Dear Science,
Seattle City Light has started a program called Green Up where
City Light customers can pay extra each month in exchange for getting
some or all of their electricity from Washington wind sources. Is this
any better for the environment than staying with the current Seattle
City Light service that is mostly hydropower?
Breezy
Yes. Wind power is a rare “green” energy source that is actually
green, when considering not just the environmental impact of
producing energy, but also building, operating, and eventually
disposing of the plant. A recent study in the International Journal
of Global Energy Issues did such a life-cycle analysis, finding
only wind and geothermal power have a similar or lower net
environmental impact than fossil fuels—biofuel,
hydroelectric, or solar-cell power were far more dubious. Beyond
environmental concerns, there is the aesthetics of windmills:
Objectively, they are beautiful.
Just to be clear, this program doesn’t actually cause wind power
to enter your home—the turbines are too far away from Seattle
and our distribution network to do that. Nor does it shut down the
coal- and natural-gas-fired plants that provide about 10 percent of
the electricity entering your house. Instead, your $12 a month (or so)
purchases “Renewable Energy Certificates” that subsidize the cost per
kilowatt hour of wind power east of the Cascades to about the same as a
new fossil-fuel power plant. It doesn’t really stop any existing
plants from releasing carbon dioxide. Can this
strategy—punching the environment in the stomach here, giving
it an ice cream over there—be a net win for the environment?
By making wind power competitive in the market, in theory, these
certificates stop future carbon-releasing plants from being
built. In truth, programs like this increase the amount of electricity
produced with no increase in cost to the end consumer, encouraging
increased consumption rather than conservation. In other industries
where this has been tried—replacing concrete plants in the
developing world with newer lower-emission plants—consumption
goes up enough to actually increase net carbon emissions.
Where else could your $12 a month go to help the environment?
Spending the money to reduce the amount of electricity you use is
the best way to ensure no new carbon-spewing plants must be built to
power your house. LED lights, new caulk around
the windows, a low-flow showerhead, or a newer dishwasher are all great
ways. Seattleites are already good at this; even as the number of City
Light customers has steadily increased, total residential power
consumption has stayed relatively flat. We’ve lived within our
(relatively) renewable means and enjoy some of the lowest electrical
rates in the world. Pretty smart.
Shockingly Yours,
Science
Send your science questions to
dearscience@thestranger.com
