Rise to Power

Clean-tech and wind power both soaring

Posted at 4:23 PM on 18 Jan 2008

Investment in clean-tech companies rose 44 percent from 2005 to 2006, and jumped an additional 44 percent from 2006 to 2007, soaring to $5.18 billion, according to the Cleantech Group LLC. Last year in clean-tech, energy generation received $2.75 billion in investment, followed by energy storage ($471 million) and transportation ($445 million). And you know what that means: "More new car companies were financed in the last 12 months than probably in the last 50 or 60 years," says the Cleantech Group's John Balbach. Um ... great? In related news, U.S. wind power grew by 45 percent last year, boosted by federal and state energy policies and green-energy incentives. The American Wind Energy Association predicts that wind could provide 20 percent of U.S. power by 2020. Let it never be said that they don't have ambition.

sources: Reuters, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal (access ain't free)

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (11 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

20% by 2020

Errr, not quite. It's 20% by 2030. And just to be really clear, it's not a "prediction," just something that we believe is achievable based on a technical study that is still in review. Stay tuned.

Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.powerofwind.org
www.awea.org

by tomgray at 6:16 AM on 19 Jan 2008

20% by 2020

Here's a graph that gives a feel for how rapidly wind is growing. We reached 4,000 megawatts (MW) cumulative installed at the end of 2001, 8,000 MW at the end of 2004, and 16,000 MW at the end of 2007 ...

Regards,
Tom

by tomgray at 7:42 AM on 19 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

stop killing wilderness

hey, wind guys? all for your projects as long as they are sited SOLELY on previously developed land. they are TOTALLY unacceptable, however, when wilderness is permanently killed off to make (snort) "green" power. just not gonna roll with the greenwash, here, even if wind reduces carbon.

you can't directly kill off ecosystems in order to prevent indirectly killing off ecosystems. you need to focus on previously developed land, and let the wilderness breathe freely, since you and i have NO idea what the disastrous domino-effect of killing hundreds of thousands of acres will be. the one thing we know for sure, based on other ecosystems like rainforest, coral reef, kelp beds, mangrove forests, and ice caps - no good can come from it, especially since you have alternatives - previously developed land.

thanks for working to SAVE the planet, rather than kill it. you are either gonna be part of the solution, or part of the problem - the choice is yours...

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

by stopgreenpath at 10:49 AM on 19 Jan 2008

Oh the death of so much dirt

"you need to focus on previously developed land, and let the wilderness breathe freely, since you and i have NO idea what the disastrous domino-effect of killing hundreds of thousands of acres will be."

A lot of very unhappy bacteria?

Here is another even better idea. Put those windys
on land that CANNOT be developed, like the desert.
Please leave MY developed land alone.

by Boyscientist at 12:52 PM on 19 Jan 2008

stop killing wildnerness

I'm so one hundred percent in agreement with this. How do we find out which wind-power companies are using already-treeless land and which are clear-cutting?

Also, I'd like to invest in those companies, but I'm not a wealthy person. I do have an educational IRA for my son, and if anyone knows of a way I can have that IRA invest in strictly green businesses, including wind and solar energy, I'd love to roll that account. Any suggestions for trustworthy investment firms (something I regard as an oxymoron) and funds?

Kit: writer, thinker, speaker, listener, doer ~ http://rarelucidmoment.info

by Kit Nothing New at 2:07 PM on 19 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

stop killing wilderness

Thanks for the feedback. Got any specifics? Where, exactly, are the wilderness projects? Since a wind farm has to be connected to the electric transmission system (i.e., by a transmission line), I'm guessing there aren't many ...

by tomgray at 4:51 AM on 20 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

stop killing wilderness

thanks for asking, Mr. Gray.

other than the national parks, the entire Mojave region, which, contrary to our ignorant boyscientist, is NOT just a bunch of dirt, is, as we speak, being surveyed both for solar AND wind projects, including one on the only flat-topped buttes in CA, just outside the Joshua Tree National Park (which is an area rich in plant and animal life and fantastic rock formations).

no doubt you are aware that the 2005 energy policy act, written in secret with dick cheney and ken lay and other industry moguls, is designed almost entirely to to create THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of miles of new transmission corridors and lines, which is opening up deep wilderness areas to power development which have been functioning as pristine desert forever. we are working to stop that from happening.

this is really serious, and wilderness is more than "trees." just because you don't know what precise role the desert plays in planetary balance, that does not mean that you can destroy it without dire consequences. you simply cannot pretend you are "green" when you are killing ecosystems.

and nobody is suggesting that you exercise eminent domain over peoples' homes - i'm suggesting that truly "blighted" areas be used, modest sections of agricultural land, and that every building in a wind area have one or more turbine installed. i think most people would be open to it if the up-front costs were dramatically lowered and the utilities had to buy back 100% of the power at a decent price.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

by stopgreenpath at 8:56 AM on 20 Jan 2008

Lighten up stopgreenpath

No sense of humor and poor use of language is no way to be happy. I was only making fun of your assertion that windmills could "kill" thousands of "acres".

I'm not entirely ignorant about dirt having worked as a government soil microbiologists for about 5 years. I currently live near a windmill farm of about 350 units. It's a beautiful sight, day or night. Each one has a red light on top. Somehow the whole 7 mile string blinks almost in unison. It's really something to see at dusk from a plane.

Yes, I've seen the concrete pads and the service roads. Yes they do subtract some acreage from the corn fields but there's little impact on the meager local biosphere.

I'm shocked to hear anyone would cut down trees to build a windfarm.

Which significant key species of plant or animals out in the desert will be impacted by windmills enough to "KILL OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES"?

Tilt.

by Boyscientist at 8:29 PM on 20 Jan 2008

Has anyone thought

Has anyone thought of using previously ecologically damaged areas for wind farms: West Virginia mountaintop, strip mines, copper mines, etc. ? It would seem such areas could remain industrial and do us all some good rather than breaking into undeveloped land somewhere else. Anyway 'restoration' of such areas is quite impossible. These coal company people should start considering wind farms as being part of their revenue stream.

by catman at 9:57 AM on 21 Jan 2008

Mountain Top Removal Wind Farms

As pertaining to Mountain Top Removal, it is desirable to place wind farms on top of mountains and ridges. When these mountains and ridges are blown to smithereens the altitude that improves the energy harvested by wind farms is lost. Also, the land that was used for mountain top removal that is deemed by the coal companies as "reclaimed" is unsuitable for any type of structure. Be it wind farms, developments, or highways, the blasting and displacement of millions of tons of rock makes the ground too unstable to support any significant structure. These "reclaimed" sites shift and settle making them poor candidates for wind farms.

by Quinn at 2:09 PM on 21 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Yes, we've thought

The first wind farm in Pennsylvania was built on abandoned strip mine land, and there have been a few others. However, there are a number of other factors that go into siting: average wind speed (of critical importance to delivering electricity that is affordable); access to transmission; ability to use heavy equipment at the site to install turbines; etc. Using abandoned mining land is certainly a plus if possible, but it's just one part of the site selection process.

by tomgray at 8:01 AM on 22 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?