A relatively small city in Washington state recently invested over a total of $100,000 in three separate “windmill-like turbines.”

According to local reports, the turbines have not yet been turned on, meaning there has not yet been an opportunity for savings. But apparently, they are not missing out on much. These same reports now indicate the total savings which are expected each day is a dismal $1.39. This number amounts to a total of $41.58 every month.

The $107,516 worth of technology was approved by the city council over one year ago, while the stations have been completely finalized and put into place about two months ago.

It has been claimed that the turbines have not yet been activated as the council is in the process of investigating the company which manufactured the products, UGE International Ltd.. It is expected that this issue be completely solves by January.

The purpose of the turbines is to provide power for 31 lights which are used in the park in the city. They have the ability to produce about 3 kilowatts each hour but they are only expected to produce power at a level of about one quarter of its capacity.

City council member Sissi Bruch explained last week that the purpose expanded further than simply producing energy. “They were also meant to educate folks about wind power,” But Bruch also appears to regret her decision to vote unanimously with the board to authorize these projects. “These are not giving us the quantity of energy that we would use, that we would want.”

She added that although she does appreciate the educational components which have come about as a result of the project which have been undertaken, she is not happy with the extremely low levels of energy which have actually amounted from these. “I did not realize they would produce so little energy. I wouldn’t have voted for it knowing it was that little.”

The life of the turbines is expected to be about 25 years, which is projected to amount to approximately $24,145 worth of saving. It would take over 50 years to receive a complete return on investment. This also does not take into account any possible maintenance cost which certainly can be expected to come about at some point over the next 25 years.

City officials do say though the economic savings was not viewed as a priority in the passing of this. Rather, the city was more concerned with alternative energy and education.

What do you think? Was this a good decision? Let HYPELINE know what you think in the comments!

(h/t Peninsula Daily News)

Follow HYPELINE on Facebook and Twitter

Facebook Comments
Jake Leahy is a Staff Writer for Hypeline News, frequent contributor on 560 the Answer in Chicago, and a student at Deerfield High School (IL). Follow him on Twitter @jakealeahy.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here