SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - A ridge that rises high above the Bay floor east of the Golden Gate Bridge has been identified as the likely site for a pilot project that could power homes and businesses by capturing the power of the tides.

San Francisco has spent around $80,000 of city funds since June to investigate whether renewable energy could be generated from the powerful moon-pulled tides that race twice a day through the Golden Gate, according to San Francisco Public Utilities Commission spokesman Tony Winnicker.

The study, expected to be released later this month, found that an underwater turbine placed on the 150-foot high ridge could generate enough clean energy to power 1,000 to 2,000 homes during peak tide currents, according to figures provided by Winnicker.

But the cost of the energy would be more than six times the price of traditional fossil fuel-generated electricity currently sold by Pacific Gas and Electric, according to figures provided by Winnicker.

Further, a recent study conducted for Tacoma, Wash., concluded that that city should wait another five to 10 years before developing tidal power because of high costs and limited development of current technology.

Scientist Jen Kovecses, of the environmental group Baykeeper, said the area beneath the Golden Gate Bridge is a popular migration route for fish and other creatures and that a poorly designed turbine could kill the animals or disturb them with never-ending noise.

Compounding those setbacks, San Francisco Environment Director Jared Blumenfeld said The City previously thought the Bay would be one of the world’s 10 best sites for generating tidal power, but it now appears that it is one of the world’s hundred best sites.

Despite the setbacks, Blumenfeld said he expects The City to forge ahead with a pilot study using animal-friendly turbines placed on the ridge near the Golden Gate Bridge.

“If we want to be a hub of innovation when it comes to renewable energy, we really have to put our money where our mouth is and develop at least a demonstration site,” Blumenfeld said. “Even if we don’t fund a penny of it, we’ve spoken to a lot of investors that are really interested.”

Mayor Gavin Newsom, who announced his support for tidal power in June, on Tuesday said he remained supportive of the technology and would “fight for it.”

The City has also started a project to investigate whether it can create electricity from wave power at Ocean Beach and applied for state grants to investigate whether it can create geothermal energy from heat trapped beneath the surface of the Earth, Blumenfeld said.

jupton@examiner.com 

Proposed tidal pilot study

» 60-foot wide turbine placed 2,000 feet east of Golden Gate Bridge

» Currents at site range up to 8 feet a second

» Could create 1.2 million kilowatt hours per year.

» Installation cost: $12 million to $15 million

» Annual operating costs: $250,000 to $750,000

» Electricity price: $0.85 to $1.40 per kilowatt-hour

Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Comments from Examiner Readers

9:57 AM MST on Thu., May. 8, 2008 re: "Fog surrounding toll increases may start to lift"

Examiner Reader said:
The state should take ownership of this bridge, the GGB board is trying to fill their pockets for years.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

1:12 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"

Examiner Reader said:
The usual anti-tax, anti-fees lobby will whine and cry about increased tolls for Doyle Drive. That is until, of course, there's a major seismic event which cripples beyond use or collapses Doyle Drive. Then, of course, they will blame the government for doing nothing beforehand. We can't have it both ways.

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:31 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Commuters await price for congestion toll"

Examiner Reader said:
Hmmm New York was smart enough to say no to the congestion tolls for Manhattan.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:29 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Commuters await price for congestion toll"

Examiner Reader said:
"If congestion-based tolling is necessary to secure the grant money, what about LOWERING non-peak-hour tolls by, say, 25 cents? Result: congestion-based tolling without further discouraging those of us who already think twice before taking our discretionary income across the bridge, either direction."

0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:37 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008 re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"

Examiner Reader said:
If congestion-based tolling is necessary to secure the grant money, what about LOWERING non-peak-hour tolls by, say, 25 cents? Result: congestion-based tolling without further discouraging those of us who already think twice before taking our discretionary income across the bridge, either direction.

4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:09 AM MST on Mon., Mar. 17, 2008 re: "Peak hours cost peak prices"

Gladwyn d'Souza said:
This traffic does more than just go down Doyle Drive. In San Mateo County cities like SSF double in population during the day while Redwood Shores sees a factor of twenty increase. And we lose bicycle access, on Ralston over 101, because traffic coming to Oracle and EA caused the interchange to be reconfigured, to allow more on ramps ramps from Oracle, so much so that the interchange has become the number one location for bicycle car collisions in Belmont. So what does Supervisor McGoldrick mean by regional cooperation? This is an example of how Caltrans uses regional ignorance to keep CMAs like SFTA and CCAG in their car trance.

2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:14 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 14, 2008 re: "Congestion fare zooming ahead"

Examiner Reader said:
When Doyle Drive is paid off, can we reverse the toll back to 0? I don't think so. Liberal taxes are driving people away. I already bought a home in Nevada. Maybe its time to get out of this hellhole. The next earthquake is coming anyway and everyone is going to die... JK

3 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:07 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 29, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Grant Gilligan said:
I was hit head on on the bridge. I was not even in far left lane. The woman next to me died and had no air bags. My friend and I survived the 100+ mile an hour impact. I drive across the bridge 5 times a week. I welcome the barrier!

22 agree | 22 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:56 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 9, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Examiner Reader said:
So, will this barrier extend along Doyle Drive as well? The yellow tubes are hazardous (in addition to preventing the crossover problem) - they are frequently knocked loose and thrown about (very comforting on a motorcycle; there's already plenty of junk on CA highways).

31 agree | 30 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:33 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Examiner Reader said:
I rather enjoy risking a drive across the Golden Gate Bridge as is. I believe such beauty is cleary worth taking my chances. Sometimes I even hazard a quick glance to one side or the other, to catch a glimpse of either the amazing Pacific Ocean or San Francisco's unique cityscape. I've been doing it for 31 years now without a scratch on me or my car.

38 agree | 34 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:18 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Walter E.Wallis said:
Using new high strength steel, towers could be strengthened at the same time the roadway was widened, allowing 3 lanes each way and a premanent divider. Move the walkways either up or down and gain an emergency lane.

50 agree | 37 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:57 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008 re: "Golden Gate Bridge closer to a real median"

Ian H said:
.64 fatalities per million miles traveled didn't sound so bad ... until I looked up the national average, which is 0.0098 fatalities per million miles traveled. In other words, drivers are 65 times more likely to be killed driving across the Golden Gate Bridge than the average US roadway. The Examiner should make a little extra effort to put its statistics into context. I'm in favor of the barrier now.

34 agree | 42 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate