Wind turbines not paying off
McGUFFEY — When the wind turbines were installed at the Upper Scioto Valley Schools, it was expected the power generated by the system would save the district hundreds of thousands of dollars on its electric bills.
To complete the project, build the green lab and make other improvements to the school facility, the district borrowed $860,000 through House Bill 264, which allows districts to borrow against future energy savings.
The wind turbines were expected to produce 33,333 kilowatt hours of energy and the district would save between $900 and $1,500 per month. After more than a year of operation, both figures are far short of the predictions, said Steve Canfield, the district’s maintenance director and David Schoonmaker, electrical engineer with H.T. Burnsdorf.
Canfield estimated the cost of a kilowatt is 8.7 cents from AEP and the cost from the wind-generated power is less than a penny less than that rate. The cost of solar energy is costing USV 7.9 cents per kilowatt. The savings for October amounted to $365.90, said Canfield.
The loan was based on saving money, said Schoonmaker.
“I don’t believe we are on that path,” he told the finance committee Monday evening. “The wind is not producing to date the amount of power NexGen (Energy) said it would.” said Schoonmaker.
The state board had questioned NexGen’s estimates when the loan was approved, said Schoonmaker, but the company “fiercely” defended its predictions.
There were 8,000 kilowatt hours of electricity produced in July and only 5,000 in August. To average 33,000 a month, there should be months of 50,000 kilowatt production to offset those low months, said Schoonmaker, but that is not happening. In October, the turbines produced 29,000 kilowatts, which is closer to the projection, but still short, noted the engineer.
“We are just not going to get that kind of production,” said Schoonmaker. “Why is a question for NexGen.”
The second part of the problem, Schoonmaker told the committee, is AEP didn’t raise the rates as was expected. The loan is based on the power company hiking its cost 15 percent a year over the next three years, he said. That is not happening. The special school rate is not in effect, but the results have been minimal in the electric bill.
“There have been no dramatic spikes,” said Schoonmaker. “They have kept the costs competitive with what we are paying for wind. We took two hits in the same direction. We are paying more for what we get from the turbines than from AEP.”
The money saved for the loan payment of $87,000 per year is not there, said Treasurer Kristine Blind. She suggested one annual payment could be made by placing unused money from the Ohio School Facilities Commission in a permanent improvement fund. But that is the solution for only one year, she said.
By DAN ROBINSON, Times staff writer
McGUFFEY — When the wind turbines were installed at the Upper Scioto Valley Schools, it was expected the power generated by the system would save the district hundreds of thousands of dollars on its electric bills.
To complete the project, build the green lab and make other improvements to the school facility, the district borrowed $860,000 through House Bill 264, which allows districts to borrow against future energy savings.
The wind turbines were expected to produce 33,333 kilowatt hours of energy and the district would save between $900 and $1,500 per month. After more than a year of operation, both figures are far short of the predictions, said Steve Canfield, the district’s maintenance director and David Schoonmaker, electrical engineer with H.T. Burnsdorf.
Canfield estimated the cost of a kilowatt is 8.7 cents from AEP and the cost from the wind-generated power is less than a penny less than that rate. The cost of solar energy is costing USV 7.9 cents per kilowatt. The savings for October amounted to $365.90, said Canfield.
The loan was based on saving money, said Schoonmaker.
“I don’t believe we are on that path,” he told the finance committee Monday evening. “The wind is not producing to date the amount of power NexGen (Energy) said it would.” said Schoonmaker.
The state board had questioned NexGen’s estimates when the loan was approved, said Schoonmaker, but the company “fiercely” defended its predictions.
There were 8,000 kilowatt hours of electricity produced in July and only 5,000 in August. To average 33,000 a month, there should be months of 50,000 kilowatt production to offset those low months, said Schoonmaker, but that is not happening. In October, the turbines produced 29,000 kilowatts, which is closer to the projection, but still short, noted the engineer.
“We are just not going to get that kind of production,” said Schoonmaker. “Why is a question for NexGen.”
The second part of the problem, Schoonmaker told the committee, is AEP didn’t raise the rates as was expected. The loan is based on the power company hiking its cost 15 percent a year over the next three years, he said. That is not happening. The special school rate is not in effect, but the results have been minimal in the electric bill.
“There have been no dramatic spikes,” said Schoonmaker. “They have kept the costs competitive with what we are paying for wind. We took two hits in the same direction. We are paying more for what we get from the turbines than from AEP.”
The money saved for the loan payment of $87,000 per year is not there, said Treasurer Kristine Blind. She suggested one annual payment could be made by placing unused money from the Ohio School Facilities Commission in a permanent improvement fund. But that is the solution for only one year, she said.
By DAN ROBINSON, Times staff writer