Interest Piece - The Pros and Cons of Wind Power on Rangelands

By Maggie Haseman, SRM Outreach Intern

CQ Researcher is a periodical that covers some of the most debated social and political topics of today. I recently read a CQ Researcher article titled, “Wind Power: Is Wind Energy Good for the Environment?” written by David Hosansky, which I found to be especially informative.  

Photo by Maggie Haseman,
 National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO

In his article Hosansky outlines the history of how humans have harnessed the power of wind. Between 5,500 B.C.E. and 1,400 A.C.E., wind power was first employed in Southeast Asia to sail boats, and in windmills to pump water and grind grain. In the 18th and early 19th century and during the Industrial Revolution, steam began to replace wind, a well established energy source throughout Europe, as a power source. By the late 19th century, however wind reclaimed its early importance when scientists began developing windmills to bring electricity to rural areas, especially in Scotland, the United States, and Denmark. In the 1900s to 1980s most of the U.S. was reliant on nuclear energy and fossil fuels for electricity, farmers however used small windmills for irrigation pump operation. Between 1990 and present day, interest in alternative energy has increased due to rising oil prices, among other factors. Today, Hosansky cites China as the wind power world leader with a wind-energy capacity of 42 gigawatts, followed closely by the U.S. at 40 gigawatts.

A wind turbine works by capturing energy when the wind blows past the blade, there is a “lift” effect causing the blades to turn. As the blades turn, a shaft that is connected to the generator spins, creating electricity.

Wind Turbine Diagram and Parts

Blades: Every turbine usually has either two or three blades.

Rotor: The blades and the hub together are called the rotor.

Pitch: Blades are turned, or pitched, out of the wind to control the rotor speed.

Brake: A disc brake, which can stop the rotor in emergencies.

Low-speed shaft: The rotor turns the low-speed shaft at about 30 to 60 rotations per minute.

Gear box: Gears connect the low-speed shaft to the high-speed shaft and increase speeds from about 30 to 60 rotations per minute (rpm) to 1,000 to 1,800, rpm, the speed required by most generators to produce electricity.

Generator: Produces 60-cycle AC electricity.

Controller: The controller starts up the machine at wind speeds of about 8 to 16 miles per hour (mph) and shuts off the machine at about 55 mph.

Anemometer: Measures the wind speed and transmits wind speed data to the controller.

Wind vane: Measures wind direction and communicates with the yaw drive to orient the turbine properly with respect to the wind.

Nacelle: Contains the gear box, low- and high-speed shafts, generator, controller, and brake.

High-speed shaft: Drives the generator.

Yaw drive: Keeps the rotor on upwind turbines facing into the wind as the wind direction changes.

Yaw motor: Powers the yaw drive.

Tower: Towers are made from tubular steel, concrete, or steel lattice.

Caption Source:  Department of Energy

Photo Source: Turbine Zone


Some of the issues I found interesting in Hosansky’s paper include the problem of wind intermittency, the financial constraints involved with wind power, the effect wind energy can have by displacing some emissions and pollutants, concerns about wildlife protection, and the land requirements for a wind farm.

Photo by Charles Haseman,
Along I-80 near Des Moines, Iowa

 Living in Colorado, a relatively windy state, I don’t notice a lack of wind but this article reminded me that not every place in the U.S. or the world receives gusts as powerful as those throughout the Great Plains and the west coast. The article discusses that wind power seems to be a perfect fit for the U.S., according to Hosansky, If wind turbines had the ability to operate at 100% of their capacity, wind power has the potential to supply 16 times the electricity needs of the United States; however wind turbines only generate 25-40% of their capacity due to wind intermittency. Another challenge is that the locations with the most persistent wind tend to be in sparsely populated areas away from major population centers and not necessarily when the demand for energy peaks.  As a result, a large network of transmission lines is necessary to deliver the wind energy to the consumers, which could be costly.

I find the financial controversy outlined by Hosansky particularly fascinating. In order to reach the current U.S. goal of generating 20% of energy by wind power, the estimated cost is $200 billion, likely to be burdened onto ratepayers. This money would be used for turbines, improved transmission line capability and other infrastructure. Wind farms can also lower property value by up to 40%. On the other hand, turbines can result in local governments receiving “higher real estate tax revenue” and landowners leasing their land to build towers for $3,000 to $5,000 a year. The renewable energy standard President Obama presented will protect consumers from unstable fuel prices, save money, boost the economy and create green jobs. In addition the price of wind power is less than other renewable-energy sources.

Photo by Charles Haseman,
Along I-80 near Des Moines, Iowa

To me, Hosansky’s summary of the effect of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, which are often noted as the culprits for climate change, and the way wind power impacts them is enlightening. “The extraction, transport and combustion of… fossil fuels can affect water and air quality, wildlife habitats and the global climate.” Additionally green energy does not necessarily include all renewable energies; cycling fossil fuel plants up and down in response to the intermittent wind is expensive and “can emit excessive pollution” and reduce the “effectiveness of environmental-control equipment.” In order to reduce emissions it would be more efficient to directly address that problem. Conversely, wind energy is a key energy source to reducing air pollution and carbon dioxide and other emissions from coal and natural gas. Besides hydropower, wind energy generates the most amount of electricity compared to every other renewable energy sources, and it is considered safer than nuclear energy. A combination of diverse mixed fuel sources such as wind, solar and a back-up system of newer and more efficient gas-fired plants that can be quickly ramped up or down can reduce emissions significantly because fossil fuel plants won’t be running as often.

Photo by Charles Haseman,
Along I-80 near Des Moines, Iowa

Possibly the most popular argument against wind power that I have heard is about the detrimental effects it can have on wildlife, particularly birds and bats; Hosansky explains this captivating argument. Thousands of birds, including rare raptors such as golden eagles and burrowing owls have been killed by the blades of wind mills, and others have been electrocuted by wind-farm power lines. Additionally, in one year 2,000 bats may have been killed by a single wind farm. However, others suggest that wind farms can be placed far from migratory paths and “major populations of birds and bats” where such effects are less likely. Experts say that many reports of wildlife death were made prior to technological advances; modern wind mills are taller and kill far fewer animals. One report stated that turbines are low on the list of reasons why birds and bats die; pesticides, attacks by domestic and feral cats and collisions with windows kill much greater number of birds.

Photo by Maggie Haseman,
 National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO

Another interesting argument discussed by Hosansky concerns land requirements. “Wind farms require far more land… than traditional forms of electricity generation”; estimates say “45 times more than nuclear power and several times more than coal and natural gas plants”. Furthermore, the location of wind farms can damage sensitive ecosystems and destroy beautiful landscapes. Alternatively, ”the turbines take up relatively little space and [the] land around” them can still be utilized for other purposes such as farming, ranching and recreation, thus taking up less space than fossil fuel plants overall. Additionally, improvements in technology continue to allow for larger turbines, meaning fewer are necessary to generate the same amount of electricity. Moreover, between smog and a windmill, one person stated they’d take the windmill.

This article was eye-opening to me and really gave some insight into benefits of and current issues with wind power. I now believe I have formed an educated opinion around wind energy and based on the issues discussed above I personally support wind power. It seems that the issues with it can be solved and, in my opinion, the issues, when they are compared to the benefits, are minor. I enjoyed reading the story-like writing and the political perspective on wind energy. If you would like to read this article too, here is the citation:

Hosansky, D. (2011, April 1). Wind Power: Is wind power good for the environment?. CQ Researcher, 21, 289-312.

Interest Piece: Native American uses and management of California's grasslands

By Maggie Haseman, SRM Outreach Intern

I recently read an absorbing chapter by M. Kat Anderson titled, “Native American uses and management of California’s grasslands” in the book California Grassland: Ecology and Management (2007). I am intrigued by the many ways humans have historically used plants and thought this chapter about California grasslands was a good example and a note-worthy read.

Native tribes had many uses for the plants found in California’s grasslands. The California area is unique due to its Mediterranean climate; because of this many plants in the region are endemic. Anderson’s chapter outlines how California grassland plants were used for clothing, basketry, construction materials, cordage, medicine and food.

I found it interesting to read about the various clothing and adornments the natives created from plants. For festivals, dances and ceremonies, tribes such as the Tongva and Yokut often wove wildflowers, such as cluster-lilies (Brodiaea), triplet lilies (Triteleia), dicks (Dichelostemma), iris (Iris douglasiana), and common monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), into their hair, and to wear in wreaths, crowns and boas. The Sierra Miwok used sleepy catchfly (Silene antirrhina) for dying face paints and wore the flowers of the non-native quaking grass (Briza humilis) in pierced-ears. The Chukchansi Yokut used an unidentified grass they called chulochul to make the front side of women’s skirts and the Wintu made regalia out of grass mat, willow (Salix) sticks, flowers and feathers.



Photo from:
Eastern California Museum

 I was particularly interested in the section regarding the arts of basketry and cordage, or rope making, both of which are old crafts dating to 10,000 years ago in western North America. Anderson outlines how plants such as alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides),which was widespread throughout the region, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), which was prized for the black rhizomes, and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens), which swells in water helping to make baskets water tight were all once used to make baskets. The chapter lists some popular choices for cordage included: throughout California, dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum); in central California the milkweeds (Asclepias); in the northeastern part of the states irises (Iris); and in the southern deserts yucca (Yucca) and agave (Agave).

Also interesting was the use of plants, especially grasses, in the construction of structures and furniture. The Yana, Wappo, Owens Valley and Mono Lake Paiute, Cahuilla, Salinan, Pomo, Modoc, Klamath and Chumash thatched various structures with grasses such as giant wildrye (Leymus condensatus) and California fescue (Festuca californica) Anderson tells us the Pomo created beds by digging a hole, filling the hole with dry grass and covering the grass with tule, mats and/or skin blankets. She also notes that the Michahai and Chukaimina Yokut snake doctors made cages to carry rattlesnakes in, of an unidentified twined stiff grass.

The subject I found most fascinating were the extensive practices cited by the author for medicinal needs. The use of plants for medicine was widespread throughout California tribes. The Kumeyaay made tea for cramps from the leaves of sanicle (Sanicula arguta), the new shoots of giant wildrye were made into a tea by the Chumash to treat venereal disease, the Pomo induced sleep using dried and powdered red larkspur (Delphinium nudicaule), and the Coast Miwok made the roots of the blue-eyed-grass (Sisyrinchium bellum) into a tea to heal stomachaches. Anderson highlights the common yarrow (Achillea millefolium) as the most versatile medicinal plants used by the Ohlone, Yokeya Pomo, Washoe, Hupa, Karuk, Yurok, and Tolowa for teas, decoctions, powders, infusions, and cool or warm presses. The common yarrow was used for washing sores, alleviating toothaches, stomachaches, and headaches, treating burns, chills, fever, and sore eyes, and preventing swelling, and colds.

Perhaps the most prominent use of plants in California was for food; Anderson cited that 60-70% of nourishment for Californian tribes was derived from plants; not including the use of plants for seasoning such as the use of salt crystals from salt grass (Distichlis spicata). Grains, from grasses such as California brome (Bromus carinatus), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and the wildryes (Elymus) and seeds from wilflowers including mules-ears (Wyethia), clarkias (Clarkia), buttercups (Ranunculus), and popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys nothofulvus) were a good source of protein. The Yokut used acorns (Quercus) as an additional source of protein. For carbohydrates, California tribes searched underground for bulbs, corms and tubers. The Pomo ate the roots of cutleaf silverpuffs (Microseris lacinata) raw with nut bread. Corms from, cluster lilies, triplet lilies and dicks, and tubers from, yampah (Perideridia), turkey pea (Sanicula tuberose), soaproot (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), and mariposa lilies (Calochortus) were eaten raw, boiled, steamed, baked or roasted. For vitamins, minerals and fibers, Anderson outlines how California tribes harvested leafy greens to eat raw, soaked, or boiled, such as clovers (Trifolium), lupines (Lupinus), and fiddlenecks (Amsinckia). The Mountain Maidu collected woolen beech (Hydrophyllum capitatum) leaves, the Ohlone harvested sun cup (Camissonia ovata) foliage; the Atsugewi gathered wild parsley (Ligusticum grayi); the Kawaiisu picked common lomatium (Lomatium utriculatum). Also popular were angelicas (Angelica), which were used as seasoning in soups, and docks (Rumex), which are higher in vitamin C than citrus juice and higher in vitamin A than carrots.

According to Anderson tribes found extensive uses for the wildflowers, grasses, sedges and ferns native to California; the plants succored, fed, sheltered, and clothed the Native Americans for thousands of years. This article was very informative about the uses of plants native to California, I personally can’t wait to get out there and test some of these ancient customs. For more information or to read this chapter in its entirety, here is the citation:

Anderson, M.K. (2007). Native American uses and management of California’s grasslands. In M.R. Stromberg, J.D. Corbin & C. D’Antonio (Eds.), California grasslands: ecology and management. (pp. 57-69) Berkley, CA: University of California Press