1 minute ago, martin-w said:

And I hope this isn't going to be another off topic locked thread.

Then stop posting misinformation.

Dave

41 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

But [wind power] not free.  There are costs to harnessing it, and they are quite high despite the propaganda. 

Our town has its own deal, kind of outside of Nova Scotia Power, who supply almost all the rest of our province. The town bought into a wind farm and our electricity rates are lower than that of NSP.

57 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Signing off for good on this one

Any yet you return … I guess the moderators are wanting to give you the last word as usual.  

We know your intent Dave, get the thread locked or posts deleted … you’ve been very successful in moderator manipulation because you know their swing.

43 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Then stop posting misinformation.

You’ve posted nothing of substance nor independently verifiable.  When we do post facts from multiple sources you just ignore them and continue on your same path with zero substance hoping the moderators will lock the thread.

For example, are you even aware of the technology used in Wind Turbine bearings?  Certainly NOT primitive as you claim.  Wind Turbines are very hi-tech and as we come up with better designs the will continue to be hi-tech.

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

You’ve posted nothing of substance nor independently verifiable.

No, I'm not trying to get the thread locked.  I enjoy debates, but the moderators don't like them.

I have posted dozens of sources in multiple threads over the years, links to graphs, statistics, articles, etc. etc., yet they are dismissed and labeled as propaganda by those who support a certain agenda.

There is a mountain of data regarding the inefficiency and high cost of wind turbines, not to mention their detrimental effects on the environment.  If you really want to have an open mind and are curious, it is easy to find the information online.  BTW, there is a niche role for wind power, but certainly not on the massive scale that some propose.

My power mainly comes from hydroelectric, nuclear, and natural gas.  My electricity cost is 12c/kw-hr, among the lowest in the developed world.  Any place which gets most of its electricity from alternative sources has much higher power costs.  The data is published and easy to see.  Alternative energy is more expensive than traditional forms of energy - period.  I have no issue with folks who want to pay a lot more for their power because they believe it is better for the environment, but what I won't abide is people being dishonest about the cost, the adverse effects on the environment, and issues with power reliability requiring natural gas, coal, or nuclear baseload backup.

Fusion power is the future, true clean energy source, and I would suggest we pour money into research and development for that as opposed to wasting it on wind and solar.

I must leave this argument here as we aren't allowed to have prolonged debates.

Dave

  

And this thread started off so well.  I don't see so many debates lately.  Mostly petty bickering between people with puffed up egos.  SayAgain, you are not included in that category.🙂

I too was a member of AVSIM a long time ago, under a different username, when Tom Allensworth was with us.  Matthew is correct, things are not the same.

Edited September 6, 2025Sep 6 by tdflightsim

3 hours ago, SayAgain said:

You’ve posted nothing of substance nor independently verifiable.  When we do post facts from multiple sources you just ignore them.

With all due respect, I beg to differ. I have debated a lot with Dave. Although we usually do not share the same opinion, I am enjoying our interactions and think that he is very open to a discussion that involves well reasoned arguments. 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

There is a mountain of data regarding the inefficiency and high cost of wind turbines

Then show us the mountains, their sources of data, what methodology they used to come to such conclusions.

The few times you do post a source it’s usually from some unqualified person/source with zero credentials and doesn’t actually address the data, just uses the straw man approach.  You seem unable to grasp the concept of “average” and pull single one-off events. 

When you record FPS data, do you just take the max value and say see I’m getting 200 FPS rather than evaluation of FPS over time, add-ons, location, weather, etc. etc. 

The energy efficiency of wind turbines is “on average” 43% with theoretical max at 59% with a recorded high of 50% and recorded low of 35%.

The energy efficiency of petroleum based electric generators is “on average” is 30% with a low of 25% and a high or 35%.

The energy efficiency of nuclear power plants is on average 34% with low at 33% to a high at 37%.

Solar panels are about 22% energy efficient.

Self lubricating turbines (the bearing) operate 3 years entirely maintenance free and have a life expectancy of 30 years.

Petroleum based generators require multiple maintenance operations every 50-200 HOURS.

There are no Fusion power plants currently operational with supplying power to a population … hence no data.

Solar panel maintenance varies by location and frequency of rain, typical don’t require any maintenance over a 30 year period.  However exception to locations with considerable dust/debris a low rain could require dust/debris remove (water or blower).

 

 

57 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Then show us the mountains, their sources of data, what methodology they used to come to such conclusions.

https://energyskeptic.com/2024/wind/  -there's a lot to read here.  If just half of it is true then it makes my case for the impracticality of large-scale wind power.

 

There are places where wind power is practical and cost effective, but they are few and far between.  The same applies to solar power.  It makes little sense to spend billions and use up thousands of acres of land, some of it arable, to build solar plants in areas at high latitudes and/or which are frequently cloudy.  The solar efficiency just isn't good enough in those places.  Even building them in more ideal sunny, usually desert, locations hundreds of miles away, such as European projects built in Morocco and other parts of North Africa, are proving very costly, problematic, and unreliable.

Lastly, none of these alternative forms of energy can provide constant, reliable power without a baseload backup source like nuclear, coal, or natural gas.

This utopian plan to provide all of our power needs with wind and solar is a pipe dream.  I don't like saying that.  I wish that it were possible.  Add to this all the data centers coming online, and wind and solar can only provide a fraction of our power needs, maybe 10-20%, and again requiring immense, massive battery storage plants(a whole other can of worms) or traditional power production backup. 

I'm rooting for fusion power, otherwise, we're not going to be in good shape going forward even with traditional energy production.

Dave

 

1 hour ago, qqwertz said:

With all due respect, I beg to differ. I have debated a lot with Dave. Although we usually do not share the same opinion, I am enjoying our interactions and think that he is very open to a discussion that involves well reasoned arguments. 

Thank you, qqwertz.  I enjoy debating and try not to take disagreements personally.  

It is important to discuss and debate things as all of us can learn from one another.  Even I have changed my views, albeit slightly 😉, on some issues based on what I've learned from folks here.

Dave

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Then show us the mountains, their sources of data, what methodology they used to come to such conclusions. [...]

The energy efficiency of wind turbines is “on average” 43% with theoretical max at 59% with a recorded high of 50% and recorded low of 35%.

Ahem, sources? 😉

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

There are places where wind power is practical and cost effective, but they are few and far between. [...] This utopian plan to provide all of our power needs with wind and solar is a pipe dream. 

Well, back to debating 🙂 

At least Uruguay got pretty far along that road, and it really isn't such a special place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Uruguay). And of course, whether we can provide all our power needs with renewable energy depends on two factors: (1) the availability of it, as you correctly point out, and (2) the demand. Using something else than a pick-up truck, eating mostly vegetarian, and reducing intercontinental travel would dramatically reduce the demand. Maybe that's the secret of Uruguay?

On 9/6/2025 at 6:30 AM, dave2013 said:

...
silly wind turbines.
...
 Does anyone really believe that in 250 years we will be using such impractical, almost medieval technology for power?
...

and

7 hours ago, dave2013 said:

...

My power mainly comes from hydroelectric, nuclear, and natural gas.
 ...

Here is my problem with many discussions on topics some seem very passionate about.
And that is the confused, contorted logic that they apply to their arguments and counter arguments.

In this example, Dave has claimed that wind turbines are impractical, medieval technology, but later proudly states his power comes from hydroelectic.
If using wind to drive a turbine is medieval and not appropriate in this day and age, then doesnt the same logic apply to hydroelectric, where water is turning a water wheel, which also was used in medieval times to drive mills for food production? 

The same goes for criticizing the use of bearings and generators in wind turbines, yet those same devices are never criticized when used in fossil fueled energy production. 

If you use one path of logic for your arguments against a particular topic, then please be consistent, and also use it against your own viewpoint if applicable.Then, that would be a genuine and productive discussion.
 

Even the sharpest minds seem to throw out some level of logic when it comes to discussing topics that they are passionate about.

One of my Uncles is a nuclear physicist (retired) who has firmly believed in fission as the only power source that the planet should use. I have talked to him about the marvels of engineering that has gone into the design, construction and operation of a fission reactor. However, when it comes to discussing the toxicity, longevity and security risk of the toxic waste, and ongoing cost for future generations to manage and keep the waste safe and secure, he dismisses those concerns as trivial or something for future generations to worry about and solve.

Perhaps my problem is that apply logic to everything in my life, and that I don't feel passionate about any topics that I'm willing to throw out all sense and logic to argue a point of view.

 

7 minutes ago, c912039 said:

In this example, Dave has claimed that wind turbines are impractical, medieval technology, but later proudly states his power comes from hydroelectic.

I said this in the context of wind turbines being used for power in Star Trek, 250 years in the future.  This technology would be considered medieval by then.  The Star Trek folks have things like fusion and antimatter reactors.

Dave

Lack of consistency in applying logic to point and counterpoint in this and so many other discussions by so many (including "Sim Wars" threads in other forums here in Avsim) still stand.

Here's a thought.  Looking on the positive side, maybe 250 yrs in the future, clean cold fusion is abundant,  efficient and free.  Equaled by natural clean energy from the sun, wind and ocean.  Imagine a wind farm one acre in size that equals ten thousand acres of turbines today.  One acre of solar panels that equals ten thousand acres of current solar panels.  The ocean never stops moving, it is constant!  Accept the gift.

Think of where we were in 1925.  The Wright brothers first flight was in 1903.  Einstein published the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and the General Theory of Relativity in 1915.

Here's a link to "1925 in Science"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1925_in_science

As Buzz Lightyear  would say, to infinity and beyond.