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.

SRM Spotlight Synopsis: Final Report by SRM Outreach Intern, Julia Workman

Serving as Society for Range Management’s first Outreach Intern this semester has been an amazing learning experience. My first goal for the Internship was to glean personal insight from SRM members and make this information available through posts on the SRM blog. My duties taught me to present information in a manner that would appeal to a wide audience, with varied backgrounds but a common interest. Along with this, I had the opportunity to travel to Grand Junction for the Colorado Section fall meeting, and to share what I have learned in the interviewing process. My second goal was to establish relationships and gain experience interacting with the diverse group of professionals involved in SRM. This was achieved through communication with the members I interviewed and various other members with whom I interacted. My time at the Colorado Section meeting allowed me to meet with with experienced members on a personal level while carrying out my internship duties. The insights gained from these experiences will be valuable as I go forth and attempt to achieve my own career ambitions.

To gather the information from SRM members, I conducted ten interviews with members representing eleven different sections (Pacific Northwest, California-Pacific, Idaho, International Mountain, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Northern Great Plains, South Dakota, Texas, and Florida). Nine of these interviews were conducted by telephone, and the remaining interview in person at the Idaho Section fall meeting. Interviewees represented a broad range of professions in the field of rangeland management: two ranchers, three researchers (including one professor emeritus), three government agency-employed resource managers (two with the federal government and one with a state), one private contractor, and one botanist. Most came from rural backgrounds related to rangelands or agriculture, but each had followed a unique career path, and all had played very different roles in SRM. Despite the diversity of individuals I interviewed, there was an overall trend of similar answers and common themes throughout the interviews.

One of the first questions I asked each member was why he or she had joined SRM. Three joined in college, and seven during their professional careers. Their reasons for joining included the information offered, the professional development opportunities, employer or agency encouragement, or a combination of the three. They were then asked, based on their experiences, what SRM can do to attract and retain members. Their answer: Stay relevant! Be more engaged with the public, and more visible. Make apparent exactly what SRM is doing in rangeland management. Another suggestion was that the Society needs to attract students, then keep track of them as they move into the workforce by maintaining personal contact. Attracting individuals at the local level and through agencies is also going to play a big role—again, through personal contact. Another important aspect, which was emphasized again and again by member after member, is outreach. Rangeland management is broadening in its scope, and the spectrum of people the Society is trying to reach should broaden as a reflection of that.

One focus of my interviews was on the changes that are occurring in SRM and the workforce. The members with whom I spoke said that the main principles of SRM have remained the same, which is very important to them. But they also talked about some positive changes, like increased involvement from younger generations and the large student presence in the Society right now. It was great to hear these longtime members talking about how the younger generation is bringing new ideas and a new energy to the profession! From a logistical standpoint, interviewees felt that it is also really important that younger members be able to fill the gaps in the workforce left by retiring members, especially the members of the “Baby Boomer” generation.

Another important theme mentioned with respect to SRM’s recent changes was the way the Society is reaching out to other groups. One example cited was the producer forums which were held at the Annual Meeting in Denver last year. Two interviewees felt that SRM has distanced itself from livestock production groups in the last several years and are really pleased with the reverse in that trend. Another long-term member was pleased with the way the Society is embracing ecology. He pointed to the journal change to Rangeland Ecology and Management as evidence of that; another great example of the Society’s emphasis on ecology is the Ecological Site Description workshops with which SRM is currently involved. This means the Society is reaching out in a lot of different directions and satisfying people with very different interests. One of the most important groups to reach out to is the general public. Rangeland managers are increasingly seeing the need to be aware of society’s opinions and deal with them. As management for broader interests, like open space, becomes more prevalent, it is becoming increasingly important to embrace nontraditional areas like policy and human dimensions—because these aspects are now intrinsically intertwined with rangeland management.

Another big change in SRM is an increased emphasis on using technology, both old and new. The Internet, for example, can be a major tool in facilitating everything from communication to research. Information can be found with an ease never possible before, through resources ranging from online journals to programs like Google Earth that offer a big view and great resolution. As we manage on a broader scale, it is important to let land managers see their parcel in the context of the bigger landscape.

I also asked interviewees what SRM can do to better serve its members. One important service, they said, involves continuing to provide lines of communication between agencies, landowners, land managers, and environmental groups, while providing a safe venue for discussion between said groups.

It is also very important right now, as many members are retiring and many others joining the workforce for the first time, that knowledge be passed between generations. It is therefore going to be critical to retain members after they retire in order to retain that institutional knowledge for the sake of the profession. One of the most important places for mentoring to occur between generations is at local field days and tours, where the younger members can get their hands dirty and gain real field experience, in a one-on-one scenario. However, Annual Meeting mixers also play an important role in opening channels of communication and fostering relationships.

What these members value about SRM (what it is doing well) was another question posed in these interviews. A few mentioned the journals and continuing education, but every single interviewee emphasized the networking and personal connections they have gained through SRM, and how valuable and irreplaceable those have been.

As for where the Society is headed, half of the members interviewed said that down the road, they want SRM to still be alive. These members want to see the Society still active, relevant, and viable—“continuing to do what we do, respectably.” They would like to see SRM continue to be a voice for rangeland management and for rangelands themselves: it is unique among professional societies in that it speaks for the resource. They said SRM needs to be looking at broader issues as the profession broadens. It needs to continue to diversify its membership, while maintaining its founding ideals. These members want to see the dissimilar groups involved in rangeland management working together toward common goals, because in diversity there is strength.

The overall consensus through these interviews was that the Society is doing very well. All the people with whom I spoke were positive about where SRM is now and where it is headed—at least, in the words of one, “there’s always room for improvement, but it’s not necessarily a poor job.”

As for me, through this experience I gained a much better appreciation for some of the history of SRM and some of the changes the Society has seen in the past few years. It was fascinating to get to know members who have played huge roles in their respective sections and states, within and outside of SRM. The different perspectives these members have, the changes they have seen, and the directions we are taking, say a lot about where we stand as a Society. I find it reassuring that they were for the most part pleased with where we stand. However, it was educational to hear about some of the issues SRM has been facing. New members like me sometimes do not always hear a balanced report involving the negative aspects of a group or the difficulties it is facing.

I believe that I have personally grown in this experience by overcoming a great deal of shyness in talking to strangers over the telephone. By having to do so, on a weekly basis, I have become much more comfortable with introducing myself and conducting business in a professional but relaxed manner. Correspondingly, this development has also helped me in dealing with people face-to-face. It was more natural for me to strike up conversations with total strangers at the Colorado Section meeting, and to ask questions. This is a professional skill that many of the individuals interviewed told me will be important in my career, and I believe that this Internship has been very influential in helping me develop it.

Written communication has also been an important part of this experience. It was my primary means of interaction with others during the Internship, and this required a honing of my writing skills to develop the proper tone in correspondence via email, and in posting of blog updates. The blogging necessitated that I learn to transcribe what members said over the phone into informative and interesting posts that would not offend, mislead, or misrepresent. Representing a professional Society in such a fashion, I learned to pay close attention to the tone and message presented by each phrase and comment to avoid misrepresentation of the individuals and the organization. It was a valuable experience and allowed for a better understanding of the “politics” that such a position means.

Overall, I have had a wonderful semester and would like to thank SRM and its members for the opportunity to take part in this Internship. I believe that the Internship is a great opportunity and hope to see more involvement from both students and members as the program continues to grow.

SRM Spotlight: Dave Pellatz, Wyoming Section

By Julia Workman, SRM Outreach Intern

Dave Pellatz of Wyoming says that his work in rangelands is his third or fourth different major career. After receiving degrees in both petroleum engineering and geological engineering as well as owning a couple of different businesses, he has returned to the rural setting he loves.

Dave grew up on a ranch, and his family and in-laws both have ranches in the Thunder Basin grasslands. He says that his career switch allowed him to return to the Thunder Basin area and raise a family there. Dave adds that “if you’re going to live in a place where you’re very distant from jobs, you have to be creative in what you do.” His creativity led him to work on contract as Project Manager for the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association and as Range Manager for the Thunder Basin Grazing Association. He explains that the skill sets he gained in his other positions have transferred readily since much of what he does pertains to management. However, he does want to gain a better understanding of the ecosystems in which he works. To that end, he is now working on a Master of Science degree in Rangeland Ecosystem Science through Colorado State University.

This learning process is also where SRM came into play three years ago. Dave explains that since joining, he has used the Society “to accelerate the learning curve to get a broader base of information in specific range topics. The ongoing conferences and the print publications (with back issues online) have been most valuable to him. He adds that Rangeland Ecology and Management suits his needs, but likes that Rangelands is also offered as a more accessible resource for those who aren’t necessarily interested in research.

One division in SRM that Dave sees as less positive is the generation gap. Dave notes that universities are successful to some extent in facilitating the transfer of knowledge to younger generations. However, he believes SRM might be able to participate in this transfer by helping to encourage this at the agency level. Largely, Dave says, the success of any mentoring program depends on who potential mentors have available to teach. Too often, information from people with on-the-ground experience is not captured and does not have the impact it should. Dave says that there would be value in doing interviews with members with many years of experience so that some of their knowledge could be recorded.

Dave sees a broad interest base in rangelands and rangeland management. The use of technology in the field allows information to reach people from many diverse backgrounds. He argues that without a strong online presence, the Society will find it difficult to compete in upcoming years. He would like to see SRM continuing to develop and support the use of technology to share information. “Don’t replace what’s tried and true,” he says, “but if you don’t stay ahead of trends you’ll become irrelevant.”

Dave cautions that it can be dangerous to think that one understands all the interrelationships in the very complex system in which we work. His advice to land managers is to be sure that management decisions are accompanied by continuous monitoring efforts, which help to embrace complexity and the unknowns in the system. “Tread carefully with the tools you employ,” he says. “Know your environment and the parameters before you go out and try to change the world.”

SRM Spotlight: Matt Wagner, Texas Section

By Julia Workman, SRM Outreach Intern

“Don’t be afraid to go in a direction that’s outside your comfort zone, your area of expertise,” says Matt Wagner, Deputy Director for the Wildlife Division of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. He has always loved being outdoors—first fishing, then hunting—and learning about the plants and the wildlife there.

So it was that he became involved in Range Management at Texas A&M University and joined SRM, and later (after a brief stint of working on ranches in Texas) received his Master’s degree in Range Management at Montana State University. Matt moved back to Texas with his wife after three years in Montana and began his professional career at the Texas A&M Experimental Station. He has now been with Texas Parks and Wildlife for 22 years, and received his Ph.D. in Regional Planning, with an emphasis in Developmental and Water Planning, from Texas A&M in 2005.

Matt says he still enjoys hunting and fishing, as well as reading (especially about conservation) and getting together with his large family in Texas.  After almost 30 years in SRM, Matt has served on various section committees and as section Director. A little over a year ago, he took on the duties of Second Vice President of the Texas section and in January will assume the role of President of the largest section in the Society for Range Management. He says it’s important to be involved in a professional society for the networking, continuing education, and professional development—especially the opportunity to become a certified professional.

Overall, though, networking is one of the aspects he has found to be most valuable throughout his involvement with SRM. He has met many inspiring people, young and old: especially, he says, “the newer ones who are really hungry for information and whose energy rubs off on some of us old guys.”One aspect of networking in the Society that Matt feels is particularly important is getting long-term members—those with experience—to mentor the newer generations. He comments that the constant communication younger generations now experience, with friends and colleagues, is distracting and creates an expectation that things should happen quickly. They have to learn that anything takes time when dealing with the natural environment. He suggests that the Internet, as a tool with which young people are very familiar, could be employed to organize a mentoring system in SRM.

However, current practices such as the Annual Meeting mixers and especially local field days and tours are great ways for the two groups to come together. He says that younger members can learn a great deal by interacting with older generations at these functions when they turn their cell phones off and are unafraid to introduce themselves to professionals.

Another important shift in the Society today involves incorporation of new viewpoints and reaching out to people in “nontraditional” areas such as policy, human dimensions, and social relationships. The multidisciplinary approach to managing rangelands, Matt says, will retain its importance as the profession moves forward. Rangelands are the largest system in the world so we will always need people with specific training in rangelands, but these people will have to be able to work with other aspects as well. And, says Matt, just as range managers now have to deal with a broader range of factors for successful management, they also have to deal in broader scales. Technology such as Google Earth allows land managers to see their parcels in the context of the surrounding landscape, and integrate the bigger soil and water properties. Matt would like to see larger organization within SRM based on larger landscape details such as watersheds or large ecological areas.

Matt also talked about the changing US and global economy. He admitted that it doesn’t look so bright, but added that by the time today’s college student reaches retirement age, we will have seen natural resources management and the economy merge. “It’s based on scarcity—the economy will follow demand. Natural resource management is the next growth industry.” He foresees a future where natural resource managers become national leaders and hopes that SRM will become more visible to the people “on the land, managing the land” as this change takes place.

SRM Spotlight: Roger Blew, Idaho Section

By Julia Workman, SRM Outreach Intern

Ecologist Roger Blew recently acquired his pilot’s license. He also owns half an airplane, which “seems to be the expensive half,” he laughs. Other pastimes include fly fishing, spending time with his dog, Bud, and—until recently—planning the Idaho Section SRM winter meeting.

Roger says joining SRM was a logical step when he began working with Stoller Corporation in Idaho 15 years ago and began work on sagebrush steppe ecosystems—the Society was “a natural fit for where I was in my career, and what I needed in the professional world,” he says. Of course, work in rangelands meant returning to old interests.

He grew up in Kansas and did his undergraduate and graduate studies in rangelands at Emporia State and Kansas State Universities, but his post doctoral work in forest systems at the University of Washington. His work with Stoller in sagebrush steppe ecosystems, after he finished his post doc, brought him back to the interests he had had when taking range classes in Kansas and later pursuing his Ph.D. in soil ecology at the University of Calgary.

Since joining Stoller Corporation and SRM upon completion of his post doc, Roger has served as the Idaho section newsletter editor for four or five years, and recently took over the duties of Idaho Section President at the section meeting, on November 11.

Roger believes that SRM has undergone some important changes since he joined—namely, the transition of the flagship journal from the Journal of Range Management to Rangeland Ecology and Management, an ecology-based publication more similar to the journal of 15 years ago and the associated emphasis of ecologists in the Society. He also notes that new demands have been placed on ranch managers as new values have been placed on rangelands, and says that SRM has made a positive move to become more applicable to broader society by accommodating those changing values. The range profession itself has changed as well, incorporating new technology and new emphases on grazing plans and assessments, NEPA documentation, and other office-related work. Field work is still a major component of managing rangelands, but different skill sets (such as understanding statistical models and new tools such as GIS and GPS) are gaining more importance. These and other factors have forced managers to look at landscapes as a whole and highlighted the need for interagency cooperation and management for multiple uses.

When it comes down to it, Roger sees and strongly supports a movement to place greater emphasis on plant ecology in the Society. He argues that it is the basis for rangeland management: as he has heard from ranchers, “we’re not raising beef, we’re raising grass.” He also likes that rangeland management is now incorporating such ideas from plant ecology as state and transition models. To Roger, the exchange of ideas—between people and groups—is extremely important, and one of the aspects of SRM he has found most valuable in his career. This goes hand in hand with the opportunity for continuing education through SRM, important because “learning doesn’t stop when we graduate [from] college”—we need to update our knowledge as the science changes. He says he appreciates being able to learn from other SRM members’ experiences, both successes and failures.

On that note, he advises that younger SRM members can get the most out of their membership by getting involved, especially by attending—and participating in—meetings at all levels. The URME, Range Cup, and Plant ID contests, among others, are great ways of making a student’s name known to potential employers. Plus, the meetings provide opportunities to gain exposure to current issues, and gain valuable knowledge from the older generations. He comments that the way SRM includes students in the Society through its undergraduate education, involvement, and mentoring emphases is unique among the societies of which he is a member.

Roger joked at the Idaho section business meeting, that a good deal of his success in planning the meeting was due to “good people.” After reiterating this point in his interview, he added, “First rate people hire first-rate people; second-rate people hire third-rate people: hire people who are better than you!”