[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Aurora stoplight turbines fall short of expectations in energy production  

Credit:  By Jenette Sturges | The Beacon-News | Updated May 1, 2013 | beaconnews.suntimes.com ~~

Typically, complaints about wind turbines revolve around their appearance, a perceived threat to birds and noise.

Not so much for two city-operated turbines erected on Aurora’s far East Side.

According to city engineers, for several months after the two 38-foot turbines were installed at McCoy Drive and Frontenac Street and at Fifth Avenue and Waterford Drive, the main complaint they heard from residents was that the turbines were not spinning often enough.

The city of Aurora installed the turbines in February 2011 to power light signals at the two intersections. But two years later, the project has fallen somewhat short of expectations.

The turbine project cost $117,400, paid for using funds from a U.S. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, a Federal Recovery Act program.

At the time of their installation, city traffic engineers estimated the turbines would not only power the traffic signals but also generate excess energy – 10 to 20 times what the traffic signals would use – that could be added back into the grid through an agreement with ComEd.

“The turbines have not experienced the output we had hoped for,” said Aurora spokesman Dan Ferrelli. “While they are generating enough energy in general to power the traffic signal, we are not seeing a consistent excess of electricity generation.”

On average, according to city engineers, the turbines have an energy output of about 15 kWh per week. That is roughly enough energy to run a home desktop computer and monitor eight hours a day, seven days per week.

City engineers estimate the savings, including the electricity generation itself plus saved distribution costs, to be approximately $50 a month.

Initial setbacks

A couple factors have contributed to the low returns, engineers said. For one, the turbine at Fifth and Waterford has experienced regular technical issues since it was installed, but for the past six months, the turbine has been up and running smoothly, and has not required any maintenance.

The turbine at Frontenac and McCoy has been operational only about 75 to 80 percent of the time, according to engineers. Heavy winds, more than 30 mph, can put the turbine out of service, and engineers must manually reset it.

The turbines have been, in short, a learning experience.

“We learned that turbines will be accepted in neighborhood areas when they are strategically placed … and also learned some steps we could take to make them more efficient,” Ferrelli said.

In fact, at both turbines, electricity output has been steadily increasing: in late February, the turbine at McCoy and Frontenac averaged 20 kWh a week, and at Fifth and Waterford, engineers measured 30 kWh a week output.

Better, but not enough to justify a turbine on every corner, at least for a while.

When the stoplight turbines were first installed, city officials had hoped to expand their investment in wind energy by installing several more turbines at Aurora’s police station. That idea was nixed by the Aurora City Council after a cost-benefit analysis of the plan showed that it would take several years for the city to see a return on the investment.

“That does not mean there will never be turbines at the police department or other city facilities, it just means that we will keep an eye on how this technology evolves,” Ferrelli said.

Source:  By Jenette Sturges | The Beacon-News | Updated May 1, 2013 | beaconnews.suntimes.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.