36 ms·

I feel somewhat put off by this headline. I mean, by all means, yes, please try that! We'll gonna need lots of clean energy. But I fear the NIMBYs will read tha

by hannob 6y ago

I feel somewhat put off by this headline. I mean, by all means, yes, please try that! We'll gonna need lots of clean energy. But I fear the NIMBYs will read that headline and interpret it as: "see, we're not gonna need these turbines near my house any more, the future is in deep water!" The future of wind is onshore. And offshore. And maybe also in deep water.

082349872349872 6y ago
Has something changed? I'd always thought the cubic dependence of power generated on wind speed meant that the places people willingly live are often distinct from the places engineers site wind turbines.
- vanderZwan 6y ago
  I guess this is often true, but not always. For example, the Netherlands is essentially one big river-delta at the end of two of the major rivers of Europe. This makes it flat and windy. Ideal for windpower (in fact, we had an early lead on the UK in terms of industrialization with our windmills, but then they figured out how to use coalpower and took over). Also, being a river delta, the Netherlands contained extremely fertile soil that lends itself very well to agriculture (the flat landscape doesn't hurt either). Hence we're also one of the most densely populated countries in the world. And even in the Netherlands, where windmills are part of the national culture, you got tons of NIMBYs
  - sradman 6y ago
    Waterwheels were more than competitive before coal powered steam engines took over. Still, it is a fascinating question: why wasn’t the Netherlands a fast-follower in the Industrial Revolution?
    - vanderZwan 6y ago
      > Waterwheels were more than competitive before coal powered steam engines took over. True for most of Europe, but this essentially requires height differences, something in fairly short supply in the Netherlands ;) (see also the two articles I linked in the other comment)
      - 082349872349872 6y ago
        I had thought coal would be in fairly short supply as well, but apparently there are corners of the country more than a few meters above sea level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Limburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Limburg > "The demand for coal had grown explosively as a result of increased industrialization and urban expansion, but the national governments regarded any form of interference in the extraction and sale of this fuel as unnecessary. Thus it came about that the first concessions for the extraction of coal in South Limburg were granted without hesitation to foreign firms, although most of the coal consumed in the Netherlands was imported from Germany, and Dutch investors preferred to invest their capital in foreign countries, such as in Russian government loans, American railways, and Hungarian waterworks."
        iguy 6y ago
        If mining in a big way didn't happen until the 1870s, maybe that implied it was difficult, for the tools of earlier times? Too deep?
      - sradman 6y ago
        I was specifically responding to the following claim that the Netherlands: > ...had an early lead on the UK in terms of industrialization with our windmills, but then they figured out how to use coalpower and took over The point, that I was unsuccessful in making clearly, was that the difference between Dutch windmills and English waterwheels was a wash (no pun intended) at the critical early part of the First Industrial Revolution. The first link you mention supports this view. In my opinion, the ecosystem built around global industrialized cotton was the key factor driving England's Industrial Revolution, but I understand that many attribute the success to the coal powered steam engine.
  - iguy 6y ago
    I thought the most important fuel of the Dutch golden age was peat, not wind. The first really fossil-fuelled economy. (You can see evidence of it flying over, marshy areas where this was strip-mined, I mean strips the size you could load onto a barge & deliver to town.) Edit -- I can't find a great source, but [1] has some figures, putting peat somewhere over 100x as much energy as wind, 17thC. But of course heat energy and mechanical energy were two separate categories then, before steam engines, so it's not easy to compare. He tries to estimate equivalent land areas required to either grow wood (for heat) or feed horses (mechanical) and seem to reach comparable figures. (Which together are a bit less than the figure for horse-area saved by sailing, instead of carts. For which NL was also ideal, of course.) I guess the more interesting, and harder, question is the degree to which each of these enabled economic progress. Sawing wood for ships, vs. baking pottery & bricks. Certainly the easy peat more or less ran out, about the same time that the UK got serious about coal. [1] https://www.peatandculture.org/documenten/Zeeuw.pdf https://www.peatandculture.org/documenten/Zeeuw.pdf
    - vanderZwan 6y ago
      I know peat was used for heating in the house, but I don't know how useful it was to run steam engines. Anyway, my claim is based on two articles from Low Tech Magazine, each with their own sources: > So-called 'industrial water mills' had been used in Antiquity and were widely adopted in Europe by the fifteenth century, but 'industrial windmills' appeared only in the 1600s in the Netherlands, a country that took wind power to the extreme. The Dutch even applied wind power to reclaim land from the sea, and the whole country was kept dry by intermittently operating wind mills until 1850. > For example, the Dutch shipbuilding industry, which was centred around some 450 wind-powered saw mills, imported virtually all its naval stores from the Baltic: wood, tar, iron, hemp and flax > One of the most spectacular developments of industrial wind power technology occurred in the Zaan district, a region situated just above Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Although the area is surrounded by water, the potential of water power was limited because the land is as flat as it can be and so the flow of the rivers is low. The wind, on the other hand, is strong. Many of the applications of windmills described above appeared first (and sometimes only) in the Zaan district. > It is said that the region was the world’s first industrialized area. From 1600 to 1750, when the Netherlands became an important economical power, around 1,000 windmills were built and operated here (see the map on the left). Mills were given names, just like ships. Of course, that doesn't mean that coal (and peat) powered engines weren't used at the same time! Just that the Netherlands really doubled down on wind power very early on. [0] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/10/history-of-industrial-windmills.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/10/history-of-industria... [1] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09/how-to-run-the-economy-on-the-weather.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09/how-to-run-the-econo...
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    Yes, well, that is partly due to precisely the heritage you mention: when you think of the Netherlands you think of canal-interspersed fields with cows and a few traditional windmills here and there. That view would be ruined if a few 90m high wind turbines were to dominate the landscape. Also, being as flat as a pancake those turbines are visible until they disappear under the horizon, leading to a very large backyard full of NIMBYs.
Harvesterify 6y ago
Wind energy is far from being "clean", unfortunately.
- Malic 6y ago
  Please explain.
sergeykish 6y ago
Wind turbines are beautiful, reminds me of future depicted by H. G. Wells in The Sleeper Awakes. And it is today, not in 2100. Is problem as bad as on DW documentary [1]? Installed Capacity confirms [2] but that's unbelievable. Birds would have much more problem if temperature raises 4°C. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5PEAK1t3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5PEAK1t3U [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany#Statisti...
- vanderZwan 6y ago
  Windmills do kill birds. Not as much as housecats though, so maybe we should get rid of those first. Also, you can paint one out of three windmill blades black to drastically reduce the number of birds who die from it [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/black-wind-turbine-blades-help-birds-avoid-deadly-collisions-180975668/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/black-wind-turbine...
nhumrich 6y ago
Ha, I actually thought the headline was really clever because "in deep water" is also an idiom for "in trouble", "doomed", etc. So I thought it was quite clever that the article means actual water, with a lot of depth, but leads you to maybe think the opposite when you start reading.
- dkarl 6y ago
  Considering how many more people will scan the headline than read the article, it made me uneasy. What's the effect of all those people getting a vaguely pessimistic message about wind power? Did they consider that when they wrote the headline? I guess it's possible they were only thinking about being clever.
Finnucane 6y ago
For a minute I thought they meant it literally, that it would be an article about underwater turbines.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Well they're a growth field too -- tidal and current based turbines.

by hannob 6y ago

082349872349872 6y ago

Has something changed? I'd always thought the cubic dependence of power generated on wind speed meant that the places people willingly live are often distinct from the places engineers site wind turbines.

vanderZwan 6y ago
I guess this is often true, but not always. For example, the Netherlands is essentially one big river-delta at the end of two of the major rivers of Europe. This makes it flat and windy. Ideal for windpower (in fact, we had an early lead on the UK in terms of industrialization with our windmills, but then they figured out how to use coalpower and took over). Also, being a river delta, the Netherlands contained extremely fertile soil that lends itself very well to agriculture (the flat landscape doesn't hurt either). Hence we're also one of the most densely populated countries in the world. And even in the Netherlands, where windmills are part of the national culture, you got tons of NIMBYs
- sradman 6y ago
  Waterwheels were more than competitive before coal powered steam engines took over. Still, it is a fascinating question: why wasn’t the Netherlands a fast-follower in the Industrial Revolution?
  - vanderZwan 6y ago
    > Waterwheels were more than competitive before coal powered steam engines took over. True for most of Europe, but this essentially requires height differences, something in fairly short supply in the Netherlands ;) (see also the two articles I linked in the other comment)
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      I had thought coal would be in fairly short supply as well, but apparently there are corners of the country more than a few meters above sea level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Limburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Limburg > "The demand for coal had grown explosively as a result of increased industrialization and urban expansion, but the national governments regarded any form of interference in the extraction and sale of this fuel as unnecessary. Thus it came about that the first concessions for the extraction of coal in South Limburg were granted without hesitation to foreign firms, although most of the coal consumed in the Netherlands was imported from Germany, and Dutch investors preferred to invest their capital in foreign countries, such as in Russian government loans, American railways, and Hungarian waterworks."
      - iguy 6y ago
        If mining in a big way didn't happen until the 1870s, maybe that implied it was difficult, for the tools of earlier times? Too deep?
    - sradman 6y ago
      I was specifically responding to the following claim that the Netherlands: > ...had an early lead on the UK in terms of industrialization with our windmills, but then they figured out how to use coalpower and took over The point, that I was unsuccessful in making clearly, was that the difference between Dutch windmills and English waterwheels was a wash (no pun intended) at the critical early part of the First Industrial Revolution. The first link you mention supports this view. In my opinion, the ecosystem built around global industrialized cotton was the key factor driving England's Industrial Revolution, but I understand that many attribute the success to the coal powered steam engine.
- iguy 6y ago
  I thought the most important fuel of the Dutch golden age was peat, not wind. The first really fossil-fuelled economy. (You can see evidence of it flying over, marshy areas where this was strip-mined, I mean strips the size you could load onto a barge & deliver to town.) Edit -- I can't find a great source, but [1] has some figures, putting peat somewhere over 100x as much energy as wind, 17thC. But of course heat energy and mechanical energy were two separate categories then, before steam engines, so it's not easy to compare. He tries to estimate equivalent land areas required to either grow wood (for heat) or feed horses (mechanical) and seem to reach comparable figures. (Which together are a bit less than the figure for horse-area saved by sailing, instead of carts. For which NL was also ideal, of course.) I guess the more interesting, and harder, question is the degree to which each of these enabled economic progress. Sawing wood for ships, vs. baking pottery & bricks. Certainly the easy peat more or less ran out, about the same time that the UK got serious about coal. [1] https://www.peatandculture.org/documenten/Zeeuw.pdf https://www.peatandculture.org/documenten/Zeeuw.pdf
  - vanderZwan 6y ago
    I know peat was used for heating in the house, but I don't know how useful it was to run steam engines. Anyway, my claim is based on two articles from Low Tech Magazine, each with their own sources: > So-called 'industrial water mills' had been used in Antiquity and were widely adopted in Europe by the fifteenth century, but 'industrial windmills' appeared only in the 1600s in the Netherlands, a country that took wind power to the extreme. The Dutch even applied wind power to reclaim land from the sea, and the whole country was kept dry by intermittently operating wind mills until 1850. > For example, the Dutch shipbuilding industry, which was centred around some 450 wind-powered saw mills, imported virtually all its naval stores from the Baltic: wood, tar, iron, hemp and flax > One of the most spectacular developments of industrial wind power technology occurred in the Zaan district, a region situated just above Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Although the area is surrounded by water, the potential of water power was limited because the land is as flat as it can be and so the flow of the rivers is low. The wind, on the other hand, is strong. Many of the applications of windmills described above appeared first (and sometimes only) in the Zaan district. > It is said that the region was the world’s first industrialized area. From 1600 to 1750, when the Netherlands became an important economical power, around 1,000 windmills were built and operated here (see the map on the left). Mills were given names, just like ships. Of course, that doesn't mean that coal (and peat) powered engines weren't used at the same time! Just that the Netherlands really doubled down on wind power very early on. [0] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/10/history-of-industrial-windmills.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/10/history-of-industria... [1] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09/how-to-run-the-economy-on-the-weather.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09/how-to-run-the-econo...
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  Yes, well, that is partly due to precisely the heritage you mention: when you think of the Netherlands you think of canal-interspersed fields with cows and a few traditional windmills here and there. That view would be ruined if a few 90m high wind turbines were to dominate the landscape. Also, being as flat as a pancake those turbines are visible until they disappear under the horizon, leading to a very large backyard full of NIMBYs.

Harvesterify 6y ago

Wind energy is far from being "clean", unfortunately.

Malic 6y ago
Please explain.

sergeykish 6y ago

Wind turbines are beautiful, reminds me of future depicted by H. G. Wells in The Sleeper Awakes. And it is today, not in 2100. Is problem as bad as on DW documentary [1]? Installed Capacity confirms [2] but that's unbelievable. Birds would have much more problem if temperature raises 4°C. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5PEAK1t3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5PEAK1t3U [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany#Statisti...

vanderZwan 6y ago
Windmills do kill birds. Not as much as housecats though, so maybe we should get rid of those first. Also, you can paint one out of three windmill blades black to drastically reduce the number of birds who die from it [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/black-wind-turbine-blades-help-birds-avoid-deadly-collisions-180975668/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/black-wind-turbine...

nhumrich 6y ago

Ha, I actually thought the headline was really clever because "in deep water" is also an idiom for "in trouble", "doomed", etc. So I thought it was quite clever that the article means actual water, with a lot of depth, but leads you to maybe think the opposite when you start reading.

dkarl 6y ago
Considering how many more people will scan the headline than read the article, it made me uneasy. What's the effect of all those people getting a vaguely pessimistic message about wind power? Did they consider that when they wrote the headline? I guess it's possible they were only thinking about being clever.

Finnucane 6y ago

For a minute I thought they meant it literally, that it would be an article about underwater turbines.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Well they're a growth field too -- tidal and current based turbines.