Editor’s note: Yesterday, we discovered that both the archive and EcoGeek have representatives visiting WindPower 2007, the American Wind Energy Association’s annual convention and trade show. In order to give readers of both sites a wide range of coverage, we decided to join efforts and share our posts. This first one comes from EcoGeek writer Ransom Riggs, and was published earlier today.

Day one of the Windpower 2007 conference has come to an end, and having just rubbed elbows with something like 6,000 attendees, 400-plus exhibitors and national legislators and policymakers from around the country, I thought I’d try to make sense of it all. The confab was put on by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and heavily attended by many of folk who belong to it: wind energy producers, manufacturers who produce things like wind turbines, poles, and transmission lines and wind outreach and education organizations. The conference features tons of panels, discussions and presentations, but much of the talk at this year’s Windpower focused on just a few issues:

• A lot of people -­ and not just wind industry representatives, either ­- believe that wind energy is and will remain an increasingly crucial part of our national renewable energy portfolio. No one had anything particularly negative to say about nuclear or other non-c02-emitting power generation technologies, but all agreed that of those other options, none were as ready as wind power was to step up to the plate and work. (It takes years and years to bring a nuclear power plant online, for instance, and not nearly as long to build and permit wind turbines). The wind industry feels that its golden moment is now.
• The AWEA has set a really tough goal for itself and for the wind industry: to produce 20% of the U.S.’ power by the year 2020. As good as that sounds, no one really knows how it’s going to be accomplished. Panelist Bob Lukefahr, of BP’s alternative fuels division, stressed the challenges: It will require “technology we haven’t invented yet,” he said, and entails “political and economic complexity this business has never faced before.” For starters, they’re going to have to figure out how to deliver all that energy; even if we had the turbines to do it right now, it would cost at least $60 billion to build the transmission lines to get that power onto the country’s grid, according to AWEA President Randall Swisher.
• The future of the wind industry depends on the White House, and if the next few presidents we have aren’t wind-friendly, wind will stay small for the long haul.

The good news is, there are plenty of states out there interested in having the wind industry set up shop in their regions. At Monday’s confab alone, the mayor of Los Angeles and the governors of Montana and Iowa made nice to the assembled windustryites, and at least one congressman (D.C.’s own Jerry McNerney) and a senator (Tom Daschle) lent their support to the cause as a whole. In short, the industry is booming, consumer interest in renewable energy has never been higher, and the future ­ depending in part on what happens in the 2008 election ­ looks bright.

Got a question about green technology?

Recommended Articles

Related Content

Most Emailed Content

Most Popular Topics

Active forum topics

Blog Posts by Month