A Brief Proposal:

Wind Development and Ecological Restoration in the Great Plains

by Michael Totten, Senior Advisor, Google.org
More than 90 percent of U.S. terrestrial wind resources occur in the Great Plains. According to
energy expert Charles Komanoff, to provide 100 percent of current U.S. electricity consumption
would require 400,000 two-megawatt-capacity wind turbines strategically placed over the Great
Plains’ 1.2 million square miles (“Whither Wind?” September/October 2006,
www.orionmagazine.org).1

The actual footprint of these turbines, hypothetically squeezed into one space, would occupy just
6 square miles - about the size of a single large Wyoming strip mine. And even when spaced for
optimum wind capture, they would occupy just 2 to 3 percent of the Great Plains (37,500 mi2).
And even then, the other 90 percent of the land surrounding the wind turbines would continue to
be available for ranching, farming and restoration of native prairie grasses (35,000 mi2). For
rural communities, this could be an extraordinary financial boom. With a farm or ranch typically
receiving a several-percent annual royalty from the wind farm, the income would, on average,
exceed the earnings from farming or ranching.2 This amount of land is very modest relative to
the income that can be generated. Currently, farms and ranches occupy 70 percent of the Great
Plains, yet they generate only about 5 percent of the region’s GDP.3

According to scientists studying the Great Plains, this scenario could result in two additional
revenue streams:
1) restoring the deep-rooting, prairie grasslands that absorb and store soil carbon and stop soil
erosion (hence generating a potential revenue from selling soil “CO2 sequestration” offset credits
in the emerging global carbon trading market;
2) Re-introducing free-ranging bison into these prairie grasslands, which naturally co-evolved for
millennia (hence generating a potential revenue stream from marketing organic, free-range
beef).4

1
Stanford Atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson uses 200,000 five-MW turbines in his analysis. He has written
extensively on this strategy, with very compelling data. See, Mark Z. Jacobson, Wind Versus Biofuels for
Addressing Climate, Health, and Energy, March 5, 2007, Atmosphere & Energy Program, Dept. Civil &
Environmental Engineering, Stanford U., www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85vWindSol
2
In the U.S., for example, Class 4 winds produce roughly 20 kWh per m2 per year. Assuming that the royalty rate
to the landowner is 2.5 percent of revenues generated, the wind royalty amounts to about $200 per hectare per
year. For comparison, net U.S. farm income in 2000 was about $125/ha, half of which were direct government
payments ($60/ha). R.H. Williams, Nuclear and Alternative Energy Supply Options for an Environmentally
Constrained World: A Long-Term Perspective, prepared for the Nuclear Control Institute Conference Nuclear
Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can We Have One Without the Other? Washington, DC, April 2001,
www.nci.org/conf/williams/williams.pdf
3
The region does currently produce much of the nation’s grain, meat, and fiber, including over 60% of the wheat,
87% of the sorghum, and 36% of the cotton. The region is also home to over 60% of the nation’s livestock,
including both grazing and grain-fed-cattle operations.
4
See Great Plains Restoration Council, www.gprc.org/; Bison Restoration Developments Among Inter Tribal Bison
Cooperative Members, www.bisoncentre.com/, 2000; Samuel D. Fuhlendorf and David M. Engle, Restoring
Heterogeneity on Rangelands: Ecosystem Management Based on Evolutionary Grazing Patterns, BioScience,
This strategy would have other co-benefits including restoring key wildlife and biodiversity
habitat, as well as migratory bird staging areas.5 Such a multi-faceted carbon mitigation strategy
may also be one of the more resilient climate adaptation strategies to address the region'
s likely
increase in severe climate-triggered droughts.

The strategy would also have water conservation benefits as well. The wind farms would require
two orders of magnitude less water per MWh generated than large-scale coal or nuclear projects.
And the deep-rooted native prairie grasses that the strategy would support are designed to retain
moisture through even the worst of prolonged drought conditions.

The Great Plains’ huge wind resource, wind farms’ small footprints, and excellent GIS mapping
tools, can result in siting that minimizes ecological damage. Indeed, recent computer-based
tools, like Google Earth, could be used to show a ranking of preferred development sites, based
on something like the Appalachian Mountain Club' s ranking system:

1. Unsuitable – lands where development is prohibited (Appalachian Trail corridors, for

example) or "high conflict" areas
2. Less than ideal – federal or state conservation lands rated "medium conflict"
3. Conditionally favorable – Conservation or open space lands rated "low conflict," or open
space or private lands rated "medium conflict":
4. Most favorable – Unrestricted private land and "low conflict" areas

Primary among the issues that would have to be addressed to move this proposal forward is the
development of transmission capacity. Generating hundreds of thousands of megawatts of
electricity from wind in the Great Plains would require the siting and construction of hundreds,
and perhaps thousands, of miles of new transmission lines. This is a complicated undertaking
that would require significant additional commitments of land and extensive siting processes.
However, given the compelling benefits of the proposal this may well be an infrastructure
challenge worth taking on.6

August 2001, V. 51 No. 8; Alan K. Knapp et al., The Keystone Role of Bison in North American Tallgrass Prairie
Bison increase habitat heterogeneity and alter a broad array of plant, community, and ecosystem processes,
BioScience, January 1999, V. 49 No. 1; Bruce Rutley, A Strategic Plan for Research and Development Needs of
the Canadian Bison Industry, 3PrdP edition, Bison Research and Development Working Group, Alberta Bison
Research Centre, September 2003, www.bisoncentre.com/.
5
Nearly 60% of the bird species that breed in the US do so in the Great Plains. See also, S.C. Forrest et al., Ocean
of Grass: A Conservation Assessment for the Northern Great Plains, Northern Plains Conservation Network and
Northern Great Plains Ecoregion, 2004,WWF-US, www.worldwildlife.org/wildplaces/ngp/pubs/ocean_of_grass.cfm.
6
There are 351,000 miles of transmission lines comprising the United States grid system, yet insufficient lines in the
Great Plains keeps the region essentially isolated from transmitting their vast wind resources into this national grid
system. See Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff, Demand Response: From Water Heaters to Cash Back Hybrids,
March 14, 2007, www.ferc.gov/; and National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, www.nationalwind.org/.

Michael Totten, Great Plains Wind – May 2007 2

The three sub-regions of the Great Plains are: Northern Great Plains = Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota;
Central Great Plains = Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas; Southern Great Plains = Oklahoma, New
Mexico, and Texas. (Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1998, USDA 1997 Census of Agriculture)

Although agriculture controls about 70% of Great Plains land area, it contributes less than 10%
of the Gross Regional Product. Wind farms could enable one of the greatest economic booms in

Michael Totten, Great Plains Wind – May 2007 3

American history for Great Plains rural communities, while also enabling one of world’s largest
restorations of native prairie ecosystems. HOW?

Source: Williams, Robert, Nuclear and Alternative Energy Supply Options for an Environmentally Constrained
World, April 9, 2001, http://www.nci.org/

The Great Plains’ huge wind resource, wind farms’ small footprints, and excellent GIS mapping
tools, can enable siting that prevents ecological damage. Here are illustrative figures in just 3
Great Plains states.

Wyoming wind power potential is 880 billion kWh/yr – 25% of current U.S. total electricity
consumption.

Michael Totten, Great Plains Wind – May 2007 4

South Dakota wind power potential is 1 trillion kWh/yr – 30% of current U.S. total electricity
consumption.

Kansas wind power potential is 1 trillion kWh/yr – 30% of current U.S. total electricity
consumption.

Wind farms require a fraction of the water resources required by large powerplants (coal,
nuclear, natural gas) or irrigated biofuel feedstocks and refined biofuels.

Michael Totten, Great Plains Wind – May 2007 5

 Water Consumption (liters per MWh)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Wind turbine Solar-electric combined coal-fired nuclear
cycle

Public policies and incentives have largely neglected wind power' s potential. Federal subsidies
to nuclear, solar and wind electricity technologies totalled $174 billion between 1947 and 1999
(in 2005 dollars). Nuclear consumed over 96% of the tax subsidies. (Source: Renewable Energy
Policy Project (REPP), http://www.repp.org).

Michael Totten, Great Plains Wind – May 2007 6

Great Plains Climate Change Vulnerability
Excerpts from Chapter 7, Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the Great Plains, Linda A.
Joyce, Dennis Ojima,George A.Seielstad, Robert Harriss, and Jill Lackett, National Assessment Synthesis Team,

The Great Plains climate is characterized by a strong north-south temperature gradient and a
strong east-west precipitation gradient. Annual precipitation ranges from less than 8 inches (200
mm) on the western edge to over 43 inches (1,100 mm) on the eastern edge of the Great Plains.
Average annual temperature is less than 39°F (4°C) in the Northern Great Plains and exceeds
72°F (22°C) in the Southern Great Plains.

Across the Northern and Central Great Plains, temperatures have risen more than 2ºF (1ºC) in the
past century, with increases up to 5.5ºF (3ºC) in parts of Montana, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. In the southern Great Plains, the 20th century temperature record shows no trend. Over
the last 100 years, annual precipitation has decreased by 10% in eastern Montana, North Dakota,
eastern Wyoming, and Colorado. Texas has experienced significantly more high intensity
rainfall. The snow season ends earlier in the spring, reflecting the greater seasonal warming in
winter and spring.

The higher temperatures and greater numbers of droughts and floods projected for the region
could threaten crops, raise production expenses, and increase the risk of failure. To protect the
food supply, healthy soils able to withstand erratic weather patterns are needed.

The climate model projections, as well as other tools utilized in analyzing impacts, include a
greater number extreme temperatures and heat stress events, where the temperature remains over
90°F (32°C) for 3 consecutive days, will likely increase in the Southern Great Plains. These
events will increase the heat stress on humans and livestock. Although precipitation increases
are projected for parts of the Great Plains, increased evaporation due to rising air temperatures
are projected to surpass these increases, resulting in net soil moisture declines for large parts of
the region. Heat stress events are projected to occur more often in the central and southern Great
Plains in the future.

Extreme weather events include severe winter snow storms, ice storms, high winds, hail,
tornadoes, lightning, drought, intense heavy rain, floods, heat waves, extreme cold snaps, and
unexpected frosts. Natural systems have adapted to this variability, but climate extremes have
significant economic impacts on farmers and ranchers as well as the human communities in the
Great Plains. For example, the severe drought from fall 1995 through summer 1996 in the
agricultural regions of the Southern Great Plains resulted in about $5 billion in damages.

Invasive species are currently a significant issue on the Great Plains. . Invasive species typically
have high reproductive rates, fast growth rates, and good dispersal mechanisms. A possible
migration of invasive species across the Great Plains is a concern to stakeholders because the
rapid rate of climate change is likely to be disadvantageous to native species. Preserving intact
riparian areas, wetlands, and natural areas is likely to slow or reduce future invasions and is
beneficial even in the absence of climate change.

Increasing the carbon content of the soil will help to mitigate global warming by keeping carbon
dioxide out of the atmosphere, but it will do even more to buffer the soil against the threats of

Michael Totten, Great Plains Wind – May 2007 7

climate change. Presently, most US farmland has only half or less of its historical level of
organic matter. Soil scientists have established that a 6-inch (15 cm) block of soil with 1 to 2%
organic matter can hold only about one inch (2.5 cm) of rain before it runs out the bottom. With
4 to 5% organic matter, that same soil can hold 4-6 inches (10 to 15 cm) of rain before it leaves
the root zone and takes with it the water-soluble nutrients.

Increasing soil organic matter also reduces the risks of flooding and erosion, and retains moisture
longer so plants have access to it during periods of dry weather. Soil organic matter lessens the
need for (and expense of) irrigation, reduces ground water pollution, and reduces the amount of
run-off, lessening the threat of stream pollution. It also lowers the cost of fertilization since
nutrients not lost to erosion and leaching need not be replaced.

Many small towns in the Great Plains struggle to meet current drinking water standards. The
projected increase in intense rainfall in the Southern Plains may increase problems with runoff
in urban areas or runoff of livestock wastes from feedlots.

Soil organic matter in grassland ecosystems is estimated to be an important reservoir of

terrestrial carbon (Anderson, 1991). For example, the average aboveground plant biomass
production for a cool-season grassland in Havre, MT is 34 grams per square meter (g/m2). For a
short-grass steppe ecosystem in the Central Plains, Colorado, aboveground plant biomass
production is 46 g/m2 (Haas et al., 1957; Cole et al., 1990). In sharp contrast, soil C values are 95
and 50 times higher (3230 and 2310 g/m2), for Havre and the Central Plains, respectively. The
conversion of Great Plains grasslands to croplands has resulted in major changes in soil organic
matter and nutrient supplying capacity on these lands (Haas et al.,1957;Tiessen et al.,1982;Burke
et al.,1990).

Conversion of grasslands or forests to cropland can result in a rapid decline in carbon stores. Up
to 50% of the soil carbon and the woody biomass of the forest can be lost due to cropland
conversion (emphasis added, Haas et al.,1957;Cole et al.,1989,1990).

Farming & Ranching

Over 60% of the nation’s wheat is produced in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas (Skold, 1997). The states of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico,
Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado produce 87% of the nation’s grain sorghum. Over 54% of the
nation’s barley and 36% of the nation’s cotton are produced in the region (Skold, 1997).
Livestock in the Great Plains constitutes over 60% of the nation’s total, including both grazing
and grain-fed cattle operations. Nearly 75% of the grain-fed cattle in the US are from the Great
Plains, using the readily available supply of feed grains, over 50% of which is also produced in
the region.

Within the Central Great Plains, the total number of farms has gone from nearly 200,000 in 1930
to less than 100,000 in 1990 and big farms have increased from 10% to over 30% of the total
number of farms (Gutmann, 1999). From 4 to 38% of each Great Plains state’s crop production
— grain and livestock — is exported outside of the US (Figure 3). Thus, Great Plains agriculture
is highly sensitive to changing consumer preferences and the global economy.

Michael Totten, Great Plains Wind – May 2007 8

Although agriculture dominates land use in the Great Plains, the percent share of agriculture
is small, 2% of the 1997 gross state product of all Great Plains states (emphasis added, US
Department of Commerce 1998). The Northern Great Plains states are more dependent on
agriculture than the Central Great Plains states, which are more dependent on agriculture than the
Southern Great Plains states

Populations are declining in most rural areas. In North Dakota, over 65% of the counties have
fewer than 6 residents per square mile. The average age of a farm operator in the Central Great
Plains is nearly 54 years, 52 years in the Northern Great Plains, and over 56 years in the
Southern Great Plains (USDA data, 1997).

Michael Totten, Great Plains Wind – May 2007 9