Taxpayers are now taking the brunt of the City of Saco’s decision to “go green,” as one of the city’s wind turbines stands idle in wait of repairs.

The large turbine prominently displayed at the transportation center, near the bridge between Biddeford and Saco, found its location due to politics, not science ”“ a situation that always leads to negative results.

In January 2007, the city installed its first wind turbine, a residential-sized model, at the wastewater treatment plant. The 33-foot Skystream was said to be the beginning of the city’s “experimental phase” with wind power.

According to past reports, the city eschewed a wind study for the wastewater treatment windmill because of the expense, listed in 2008 as $40,000. The windmill itself was supposed to provide the city with an estimate of the wind on site and it was said at the time that it could be moved to test wind in other locations.

The Skystream was not moved to test the wind at the transportation center location, and it seems now that there was no intent to do so. City councilors simply saw the transportation center, which incorporated many other green technologies in its construction, as the perfect spot for a more visible turbine.

The area was not chosen because it has the best wind levels in the city, which would have allowed it to produce the most power and provide a return on the investment. It seems the site was chosen to make a highly visible proclamation about Saco being a progressive, environmentally conscious community.

Simply put, city councilors decided to make the $200,000 investment ”“ of taxpayer money ”“ to make a statement about “going green.”

The green-minded got ahead of themselves, however.

Saco has been sidestepping and apologizing for the wind turbine’s weak production since shortly after it was installed. Because of the poor siting, the turbine has reportedly produced only 27,545 kilowatt hours, or about $3,900 worth of revenue, since its installation in February 2008. That’s a far cry from the 90,000 kilowatt hours, or $12,600 worth of electricity, per year, that was guaranteed by the Entegrity Wind Systems, which sold the turbine to the city.

 Entegrity told the city that, after five years, if the energy production falls short of 450,000 kilowatt hours, the company would compensate the city for the difference, at 14 cents a kilowatt hour. Also during the first five years, the vendor was supposed to be responsible for all maintenance costs.

What can the city do about it now? Not much. Those guarantees are worthless now that Entegrity has gone bankrupt.

Luckily, James Heath, former CEO of Entegrity Wind Systems, has expressed interest in buying the turbine back for the sum of $135,000.

We say the city should take the money and run. This offer seems like a perfect opportunity for the city to remedy an expensive mistake and avoid future costs.

The turbine is in need of minor repairs at this stage, cost unknown, and will need regular maintenance in the future, of course. At its present electricity production rate, the turbine is going to take a very long time to pay itself off and certainly won’t pay for itself within 10 years, as expected.

When the turbine was purchased, no maintenance schedule or funding was put into place, so now the city is considering simply removing a piece of broken equipment that was originally put in place as a safety precaution. Councilor Marston Lovell is right to question the safety of the turbine, which is located in a public square, if that piece is removed.

Others, such as Councilor Leslie Smith, are more concerned with the message conveyed by the turbine than with safety. Smith has said that the turbine is about more than just money and that the chances of the turbine injuring someone are slim. He is, no doubt, among those folks who believe that removing the turbine would be a blow to the city’s new image and eco-friendly reputation.

Naturally, it would be disappointing for those who support green energy to physically see the turbine effort fail, but no more disappointing than realizing that it already has failed.

Fiscal responsibility must trump city councilors’ pet projects, particularly in a time when its residents are pinching pennies due to lost jobs. The city must keep its focus on the bottom line.

This under-producing, soon-to-be unsafe turbine should be sold to the highest bidder before the city invests any more money into it in the name of its green image.

After all, they still have that electric car.

— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven by calling 282-1535, Ext. 327, or via e-mail at nickc@journaltribune.com.