Tuesday, July 13, 2021

 

Solar Has An Unlikely New Enemy

Wind and solar generation capacity topped new capacity additions in 2020 despite the pandemic, prompting praise from energy authorities and environmentalists, as well as urges for picking up the pace so wind and solar—especially solar—could become the dominant source of energy for the world sooner than 2030. The narrative of the cheap solar panel is so common, few question it at all, especially when it features data about the declining cost curve of panels. According to this narrative, solar farm electricity is already cheaper than the electricity produced by gas-fired plants.

What the narrative omits is that this is not universally true as of yet. The other thing the narrative omits, perhaps out of genuine lack of awareness, is that the cost curve for any product, be it a photovoltaic panel, a wind turbine, or a barrel of crude oil, depends on many factors. And some of these factors are not exactly favorable.

For all the benefits of solar power—cheap, emission-free energy from a virtually endless supply except during the night and when it’s overcast, raining, or snowing—the technology has some drawbacks. While these are a favorite topic of discussion among renewable power skeptics, they don’t normally draw any attention from the industry itself. Now, one of the big problems of solar—that is, land use—has drawn the attention of a perhaps unlikely opponent: environmentalists.

Utility-scale solar farm projects are increasingly drawing opposition from environmentalist groups, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, citing the Battle Born Solar Project, which will cover—literally—14 square miles, or, as the WSJ puts it, 7,000 football fields. That’s a lot of land to cover with solar panels, which would render it useless for any other purpose.

Related: Is OPEC+ Ready To Open The Taps?
Opponents of the Battle Born Solar Project from the nearest community are not among renewable power skeptics that mock solar farms. They are, in fact, environmentally conscious people who are, however, concerned that the massive solar farm will spoil the land, upset ecosystems, and last but not least, make their beautiful views less beautiful.

It’s a Beautiful Problem 

It was really bound to happen. Anyone who’s had the chance of seeing a utility-scale solar farm knows they are not exactly works of art that one would enjoy seeing on a daily basis. The logic, as with so many other things, seems to be, “It’s great, but I don’t want it in my backyard.” And it’s not all about aesthetics, either. Build enough massive solar farms, and we might have a climate problem on our hands.

Solar’s En Fuego

Earlier this year, two researchers from Sweden and Australia challenged an idea that has been circulating in the public space for a while. They challenged the notion that building a few giant solar farms in the Sahara desert will solve the world’s energy problems. 

Not so, Zhengyao Lu from Sweden’s Lund University and Benjamin Smith from Western Sydney University warned. Solar farms have a heat problem, and the bigger the farm, the bigger the problem becomes.

Solar panels convert light into electricity at an average rate of 15 and 20 percent. So, 15-20 percent of the light solar panels absorb, they convert into electricity. The rest appears to be the problem, according to Lu and Smith.

The energy that solar panels cannot convert into electricity gets released back into the environment in the form of heat, the climate researchers explain. While their focus is on the Sahara, with its light-colored sand, the fact that solar panels release energy back as heat remains regardless of what the environment is.

Inconvenient Truth: Costs are Rising

Besides emerging environmentalist opposition, however, the solar industry has a much more immediate problem: costs are rising. Because of the global supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic, the cost of virtually all raw materials are soaring, reversing the steady trend of cost declines we have witnessed in solar panels for more than a decade. Besides evidence that nothing should be taken for granted, even solar panel prices, this fact threatens what many like to call a renewable energy revolution.

Related: Reuters: U.S. Agrees To Lift Iran Oil Sanctions

This is happening at the worst possible time for that revolution. The International Energy Agency, in its Net Zero by 2050 roadmap, said it will require adding 23,000 Twh of the total 71,000 TWh the world will need by 2050. But Norwegian Rystad Energy went further. The consultancy recently estimated that the world could add some 50,000 TWh because it is so cheap.

“The world needs to grow its power generation capacity further in order to fulfill electrification goals in buildings, transportation and industry and solar PV is the cheapest and most convenient way,” Rystad analysts said.

This no longer appears to be the case. A recent Financial Times report noted that the shares of solar power companies have shed some 18 percent since the start of the year as the prices of steel, polysilicon, and transportation have all soared. The chief executive of the U.S. Solar Fund expects these higher raw material prices to boost new solar installation costs by as much as 20 percent. And the US Solar Industries Association warned this is only the beginning: “compounding cost increases across all materials are just beginning to affect installers,” the association said.

Perhaps S&P Platts analyst Bruno Brunetti put it best, as quoted by the FT: “The narrative in the solar industry has shifted,” Brunetti said. “We have seen steep declines in costs over the past decade, but we are seeing that stabilise now and even increase in some cases.”

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

How COVID-19 Triggered The Mother Of All Oil Crises

The COVID-19 pandemic certainly wasn’t the first historic crash or economic crisis for the oil and gas industry, and it (probably) won’t be the last. Four huge historic oil crises come to mind immediately: the 1980s oil glut which followed the gas lines of the ‘70s, the turmoil of the Gulf War, the 2008 financial crisis, and the ensuing oil glut of the 2010s. The only thing that’s consistent about oil markets is their very volatility. It’s a boom-and-bust business by nature. And yet, somehow, this time it’s different.  Oil markets and the energy industry as a whole have been hit by all kinds of crises and disasters in the last century. There was the Suez Canal crisis of the ‘50s, in which Egypt nationalized the pivotal waterway which controlled two-thirds of the oil used by Europe at the time of the conflict. The oil embargo of 1973, in which Arab members of OPEC imposed an embargo on the United States for their involvement in the Arab-Israeli War, leading to those aforementioned gas lines and gas rationing. Then the Iranian revolution caused the second global oil shock in 5 years, leaving consumers stuck in oil lines once again. But, according to oil giant BP, all of these momentous and market-changing moments “pale in comparison” to the havoc wreaked by the novel coronavirus pandemic. 

Related: Oil Price Plunge Continues Amid OPEC+ DeadlockThe supermajor oil company released its annual Statistical Review of World Energy on Thursday, and the document compiled data from the past year which led the company to describe 2020 as “a year like no other” with left indelible marks on the energy industry as a whole. The pandemic has led to the loss of 4 million lives at the very least, and those numbers continue to rise, with the number of reported cases (and scores more of unreported ones) totalling to well over 185 million. The economic toll has also been enormous, with global gross domestic product contracting around 3.3 percent in 2020 --  “the largest peacetime recession since the Great Depression,” according to reporting from CNBC

While the pandemic has left a lasting mark on nearly every industry and economic sector out there, few have been as hard-hit and re-shaped as the energy industry. 2020 started off with a huge drop in global oil demand as industrial sectors around the world slowed down or closed down, and cars sat idle in driveways as people retreated inside to shelter in place. This oil market volatility soon led to a spat between the OPEC+ members of Saudi Arabia and Russia as to how to respond to the challenge, which devolved into an all-out oil-price war and severe supply glut which put global oil storage at capacity and made owning oil a liability -- so much so that on April 20, 2020, the unthinkable happened and oil prices went negative. The West Texas Intermediate crude benchmark plummeted well below zero, bottoming out at nearly negative $40 per barrel, a historic first which would leave waves in the global oil market that are still reverberating today. 

Related: U.S. Shale On Track For One Of Its Best Years Ever

But the massive change in global oil demand and industrial activity also had huge positive externalities. In their report, BP notes that the 2020 global health crisis resulted in falling rates of primary energy and carbon emissions at levels that we haven’t seen since World War II. World energy demand is estimated to have dropped by a whopping 4.5 percent and worldwide carbon emissions resulting from energy use contracted by 6.3 percent -- massive changes by any historical measure. 

A new, greener world seemed possible and the clean energy transition was catalyzed as green energy had a gangbusters year and world leaders in all corners of the globe got serious about meeting emissions goals and working renewables and energy efficiency into their economic recovery packages. Solar power had its biggest growth year ever, and as a whole the renewable energy sector emerged from the pandemic’s economic turmoil “relatively unscathed.”

Some of that hope, however, that the pandemic would provide enough perspective and enough of a break in the momentum of industry and status quo to seriously change the trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, is falling away as the world rather hastily returns to business as usual. While the hope of the green revolution is fading, however, it’s more urgent than ever before. Hopefully it won’t take another taste of the end of days to bring back the human energy needed to power the clean energy revolution. 

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

The Ongoing Transformation Of ‘Big Oil’

When last year BP (-0.50%) vowed to reduce its oil and gas output by 40 percent by 2030 as it shifts to renewable energy, it came as a shock to many, pushing the company's share prices down sharply. Yet since then, pressure on Big Oil to stop doing what it does has only been growing. And Big Oil is responding.

The Houston Chronicle's Paul Takahashi in a recent article detailed supermajors positioning to effectively move away from their core business and into low-carbon energy. Takahashi noted several examples of Big Oil partnering with majors from other industries to effectively reduce these other industries' consumption of Big Oil's principal products: fuels.

One such example was Total—recently renamed TotalEnergies (0.25%)partnering with BP (-0.50%) and Uber (-1.35%) to speed up the adoption of electric vehicles. TotalEnergies (0.25%) already has a growing footprint in EV charging infrastructure, as does BP. And they have a solid reason for doing so: European governments are dead set on achieving their net-zero goals.

Just last week, the European Commission said that it planned to propose that internal combustion engine cars be phased out beginning 2035 EU-wide. Before that, the EC plan envisages a reduction in vehicle emissions by 65 percent by 2030.

"There's no way around it, reaching net-zero by 2050 means phasing out combustion vehicle sales by 2035 at the latest," Bloomberg quoted Colin McKerracher, BloombergNEF's head of advance transport research, as saying.

This would mean Big Oil would lose a solid chunk of its biggest market—that for fuels, meaning, in turn, they would need to find a replacement. EVs are one logical replacement for fuel sales, so no wonder Europe's Big Oil majors have been quite active in building a presence in charging infrastructure.

Pressure is not coming only from governments. Asset managers are getting increasingly restless about emissions and ESG investments.

Earlier this month, asset management firms worth a combined $6 trillion in client assets called for a global carbon price as a way of accelerating the energy transition. They did not stop there, either. The group, which calls itself The Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance, also said the cost of carbon emissions needed to treble by 2030 if we are to reach global climate change targets.

What this effectively means for Big Oil is that their client pool will shrink considerably over the next couple of decades, assuming the transition drive continues. If carbon costs rise, more and more companies will opt for low-carbon energy alternatives to fossil fuels, especially with governments subsidizing these. With the timeframes cited by various energy transition proponents, Big Oil doesn't really have much time. So it is moving away from being Big Oil and into Big Energy territory.

Some are venturing into alternative fuels. The Chron's Takahashi noted Chevron's (0.20%) partnership with Toyota (0.62%) in developing transport and storage systems for hydrogen-powered cars. The partnership, according to the two companies' press release, aimed to "catalyze and lead the development of commercially viable, large-scale businesses in hydrogen, with the goal to advance a functional, thriving global hydrogen economy."

These partnerships and shifts come not a moment too soon. Reuters reported last week that even central banks are joining the ESG investment chorus. Citing a survey by Invesco, the report said a third of central banks and sovereign wealth funds have started paying more attention to environmental, social, and governance investment priorities during the past year. More than half had specific ESG policies, up from 44 percent a year earlier.

Related: Natural Gas Prices Still Have Room To Run

Then, of course, there was the unprecedented ruling of a Dutch court against Shell (-0.95%), which obliged the company to reduce its carbon emissions by 45 percent within ten years. This will effectively force the supermajor to move from Big Oil to Big Energy. More court cases like that are not out of the question, either.

Some see this shift as an opportunity for the industry, however. An Oilman magazine article penned by Benjamin Beberness listed the opportunities that the energy transition is opening up to oil and gas companies, and they are taking advantage of this. These include entering solar and wind power through state acquisitions in already existing businesses and hydrogen production and distribution. Power utilities are also fair game for oil and gas companies that want to survive in a shifting energy world.

Be that as it may, Big Oil will hardly give up on the business that gave it its name entirely, even in 2050.

"As people understand we're going to be in the hydrocarbons business for decades to come, that concern has gone away a little bit," BP's Bernard Looney said in response to investor criticism the company might miss on the oil price rally because of its production cut plans.

"We want to run the best hydrocarbons business possible. We don't want to run the biggest hydrocarbons business possible," Looney clarified, as quoted by Reuters last month. Chances are that if the green transition drive continues at current rates, this business will by 2050 be only a small portion of BP's overall business. The same might be true for its peers.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

Investment in renewable energy favoured over oil and gas, but regional differences persist, poll finds

Geography, politics and age all factor into views of Canada's energy strategy

An online survey conducted by the Angus Reid Institute found that 54 per cent of Canadians surveyed say investing in renewables should be the priority in Canada. Only 12 per cent said oil and gas investment should be the focus, while 34 per cent favoured investing in both equally. (CBC)

A majority of Canadians favour more investment in renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydrogen over oil and gas, with divisions evident based on political affiliations, location and age, according to a new poll.

The online survey conducted by the Angus Reid Institute found that 54 per cent of Canadians surveyed say investing in renewables should be the priority in Canada. Only 12 per cent said oil and gas investment should be the focus, while 34 per cent favoured investing in both equally.

"You do see a majority of Canadians really talking about wanting to trend in a direction of alternative energy sources," said Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute.

"So wind, solar, hydrogen technology, but in many cases that tilt doesn't totally exclude an awareness of and a desire to also continue investing — at least to some extent — in the exploration of and production of oil, gas and non-renewables."

The vast majority of respondents across the country wanted to see more investment in solar (84 per cent) and wind (77 per cent) specifically, but regional differences were significant.

Beyond insight into the investment concerns of respondents, the poll also examined priority concerns when it came to the country's energy policy.

Across Canada, 31 per cent of respondents said energy independence should be a top priority, followed by 27 per cent who stressed protecting the environment and 21 per cent who picked renewable energy.

Economic growth was cited by only 11 per cent of those polled as a top concern, tied with stability of supply.

Regional and political differences were stark in the findings. 

Different regions, different views

In Alberta, 46 per cent of respondents favoured investing in oil and gas and renewables equally, while 33 per cent would prefer to focus on renewables alone. 

Twenty-one per cent of Alberta respondents want the focus to be on oil and gas alone, second only to Saskatchewan at 28 per cent.

Fifty-three per cent of respondents in Ontario support investing only in renewables, while 34 per cent favour both renewables and oil and gas equally, and 13 per cent want the focus to be only on oil and gas.

A recent survey found that 46 per cent of respondents in Alberta favoured investing in oil and gas and renewables equally, while 33 per cent would prefer to focus on renewables alone. Twenty-one per cent of Alberta respondents want the focus to be on oil and gas alone. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

Quebec has the highest support for investment only in renewables at 67 per cent.

Those regional differences also played out when it comes to priorities, with more respondents in the Prairie provinces citing energy independence as a top concern, while the rest of Canada all chose renewable energy as the top issue.

"This is the discussion and this is the tension or the push and pull between where the country is saying it wants to go and the extent to which some parts of the country may be a little bit more alive to the fact that, well, we can't get there yet — or if we get there, there are going to be some trade-offs," Kurl said. 

The political factor

The views of those who vote for the Conservative Party of Canada were found to be out of step with supporters of other parties.

Only 18 per cent of respondents who vote for the party said they would prioritize investing in renewables, with 53 per cent favouring equal investment in both oil and gas and renewables.

Climate-change activists and a few counter-protesters supporting the oil and gas industry gather for a march and rally with Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg outside the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton in October 2019. (Dave Chidley/The Canadian Press)

For the Liberals, 71 per cent of supporters surveyed said they favour investment in renewables. That number was higher for the New Democratic Party (78 per cent) and the Green Party (86 per cent).

Conservative voters also overwhelmingly prioritized energy independence, while the other parties' supporters were  heavily concerned about renewable energy and protecting the environment.

When it came to the age of respondents, the breakdown was fairly clear, with older Canadian respondents more in favour of oil and gas — or a mix of investments — versus a greater focus on renewables for those under 55.

The survey was conducted between June 2 and 7, weeks before a heat dome settled over Western Canada and shattered record temperatures across provinces. The heat wave also stressed energy infrastructure as power grids worked to keep up with demand.

The survey was conducted using a randomized sample of 4,948 Canadians who are members of the Angus Reid Forum.

Online surveys do not have a margin of error that can be accurately calculated. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

WATCH | N.S. town aims to become Canada's 1st net-zero emissions community:

 

Study finds disparity in pay for female ophthalmologists in Ontario, Canada

A new population-based study looking at nearly 30 years of billing data demonstrates that sex-based differences in Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) payments exists for Canadian ophthalmologists

UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK

Research News

A new population-based study looking at nearly 30 years of billing data demonstrates that sex-based differences in Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) payments exists for Canadian ophthalmologists.

A team led by researchers and clinicians from the Donald K. Johnson Eye Institute, part of the Krembil Research Institute at University Health Network (UHN), studied 22,389 Ontario physicians across three decades and found a significant payment gap between female and male ophthalmologists even after accounting for age, and some practice differences. This disparity was more pronounced among ophthalmologists when compared to other surgical, medical procedural and medical non-procedural specialty groups.

"This is real and robust health administrative data," says Dr. Tina Felfeli, a PhD student in the Vision Sciences Research Program at UHN and the THETA collaborative group at Toronto General Hospital, as well as first author on the paper. "In a fee-for-service environment, one wouldn't have expected differences between the sexes in OHIP payments." She adds, "These findings are very powerful."

The data was collected on OHIP fee-for-service payments between 1992 to 2018, through the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) database. ICES is a non-profit research institute, leading studies, which evaluate health care delivery and outcomes.

To date, the majority of the studies looking at disparity in pay amongst females and males have relied on self-reported income from surveys or Medicare/Medicaid payments, only capturing a subset of billing data.

"One of the most interesting findings in the study is that females appear to have the smallest representation in ophthalmology as compared to other specialty groups combined, and this is where we see the biggest disparity in payments," says Dr. Yvonne Buys, a Clinician Investigator with the Donald K. Johnson Eye Institute, part of the Krembil Research Institute at UHN, and a senior author on the study.

Studying gender disparity in physician payments and advancement for females working in medical specialties is a major focus for Dr. Buys. This study builds on previous work that she has done in this area.

"There is a perception that women are paid less because they may not work as many hours as men, or that they are somehow less productive," says Dr. Buys, "but this study shows that's not the case."

"So the next step in this research is to find out why the disparity exists."

Although future studies will shed further light on this, possible contributors may include referral patterns, complexity of cases, operating room access, choice of procedures, frequency of patient visits and billing practices. However, it is also possible that some of the differences are due to the individual's choice.

"In an era when a growing number of females are choosing to enter medical school, addressing the barriers to progression for females in surgical specialties will likely improve the appeal of ophthalmology as a profession for future generations," says Dr. Felfeli. She adds, "This will be an important step towards diversity and inclusion in medicine."

Key findings:

  • The representation of females in medical and surgical specialties has increased from 17% of all physicians in 1992 to 36% in 2018.
  • In 2018, ophthalmology had one of the lowest representations of females at 22%, compared to most other specialties.
  • Even after accounting for differences in age, number of patient visits, number of patients, and visits per patient, there was a disparity in pay between males and females, for ophthalmologists and other medical and surgical specialty groups.
  • Amongst the highest billers in ophthalmology in 2018, males billed approximately 17% more than female ophthalmologists. This was despite female ophthalmologists having a greater number of patients in their practice.
  • Males earned 8-?12% more than females in other medical and surgical specialities.

This study made use of de-identified data from the ICES Data Repository, which is managed by ICES with support from its funders and partners: Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, CIHR, and the Government of Ontario. The opinions, results, and conclusions reported are those of the authors. No endorsement by ICES or any of its funders or partners is intended or should be inferred.

###

Dr. Felfeli is supported by educational grants from the Canada Graduate Scholarships, the University Health Network Vision Science Research Program, the UHN Foundation, University of Toronto Postgraduate Medical Education Research Awards and Fighting Blindness Canada.

About the Krembil Research Institute

The Krembil Research Institute (or "Krembil") is one of the principal research institutes of the University Health Network. Krembil is focused on research programs dedicated to brain & spine, arthritis and vision disorders, with a goal to alleviate debilitating chronic disease through basic, translational and clinical research. Krembil is located at the Toronto Western Hospital in downtown Toronto. For more information: http://www.uhn.ca/Research/Research_Institutes/Krembil

About University Health Network

University Health Network consists of Toronto General and Toronto Western Hospitals, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, and The Michener Institute of Education at UHN. The scope of research and complexity of cases at University Health Network has made it a national and international source for discovery, education and patient care. University Health Network has the largest hospital-based research program in Canada, with major research in cardiology, transplantation, neurosciences, oncology, surgical innovation, infectious diseases, genomic medicine and rehabilitation medicine. University Health Network is a research hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto. The Krembil Brain Institute at Toronto Western Hospital is the home to the largest team of neurosurgeons, neurologists, neuroradiologists and allied health professionals in Canada, with the widest range of expertise and specialty care for neurological diseases. For more information: http://www.uhn.ca

For more information or to book an interview, please contact:

Heather Sherman, Senior Advisor, Public Affairs
Neuroscience | Arthritis | Vision
University Health Network | heather.sherman@uhn.ca

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the