How Does The 2018 Stock Market Plunge Stack Up? A Historical Review…

להלן קישור למאמר המקורי

STOCK MARKET VOLATILITY IS MORE COMMON THAN MOST BELIEVE

While they seem unprecedented and/or unnerving while they are occurring, stock market plunges and dislocations are not all that rare.  Experience says those that remain cool, calm, and collected with their eye on data from multiple timeframes have the greatest chance of being satisfied with their results looking back six months from now.

“I learned at sea virtually all situations can be handled as long as the presence of mind is maintained.”  – Josh Waitzkin, Chess Champion, The Art Of Learning

Therefore, we reviewed numerous cases of stock market plunges throughout history and decided to focus on eight of them as reference points to what’s happening today. See our research below.

1955 PRE-PLUNGE

The set of charts below show the S&P 500’s pre-plunge stock market profile, allowing us to better understand the odds of a new bear market/prolonged correction.

The moving averages on each chart range from the 20-day (blue) to the 200-day (orange).  The 1955 case looked good from a trend and conviction perspective.  Price was above all the MAs, blue, the fastest moving average, remained on top looking back seven months, and the slopes of all the MAs were positive.  All of that said “the market looks relatively healthy on multiple timeframes”.

1987 PRE-PLUNGE

The 1987 stock market chart had quite a bit more evidence of a waning trend relative to 1955.  The chart below is as of October 13 allowing us to see the market’s profile before the Black Monday plunge, which occurred on October 19, 1987.

1998 PRE-PLUNGE

Like 1987, there were several signs of waning bullish trend in 1998.

2000 PRE-PLUNGE

The stock market was a volatile, indecisive mess before tanking in September 2000.  The 2000 profile was much worse than 1955.

2007 PRE-PLUNGE

Sideways price action speaks to indecisiveness; stocks went sideways for nine months before tanking in December 2007.  Compare the look of the 2007 chart below to the 1955 chart above – 1955 was making a series of higher highs and higher lows (bullish trend) – the chart below saw the stock market go absolutely nowhere for nine months (indecisive behavior).

Then came 2011…

 2011 PRE-PLUNGE

The 2011 chart was a mess before the stock market plunge that year.   We can draw horizontal lines and hit price many times in 2011; not the case in the 1955 example.

2015 PRE-PLUNGE

The market was saying “pay closer attention” for six months before the 2015 stock market plunge.  In the 1955 chart, the moving averages cover a wide range on the price chart (a sign of a strong and sustainable trend).  The 2015 chart below features a tight MA cluster, which said “a big move could be coming”.

2018 PRE-PLUNGE

On Friday, January 26, 2018 the S&P 500 closed at a new all-time high.  Trends from short (20-day) to long (200-day) were all constructive.  The stock market had a full-bore bullish look with price above all the MAs, blue, the fastest moving average, on top, and the slope of all the MAs were positive (aka bullish).  The market had not been moving sideways, but rather making a series of higher highs.

1955 IS THE BEST MATCH

When we look at trends on multiple timeframes, it helps us understand how market participants are interpreting all fundamental and technical data looking out a few days to a few years.  It is pretty easy to see the charts from 1987, 1998, 2000, 2007, 2011, and 2015 have numerous forms of waning trend evidence, which is indicative of waning confidence in the economy and markets.  The two charts with the strongest and most sustainable-looking trends are 1955 and 2018.  The 2018 chart shares almost nothing with the 1987, 1998, 2000, 2007, 2011, and 2015 charts.

DISLOCATIONS RARE FROM STRONG PROFILES

It is extremely rare for markets to have a dislocation event or stock market plunge with a profile as strong as the one that was present on January 26, 2018.  Since markets can do anything at anytime, meaning even very low probability outcomes can occur, we always remain open to all outcomes, from extremely bullish to extremely bearish.  If you know your market history, you know bad things happened next in 1987, 1998, 2000, 2007, 2011, and 2015.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT IN 1955?

In the 1955 case, stocks experienced a sharp 6.8% correction and then resumed their well-defined bullish trend, tacking on an additional 42.3% over the next 510 calendar days.  If you are keeping score at home, the S&P 500’s correction in 2018, as of Monday’s close, was 7.8% (similar to 1955).  In order to compare apples to apples, we need to compare 6.8% to 2018 as of Tuesday’s close (rather than intraday Tuesday).

THE STRONGER THE TREND…

History says the stronger the trend when the dislocation occurs, the higher the odds the dislocation will be sharp, but relatively short-lived.  Said another way, the stronger the profile before the dislocation, the higher the odds the plunge will be followed by gains and eventually a new high in stocks.

For example, if we remove the two strongest cases 1955 and 2018, the next two strongest profiles were 1987 and 1998; in both cases patient and rational investors were rewarded with new highs (and much higher profits).   Conversely, the two weakest profiles were 2000 and 2007; the present day looks nothing like the periods from 2000 and 2007 shown above.

Our approach remains the same; if the hard data calls for action, we will take action.  If you ask anyone who has been through a difficult situation in the markets, they will tell you if you want to increase your odds of poor results looking back after six months, ignore the hard data, break your discipline, and make short-term/emotionally-based decisions.  Experience says make decisions based on the weight of the evidence on multiple timeframes, stay aligned with the hard data, stick to your discipline, and make logical decisions.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

Stay tuned for the second part of this analysis…

The Astonishing Story Behind What Really Happened to XIV

להלן קישור לכתבה המקורית

Date Published: 2018-02-6 
What was a bad day, turned into a never before seen move. Here is it: 

LEDE 
Hello, all. This is Ophir writing. 

During the market's closing hour on Monday, February 5th, some sort of "flash crash," likely triggered by margin calls, attacked the CBOE Volatility Index (INDEXCBOE:VIX), also known as the "fear index." 

Whatever it was, the VIX went from 17% to 37% in a matter of two-hours, or up 115%. That is the largest percentage gain in the VIX in one day ever recorded. 

Even then, while that is a huge move, it wasn't really market disruptive in any great way other than, the market had a bad day. But then the after hours margin calls came in -- and that was an unmitigated disaster for one particular instrument of interest to us: Credit Suisse AG - VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term ETN (NASDAQ:XIV). 

DON'T LISTEN TO TV 
The reporters on television have no understanding what XIV is -- it is not a naked short beton VIX. No, it is an investment in the core underlying principle of market structures, driven by positive interest rates, known as Contango. 

Remember, the XIV is the opposite of VXX, and the expected value of VXX is zero. Here it is, from the actual VXX prospectus: 

This instrument is not a radical short trade, it is fundamentally an investment in an ETN that reverses the value of an investment that is ultimately expected to be zero, which made it so good, for so long, and would have for several more decades. 

Here is an all-time chart of the VXX and I have plotted it with the actual VIX: 

We can see that the VXX is down 99.9% over the entirety of its 8-years of existence. In fact, it has to reverse split rather often so it won't trade for fractions of a penny. And, yes, the VIX is down 39% in this same time frame, but the two are clearly not the same instrument. 

The XIV is the inverse of the VXX. It. Is. Not. A. Simple. Short. VIX. Position. Not even close. 

We can even plot the VIX with the XIV over the last 5-years, right before this lunatic of a day: 

Does anyone really think that the bue line (XIV) is the direct short of the VIX (the purple line)? Honestly, with whatever beliefs you came here with -- those two are clearly not A and -A, right? So all of the people out there, telling everyone else that the XIV is a naked short volatility trade are wrong and simply don't understand this instrument. 

Going further, we can see with VXX, even this recent crazy spike in volatility, and break of contango, has hardly interrupted the long-term trend. And this isn't just a case of a long-term chart. Here is the two-year chart of the VXX: 

That chart shows us that contango is resilient, and sure, it has its bumps, but it doesn't get broken for long periods of time -- nor should it... unless an exogenous factor comes in. And that happened. 

WHEN A LINE BECOMES THE FOCUS 
A little detail in the prospectus of XIV is that, hypothetically, should it lose 80% of its value from the close, it would cause a "acceleration event." That means that if the XIV sunk to 20% of its value, it could go to zero and the ETN would go away (and start over later). The creator, Credit Suisse, would do this to protect from further losses to itself. 

Now, obviously, this had never happened to XIV before, but it's only a decade old. When scientists back-tested XIV all the way back to the 1987 crash and including the 9/11 terror attacks, they noted that even then, XIV would not have suffered a 80% decline in a day. But we have never seen such a market with so many naked short vol sellers as we have today. 

As a barometer, even as crazed as Monday was, here is how XIV closed: 

Down 14.32% is ugly, but, it's just a day -- a bad one, but nothing really all that crazed. Then the after hours session happened, and the best anyone can tell, as of this writing, is that some firm (or fund) had to unwind a short volatility position due to a margin call. 

That meant they had to buy the front month expiration of the VIX futures, leaving the second month unchanged. That little detail is everything, because the XIV is an investment on contango -- when the second month is priced higher than the first month. This is a market structure apparatus -- we could call it "normal market structure." But "normal," doesn't mean "always." 

With a flood of buying to cover short front month futures, the XIV started tumbling after hours. At first, social media saw it as a buying opportunity. Then it started dropping faster. Then disaster struck. 

The XIV dropped more then 80%: 

The financial press did its best to cover it, but after a 2 minute segment on CNBC, there was nothing left to say because of one major rule inside the XIV prospectus. Here it is: 

In that fine print, it reads that if the value of XIV dips to 20% of the closing value (if it is down 80%), the fund stops. That is, since this trade, if done with actual futures contracts, can actually go negative, the ETN stops itself out at a 80% one day loss. This is why we investors use the ETN, knowing that a 100% loss is the worst that can happen, as opposed to the futures, where much worse than 100% loss can occur. 

And the greatest burn of it all 
As of Tuesday morning the VIX is down (of course it is), the market structure has held (of course it did), and XIV would be having a very good day (of course it would). 

But, worse --- it turns out, as far as we know (still speculation), while it's hard to swallow, that the unwinding was done by none other than Credit Suisse itself. Yes, the creators of the ETN had another concern, beyond the assets under management -- and here it is -- -- look at the largest shareholder. 

Credit Suisse quietly became the single largest holder of the very instrument it created, and by a huge amount. So, as 4pm EST came around, a bad day in XIV, but survivable, became the death knell, because the largest holder, the XIV's custodian, panicked, and covered. 

But, Credit Suisse could not very well just sell millions of shares of XIV in a thinly traded after hours session, so it turned to the VIX futures market. 

It appears, as of this writing, that this has actually occurred. While Credit Suisse (the issuer of the ETN) has yet to comment, it appears that whatever this "flash crash" did, whatever margin calls were triggered after hours, the short vol trader was in fact the firm -- it unwound positions in a size that the market has never seen before, and that means that it looks like XIV is possibly going to some very, very low number -- like $0, low. 

It's with great regret that as of right now, we do believe XIV is, for all intents and purposes, gone, from a little rule hidden deep in the prospectus that no one gave much concern and that got blasted away when the top holder in the note was the custodian itself. 

It's a reminder that the real danger to a portfolio is not a bear market -- we recover from those quite nicely as a nation -- it's the delirium that happens when a bull market gets totally out of control and margin is used excessively in a spurt of just a few days. And by margin, we don't mean normal, everyday investors, we mean the institutions -- even the ones we entrust to be custodians of our investments. 

So that's it. XIV likely would have done just fine after this moment in time in the market, will not be given that opportunity to recover. It has been blown out on the heels of yet another Wall Street debacle, which no one seems to even understand, yet. 

The author is long shares of XIV in a family trust. 

I Was Wrong About Kepco

להלן קישור לכתבה המקורית

Summary

Worst political scenario unfolds nullifying the bull thesis.

New government goes U-turn on energy policy, heightens environmental regulations, scraps current projects under development.

KEPCO profits are shrinking, and the company is likely to continue to underperform.

Without a transparentdividend distribution policy, I’m avoiding the stock.

In March last year, I decided to cover Kepco (KEP) with my article “The market is wrong about Kepco.” The company receives very little coverage, and the piece became a viewership success (it was also an Editor’s Pick): it is to-date my most read article on Seeking Alpha. Ironically, Kepco turned out to be the worst-performing stock I ever recommended on the site so far too.

The investment thesis

An energy monopoly in its home country South Korea, last year I argued that this SOE was trading at undeserved low multiples. The company was showing a multi-year margin expansion and excellent profitability levels, relatively stable leadership under CEO Hwan Eik Cho and willingness to harvest further opportunities in the nuclear space abroad following the Westinghouse bankruptcy. KEP stock had just been through a market sell-off because of governance uncertainties, but with the political situation on its way back to normalization, I judged the company a buy.

Time to eat humble pie

Yes, South Korea was undoubtedly emerging from months of political instability. The rallies held in the capital Seoul, which saw millions taking to the streets (something unseen in the country before) were over. Former President Park was impeached and removed, and elections set for the upcoming May.

While the governance doubts were cleared, the election’s outcome was not a favorable one for Kepco shareholders. In my bullish view, while I correctly identified the threats KEP was facing, I failed to assess their real impact on Kepco. I was neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagreed with me: I was wrong because facts proved the contrarian approach to be wrong in this case. Here is why:

New President tightens regulations, shies away from coal and nuclear

The part of the story I got right is that Korea’s political developments mattered a lot for Kepco. In fact, the single most important red flag for KEP shareholders was the election of President Moon Jae-In, a Democrat, last May. His win was to be expected entirely considering that conservatives were in total disarray after Park’s impeachment.

With the traditionally strong conservative party split between “loyalists” and “antagonists” of the former President, none of which having much public favor, right-wingers’ bets were all on rising star Ahn Cheol Soo. However, its independent party failed to pose a credible threat to Moon despite receiving favorable press.

I perceived Democrats’ ideas on energy policy as somehow vague during Moon’s electoral campaign and ended up not paying too much attention until it was too late. Moon did not take long to translate his vague thoughts into actions. In early June, it was already possible to see what kind of troubles were lying ahead for Kepco: with Reuters providing an interesting article on the subject for the international public. The new President quickly reshaped Korea’s energy policy to focus on reducing carbon emissions and stabilizing Koreans’ energy bills, at the expense of KEP cost-effectiveness and profits.

CEOs resign

While last year I argued Kepco found stability under CEO Hwan Eik Cho, the argument was close to meaningless since the CEO was however set to depart soon. Indeed, his 5-years as CEO were already an unusually long span, considering that the standard mandate is a 3-year non-renewable tenure. After having been granted with two one-year extensions by President Park’s cabinet, it was fair to assume Cho’s retirement would not have been delayed further by the new government, despite the impressive turnaround in Kepco’s operating results.

Cho’s departure became official last December, closely followed by the abrupt and unexpected resignation of Lee Kwan-Seop, head of Kepco’s subsidiary Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. (KHNP). His departure has been widely connected to the anti-nuclear stance taken by the new administration. The yet to be announced replacements will have to navigate Kepco and KHNP through rising fuel costs, expectations that no price hikes will be passed on to consumers till 2022 and the new government's desires to see renewable sources increase their power generation share from the current 5% to at least 20% by 2030.

Kepco’s operating margins are sinking (again)

While FY 2017 results are not yet available, I looked at the most recent Q3 results (in Korean). Unfortunately, I did not find anything in English to link, but I will explain relevant data:

Excerpt of Kepco Q3 Income statement from the company website (link).

Nine-month revenues were flat compared to the previous year (yellow line) and slightly up in the last quarter, but EBIT (green line) was down 37% in the third quarter and down 53% for the nine months (!!!).

Why all this matters now?

I once have been accused to have written an article with just “a lot of hindsight.” Regardless of whether I deserved the objection, one thing is for sure: successful investing is not about knowing all the details about a stock’s history, but rather to correctly predict what will happen to the business in the future. Unfortunately, the past is often a tricky way to assess the future. However, I believe the information just provided about Kepco was meaningful, not only because it materially affected the stock’s price in the recent past, but because it is also likely to influence the company’s operating performance for years to come.

Considering elections are now due in 2022, the current strategy will materially affect Kepco for nearly a decade (unless we see another “U-Turn” after the next round). The headwinds mentioned above are not one-off: Kepco is likely all set for a new prolonged phase of business underperformance. Kepco, being a utility that operates in a regulated market, is a traditional playground for two types of investors: bargain hunters looking at fundamentals and income investors. And now, the company seems just to be a bad investment for both of them.

Kepco’s dividends: cut or scrapped?

While Kepco has been paying an annual dividend since 2013, the company has never set an official amount to distribute to shareholders nor a target payout ratio. As a result, the distribution ranged from a paltry amount of 90 KRW per share in 2014, a yield of 0.25% at the current share price to 3100 KRW (8.7% yield) in 2016. The dividend is traditionally declared at the end of the year, but my take on the issue is that 2018 distribution will be announced later as the CEO is still vacant.

In fact, 2017 dividend declaration was delayed as well pending Cho’s tenure extension, but then the record date was retroactively set on December 31^st. Traditionally, Kepco has paid a dividend for about 20%-30% of its net income, and I think the company will do the same in April 2018. However, shareholders should not expect a high yield from Kepco. 

Based on the company’s nine months performance, here are my expectations for the FY 2017:

Rising fuel costs, a 3 months suspension on coal plants operation imposed in the early stages of Moon’s government, a moderate rate reduction to end users and here we have the perfect storm: operating and net income cut in half of what they used to be in FY 2016. Barring an unexpected hike in payout ratio (or a steeper cut), Kepco will possibly continue to pay dividends for about 30% of its net income.

Kepco’s 2018 distribution might be around 900 KRW/share ($0.4 for the ADR) or a 2.5% yield considering the current price of about $16. If long-term income investors, the usual type of shareholders owning utilities, are left without a reliable dividend distribution policy to rely on, then there is no reason to hold on Kepco shares instead of a steady payer like Dominion Energy (D).

Kepco’s dividend information from the company website, yet to provide an update for FY2017 (link).

Kepco’s cheap valuation

Data source: Seeking Alpha

The other potential Kepco shareholders are the value guys, those who are always looking for bargains and are naturally attracted by low multiples (no offense intended, I am also one of them). Indeed, Kepco seems to be trading at low multiples (look above and see for yourself) but judging a cyclical business using peak earnings (and cash flows) is usually a terrible idea.

Investors may find out that not only the stock is not as cheap as the current EV/EBITDA number misleadingly suggests: both previously used as comparable French EDF (OTCPK:ECIFY) and German RWE (OTCPK:RWEOY) also currently trade for an EV/EBITDA below 5x according to website Gurufocus.

If Kepco's EBITDA deteriorates further, fundamentals would even justify a further slide in price. The P/BV is undoubtedly low, but the value is neither unseen nor unjustified since utilities like Kepco have been traditionally long-term underperformers and loss-makers. Even if the asset valuation is potentially attractive, the grim business prospects point at a classic “value trap” case where bargain hunters contemplate a perennially cheap stock with no catalysts. All in all, there is just no reason to believe Kepco’s low multiples are unjustified or undeserved.

A final note. I decided not to include a stock chart in this article because, for fundamental investors, it is just a source of cognitive bias. Past does not equal future, and even if Kepco shares have lost a little more than 20% since my unfortunate recommendation last March (and are now off more than 40% from their 2016 high), it does not imply the current price is a bargain.

Personally, I decided to take a loss last year in the tax-selling window and move on. As I see it, Kepco turned to be a very sour fruit with the new government pushing hard on environmental issues and keep households’ costs low. To score easy points, Moon’s administration will likely forego Kepco profits for a long while, and therefore my current recommendation is to AVOID the stock.

Don't miss the next breaking dividend investing idea! Seeking Alpha's premium research subscribers get early access to top dividend investing ideas?

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

יצרניות הנפט מתחילות להפנים את המעבר לאנרגיה מתחדשת

להלן קישור לכתבה המוקרית

עפ"י תחזיות האיחוד האירופי, עד שנת 2030 כ-30% מצריכת האנרגיה תהיה מטורבינות רוח ■ טראמפ פחות להוט לקדם אנרגיה ירוקה, אבל גם בארה"ב השינוי מורגש

25/01/2018, 11:30

בעתיד, שנת 2017 עשויה להיזכר כשנה שבה העולם החל להבין שמשהו בסיסי מאוד השתנה בצריכת האנרגיה שלנו. עוד קודם לכן היו עדויות לירידה במחירי האנרגיה המתחדשת, אבל ב-2017 נדמה שחל שינוי תודעתי.

הירידה במחירי ההתקנה של תחנות כוח לייצור חשמל ממקורות "ירוקים", לצד הרצון של יצרני רכב להגדיל את חלקן של המכוניות המונעות בחשמל והשאיפה של ממשלות ועיריות להפחית את צריכת האנרגיה המזהמת של התחבורה הציבורית - כל אלה מסמנים את האפשרות לקיפאון, ובעתיד גם ירידה, בביקוש לנפט, לפחם ולגז, לראשונה זה 150 שנה.

לשינויים האלה עשויות להיות השלכות פוליטיות בעלות עוצמה גדולה מאוד. אם מחירי האנרגיה המתחדשת יהיו שווים או נמוכים מעלות הייצור של אנרגיה מנפט, תהיה לכך השפעה מיידית על מדינות כמו רוסיה או חצי האי ערב, שכלכלתן מבוססת על גז ונפט. על פי התחזיות הקיימות, הדבר צפוי לקרות כבר בשנת 2020.

באירופה, שוק האנרגיה מטורבינות רוח מתפתח במהירות, ואילו השימוש בנפט, בגז ובפחם הולך ופוחת. זו תוצאה ישירה של התערבות ממשלתית לאורך זמן. על פי התחזיות של האיחוד האירופי, עד 2030, 30% מצריכת האנרגיה תהיה מטורבינות רוח. בארה"ב של דונלד טראמפ, לעומת זאת, השלטון הפדרלי פחות להוט לקדם אנרגיה ירוקה. השבוע החליט הנשיא להטיל מכס מיוחד של 30% על פאנלים לייצור אנרגיה סולרית, אף שהדבר מאיים על יותר מ-20 אלף משרות במדינה.

השינויים ההנדסיים והפוליטיים בתחום האנרגיה המתחדשת לא יהיו מיידיים, והשחיקה בכוח הפוליטי של מדינות שמייצרות נפט תהיה הדרגתית, אך היא תורגש. בין הנפגעים יהיו כמובן גם חברות הנפט והפחם, ולבסוף גם חברות הגז הטבעי, שיצטרכו למצוא מקורות הכנסה חלופיים.

המעבר לאנרגיות חלופיות מונע משינויים ומשיפורים טכנולוגיים המשפיעים על השוק, לצד תוכניות סבסוד וממשלתיות ותוכניות רכש ממשלתי, שיוצרות תחרות על מחירי ההפקה ודוחפות בתורן את יצרניות הפאנלים הסולאריים או הטורבינות לאמץ שינויים טכנולוגיים.

זאת המגמה שסימן גם הדוח השנתי של הסוכנות הבינלאומית לאנרגיה מתחדשת (IRENA), שפורסם בסוף השבוע שעבר. לפי הדוח, שינויים טכנולוגיים מהירים ומדיניות מכוונת של רשויות הרכש במדינות שונות דוחפים את מחירי האנרגיה המתחדשת למטה בטווח רחב מאוד של מוצרים.

מהדוח עולה שהמגמות האלה קיימות לאורך כל מגזר האנרגיה, ובאזורים רבים בעולם הטכנולוגיות של אנרגיה מתחדשת מציעות היום את המקור הזול ביותר ליצירת חשמל. על פי הסוכנות, העלויות הכרוכות בכושר ייצור חדש של חשמל ממשיכות לרדת, וכבר היום מדובר במקור שיכול להתחרות עם אנרגיה ממקורות קונבנציונליים כמו נפט, פחם וגז.

הדוח מציין גם שהאצת הבנייה של כושר ייצור חשמל מגבירה את התהליך של הוזלת האנרגיה ממקורות מתחדשים. כך, למשל, כל הכפלה של כושר הייצור המותקן של אנרגיית רוח מוזילה את עלויות ההשקעה ב-9% ואת עלויות ייצור החשמל ב-15%. לכן עלות ייצור החשמל בפרויקטים חדשים של אנרגיית רוח ירדה ל-4 סנטים לקוט"ש, לעומת 10 סנט ב-2002.

שינוי תודעתי

בתחילת החודש פרסמו ספנסר דייל, הכלכלן הראשי של ענקית הנפט BP, ובאסם פתוח, המנהל של מכון אוקספורד ללימודי אנרגיה, מאמר שבו הם ניתחו את הצפוי בשוק הנפט בשנים הקרובות. לדבריהם, השאלה מתי תתחיל הירידה בביקוש לנפט היא פחות חשובה מהסוגיה של התנהגות חברות הנפט נוכח ההתפתחויות בשוק.

דייל ופתוח טוענים שאם עד לא מזמן אפשר היה לדבר על "מחסור" של מקורות נפט, היום יש שינוי תודעתי והדעה הרווחת היא שמדובר בשוק שיש בו היצע גדול מאוד, שפע של אנרגיה ומקורות אנרגיה שמתחרים ביניהם. אם בעבר חברות הנפט נהגו להשאיר רזרבה לא מנוצלת מתוך מחשבה שבעתיד המחירים יהיו גבוהים יותר, עתה הן מכירות בכך שהמחירים בעתיד עלולים להיות נמוכים יותר וההיצע יגדל. לכן, לחברות הנפט יש אינטרס להפיק את הנפט עכשיו, וגם זה לוחץ את המחירים כלפי מטה - דבר שיוצר במקביל עוד לחץ על החברות ועל המדינות היצרניות.

כדי להמחיש את ההשלכות של "תודעת השפע" בשוק האנרגיה, אפשר להסתכל על הדוגמה של קליפורניה: הגוף הרגולטורי המפקח על מים וחשמל (CPUC) החליט בשבוע שעבר שספקית החשמל הגדולה במדינה, חברת PG&E, לא תוכל לייצר תוספת חשמל בשעות שיא ממקורות של גז, כפי שהיא נוהגת כיום. במקום זאת, החברה תיאלץ לרכוש אנרגיה סולארית כדי למלא סוללות שישמשו לספק את הביקוש. ההחלטה הזאת יכולה הייתה להתקבל הודות לתוכניות להרחבת ייצור אנרגיה סולארית, למשל, על גגות של בתים ובניינים שיאפשרו את יישומה.

על פי הדוח של IRENA, המחיר הממוצע לטווח ארוך של האנרגיה הסולארית ירד ב-69% בין 2010 ל-2016, וגם זה חלק מההסבר להחלטת הרגולטור של קליפורניה. באותה תקופה ירד המחיר של הפאנלים הסולאריים לשימוש ביתי בשני שלישים, כך שחברות החשמל נאלצות להתמודד גם עם תחרות של חשמל ביתי.

בינתיים בישראל: רק שתי חוות רוח פעילות

טורבינות רוח הן מקור נקי לייצור אנרגיה מתחדשת. הן יעילות יותר מאנרגיה סולארית ולא תופסות מקום רב. טורבינה ממוצעת מתנשאת לגובה 180 מטר, וכוללת שלושה להבים גדולים המסתובבים במהירות גבוהה. טורבינה ממוצעת אחת מייצרת חשמל בהספק של 1 מגוואט. בישראל, המיקום האופטימלי להקמת טורבינות הוא ברמת הגולן. מהירות הרוח שם כמעט כפולה מזו שבמישור החוף.

הפוטנציאל להפקת חשמל מאנרגיית רוח בישראל נאמד בכ-1,000 מגוואט. למרות זאת, רק שתי חוות רוח פועלות בישראל והן מייצרות יחד כ-20 מגוואט בלבד - פחות מאחוז מסך החשמל המיוצר בארץ. על פי הגורמים המקצועיים בענף האנרגיות המתחדשות, הסיבה העיקרית למספר הנמוך של טורבינות רוח היא התנגדות עזות של התושבים ושל הארגונים הירוקים החוששים לחיי הציפורים שמקננות ברמת הגולן ועלולות להיפגע מהלהבים המסתובבים במהירות. שני המינים העיקריים הנמצאים בסכנה כתוצאה מפרויקטי רוח ברמת הגולן הם הנשר והבז האדום.

נכון להיום, כ-15 פרויקטים של טורבינות רוח נמצאים בשלב התכנון. ככל הנראה, אף אחד מהם לא יחובר לרשת לפני שנת 2020.