Plans for SF clean energy program still underway, despite political opposition

|
(24)
District 5 Sup. London Breed called for a clear plan to build out local energy sources and create jobs.

San Francisco’s longstanding effort to develop a municipal renewable energy program has been stymied by politics, but Sup. London Breed has taken up the cause of advancing aspects of the plan that haven't been obstructed.

At a Dec. 13 meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), a committee comprised of members of the Board of Supervisors that has been working to develop CleanPowerSF for years, Breed called for putting out a Request for Proposals to develop a concrete plan for building out local renewable energy infrastructure. LAFCo adopted the motion. 

With plans for solar panel arrays or wind power facilities that would generate hundreds of megawatts of electricity for the municipal energy program, the build-out is a key aspect of the plan that could lead to job creation and stable electricity rates in the long term.

“Part of what I think is important in developing a plan is to make sure that if there are people who oppose it, that we have answers,” Breed said. “And we have clear answers, so that we’re communicating what the real, true accurate message is: There is real possibility for local jobs.”

Earlier this year, members of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, a body composed of mayoral appointees, refused to approve a not-to-exceed rate, effectively obstructing any forward progress on the green municipal power program. But some advocates who are thinking long-term have merely taken the setback as an opportunity to put some time and energy into crafting a well thought out plan that serves the interests of job seekers and environmentalists alike, which would ulimately be politically difficult to oppose.

The rate approval was a necessary step toward inking a contract with Shell Energy North America, the contractor selected by the SFPUC to procure renewable energy on the open market until a build-out gets off the ground.

Just before the commissioners made their decision, opponents of the plan who are affiliated with Pacific Gas & Electric Company – the utility giant that stands to lose customers if CleanPowerSF goes forward – plastered San Francisco residences with flyers denouncing the program and Shell’s involvement. The mailers were paid for by IBEW 1245, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union that represents PG&E employees.

Breed reflected on that messaging as an unfortunate setback. “It created, I think, the challenges that we’re facing getting this program moving forward,” she said. “We need a clear communication strategy. We need a clear understanding of the build-out.”

Eric Brooks, a longtime advocate of CleanPowerSF who has attended hundreds of meetings to help shape the plan on behalf of his nonprofit, Our City, said he was pleased with the latest direction LAFCo talks had taken. He recently penned an editorial for the Bay Guardian calling on LAFCo to take control of the program.

“This does not get around the political problem we have,” he said. “Politically, the program isn’t moving forward. On Aug. 13, from [the SFPUC’s] standpoint, they put the program on hold.” Nevertheless, “the idea is to work on all the other things, and get those things done.” Once there is a practical plan spelling out how the city will move forward with building out green renewable energy infrastructure, he said, it could serve to “show the building trade unions what’s possible.”

From what Brooks said and what was voiced at the meeting, it seems the political strategy of project proponents will be to bring on a consultant to hash out more tangible goals with regard to job creation, and then use those shovel-ready plans to bring trade unions on board. From there, Brooks hopes there may be more leverage to push for approval – or perhaps to pursue an alternative management structure that gets around the SFPUC, such as joining with another municipality to form a Joint Powers Authority that would oversee the program.

Sup. David Campos, who has been a key supporter of CleanPowerSF along with Sup. John Avalos, did voice some reservations about moving forward with the RFP. “We are here,” halted from moving forward, “even though we have a program that has been approved by the Board of Supervisors,” he pointed out. “How do we avoid going down the path of doing additional work, only to find ourselves in the same predicament?”

The political pressure against CleanPowerSF, fueled by groups associated with PG&E in political alignment with Mayor Ed Lee, is formidable. Nevertheless, advocates from environmental organizations such as 350.org, the Sierra Club and others have kept pushing for the program out of a conviction that it represents an opportunity to curb greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change at the local level.

“This is a very important move,” said June Brashares, a steering committee member of the Local Clean Energy Alliance. “A key piece of work that has not yet been done is the selection of actual sites all over the city for the installation of hundreds of megawatts of local clean energy projects that will make up CleanPowerSF.”

UPDATE: After we posted this, Breed returned a phone call from earlier in the day. She shared some thoughts about the program:

"I just think we're overdue, to do it. The fact that we have five commissioners appointed, not necessarily elected, [blocking the program] disturbs me," she said.

Asked why she's supportive of CleanPowerSF, Breed said, "It's not just about the choice. It's also about the environment, and the future. There's a lot of money in energy in general, and part of that money should go back to the local economy through those jobs."

When we asked her about the strategy for advancing the program, she responded, "We want labor to be a partner on this. We want to make sure that it's clear, and more importantly, we want it to be a strong proposal ... My goal is to make it difficult for them to oppose it."

Finally, questioned on whether she was worried about the political opposition, Breed responded, "I can't do my job in fear that someone may oppose it. I have to do it based on what I think is truly right for the city of San Francisco."

Comments

what gave the Mayor the confidence to not prioritize this. And many voters are angry that the Supes did an end run with this rather than have the voters decide.

So I for one am very comfortable with the delays and, in any event, will be sticking with PG&E rather than switching to Shell.

PG&E are now more than 60% sustainable energy anyway. And will be cheaper of course.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2013 @ 4:19 pm

Proposed CleanPowerSF Rates now meet or beat PG&E dirty power rates. The Shell contract is now likely dead, and is therefore becoming old news.

And the CleanPowerSF planning that the SF LAFCo has just resumed will result, within one decade, in 50% of our electricity supply being replaced by real -local- installations of renewables and efficiency; installations that will create thousands of local jobs.

PG&E is not building -any- local clean energy in San Francisco, and a huge part of the PG&E energy that you claim is 'sustainable' is nuclear power, and therefore neither sustainable, clean, -nor- greenhouse gas free.

Only 19% of PG&E's electricity is legitimate renewable energy under California's minimal environmental standards; a percentage low enough to put PG&E in violation of state climate laws. PG&E is decrepit old news and is leaving the stage.

If you want cheaper, cleaner energy, stick with CleanPowerSF when it rolls out.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Dec. 18, 2013 @ 9:30 pm

If a single-family home goes solar with a private company, they (the private company) will provide and install panels and equipment, coordinate with PG&E, and will maintain the equipment for 20 years - all at zero out of pocket costs. In addition, they will complete the paperwork to get the customer a check from the City and County of SF for up to $1,700!
In exchange, the customer will spend around 18 cents per Kilowatt Hour for the solar power. For PG&E customers who spend $50/month on electricity, they can lower their monthly payments around 20%.
We don't need CleanpowerSF - we have the ability to do this now, without spending more money, going through more commissions, more litigation, more bullshit.
Be independent! Don't fall for the CleanpowerSF Bullshit!

Posted by Richmondman on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 2:06 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 2:16 pm

Richmondman, let's think this through.

You are proposing that home and business owners install solar panels, but only enough to save some money on their PG&E bill.

Indeed, this is the only option that PG&E customers have, because PG&E isn't required to pay panel owners for anywhere near the full value of excess electricity they could generate if they put up more solar panels. So under PG&E, customers have an incentive to only install enough panels to, at best, zero out their bill.

Why would you want to do that, when under state law CleanPowerSF is allowed to pay homes and businesses full value for 100% of the excess electricity they generate.

It is far smarter to take advantage of that huge benefit so that you can actually make a profit for yourself and/or your business by generating clean energy.

To stick with PG&E when this option is possible to you, would be incredibly foolish.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 4:07 pm

CleanPowerSF proposed to increase electical rates - perhaps you forgot that, or once it became known, you deny it. Whypaymore? Why not pay less and still reduce GHGs?
Will CleanPowerSF install the panels and equipment for no cost out of pocket? NO.
Will CleanPowerSF reduce my electrical costs NOW? NO.
Will CleanPowerSF get me a $1,700 check with no cost out of pocket? NO.

Posted by Richmondman on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 4:52 pm

20% to 40% more than "unclean" power.

And PG&E is now 60% sustainable anyway.

Just say no to Shell.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

..for CleanPowerSF a couple of years ago. The SFPUC was forced to back down from that extremely poor decision. Community organizers battled over the last two years for rates competitive with PG&E and have won them. Next year PG&E's rate for dirty power will be around 9 cents per kilowatt hour, and CleanPowerSF's projected rates will be exactly the same.

This whole mantra that you naysayers keep repeating about rates is simply no longer valid in any way.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Dec. 20, 2013 @ 8:41 pm

Even at the same price, I would rather buy my electricity from a company whose employees work in SF and the Bay Area, rather than the Dutch Shell Oil Company. Support Local employees.

Posted by Richmondman on Dec. 21, 2013 @ 7:19 am

if you conservative types weren't always hating on public power. If you really want your money to stay locally, you would support public power.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 21, 2013 @ 7:58 am

First: The Shell role in CleanPowerSF at this point looks like it is probably going to be dropped.

Second: Even if it is not dropped, Shell has responded to pressure on this point by agreeing to source all of the renewables it would deliver to the program from sources that employ California union labor.

Third: (and most importantly) The Shell contract is only for the delivery of a very small amount of energy (20 megawatts - or about 5% of the program) that is needed to be available for customers from the start, as the local renewable installation program mentioned in the report above is being built to -replace- that start up supply, and then build local renewable electricity generation far beyond it.

That local installation program will deliver over 400 megawatts of electricity to San Francisco, most of which will be built locally by local unionized workers.

So the claim that there are no local jobs in CleanPowerSF is simply false PG&E crafted propaganda.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Dec. 21, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

In one small village, Wildpoldsried, Germany, they generate 333% more solar energy than they use, thanks to their private roof top solar system, that pays each home $0.99 kwh for generating solar.

The 2,000 homes in this tiny village get paid $6 million from the local grid ( like PG&E ).

This a fact that the US corporations, like Shell Oil fear, that is why CPSF is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of SF.

If the CPSF initiative goes forward, SF gets stuck with paying Shell $1 billion to build a solar farm in Nevada. When the grid goes down, during a quake, SF gets goes dark.

All the Shell Oil shills try to cover this fact up.
It was front page news in the Solar Times of Marin.
Read it on line.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

hectoring windbags like you.

Works for me.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

Since this report was originally posted, SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) staff have stated clearly that the SFPUC can do the same job in-house which was originally proposed to be done by Shell. This is because the SFPUC already buys and sells over 200 megawatts of energy through its Hetch Hetchy program, and it would be a very easy matter to simply add another 20-30 megawatts to those regular local purchasing and sales.

For this and other reasons the SFPUC has ceased negotiations with Shell, and the LAFCo RFP noted in the report above will specifically include planning for a program that does not include a contract with Shell.

Both I and most other advocates fighting to launch CleanPowerSF have consistently told agencies and decision makers for years that we wanted them to find another option to replace the Shell contract, and that option is clearly now available.

Shell will not be running the CleanPowerSF program.

End of problem.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 09, 2014 @ 2:14 pm

I agree & will stick with the Feed in Tariff and PG&E, rather that go with the deceptively named "CleanpowerSF" Shell Oil fraud. Read their own literature and you can see the fine print. It is a scam.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 8:40 pm

As stated elsewhere on this thread, the City is no longer negotiating to contract with Shell for the CleanPowerSF program because that Shell contract is no longer necessary. The SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) can instead simply do the same work in-house with local workers.

On the feed-in-tariff question, the suggestion that the incredibly powerful PG&E will allow the state legislature to pass a 50 cent per kilowatt hour feed-in-tariff is simply absurd. Just as it has already done for the last decade, PG&E will -continue- use its vast wealth to block the state legislature from ever setting such beneficial feed-in-tariffs.

However the law that enables CleanPowerSF -already- allows any city to set its own feed-in-tariffs as high as it wants to set them.

So in fact, the only realistic way to create the sort of German style feed in tariff's mentioned above, is to launch CleanPowerSF.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 09, 2014 @ 2:25 pm

Jane Kim looks like a replicant and in this one London Breed appears to have no pores. Are these professionally photoshopped or is that just a heightened effect the SFBG uses?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2013 @ 11:10 pm

Think Carol Midgen, Sue Hestor or Debra Walker.

Kim and Breed are quite cute, as was Chu and Alioto-Pier.

Seems only the better looking chicks get to be Supes. Voters like cute.

The rest are also-rans. The last ugly female Supe we had was Bierman, but then she was about 100 years old.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 6:44 pm

are strange and not lifelike. They sort of look like they were painted on.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 7:24 pm

It was painted on, i.e. a shit load of foundation make-up.

Posted by Sara Conner on Dec. 21, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

Mark Goldes' fraudulent "AESOP Institute" is simply a Perpetual Flimflam Machine.

Mark Goldes, starting in the mid-seventies, engaged for several years in the pretense that his company SunWind Ltd was developing a nearly production-ready, road-worthy, wind-powered "windmobile," based on the windmobile invented by James Amick; and that therefore SunWind would be a wonderful investment opportunity.

After SunWind "dried up" in 1983, Goldes embarked on the long-running pretense that his company Room Temperature Superconductors Inc was developing room-temperature superconductors; and that therefore Room Temperature Superconductors Inc would be a wonderful investment opportunity. He continues the pretense that the company developed something useful, even to this day.

And then Goldes embarked on the pretense that his company Magnetic Power Inc was developing "NO FUEL ENGINES" based on "Virtual Photon Flux;" and then, on the pretense that MPI was developing horn-powered "NO FUEL ENGINES" based on the resonance of magnetized tuning-rods; and then, on the pretense that his company Chava Energy was developing water-fueled engines based on "collapsing hydrogen orbitals" (which are ruled out by quantum physics); and then, on the pretense that he was developing strictly-ambient-heat-powered "NO FUEL ENGINES" (which are ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

But of course, the laws of physics always make an exception for the make-believe pretenses of Mark Goldes.

Goldes' forty-year career of "revolutionary breakthrough" pretense has nothing to do with science, but only with pseudoscience, pseudophysics, and relentless flimflam.

Mark Goldes' "Aesop Institute" has engaged for many years in the very dishonest and unscrupulous practice of soliciting loans and donations under an endless series of false pretenses, that it is developing and even "prototyping" various "revolutionary breakthroughs," such as "NO FUEL ENGINES" that run on ambient heat alone - or run on "Virtual Photon Flux" - or on "Collapsing Hydrogen Orbitals" - or even on the acoustic energy of sound from a horn.

Aesop Institute's make-believe strictly ambient heat engine is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This has been understood by physicists for at least 180 years. There is no "new science" that has ever determined such an engine to be possible.

Aesop Institute's make-believe "Virtual Photon Flux" engine is based on the idea that accessible electric power "is everywhere present in unlimited quantities" - which we know to be false.

Aesop Institute's make-believe "Collapsing Hydrogen Orbital" engine is based on Randell Mills' theory of "hydrino" hydrogen, which every scientist knows to be false.

Aesop Institute's make-believe horn-powered engine is based on the pretense that a magnetized tuning rod could somehow "multiply energy" - a ludicrous notion, which is obviously ruled out by the law of conservation of energy.

Aesop Institute's very latest make-believe engine is a perpetual motion machine in the form of a self-powered air compressor, which uses a turbine to compress air to spin the turbine to compress air to spin the turbine.

Aesop Institute has never offered the slightest shadow of evidence that it is actually developing or "prototyping" any of these make-believe physics-defying "revolutionary breakthroughs." All it has ever offered are mere declarations that it is doing so - unsupported by any proof whatever, of any kind whatever.

There are no "revolutionary breakthroughs" to be found on Goldes' fraudulent "Aesop Institute" website. There is only pseudoscience, relentless flimflam, and empty claims of engines that are ruled out by the laws of physics.

Let's look at another example of Mark Goldes' wonderful offerings in "revolutionary new technology:"

The amazing "POWERGENIE!"

One of the most laughable of Mark Goldes' many pseudotypes is his "POWERGENIE" horn-powered generator. The brilliant idea of this revolutionary breakthrough is to blow a horn at a magnetized tuning rod, designed to resonate at the frequency of the horn, and then collect the electromotive energy produced by the vibrations of the rod.

We're not making this up.

POWERGENIE tuning rod engine explained - from the patent:

[The device incorporates] "an energy transfer and multiplier element being constructed of a ferromagnetic substance... having a natural resonance, due to a physical structure whose dimensions are directly proportional to the wavelength of the resonance frequency...

"In this resonant condition, the rod material functions as a tuned waveguide, or longitudinal resonator, for acoustic energy...

"Ferrite rod 800 is driven to acoustic resonance at the second harmonic of its fundamental resonant frequency by acoustic horn 811..."

- But the patent doesn't tell us who will volunteer to blow the horn at the rod all day. Perhaps it will come with an elephant.

Mark Goldes claimed in 2008 that this wonderful triumph of human genius would bring his company, Magnetic Power Inc, one billion dollars in annual revenue by 2012. Magnetic Power is now defunct, having never produced any "Magnetic Power Modules" - just as Goldes' company called "Room Temperature Superconductors Inc" is also now defunct, having never produced any "room temperature superconductors."

In Mark Goldes' patent application for his ludicrous "POWERGENIE" horn-powered tuning-rod engine, he described the tuning-rod as "an energy transfer and multiplier element."

But of course, for the tuning-rod to "multiply" energy, it would need to disprove the law of conservation of energy.

Goldes' use of the term "energy multiplier element" reflected his pretense that the "revolutionary breakthrough" of the amazing "POWERGENIE" could disprove the law of conservation of energy, by presenting the world with a working "energy multiplier."

Goldes even claimed in 2008 that the POWERGENIE had been demonstrated already in an electric car, driven 4800 miles by his energy-multiplying horn-powered tuning-rod.

But it seems that most people, for some reason, had difficulty accepting the notion that the law of conservation of energy could be proven false.

And Goldes no doubt noticed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics - that "the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase with time and can never decrease" - is much less clear to most people than the conservation of energy.

So now, after leaving aside the pretense that he could somehow "multiply energy" with a magnetized tuning-rod, Goldes has chosen to focus, instead, on the pretense that he can disprove the Second Law with an engine powered only by ambient heat.

There is no "new science" in any of Goldes' "revolutionary breakthroughs." There is only pseudoscience and pretense - and nothing new, at all.

Mark Goldes' proofless claims regarding his make-believe strictly ambient heat engine do not represent any new technology, or even a new pretense - they merely represent a rather old pretense.

"Before the establishment of the Second Law, many people who were interested in inventing a perpetual motion machine had tried to circumvent the restrictions of First Law of Thermodynamics by extracting the massive internal energy of the environment as the power of the machine. Such a machine is called a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind". The second law declared the impossibility of such machines."

"A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved... This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics."

Goldes' make-believe strictly ambient heat engine would be a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, as defined above. Goldes is not developing any such engine; he is merely developing a pretense - as usual.

The Kelvin-Planck formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as follows:

"No cyclic process driven simply by heat can accomplish the absorption of the heat from a reservoir and the conversion of such heat into work - without any other result (such as a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir)."

Now, as you will see, the Clausius formulation of the Second Law may be stated with fewer words:

"No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body."

In fact, we can show that the Kelvin-Planck formulation may be deduced from that of Clausius. In the words of Enrico Fermi:

"Suppose that Kelvin's postulate were not valid. Then we could perform a transformation whose only final result would be to transform completely into work a definite amount of heat taken from a single source at the temperature t1. By means of friction we could then transform this work into heat again and with this heat raise the temperature of a given body, regardless of what its initial temperature, t2, may have been. In particular, we could take t2 to be higher than t1. Thus, the only final result of this process would be the transfer of heat from one body (the source at temperature t1) to another body at a higher temperature, t2. This would be a violation of the Clausius postulate."

Can anyone make a teapot that boils water by absorbing heat from blocks of ice?

Max Planck, in his "Treatise On Thermodynamics," explains how the Second Law of Thermodynamics "may be deduced from a single simple law of experience about which there is no doubt." Here is the "single simple law of experience" he proposes:

"It is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a complete cycle, and produce no effect except the raising of a weight and the cooling of a heat-reservoir."

This "law of experience" is very similar to a principle suggested by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin):

"It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects."

The "simple law of experience" offered by Planck is therefore commonly known as the "Kelvin-Planck statement" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But we see from Planck's "Treatise" that Planck himself did not quite regard it as a statement of the Second Law, but rather as a "starting point" or postulate from which the Second Law may be deduced.

Here is Planck's rendition of the Second Law itself:

"The second law of thermodynamics states that there exists in nature for each system of bodies a quantity, which by all changes of the system either remains constant (in reversible processes) or increases in value (in irreversible processes). This quantity is called, following Clausius, the entropy of the system."

The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out strictly ambient heat engines.

Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice.

Both processes are ruled out by the very same law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"It is impossible for any device operating on a cycle to produce net work from a single temperature reservoir; the production of net work requires flow of heat from a higher temperature reservoir to a colder reservoir."

In a strictly ambient heat engine there are not two heat reservoirs at different temperatures; no reservoir would be available at any temperature other than the ambient temperature. Therefore the engine would have to DECREASE the total entropy - and therefore we know for certain that the engine will disappoint us. It will never be able to do any work.

Flow of heat from a block of ice to lukewarm water would also result in a DECREASE of the total entropy.

Once again: Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice. Anyone who claims to be developing a "prototype" of such an engine is only developing a pretense, and nothing more.

Mark Goldes' latest adventure in flimflam is to declare that a "FUEL-FREE TURBINE invented by a Russian scientist runs on atmospheric pressure."

But when we read the patent application, we find that actually the turbine does NOT run on atmospheric pressure - it requires compressed air. This is clearly indicated even in the article by Kondrashov posted by Goldes on his flimflam website. Kondrashov says:

"To create a sample of such an engine, you can use ready-made devices, such as a load-bearing element - a low-power turbine module turboshaft turbine engine, and to compress the air... any type of compressor..."

Kondrashov filed his patent application in 2003. No patent was awarded.

Mark Goldes assures us in his note prefacing Kondrashov's article that "We understand the science behind this jet engine." But since he incorrectly describes it as an engine powered by "atmospheric pressure" - which it certainly is not - in fact he shows that he doesn't even understand that the engine requires a supply of compressed air in order to spin at all.

Although Kondrashov does pretend in some of his statements that the turbine will be powered by "atmospheric pressure," in fact it is evident from his application that the proposed turbine is made to spin only by the use of compressed air.

In his patent application, Kondrashov states:

"To set the above engine in operation, it is necessary to create pressure of working medium (e.g. air) in pneumatic accumulator 18. The compressed air is fed through check valve 19 and/or 20."

Thus, Kondrashov indicates that an external compressor must be used to fill the turbine's compressed air tank before the turbine can be started. But he seems to imagine that once the turbine starts to spin, there will be no further reliance on the external compressor - the spinning turbine itself will compress the air that is making the turbine spin. So despite his own false description of the turbine as making use of "low-grade atmospheric energy," what Kondrashov actually presents in his patent application is a perpetual motion machine in the form of a self-powered air compressor. This is probably the reason why no patent was awarded. It is exactly analogous to trying to use a generator to power a motor to spin the generator to power the motor to spin the generator. It doesn't work.

Mark Goldes has always known very well, in every instance, that his make-believe "revolutionary breakthrough" engines were nothing of the kind. Anyone who doubts this statement need only investigate the ridiculous horn-powered "POWERGENIE" generator that Goldes, in 2008, claimed would earn his company one billion dollars annually by 2012. (Whenever I ask Goldes what was going to power the horn, he refuses to answer, and calls it "an arrogant question.") When Goldes and company decided to try to copy Randell Mills with some fictional "hydrino" hydrogen of their own, they certainly already knew very well that hydrino theory is nonsense. Likewise with every other "revolutionary breakthrough" Goldes has ever declared.

http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/aesop-institute/

Posted by Max Planck on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 12:48 am

The struggle for solar in SF is going down 2 very different paths.
One is supported by those who want home owners with solar to be paid $0.49 kwh by PG&E to solar farmers, for feeding solar onto the grid.
This will create 49,000 solar jobs in SF directly, indirectly and
This will make PG&E into just a farmers market, where anyone can feed solar onto the grid & get pair a fair price.

This community based, roof top solar initiative will protect SF, so that when the grid goes down during a quake, homes with solar will still have solar energy for lights, to charge up cell phones, power their computers and charge electric cars. This is called a solar feed in tariff payment policy ( FiT ).

It is the best way to stop fracking. This system is now used widely in Europe, Japan & 69 other nations, because it is the best way to shut down fossil fuel & nukes.

Yes, it will raise energy rates $9.+ a year for tenants, to pay solar farmers, but it will create 49,000 solar jobs. I am glad to pay a few bucks extra a year for local solar energy, to shut down gas fracking. It is supported by most progressives, women, union members and greens.

The second path is a solar initiative being funded by Shell Oil, that will force SF residents to pay $1 billion in taxes to Shell Oil to build a solar farm in Nevada.
This is deceptively called “CleanPower SF”.

With a name like that, you know Wall Street must be behind it. Which they are.

It will produce almost no jobs in SF, and when there is an earthquake, there will be no solar energy delivered from Nevada. SF will be left in the dark & broke. There you have the 2 stark choices. Pay $9. a year more for solar, or $1 billion a year to Shell Oil for nothing real.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 8:37 pm
Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 8:53 pm

Since this report was originally posted, SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) staff have stated clearly that the SFPUC can do the same job in-house which was originally proposed to be done by Shell. This is because the SFPUC already buys and sells over 200 megawatts of energy through its Hetch Hetchy program, and it would be a very easy matter to simply add another 20-30 megawatts to those regular local purchasing and sales.

For this and other reasons the SFPUC has ceased negotiations with Shell, and the LAFCo RFP noted in the report above will specifically include planning for a program that does not include a contract with Shell.

Both I and most other advocates fighting to launch CleanPowerSF have consistently told agencies and decision makers for years that we wanted them to find another option to replace the Shell contract, and that option is clearly now available.

Shell will not be running the CleanPowerSF program.

End of problem.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Mar. 09, 2014 @ 2:12 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Police provide explanation of Bernal Heights Park shooting at emotional town hall meeting

  • San Francisco's untouchables

    Is San Francisco trying to help the homeless -- or drive them away?

  • Draining the tank

    Students push UC system to divest from fossil fuels, joining an international movement gathering soon in San Francisco