It certainly was a busy one.  And for the European wind energy market in particular, it summed up the state of play admirably.

With a focus on 2020 targets, major manufacturers, developers and investors worked hard to win new contracts, while a whole host of new market entrants poured into the sector to help solve policy, procurement and project management problems and capitalise on the boom.

The result?  Twelve months on the industry continues to make considerable ground, despite the best intentions of the naysayers and the peddlers of gloom.

And that’s all just marvellous.  However, it’s a fight that’s not getting any easier just yet and as ever, if the industry is to truly succeed, it needs all the support it can get.

Put bluntly, that support comes through sheer weight of numbers.

For too long the wind industry has played up the argument that when it comes to international energy, it’s still small fry.  And yes, compared to our fossil fuel cousins, that may well still hold true.

However, do not underestimate the power of public opinion.  And the sentiment on the street is already starting to shift.

Even in these austere times the consumer has a conscious. An ideology that has become increasingly clear through the consumer’s attitude towards the cost of energy.

For the industry, it’s easy to dismiss this subtle shift and to look beyond what is often seen as a fickle consumer.  But take a second look.

In 2011, the crowd was at the very heart of some of the most memorable international events – riots, demonstrations and toppling of governments.

Perhaps then, when acting together with a common goal, people really do have power and hold sway?

And if they are a proven revolutionary force – might that not be of benefit to help secure the long-term future of wind?

With governments both within North America and within Europe having shown consistent inconsistency, might it not be time for the industry to try something new – and take the debate direct to the people?

2012. A year of people power. Now that’d give the BBC a headline and a half.

And for some individuals and businesses, it’s a period that’s resulted in some serious growth.  Iberdrola and Gamesa are of course, two of the most high profile winners, although others haven’t exactly faired too badly either.

This, combined with the knock on investment impacts that have in turn kick started a whole swathe of support services businesses, means that the past few years have been quite the fiesta.

However, following the first policy unveiling of the new right-wing government on Monday, all this looks set to change.

So far, there’s been no official word on renewable energy – or indeed energy in general.

However, with the major utilities having stepped up the pressure on the incoming government to tackle a deficit of over 20 billion euros – something that they’ve accumulated on their balance sheets since they were obliged to cover the short term cost of state-backed subsidies before increased consumer pricing was supposed to pick up the tab (but never did…) – change is coming.

And while the outgoing socialist government reached a deal last year to begin to tackle this tariff deficit – paying back the debt to the utilities through the sale of state-backed government bonds – the fact remains that any future investment in wind energy will be perceived as a costly initiative.

And that, in short, is a shame.

While for the likes of Gamesa and Iberdrola, they’ve largely protected themselves against the shortcomings of their domestic market through expansion overseas, it’s a development that will do little for Spain’s economic and energy security woes.

Indeed, with the new government having previously expressed an interest in developing further grid connections with France, in developing existing gas pipeline agreements with North Africa and with introducing further tax changes to nuclear activity, it would appear that renewable energy will be shut out in the cold.

For a country that was for so long bought into a clean energy future, the policy changes and politics demonstrate how quickly such sentiments can change.

Consider the following:

1.) In China, a Chinese trawler captain stabbed two Korean coastguards, killing one and injuring the other, over escalating battles between fishing grounds and offshore energy rights.

2.) In the US, following storms earlier in the year, Bonneville Power Administration acknowledged that it had discriminated against wind and hydro plants, when it unplugged the generators as the power surged.

3.) And in Europe [or given the current political climate, perhaps just, the UK? Ed.] developers switched on and plugged in a 76-metre turbine, despite a declined council application.  The council had refused consent on the basis that, “…it would have an impact on the users of the [local] crematorium.” – but that’s another story.

Three very different industry challenges, within three very different corners of the world.

For the Chinese, the conflict with the Koreans demonstrates the rapid rise of renewables in the region and provides a timely glimpse into future political tensions that may slow or even stagnate future financial growth.

To date, China has invested heavily in onshore wind energy initiatives and if this level of ambition moves offshore and into open water, then a new level of international wind energy politics will quickly come to the fore.

For the US and more specifically, for federal agencies such as Bonneville, the repercussions of the generator switch off remind us all of the investor’s dependence on future power generating returns and revenues.

And within Western Europe, the spat played out between a local authority and an independent developer, reiterate the complexity of the planning and consent challenge – a struggle perpetuated throughout Western Europe.

All three incidents of course, set in chain a whole series of events that have ramifications on the local market and create wider market issues that must be overcome – be it financial, federal, territorial or political.

And that’s the thing.  While the wind energy market may well be global, its international success can only ever be driven at a local level – a lesson that the major manufacturers and developers have already had to learn.

With many smaller but equally ambitious businesses set to make their first international steps in 2012, how quickly will learn from those that have come before?

The free-market think tank argues that renewable energy is neither cost competitive, nor able to provide any form of energy security. It also argues that renewables would be entirely uneconomic if the traditional forms of energy that have to support base loads are included in project costs.

Naturally the report was rebuffed by many, with counter arguments from DECC claiming that the drive to renewables was to promote a realistic energy mix, rather than relying on fossil fuels that are ‘expensive to import’.

And unless we’re mis-representing the facts, the institute’s argument seems to be on the grounds of costs, rather than say, broader debates on climate change. So is there a common ground?

In short, if renewable energy is to answer the critics, are we doing enough to lower costs?

The answer is yes – probably. Onshore wind is unlikely to get any cheaper unless the planning process is significantly overhauled. Turbines are susceptible to changes in steel price, and the cost of foundations depends on concrete supply – that’s without factoring in legal costs from planning disputes.

Offshore wind, we know, is very expensive. But it has a plenty of merits. There are a large number of firms that can get involved in the supply chain, thereby increasing jobs, and it removes many of the ‘nimby’ debates that afflict those operating onshore.

Yes, solar energy has been generously supported, but it was unlikely to see an established market were it not for the FIT. And despite the warnings from a number of solar businesses, there is some evidence to suggest that the continuing fall in solar equipment will drive the sector’s growth in the long term.

So, supposing for example that we do suspend investment in renewables, what are the alternatives? Well, we still mine 18 million tonnes of coal a year for our ageing power stations. However, the market price of coal is starting to reach a level where its UK extraction will have to be subsidised in order for us not to exclusively rely on overseas imports.

If we continue to burn coal, our low carbon climate agreements will force us to invest in carbon capture storage – which really isn’t cheap – and we still haven’t solved the energy security debate.

Then there’s nuclear. No one can deny the benefits. Despite the notable incidents, it still has a relatively low accident rate, and is a clean burning fuel. It can, however, take up to ten years to commission a new plant. We’d still be looking at an energy gap.

And then there’s oil and gas. Fuels that currently supply an estimated 60% of UK energy needs. In the UK, ‘local’ North Sea reserves are dwindling, leading to gas exploration through the as yet environmentally unproven hydraulic fracturing. And oil, according to most commentators, will increasingly have to be imported.

When it comes down to it then, the argument is a political one. Energy is expensive. We are moving into an era where we will pay more to power our homes and businesses than ever before.

And if we do find the high costs of renewables unpalatable, then Government can do more than act as a taxpayer-funded cash point. For many, that means ensuring Whitehall provides commitments beyond 2020. These would assist the renewables industry in working harder to lower costs.

If we’re to really address the issue though, there needs to be demand side actions – through legislation – that ensure that the consumer thinks more carefully about the way in which they consume energy in the future.

Either way, there are some very hard decisions to be made.

Good news for the wind energy community then?

Certainly.  Only, for some wind investors, developers and operators these conditions can create a bit of a glut.  Something best exemplified in a high profile mechanical failure on Thursday (something the Daily Telegraph is getting far too excited about).

And that’s the catch.  Because while a surplus of almost anything in life is a cause for celebration, right now in the electricity markets it presents a bit of a headache.

In simple terms, it is because electricity production and consumption must be matched precisely at all times – since surplus’ cause just as many blackouts as a shortage, so engineers say.

This, combined with this spat of publicity that last week’s turbine shut downs created, means that the pressure is on to tackle the root cause of future surplus and supply problems.

It’s why there’s such a focus on the rise and rise of the so-called European super grid – with initiatives such as Friends of the Supergrid already doing a cracking job of influencing EU public policy and rallying wider consumer support.

And that of course is the key.

The ability to unite the industry and the public under one banner and behind a single unifying cause is critical if Europe is to successfully tackle the energy transmission, surplus and supply challenge.

From an industry perspective, that means working together to address seven necessary steps associated with building a European super grid.  Namely –

1. Investing in the ports
2. Tackling logistics
3. Committing to construction
4. Generating more power
5. Increasing transmission capacity
6. Getting better at governance
7. And fostering future finance

As the competition heats up and as the winter wind speeds rise, the evolution of the European clean energy markets are as much about transition as they are about transmission.

In the past week, the company announced that it will establish a joint venture with Spanish power utility Renovalia, to own and operate wind projects across Europe and Canada.

The business, known as Renovalia Reserve, will start with 559MW of existing Renovalia wind assets in Spain, Hungary, Romania and Canada and $150million of First Reserve’s capital.

For First Reserve, which markets itself as an energy investor as opposed to a firm exclusively focused on renewables, the deal serves as a sensible hedge against the rise and fall of a multitude of international energy sources.

Including debt, Renovalia Reserve will have a value of $1bn.  Clearly then, a serious investment.

But given the heritage of First Reserve, why has it overlooked its own US domestic market and instead, sought to commit capital overseas? And what does this mean for Europe?

The answer is as simple as it is complex.  And at its heart, it is driven by the beginnings of a fundamental shift in US energy policy – something that the US domestic renewable energy markets, and the conference delegates at COP17 have long feared.

Indeed, with the country set to become a net exporter of natural gas, it’s a fair bet that we’ll see a growing number of US clean energy investors turn their eyes to Europe.  A fact that is already a clear frustration for the fledgling US offshore market and that will be yet another blow to those campaigning Congress to extend the renewable energy production tax credit (PTC).

For Europe of course, it spells a significant influx of capital.  HgCapital estimates that spending in the sector has already grown from $900m to $2bn in this year alone.

And this additional liquidity – a critical ingredient in ensuring we hit 2020 targets – can only spell further good news in bringing down the cost of construction and the cost of capital.

For the US – a country that along with China and India looks set to hold off on binding COP17 climate change commitments – it’s an altogether different matter.  And with large outflows of clean energy capital already heading overseas, Congress needs to act, and fast.

The delegate badges, the company phone bill and the bulging inbox are just a small testament to it all.  And off the back of all of this, there have been a number of key emerging trends that have started to strike a chord.

First, we’re in an industry in flux.  The sharp suits, the drinks receptions, the private parties and the events, not to mention the arms race when it comes to bigger, better stand and brand design, are the clearest indicator yet.

But it is behind this gloss where the true step change really comes to the fore.

For the first time, businesses of all sizes have recognised the power and potential of the market and have begun to invest in their companies, their staff and their service offering, in an effort to stand out from the crowd.

Second, as we grow, we’re an industry with increasingly competing agendas.  The competition is kicking in, pricing is becoming more competitive across the board and many of the industry stalwarts – in all sectors – have had to significantly up their game.

And third, we’re an industry that is filled with new participants and by proxy, new potential – now, more than ever before.

For many, it’s this final point that has not been the easiest pill to swallow.  In fact, it’s fair to say that when it comes to recognising new potential, some established businesses – both big and small – have had their heads in the sand.  And as a result, some companies have been caught napping.

And it’s because of all of this – because of the step change, because of the competing agendas and because of this significant new potential – that my team wants to help identify and showcase some of the best businesses to watch in 2012.

And we want your help.

It’s why we’re asking you to take two minutes to nominate (entirely anonymously) three companies that you think will be going places in 2012.

We’ll add these nominations to our own thinking on the matter and in January, we’ll showcase some of our favourites.  Dead easy.  So please, do us one small favour – take two minutes and email us your three company nominations – now.

The EWEA conference report, ‘Wind In Our Sails’ reiterated this point and highlighted that the European offshore industry now has 141 GW in a variety of stages of development – ranging from the proposal, planning, construction and of course, operation.

So how realistic is this number?

Of that 141GW, roughly 10%, (114,737MW) has yet to be consented.  And although offshore consent is generally granted far more quickly and with fewer objections than its onshore counterpart, there are of course far greater technical challenges involved out at sea.

In the UK, a PWC report from last year estimated that offshore wind needs to deliver 12GW of energy alone, in order to ensure the UK hits its 2020 renewable energy targets.

Given many of the issues in pre-construction financing, it’s perhaps worth questioning whether this 114,737MW will be enough to hit not only the UK target, but also a Europe wide industry aim of 40GW by 2020.

Conference delegates, almost to a man, bemoaned a lack of pan-European and national targets beyond 2020.  With not enough incentives for the industry to look towards new sites, for financiers to become involved earlier to provide much needed liquidity, and for supply chain businesses to make the necessary investment in staff and technology, there’s clearly a challenge on our hands.

New targets may just be that – targets – but irrespective, they would help encourage and increase the number of MW schemes currently proposed.

If key players in offshore are going to successfully persuade policy makers to provide clear incentives for future industry investment, we need to lower costs and reduce the sector’s wider risk profile.

And since the end of a calendar year the mind is inevitably focused on business targets, let’s use this week as a chance to start looking further into the future, to help increase industry certainty.

First, Scotland granted permission for the Moray Firth offshore wind project – a joint venture between Spanish firms EDP renewables and Repsol that will provide 300 offshore turbines producing up to 1,500MW.

Second, the European Investment Bank signed off its loan to Vattenfall, for the 100-turbine Thanet scheme.  The bank, supports projects in line with the broader aims of the EU.  It’s therefore good to see this given the green light, despite the parlous financial state of the Eurozone.

And third, in the UK, the Government approved two funds totaling £30 million, for innovations in the offshore sector.

So that’s all good.

Except, with COP17 this week, and despite a lot of the favourable rhetoric, there’ll be a reluctance by some western economies to commit to any further binding climate agreements.  Most likely this will be lead by the US, which, with recent technological developments, feels a resurgent drive towards fossil fuels – notably shale gas, the tar sands and domestic oil.

And it’s not just the US. The Dutch – our country conference hosts in Amsterdam – have already abandoned their renewable energy 2020 commitments.

And that, in a funny way, leads us full circle to a drum we’ve beaten before.

Cost.

Offshore wind just has to get cheaper.  And fast.

UK consumers, despite having the lowest energy bills in the EU, are voicing concerns about the expense of buying from the ‘big six’.  Something that will continue to remain on the agenda irrespective of the fact that renewable obligation certificates (ROC’s) aren’t the only thing driving up the prices – that classic perception and reality myth.  After all, the oil and gas markets will lobby successfully on that misconception every day of the week.

This, combined with recent respective reports from KPMG and Allianz  – both claiming that renewables are prohibitively costly and unreliable – only make things tougher.

So, the industry needs to act fast.  It needs to swallow the risk.

Let’s be clear – £30 million for UK innovation is a great start.  But it’s only that.  A start.  The industry needs to step up its research and development and develop a healthier appetite for entrepreneurial investment – only then can we have true cause for cheer.

Driving down cost is possible.  Let’s make that a real talking point for the discussions in Amsterdam this week.