Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Old (California Wind) Turbines Get a Second Wind Through Remanufacturing

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:31 AM
Original message
Old (California Wind) Turbines Get a Second Wind Through Remanufacturing
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/old-turbines-get-a-second-wind-through-remanufacturing/
January 26, 2009, 8:45 am

Old Turbines Get a Second Wind Through Remanufacturing

By Libby Tucker

Wind energy technology has advanced so much in recent decades that a handful of larger, more efficient turbines can now do the same job as hundreds of smaller turbines, allowing utilities to squeeze more electricity out of the same area of land.

That means that many owners of wind farms built during the California wind rush of the 1980s are starting to upgrade their equipment — and in the process, they are expected to send thousands of worn-out, old machines to the scrap heap over the next five to 10 years.

But a growing number of new companies are snapping up the old turbines on the cheap, overhauling the systems and reselling them to farmers or other community wind developers at bargain prices.

http://www.halus.com/">Halus Power Systems in Hayward, Calif., http://www.energyms.com/products_services/remanufacturing.php">Energy Maintenance Service in Howard, S. Dak., http://aeronauticawind.com/aw/index.htm">Aeronautica Windpower in Plymouth, Mass. and http://nexiondg.com/">Nexion DG in Portland, Ore. all offer remanufactured wind turbines salvaged from wind farms in California.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Old" is so gauche. Pre-owned! Gently used!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. If they were more "gently used" they wouldn't need to be rebuilt!
Edited on Mon Jan-26-09 11:51 AM by OKIsItJustMe
On the other hand, I'm a great fan of using rebuilt parts.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (and all that.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. New2U
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Does this mean that when one crashes into a field, people rush out to rebuild it?
What if the blade has gone through someone's head, or if as happened in Nurnberger in 2002, one has to call a surgeon to remove the legs of the guy hanging from the blades?

As they build more and more wind plants, their external costs - including their high failure rates - are obviated.

Generally these costs are obviated when a system of energy gets to just one of the five hundred exajoules of energy.

If wind power triples it will be just about there.

Wind is going to be the next biofuels.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Poor little feller.....
He just ain't all there...

Remember when you wrote that 30 page treatise based entirely on the misrepresentation that removal from service was solely attributable to turbine failure? The ramp up to larger newer technology was clearly described in your data but you omitted that obvious facet of the data to make the totally unsupported claim that all turbines removed were removed because of structural or mechanical failure.

We are left to believe that either
1) your lack the ability to understand the rather simple data set you were using or
2) you are deliberately misrepresenting data you did understand.

Which was it?

And why should we pay attention when you predict that "Wind is going to be the next biofuels."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Ummm....Chernobyl?
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC