PORT ANGELES — Three wind turbines erected at the city’s Waterfront Park in mid-September that cost $107,516 will generate $1.39 worth of electricity a day and about $42 a month — when they are eventually turned on.
Or they will generate an average of $1.85 a day and $55.59 a month, Nathan West, city community economic and development director, said Tuesday. He said today that at peak generation, they would provide $168.63 monthly.
The truth is, city officials don’t really know because they can’t predict wind speeds, West said.
An article last Sunday in the Peninsula Daily News erroneously said the windmill-like turbines, put up in September but not yet in operation, would generate about $1.50 a month.
One reason to build the turbines was that they would illuminate the Waterfront Park lights and feed the remaining electricity back into the Bonneville Power Administration grid, city officials said when they approved the project last year.
But the turbines were not built to only generate electricity, West said Tuesday.
They were built “to ensure we have a vertical element to draw visitors to the park,” he said.
“A great deal went into the design of the park. The design was the predominant focus.
“The purpose was not the generation of electricity.”
Shailesh Shere, city assistant director of power systems, said today that the turbines’ output of $1.39 a day and $41.70 a month — an estimated $500 a year — was based on operating at 25 percent of peak usage, generating 18 kilowatt hours a day, with an estimate of prevailing wind speeds of 12 to 14 mph for 24 hours.
But West said a more accurate estimate based on historical wind speeds at William R. Fairchild International Airport would be that the turbines will work at an average of 33 percent of peak usage.
The city pays the Bonneville Power Administration 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity.
That means they would generate $55.44 monthly and $667.28 a year.
“Approximately 25 percent of the year we historically have enough wind to produce peak generation. The other 75 percent, the spires would produce energy at a reduced rate. For that reason, I am assuming average generation at 33 percent of peak,” West said in an email last week.
The wind spires were to “create a vibrant park that had vertical elements, that had artwork … and also provide examples of alternative energy,” West said today.
“The intent was not to provide energy for the grid.”
Shailesh said the lights would use 5.45 kilowatt hours a day from the 18 kilowatt hours a day that would be generated.
The remaining 12.55 kilowatt hours a day would be fed back into the grid, earning the city 12.55 times the prevailing retail rate, Shere said.
Over 25 years, or the depreciable life of the equipment, the city would generate about $24,145 of electrical energy, assuming the electrical rate increases 5 percent a year, Shere said.
The turbines are not in use while the city is involved in an inspection-related dispute with the manufacturer, UGE International Ltd. of New York City, West said.
City officials hope to resolve the impasse by January, he added.
Councilman Lee Whetham said when the city council approved the project in October 2015, it was presented as a way to generate electricity for park lighting.
Money was made available for the turbines when the city received a $285,952 Clallam County Opportunity Fund grant.
Whetham said Wednesday he is “absolutely” concerned that the electricity generated by the turbines will not cover the cost of the project.
“As stewards of taxpayer dollars, we should have questioned staff more on this,” Whetham said.
But he did not regret his vote, he said.
“We continue to leapfrog from one hot-button issue to another.”
Mayor Patrick Downie said he likes the wind turbines on the waterfront.
“We were told the purpose of them was to provide the lighting and security needed” at the park, he said.
“It’s a design element to be introduced down there, and that’s fine in itself.
“Let’s give it a chance.
“As a community, we need to be willing to step out of the box and get out of our comfort zone and say, ‘Let’s be willing to consider other alternative resources like those down there.’”
Councilwoman Sissi Bruch said Thursday had she known the turbines were so inefficient, she would have asked city staff to do more research to find a more efficient design.
“I regret the specific design, not the overall turbines,” she said.
________
Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 55650, or at paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
Earlier story
EDITOR’S NOTE: Waterfront Park turbines are expected to generate $1.39 per day and therefore about $41.58 per month in electricity. The information was incorrect in this story.
PORT ANGELES — Three windmill-like turbines loom motionless over the city of Port Angeles’ new Waterfront Park.
The $107,516 spires stand immobile more than two months after they were erected and more than a year after the city council approved them.
Once they are working to generate electricity, they will produce so little power — $1.50 worth of electricity a month in savings — that at least one council member is regretting her decision to purchase them.
They have not been activated because the city is involved in an inspection-related dispute with the manufacturer, UGE International Ltd. of New York City, Community and Economic Development Director Nathan West said last week.
The impasse could be resolved by January, after projects with a higher priority are taken care of, West said.
The turbines will power the 31 lights that illuminate the park, Deputy Power Systems Manager Shailesh Shere said last week.
They can generate up to 3 kilowatts an hour but under normal conditions will generate a quarter of that, Shere said.
Shere said they are expected to generate $1.50 worth of electricity a month, based on current retail Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) rates.
City Councilwoman Sissi Bruch said last week the turbines were intended to do more than generate electricity.
“They were also meant to educate folks about wind power,” she said.
But Bruch regretted joining the council’s unanimous decision in 2015 to approve the purchase.
“These are not giving us the quantity of energy that we would use, that we would want,” she said.
“I did not realize they would produce so little energy. I wouldn’t have voted for it knowing it was that little.
“I do appreciate the educational component, but I really had hoped we were going to get a little more out of them.”
The turbines will illuminate the park with safety lighting for about $1.25 a month of the $1.50 that will be generated, putting the remaining 25 cents of power back into the BPA grid, which the city will get paid for, Shere said.
The turbines will produce about $24,145 of electricity over the depreciable 25-year life of the equipment, he estimated.
The return on investment is over 50 years.
“Considering the harsh [salty] environment, the equipment may not last 25 years,” Shere said Friday in an email.
“Also, the maintenance cost over 25 years is [an] unpredictable factor.”
The wind spires were not intended to generate enough revenue to pay back the cost, West said.
“When the project was underway, one of the top five council priorities for economic development was alternative energy,” he said.
The council approved the purchase Oct. 6, 2015, as part of a $221,857 change order under a $1.3 million contract with Primo Construction Inc. of Sequim for Phase 2 of the park.
Olympic Electric Co. of Port Angeles subcontracted on the wind-turbine portion of the agreement, West said.
Then-Councilwoman Cherie Kidd, who is now the deputy mayor, made the motion approving the purchase during a meeting that did not include discussion of how much electricity the turbines would generate.
“Now, we have the waterfront of our future, right now,” Kidd said in making the motion.
Kidd did not return calls for comment about the project Thursday and Friday.
Councilman Lee Whetham said last week he did not recall any discussion of the value of electricity generated by the project.
If it does generate $1.50 worth of power a month, “that’s a boondoggle,” Whetham said.
The project, he added, “made sense at the time.”
Phil Lusk, who retired earlier this year as former deputy director of power systems, said last week he recommended in 2015 that the turbines not be installed.
He said he was concerned about their efficiency and structural stability.
The funding for the project “would be better spent on something other than on installing these wind machines,” he said.
“My fundamental objection to these is that they are not cost-effective and it’s a waste of money.
“I was told that the decision was made years before, during the planning phase, and that [city officials] were not going to change their minds.”
Mayor Patrick Downie, who was deputy mayor in October 2015, said some residents have grumbled about the turbines just sitting stationary.
“A number of people have spoken to me to say it’s a shame they are there and not working,” he said.
He did not recall ever getting information on how much electricity the project would generate.
But he did not regret voting for it.
“Let’s not be so quick to be critical before they even work,” Downie said.
“Maybe we’ll discover that if we had another three somewhere else down there on the waterfront, we could begin to generate something, and it might become more meaningful.
“I still like the notion that we are using new technologies here and that some [electricity] may be going back into the grid.”
The purchase was made possible by a $285,952 Clallam County Opportunity Fund grant that allowed installation of the turbines, sod and additional landscaping, West said in his memo to the council for its Oct. 6, 2015, decision.
For now, city officials are wrestling with UGE International Ltd., the manufacturer, over a safety inspection of the turbines.
The inspection must be conducted by Underwriters’ Laboratories Inc. of Northbrook, Ill., and must occur before the turbines are turned on, West said.
UGE should have had the equipment tested before it was installed, West said.
Company representatives from UGE’s marketing and public relations department did not return calls for comment Friday.
The Waterfront Park, which includes artificial beaches, was opened at the corner of Railroad Avenue and Oak Street in September 2015, a month before the turbines were approved.
They have been a component of planning for the park since at least 2011, West said.
“Staff is working to ensure the manufacturer and contractor are held to the completion of their responsibilities,” he said Friday in an email.
“By implementing the latest in wind energy technology, the city would set a trend in alternative energy innovation that sets a positive example and speaks to the city wanting to be part of state-of-the-art alternative energy technology.
“Collectively the park is intended to inspire community pride, enjoyment, and a vibrancy that for many years Port Angeles had been without.”
The park was mostly grant-funded, West added.
________
Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 55650, or at paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
