I must take issue with some of the assertions of John Hairston, the administrator and CEO of the Bonneville Power Administration in “Preserve hydropower’s role in clean-energy future” [March 28, Opinion]:
Hairston describes hydropower as “clean” multiple times in his article, and refers to hydropower as “carbon-free.” One has to agree that hydropower has a lower present impact to worldwide carbon dioxide than burning fossil fuels. The description of hydropower as “carbon-free,” however, does not take into account the construction of the infrastructure required to produce that hydropower. The production of cement produces significant amounts of carbon dioxide. A 2020 article in Scientific American states that “ … if cement production were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter after China and the U.S.” The Grand Coulee Dam alone used 12 million cubic yards of concrete in its construction.
When hydropower is touted as “carbon-free,” the carbon dioxide generation of the construction of the generating and distribution of hydropower has to be taken into account. Low carbon-producing electric-generating alternatives (with lower impacts to other resources such as salmon) are available. Please consider all the variables in the equation before reaching a conclusion on the best source of electricity.
Larry Franks, Issaquah
The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.