very good)
- I wish it would be ok to bring a normal chemist calculator (TI83). would make life easier!» (very good)