최근 유가의 하락과 재생에너지 시장과의 연계성을 찾기 쉽지 않을 수 있다. 그러나 기업 컨설팅 업체인 Nexant는 두 부문의 연계성을 강조하였다. 석유는 본질적으로 수송 연료이며, 세계 전력생산에서 있어서는 약 4% 정도만을 차지하고 있다. 반면, 풍력과 태양광은 주로 전력시장에서 점유율을 놓고 경쟁을 한다. 그러나 에너지 프로젝트에 들어가는 돈은 두 시장을 오고 가는 데 큰 어려움이 없다. 여기에 낮은 유가가 재생에너지 시장을 촉진할 수 있는 여지가 있다.
원유와 재생에너지 간의 관계는 시장 인식의 2차적인 영향에서 확인할 수 있었다. Nexant는 이번 보고서(Crude Oil’s Impact on Renewable Energy)에서 원유가 재생에너지에 비해 시장 변동성(market volatility)이 상대적으로 크다고 강조하였다. 그 변동성은 에너지 투자자들의 행태에 영향을 미친다. 2014년 브렌트유와 WTI유의 가격은 배럴당 110달러에서 50달러로 떨어졌는데, 원유가격 예측의 어려움을 반증하였다. 현재 가격이 다소 오르긴 했지만, Bank of England와 IMF(International Monetary Fund)와 같은 신뢰할 만한 기관들은 유가가 여전히 변동성이 있지만 대체적으로 배럴당 70~80달러에서 정착할 것으로 전망하였다.
이러한 가격 추정과 그 변동성은 투자자들로 하여금 수개월간 석유가스 부문에 투자를 꺼려하게 만들었다. 동시에 풍력과 태양광 발전에 대해서는 꾸준한 관심과 투자가 이루어졌다. Nexant측은 에너지 또는 화학제품에 투자하고 있는 은행 및 법률 회사들이 최근 원유 부문 외에 투자할 만한 곳을 찾고 있다고 강조한다.
2014년 유가하락은 지역 정치와 결합된 수급 문제로 인한 결과였다고 Nexant측은 말한다. 에너지효율과 세계경기 둔화가 에너지수요를 낮추는 효과가 있었다. 그리고 OPEC이 시장점유율을 줄이지 않기 위해 감산 결정을 하지 않을 때에 미국도 원유생산이 늘어나 공급 과잉이 현상이 발생하였다. 태양광과 풍력은 그런 연료 가격 변동으로부터 다소 격리된 모습을 보였다. 재생에너지가 초기 투자비는 많이 들지만, 연료가 본질적으로 무료이기 때문에 운영비는 거의 들지 않는다. 유가 변동 사례에서 볼 때 원유에 투자하는 것은 점점 리스크가 높아지는 전략이며, 반면 재생에너지 상대적으로 안전하고 매력적인 대안이 되고 있다. 재생에너지는 기술 의존적이며, 관련 비용이 제조방법의 향상, 설치 기술 제고, 노하우 증가 등으로 이유로 꾸준히 하락하고 있다. 화석연료는 이와 반대로 추출(extraction) 의존적이며, 자원을 찾기 점점 더 어려워지면서 비용도 높아지고 있다.
기술 기반 산업과 추출 기반 산업 사이를 구별하는 일은 잠재적인 투자자 판단에 중요한 요소가 된다. 투자자들은 기존보다 재생에너지 프로젝트와 관련한 리스크 및 수익 회수와 관련하여 신뢰성이 높아지고 있다. 이에 2014년에는 Rockefeller Brothers Fund 중 화석연료에서 대체에너지로 투자처를 옮긴 자본이 8억6,000만 달러에 달한다. 그 펀드가 명확히 석유로부터 이동했다고 보기는 어렵지만, 불확실하고 변동성 높은 시장이 자본 이동의 주요 요인이 된 것은 맞다.
최근 유가 하락 이후 많은 국가들은 화석연료에 제공하는 보조금에 대해 다시 생각하게 되었다. 유가가 절반 이상 하락하면서 최소 27개 국가들이 발전을 위해 연료비용을 규제하는 보조금을 줄이거나 끝내는 방침을 세웠다. 이는 재생에너지가 에너지 대안에서 에너지 중심요소로 자리 매김하게 만드는 주요 요인이 되고 있다. 왜냐하면 재생에너지가 잠재적으로 화석연료 대비 경쟁력이 늘어나기 때문이다.
How wind & solar could benefit from low oil prices
o those in the energy industry, it seems to be stating the obvious to observe that the price of oil has little to do with the renewables market, but global corporate consultant Nexant sees a connection.
Oil is essentially a transportation fuel and only provides about 4% of global electricity generation, while wind and solar primarily compete for market share in electricity markets. But the money that finances energy projects has no problem jumping that market divide, and therein lies the reason that low oil prices could help boost the growth of renewables.
“The observed historic correlation between crude oil and renewables primarily results from the secondary influence of market perception,” Nexant’s recent white paper, "Crude Oil’s Impact on Renewable Energy" reports.
It is important to note, according Nexant Consultant and white paper author Bonaire Le, that “crude oil is subject to a lot more market volatility than renewable energy," and that volatility could influence what energy investors do.
The 2014 drop in Brent Crude and WTI oil prices from above $110 per barrel to below $50 per barrel highlights the unpredictability in crude oil's price, Le said. Though there is presently “a slight uptick” in prices, indications from reliable market-watchers like the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund see the price settling at some point “around $70 per barrel to $80 per barrel,” although they stress that prices could still fluctuate.
Those price estimates, and their uncertainty, have had investors focused on the oil and gas sector worried for months. At the same time, steady gains in market share for wind and solar generation highlighted how isolated they are from fuel price fluctuations, and Le said that big investors are taking notice.
“When we are working with banks and law firms who are the funding bodies to energy or chemical projects,” he said, “they want to understand – if there is an issue with crude oil, what else is there to finance?”
Investors are the connection
The 2014 drop in the price of crude oil was a straightforward supply-demand issue mixed with geopolitics, Le said. Energy efficiencies and sluggish global economy compromised demand. Burgeoning volumes of U.S. crude over-supplied a market that eventually became over-saturated when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), determined not to lose market share, refused to cut output.
Solar and wind provide some insulation from such fluctuations in fuel prices. While they require high upfront capital investment based, they have “an input cost of ‘zero’” because their fuels are essentially free, the white paper explains. The history of oil price volatility “has demonstrated that investing in crude oil is an increasingly risky strategy," it continues, while renewables could offer a safer, more appealing option.
Banks and other investors “are comfortable with looking at crude oil price scenarios and forecasts and how that impacts their potential return on investment,” Le explained. But with the 2014 oil price crash, they realized new investments in unconventional, hard-to-reach resources would not be as likely to pay off.
At the same time, advances in technology and market forces were driving the price of wind and solar projects down and the projects were providing reliable, if more modest, returns.
Renewables are technology dependent “and at this stage of the experience curve costs will continue to go down with the refinement and improvement of manufacturing methods, installation techniques, and development of know-how,” the paper explains.
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are “extraction-dependent” and “costs increase as resources become harder to find.”
Distinguishing between “technology-based” and “extraction-based” industries is a crucial point to get across to potential investors, the paper stresses. As investors become more comfortable with the new set of risks and returns associated with renewables ownership, it predicts, “they will be increasingly willing to underwrite debt positions where the cost of capital is lower than experienced with traditional power project financing.”
An indication of this kind of investment decision, Le said, was last year’s announcement of a move from fossil fuels to alternatives by the $860 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund, founded with John D. Rockefeller’s oil fortune.
Though the fund did not specifically identify divestment from oil, it noted “uncertain and volatile markets” as part of the basis for its move. It was an example of investors “making the call to shift their investment to wind or solar or hydro-electric,” Le said.
Between the fast-falling costs of wind and solar and the significant progress toward affordable energy storage, the paper finds, “renewable energy could leverage the opportunity spurred on by the current state of crude oil to depress or possibly reverse further penetration of conventional power sources.”
Fossil fuel subsidies
The International Energy Agency has made a strong case for the detriment fossil fuel subsidies do to the climate change effort. And Pope Francis made a strong moral case against them in his recent encyclical as well. But there is an economic case to be made as well, Le believes.
“The drop in crude oil prices has caused many nations to reconsider the allocation of their current subsidies,” the paper reports. “With crude oil prices cut by more than half, at least 27 countries have elected to decrease or end subsidies that currently regulate fuel costs for electricity generation (including coal and natural gas).”
This offers an opportunity for renewables “to transition from an energy alternative and into an energy staple,” the paper explains, because it “could potentially drive renewable energy technologies to reach a strong competitive position against their fossil fuel-based alternates for power generation.”
The topic of subsidies is complicated and specific to the government providing them, its energy mix, and its intentions, Le explained. One possible speculation is that fossil fuel subsidies could migrate to renewables.
Another possibility is that a country would recommit to its fossil fuels, Le said. The OPEC nations decided to continue the current rate of production because of their determination not to lose market share to the U.S., and other fossil interests aren't likely to allow their position as incumbent transportation energy providers to be compromised.
It is important for countries developing subsidy policies to remember that subsidies distort markets and the 2014 crude price drop was not the first time that led to oil price volatility, Le said. Countries tend to want to look past such episodes when they should be thinking about what the impacts will be on their economies in the long run.
But even if nations don't make a coordinated effort to reduce their fossil subsidies, Le thinks that the private sector may shift resources to renewables anyway. It just may take some time to get financiers comfortable with the capital requirements of renewable energy investment.
“The point I am making is that with renewable energy you have a high upfront capital cost which many banks are not comfortable with, but you have a relatively zero raw material cost moving forward and much lower risk,” Le said. “With a petro-chemical based project tied to crude oil and exposed to crude oil price fluctuations, the revenue from operating the plant or trying to get the investment back in the future is much more subjected to uncertainty.”
즐겨찾기 추가 
시작페이지로 설정
