Kabel, you said among other things "It would be interesting to know why the market accept a low cost machine for let me say 150.000 US$ (single twist machine, 1250 mm spool, 450 rpm, max. 1000 N) and lifetime costs of round about 200.000 US$ (most of them for current consumption) and not a machine for let me say 250.000 US$ and lifetime current costs of round about 20.000 US$. Probably someone can give an answer for this mismatch"
And as I tried to understand what you are trying to say; I assume since you talked about energy consumption that you are saying that the (cheap?) $150K machine has a total lifetime cost of $200K (including energy cost?) and the more expensive machine at $250K has a lifetime cost of $20K (including energy cost?). The numbers don't compute.
So the cheap machine has a base cost + lifetime cost totalling $350 K. The other mmore expensive machine has a base cost + lifetime cost total of $270 K. On the other hand the used machine at $10K even if you kept it running for as long as the cheap machine and the cost to do that was the same, the total would be $210 K. The saving by buying the used machine would be $60K when compared to the expensive machine and $140 K for the cheap machine.
I'm sure that my analysis is questionable but there is no way that two similar sized motors (same HP) one 20 years old and the other new would use 10X the power/energy.
You are correct spectre 07, there is no way that two similar sized motors (same HP) one 20 years old the other a newer one has a mismatch of 10:1 in energy consumption if you change only the motor-drive.
If you change only the motor-drive (new motor generation) probably the energy-consumption are 2X lower but if you change the basic-technology (I´m talking about single-twist-technology, concentric-technology -> stranding, cabling, bunching, binding, taping, shielding, armouring etc.) then we are talking about 8:1 ... 10:1