One of my most enduring memories of Washington D.C. occurred while attending a meeting on Geothermal Energy Development, back in the days before the Iron Curtain fell. In the evening after dinner, I took a colleague from Eastern Europe, on his first American visit, for a walk down the Mall. We walked, almost alone, on a still, bitterly cold, dark evening with fresh snow on the ground, and stars peppering the sky above us to see the sights, including the Lincoln Memorial. We stood staring, like backwoods tourists, through the windows of the Air and Space Museum.

We came back to the hotel for alcoholic refueling, thinking that the energy problems of the time would guarantee unending research funding into new forms of energy, and that our future was assured. That was about thirty years ago, and we were, of course, wrong, at least in terms of the funding and sustained interest in unconventional energy sources. Now we are walking back over some of the same ground. Again, fluctuations in oil prices have removed the immediate perception of the need for alternate supply, and have also weakened the credibility of those of us who try to suggest how to deal with the problem.

Prophecy, particularly when it deals with the near term future runs the risk of being corrected by the actual turnout of events. The ups and downs of energy demand, and available supply–-particularly when tied to the economic fortunes of nations, can make logical projection under one condition, but become apparently hopelessly in error when that condition doesn’t happen. Thus, at the moment, with the declining price, and apparent glut of oil, the public no longer feels that there is a crisis; the credibility of those forecasting a crisis is damaged, and can only be reconstructed over a longer period of time and changing circumstance.

Author's note: I have added a comment to the bottom of the post.

As the first gentle snowflakes of winter settled on the windscreen of my car I was reminded, yet again, of the turning of the seasons and our need for power to keep us warm through the coming months. Last week I commented on how jobs might be created as the pattern of power supply begins to change, particularly with the incentives that might be a part of a new initiative. Two factors often get understated, however, in the current anticipation of the changes that a new Administration may bring. The first of these is the time that it will take to get any decision implemented at a scale that can be meaningful, and the second is the scale itself of the problem that now faces us.

This is a simplified version of the presentation I will be making this Tuesday morning at the ASPO 7 Conference (the full presentation should be posted on that website in a couple of days). I must admit that I have been a bit nonplussed to see that the peak oil community seems to share the oil industry's dismissal of wind power as irrelevant and useless in the face of the currently energy challenge (maybe I am unfairly judging from a few individuals' comments, but it's definitely an existing undercurrent in the community).

So, in reaction, let me put up here a few arguments that suggest that wind could play a major role in solving our current energy woes - not a silver bullet, but rather more than a side show.

First, the "wind is too small to make a difference" argument: well, so was nuclear, until it got big enough. Wind is following the exact same growth trajectory:

Pure Power
EWEA, March 2008 (pdf)

In this post, I will talk about American Petroleum Institute's new Energy IQ Game and a related bloggers call, which Nate Hagens, Robert Rapier, and I participated in.

Last year, the American Petroleum institute (API) developed an Energy IQ Survey. This year, they revised it slightly and made it into a game. You can play, by clicking on this link:

The audio tape and the transcript for the API bloggers call can be accessed here.