Turbulent Turbines: Mayor's Plan Stirs up More Than Just the Water

The possibility of turbines being placed in the San Francisco Bay (pictured on the left) has been in discussion since 2003 when the city's Department of the Environment director, Jared Blumenfeld, and Mayor Gavin Newsom proposed the idea, and it is not an entirely new subject by any means. What is new are the findings of the United Research Services (URS) study that were just recently released. The study was paid for by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and indicates several major problems with this plan. What initially began as a genuinely positive step toward finding an alternative source of energy has quickly spun into a mess of stubborn politics, financial improbability, and inadequate amounts of research. Although hydraulic technology provides the cleanest and most efficient form of electricity, the Mayor's proposal to place turbines in the bay severely lacks sufficient research to be implemented safely and intelligently. As the leader of San Francisco, it is his responsibility to act in a sensible and conscientious manner while maintaining the best interest of his citizens as a central priority. However, his actions following the release of the URS Study only seem to implicate an unwillingness by Mayor Gavin Newsom to act in this mature capacity.

Tidal energy is a largely unexplored source of energy in the U.S., where the majority of our states and cities have no access to large natural bodies of water. However the history of this technology goes back all the way to around 900 A.D. when waterwheels were used to activate grinders for grains. The first commercial tidal energy power plant was constructed in Brittany, France during the 1960s, and the waterwheel gave way to the much more technologically advanced hydraulic turbine and generator. Today France's La Rance Tidal Power Plant still remains the only large scale commercial power plant in the world and has been functioning for the last forty years without any major malfunction. Throughout the years, a number of other tidal plants have emerged in various locations all across the globe, including Canada, Switzerland, Wales, and China. Although found to be reliably effective over time, history has also shown that they are not without their fair share of problems. From 1974 through 1987 a myriad of studies were conducted to determine whether a proposal to dam the Severn Estuary that spanned the distance between Wales and England would be feasible. The Severn Tidal Barrage proposal (STB) was ultimately put aside in 1987 as a result of "economic problems". In addition, there were found to be several environmental obstacles such as fish migration impediment and disruption of delicate intertidal zones that would have most likely prevented the creation of the barrage.

Fast forward to 2008 and we are finding many of these same obstacles reemerging in the San Francisco Bay proposition. Originally, it was believed that the water around the Golden Gate Bridge was a large source of untapped energy for the city and was even projected to be capable of producing 38 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 38,000 homes. Jared Blumenfeld proudly touted that "Within 10 years, San Francisco could build enough clean energy tidal power to meet its daily energy needs, as well as generate surplus energy to sell--all with a price tag of about one-third the cost per megawatt of solar power." In reality, the URS study has found that only one to two megawatts would be produced at a cost of millions of dollars in maintenance fees, thus raising the estimated price of electricity from anywhere between 80 cents and $1.40 per kilowatt hour. In comparison, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company currently has a commercial rate of 12 cents per kilowatt hour. On top of these financial complications lies the fact that much of the environmental impact on marine life has gone largely unstudied. "Just imagine a giant tube being placed at the base of the San Francisco Bay underneath the Golden Gate Bridge," Mayor Newsom stated in regards to his plan. Yes, let us imagine this "giant tube" which will likely be over fifteen feet tall sitting on the bay floor and purportedly have no effect on the underwater ecosystem. It is hard to believe that a foreign object of that magnitude would be unnoticed by the fish and other creatures in the bay, especially if Mayor Newsom has his way and establishes an entire underwater power grid of turbines. There have been many issues with trapped fish and seals, and a 100% guarantee of safety to the surrounding wildlife can never be fully provided. The truth is that there is no real way of predicting the effects that the plan could have on the environment. Tidal flows could be altered, migratory patterns interrupted. It is very likely that placing these hydraulic devices in the bay could introduce an entirely new set of problems in place of the energy problem it is meant to resolve.

The politics of Mayor Newsom (pictured on the right discussing the turbines) have also raised more than a few questions from critics of his plan. When faced with the results of the PUC funded study, the mayor's response was, "I am going to find a way to make it happen... I don't care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it." This is precisely the kind of deterministic attitude that will get bad policies enforced and give a bad name to the whole alternative energy movement. Instead of taking the negative critiques personally, Mayor Newsom should be using them to reevaluate the plan. By ignoring "the arguments against it" he is choosing to ignore the faults that may potentially arise should his efforts come to fruition. Another controversy arose when the General Manager of PUC, Susan Leal, was fired from her position late last February despite having two more years in her contract. Consequently, her severance package amounted to over $400,000, a fee that will have to be paid by the citizens of San Francisco. Many have speculated that Leal was let go partly as a result of her decision to back away from the mayor's initiative to create a tidal power plant after she received the results of the URC study. Leal also gained the reputation as being too independent and not a team player during her three and a half years as general manager. I find it to be a troubling sign when powerful officials use their authority to manipulate other influential minds into sharing their ideologies as it appears Mayor Newsom has done. A third study to be conducted by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company is now underway, which Newsom is hoping will yield more favorable results. As the political leader of San Francisco, it is his duty to act responsibly for the well being of his city and all its inhabitants. However, his actions and statements have only shown his narrow minded approach to the energy crisis situation.

It is no secret that California has been suffering from a deficient amount of energy for a number of years. As a result, the state has become a pioneer in exploring alternative energy sources; the interest in harnessing hydraulic power and converting it into electricity very much exemplifies this fact. Tides are arguably the best source of energy as they are reliable, consistent, completely reusable, and emit zero waste. Nonetheless, that does not mean that plans for a tidal power plant can be enacted without thorough research beforehand. It is important that changes toward sustainability occur in a smart and thoughtful manner in order for them to remain effective permanently. Mayor Newsom's continued determination to create turbines in the bay of San Francisco despite research that indicates their financial impracticality is suggestive of a deeper political agenda. If Newsom is truly looking to improve his city and relieve California's dependence on environmentally damaging sources of power, he should take the criticisms to his plan seriously to see if any adjustments could be made to address the problems rather than ignoring them with reckless abandon.