A question arose from the international wind community about a photo on the late Peter Banner’s web site. This is a photo of five of the six Maetecnic turbines on the Sandberg site in the Whitewater Wash from Banner’s web site (http://scientiaenergy.com/) that he labeled “Guengrich wind turbine.”
I didn’t know anything about them. Deep down in some hidden crevice of my brain the name Maetecnic cropped up but I had no idea if that was correct. So I asked my go to California reference for all things wind related Mark Haller. He didn’t know either but put it there for his network of former colleagues at SeaWest. Meanwhile, I asked the wind community on Facebook and LinkedIn what they knew about these turbines. Here are the responses I got.
My thanks to Mark Haller, John Villegas, Tom Spiglanin, Gary Dodak, and Svend Duus for their help.
“The hub design is similar to Floda, where the rotator disk was placed on the outer section of the hub which connected to linkages to pitch the blades. File name calls this the Guengrich WTG.” John Villegas
“These were on the Sandberg site in front of the 65 kw Windmatics. That’s with the original blades. They were variable pitch, 150 kW I think. You can see the exterior ladder. That got changed to interior ladder and fiberglass blades because during the aforementioned runaway the blades struck the ladder.” Gary Dodak
“In 1985 or 86 there were some Asian turbines on section 28 close to Palm Springs. The turbines had aluminum blades. They were not there for long.
I do not know, if they are the turbines on Peter Banner’s picture.” Svend Duus
“I was about to look that up. That CEC report is a clue but not confirmation. There are five in the photo, plus a shadow that led me to believe there are at least six, so that fits. Missing from that image from the CEC report is that is the Sandberg site, which matches the photo’s location in the Whitewater wash near the dikes (but not on them, which later became SeaWest). Tom Spiglanin
“Tom Spiglanin two CEC reports include Maetecnic from 4th quarter of 1986 to early 1992, that might help narrow down the timeline of when these operated. Do you know where on the dikes these could have been installed? Tom Spiglanin
I was about to look that up. That CEC report is a clue but not confirmation. There are five in the photo, plus a shadow that led me to believe there are at least six., so that fits. Missing from that image from the CEC report is that is the Sandberg site, which matches the photo’s location in the Whitewater wash near the dikes (but not on them, which later became SeaWest).” John Villegas
“Tom Spiglanin two CEC reports include Maetecnic from 4th quarter of 1986 to early 1992, that might help narrow down the timeline of when these operated. Do you know where on the dikes these could have been installed?” John Villegas
“They do not appear to be on the dikes, more adjacent to them, which is consistent with the Sandberg location (the first one; the second was Ventus, which you can also see that in the report), located north of the I-10 near where our tours operate. I think installing ON the dikes was SeaWest, a reputable developer. Note in that same report you see the Dynergy 180 listed, which I recently posted from a nearby location.
Last year I looked at satellite images for clues to the location, but there’s not much left. Appears very close to the dikes pretty far south, but I found no good evidence.
All that said, they must not have been reliable machines. Six turbines making just 21,240 kWh in 1986 (failing to file in Q4 1987), compared to 4 Nordtank 65s on the same site making 198,000 kWh despite showing zero production in Q1.” Tom Spiglanin
According to the CEC reports, Maetecnic claimed a swept area of 269 m², giving the turbine a rotor diameter of 18.5 m (61 feet).
Indeed, Maetecnic is listed in early CEC performance reports. The CEC reported that in 1985 Maetecnic had installed six turbines for 900 kW (150 kW ea.).[1]
The CEC reported that Maetecnic generated only 21,000 kWh in 1986.[2]
However, during 1987 the turbines generated 232,000 kWh (<40,000 kWh per turbine) with an annual yield only marginally better than Dynergy of 144 kWh/m².[3] (If you’re not familiar with Dynergy, see Failed Dream: the Bearingless Wind Turbine Rotor of the Late 1970s.)
They stopped reporting by 1988 and that was the end of Maetecnic—they came and they went. Poof.
[1] Results from the Wind Project Performance Reporting System: 1985 Annual Report. Nos. P500-86-013,. California Energy Commission, 1986. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906082646/http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/documents/1985-1993_reports/WPRS_1985_P500-85-013.pdf. 23.
[2] Results from the Wind Project Performance Reporting System: 1986 Annual Report. Nos. P500-87–019. California Energy Commission, 1988. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906080857/http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/documents/1985-1993_reports/WPRS_1986_P500-87-019.pdf. 29.
[3] Results from the Wind Project Performance Reporting System: 1987 Annual Report. Nos. P500-88–005. California Energy Commission, 1988. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906081401/http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/documents/1985-1993_reports/WPRS_1987_P500-88-005.pdf. 26.
