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
