Heat Your House with a Water Brake Windmill - <AUTHOR> https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with-a-water-brake-windmill.html <comment><USER2> The article doesn't show a single non-demo installation.

This thing looks like a giant mechanical kludge. If you put the brake (the paddles in water part) at the top of the tower, you have to pump water up the tower. If you put it at the bottom of the tower, you need a top gearbox with a right-angle bevel drive, a bearing ring supporting the gearbox so it can face the wind, long shafting, and bearings. Some early power turbines were built that way, but nobody does that any more.

Vertical axis turbines like the Savonius turbine and Darrieus rotor can be used, but they're not very efficient, so you need a big one. They also are hard to shut down in an overspeed condition; they can't change direction, change blade pitch, or tilt upward, so you need a strong emergency brake system. Which is why they're rarely seen any more.

All this outdoor hot water plumbing needs to be well insulated, or you lose most of the heat. So a field of wind turbines, or one unit some distance from where the heat is wanted, is a problem. Moving energy around over wires is so much simpler.

Driving a heat pump mechanically might work better, but that's because heat pumps are far more efficient than heaters. (Moving heat is much cheaper than making it. See [1]). An electric windmill driving a heat pump is probably less hassle.

[1] [https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/06/heat-pumps-work- miracles/](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/06/heat-pumps-work-miracles/)

<comment><USER3> Speaking of heat pumps, I installed one 2 months ago, and dropped my electricity bill for heating water from $85/mo to around $25/mo. This saved me around 69%!

Reference: [https://russell.ballestrini.net/hybrid-hot-water-heater- save...](https://russell.ballestrini.net/hybrid-hot-water-heater- saves-69-percent-on-energy-consumption/)

<comment><USER4> What's your payback period?

<comment><USER5> It's in his article - 1 year due to rebates, 2 years without.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I worked on a wind turbine related project for some time and while I overall love renewable energy wind does have a few factors which can limit its effectiveness. This applies for heat as well as electric generation.

\- As noted in the article, wind can be highly variable in most areas. Optimizing a wind turbine for the average low speed (like here in the US Midwest) means that at super high speed winds can damage your turbine and it may need to be shut off. If you optimize for the high speeds you can get a ton of energy at those speeds but your turbine will mostly be still. Regions with a nice steady wind profile work better for power generation.

\- Wind turbines with variable pitch blades do exist but add cost and mechanical complexity.

\- Turbines often are installed at remote locations and maintence is difficult. One crazy story is a friend of a coworker was a tech for the giant wind turbines and fell _INTO_ those giant fiberglass blades and almost died wedged in there before he could be rescued!

\- "Urban" wind turbines was an idea here in Cleveland a few years ago, but wind turbines generate a lot of vibration which isn't good for buildings. Plus the turbines don't always spin all the time which is bad PR!

All this said I think wind power can be a part of a good energy portfolio but like with anything in engineering it boils down to a big "but if.."!!

<comment><USER7> > Wind turbines with variable pitch blades do exist but add cost and > mechanical complexity.

I was about to suggest the idea of using gears like from a vehicle's transmission (i.e. first gear is easy to turn, will shift to larger when certain condition achieved), but it sounds like these ideas have been hashed out already.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I'm curious about this, and a FAQ on the technical limitations which lead to the situation that GP mentions. I'd have thought that you could have a mechanical / electrical brake on the blades to keep velocities reasonable, or gears as uyou mention, or maybe it's other mechanical stresses.

<comment><USER9> The thing that's not obvious to most people is that the power contained in moving air is proportional to the cube of the airspeed.

If you're local "average wind speed" is 5m/s (~12mph, a "Gentle Breeze" and #3 on the Beaufort scale), and you size your wind turbine to generate useful power (say, 1000W, for example) at that speed, you have two consequences due to that speed-cubed term.

1) When there's only light wind - say half your design average speed, you're only gonna get 1/8th of your 1000W target, so only 125W which isn't very useful if you've got a 1000W requirement.

2) The _bigger_ problem is when the wind blows faster than average. If you get twice average speeds, your turbine is going to generate 8kW which you'll need to safely deal with. But twice isn't your problem - in the real world it's not uncommon for 3 or 4 times average windspeed (what we'd normally just call "a windy day" and 7 or 8 on the Beaufort scale), at which stage you're going to need to safely dump 64kW of power - if your turbine hasn't been braked/parks appropriately (or torn itself to pieces.) If you're still spinning in hurricane conditions, you've got another doubling of windspeed, and another eightfold increase in power, so now your "1000W generator" is unleashing half a megawatt into your wiring and control electronics (or the plasma in the smoke where your wiring used to be...)

Beaufort scale with speeds and descriptions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale#Modern_scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale#Modern_scale)

Some real world windspeed measurements showing upper end outliers of 8 times average speed: [http://www.wind-power- program.com/wind_statistics.htm](http://www.wind-power- program.com/wind_statistics.htm)

<comment><USER10> That assumes that the turbine have the same efficiency over all wind speeds. Realistically, it will not - but your point stands none the less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> While the idea is new to me - using friction in a windmill to heat your house - the practical use in Western Europe could be limited. Installing a 12 meter windmill in my backyard is not going to happen... And then efficiency. A heatpump has a COP of around 4 or 5, so every 1 kW into the system results in 4 or 5 kW out. A heatpump uses electricity, which can be generated using a windmill, but also via solar panels. And a heatpump is relatively easy to link to your general central heating system. Now if you'd want to link your water- brake windmill to the central heating I guess it would be a 'different biscuit'. And since the smaller systems generate 3.5 kW with a firm breeze, you need backup. Suppose you'd not use a water-brake but a generator and heatpump; wouldn't the overall system efficiency be better in that situation? Or at least more convenient if you add solar panels in case there's no wind?

<comment><USER12> The article talks about this; it says the most efficient system is a mechanical heat pump (where the wind provides direct mechanical power to the compressor), but only for local generation, since heat transfer is much less efficient than electricity transfer.

<comment><USER13> Yes, my thought was to use the windmill to run the heat pump, then buffer the heat as hot water in an insulated tank to heat the house. Not really practical unless you live in a place with fairly regular wind in the winter. Where I live, winter air tends to be fairly still with occasional exceptions and I could be wrong but I doubt it would be a great way to heat the house.

Same with solar, in the dead of winter the sun is at quite a low angle in the sky, not even above the tree tops, and I doubt there's much to be gained either from photovoltaic solar or using it to directly heat water for the house.

<comment><USER14> Electricity production in winter can definitely be lower, but it depends on latitude. As you might guess, near the equator there's almost no difference in season.

According to the US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:

"Countries such as the United States, which lie in the middle latitudes, receive more solar energy in the summer not only because days are longer, but also because the sun is nearly overhead.

The sun's rays are far more slanted during the shorter days of the winter months. Cities such as Denver, Colorado, (near 40° latitude) receive nearly three times more solar energy in June than they do in December." [1]

Looking at these maps [2][3] for solar production in January and July, it seems like a lot of places drop by around 50% summer to winter. So it's a significant drop, but unless you're extremely far north, there's still energy to be harvested.

[1] [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/solar- radiation-b...](https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/solar-radiation- basics)

[2] January: [https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_us_january_dec2008.jp...](https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_us_january_dec2008.jpg)

[3] July: [https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_us_july_dec2008.jpg](https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_us_july_dec2008.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _The Joule Machine was originally conceived as a measuring apparatus. James Joule built it in the 1840s for his famous measurement of the mechanical equivalent of heat: one Joule equals the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree Celsius._

Although this confuses the definition of joule with calorie, Joule's experiment was brilliant and laid the groundwork for the laws of thermodynamics:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_equivalent_of_heat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_equivalent_of_heat)

A weight was suspended from a rope and allowed to fall. The falling weight was mechanically coupled to a paddle in a pool of water. As the weight fell slowly, it turned the paddle. Given that the mass of the weight and the water were known, the work performed by the falling weight and the heat absorbed by the water could be quantitated.

Here's a kitchen test of the principle where a household blender is used to boil water:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjcOobt9Ef8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjcOobt9Ef8)

I suspect some heat transfer from the motor through the blades, but it's very surprising the water boils. He could have run a calculation, based on the power output of the blender, to see if the temperature increase was reasonable.

<comment><USER16> Joule's apparatus can be seen at the Science Museum in London. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joule_Apparatus.jpg](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joule_Apparatus.jpg)

It's a beautiful device, worth googling around for the various photos that are online. I would embed a few choice images that I found but of course HN doesn't allow that. _rolling eyes emoji_

There's also an old Open University programme which reconstructed his experiment (conducted on his honeymoon, allegedly). It doesn't appear to be on YouTube.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Related: Boil water with a blender: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjcOobt9Ef8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjcOobt9Ef8)

<comment><USER18> I wonder if this was ever used in a MacGyver episode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > one Joule equals the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 > cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree Celsius.

I believe he meant 1 calorie, in Joules would be 4.184.

</comment><comment><USER20> This impeller design is clever, but it seems that a DC generator and a resistive load would be an easier way to brake the windmill and generate heat. The first advantage is off-the-shelf parts. Electric generators and resistive loading are well known technologies. You can locate the resistive load (literally, an electric heating element) close to where you need the heat and there will be very little mechanical wear.

<comment><USER21> You are missing something important: they are storing enough heat to last for a couple weeks of no wind (or a cold snap). Enough DC batteries to heat a house that long are expensive and dangerous (fire hazard). A large water tank (10 tons of water or more!) is a lot safer to have around the house. The water tank also means the ability to locate your load anywhere isn't important: either way you have to design your system around the tank.

Also, DC is less efficient as the losses at your generator is heat that isn't captured. Generators are typically 80-90% efficient. This is pedantic though and doesn't matter (if this was the only concern DC is wroth the losses because you can divert it to lights or something else that is also useful)

<comment><USER22> 10 tons of boiling hot water? What could possible go wrong? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood)

<comment><USER23> It's ten cubic meters, not as crazy as it sounds. Yes it would flood your basement if it burst, and you probably wouldn't want to be directly under it, but not going to drown you.

Water is heavy!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Seems like generating power to feed to a heat pump would still be more efficient, despite electrical losses, considering that good heat pumps can be 3x more efficient than friction/resistive heating.

<comment><USER25> One of the main benefits of the water brake system is the storage of heat. With a sufficiently large insulated tank, you can retain head for days to weeks when the wind subsides. The water brake gives you a little more insurance compared to electricity generation for an off-grid solution.

<comment><USER26> Why couldn't you use a heat pump to heat an insulated tank and get the same benefit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Electricity conversion: pretty darn efficient.

Conveying the heat from a brake to a building: not so much.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, this article seems like bad engineering, especially when the opening paragraph is trying to compare mechanical energy to solar heat.

A windmill with a generator inside it that is hooked to a wire that drives an electric heating element inside your house will be more efficient then a water break inside an insulated chamber that pushes hot water through tubes into your home.

<comment><USER21> I agree it is mostly bad engineering, but they are correct in one point: to make wind work you need to store the energy somehow. Water is a lot better than batteries if the goal is to heat your house for a few weeks of no power input (batteries are expensive and a fire hazard).

<comment><USER27> That doesn't imply that the water must be heated directly by the braking system, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Kind of a tangent, but also check out the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, "a mechanical device that separates a compressed gas into hot and cold streams" \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube)

</comment><comment> mark-r Can anyone explain to the ignorant among us (i.e. me) why converting to heat is so much more efficient than converting to electricity? The article makes the claim but doesn't back it up. What are the losses involved with each approach?

<comment><USER30> I think the main point the article was eluding to was that if you use wind power to first generate electricity then convert this into heat, you have two conversion steps with loss: wind to electricity, and then electricity to heat. The overall efficiency is then the product of the efficiencies of the two steps. If you produce heat directly from wind, you cut out one conversion with its associated inefficiency.

<comment> mark-r I always figured electricity to heat was nearly 100% efficient, it's the generating of electricity where the losses occur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> There are two stories for this URL:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19263814](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19263814) (this one)

and

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19263603](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19263603)

I would have expected the anti-duplicate-submission mechanism to prevent one of these from being created, redirecting the later submitter to the already- existing story, given that these were both submitted around the same time.

</comment><comment><USER32> TL;DR: Everyone knows that solar can provide electricity at 20% efficiency or heat at 80% efficiency. Almost no one is aware that windmills can do the same.

Instead of connecting a windmill to an electric turbine, you can have it churn a pool of water where friction raises the temperature without the conversion loss.

Fascinating article. I had never considered this.

<comment><USER33> I am not a builder, but I wonder if tech like this is stymied by the nature of the housing market?

From what I understand, housing is one of the most-regulated sectors, and one which has also seen not much innovation (compare to computers or autos).

Were I a Bill Gates, I'd sponsor housing projects where innovators could be rewarded based on sustainability and cost. I guess, in order for anyone to live in them, I'd also have to sponsor some politicians to get government to then allow it.

From an _efficient resource allocation_ (in other words, economic) perspective, there appears to be almost noone solving sustainibility problems. What I mean is, _sustainability per dollar spent_ should be at the forefront of our minds, and I'd be very surprised this kind of tech did not find a place in the market if that were allowed to prevail.

<comment><USER34> I believe there are entities that benefit far more from keeping the status quo as-is, instead of innovating. While I've only worked in large real estate enterprises in my past, and not actual housing (though the two industries are quite linked), never forget that beyond the science and conventional challenges of innovation, there exists human elements who block forward progress; because - sadly - some of these humans gain too much ($POWER or $MONEY, etc.) in the legacy world.

<comment><USER33> I'm convinced this is one of the biggest problems with our generation-- corporatism or cronyism, whatever it is. It is the fact that the private sector and government collude to keep the status quo profiteers safe from innovators obsoleting them.

It should be the opposite. The government should work to resolve market failures.

This is one of those issues which is not left vs right, but rich vs poor... That just gets completely ignored, whether by accident or design...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Great concept to reduce the losses in transmitting and converting energy, and reducing the weight, complexity, and cost of the wind system. But there are issues.

1) It takes a rather large system and stiff breeze, "a rotor diameter of 5 meters and a height of 9 meters – produced 3.5 kilowatt of heat at a wind speed of 11 m/s", ~25mph wind, to produce a modest heating output. that is the equivalent of two small 1750 watt heaters, which would barely heat a decent size room in cold weather.

2) The system is completely dedicated to heat production, and will be a waste of space over half the year. In the summer, most of the wind will be of essentially no use except for warm tap water. In contrast, you can use electrical generation any time.

The best system I've seen of this was at a remote boarding school in Florida. On the roof, they had black serpentine pipes in flat black boxes with glass lids, so mini-greenhouses. In the utility area, they had large insulated water storage tanks. They could get the water to 180F, and had to warn people to be careful when using the tap or taking showers. Pretty impressive, and this was decades ago.

</comment><comment><USER36> Just for fun, here's a link to their solar+storage server:

[https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house- wi...](https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with-a-water- brake-windmill.html)

[https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/](https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/)

</comment><comment><USER37> It occurs to me that this could be combined with a standard wind turbine.

I assume turbines already generate heat, and they also require brakes for when wind speed gets too high. Best case you could be generating maximum electricity and using the brake to generate useful heat. I guess this would aid dispatchability of the electricity, certainly with regards to limiting output as well.

</comment><comment><USER38> Whenever I read anything about wind turbines I'm reminded of this article. It's a shame the photos are missing at the moment. Maybe Jacques is around somewhere and can restore them.

[https://jacquesmattheij.com/how-to-build-a- windmill/](https://jacquesmattheij.com/how-to-build-a-windmill/)

<comment><USER39> The photos are working in the Wayback Machine:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20160813143636/http://www.jacque...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160813143636/http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/how- to-build-a-windmill)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Another model could be to run an air compressor from the turbine. Compression will give you a heater, and then releasing the compressed air will give you cooling.

Thinking about it some more, you should also be able to get kinetic energy out (or electricity) and water, by running a turbine on the compressed air and collecting moisture from the cooled air.

Essentially one of these: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump_and_refrigeration_cy...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump_and_refrigeration_cycle#Gas_cycle) \- they're not technically as efficient as a phase change, but if it's simpler and there are fewer moving parts, it might be a win.

</comment><comment><USER41> The point of the article is that (unlike people would expect) THERE IS a direct way how to convert mechanical energy to heat. It can be even more effective (in theory) than heating via electricity from wind, because there is only one energy conversion (motion -> heat unlike motion -> electricity -> heat).

Big downside is that heating with water brake is somewhat impractical and unexplored territory.

However big plus of this approach is that you can make water brake with middle-age technology.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've heard several times that electrical heaters of any kind are expensive and much less efficient than other heat sources and I feel like I am throwing money out of the window when I turn them on.

This doesn't make any sense to me though. Can someone with a better understanding of physics than me explain to me why this would be the case? I would imagine electricity to be just about the most efficient way to transfer energy. And furthermore, as I understand it, lost energy tends to become heat!

<comment> semi-extrinsic The thing about electricity is that it's perhaps _the_ most "useful" form of energy. Not only can you use it to heat your house, but also to drive your car or run your phone or your power tools etc.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have "low grade waste heat", take for instance the heat from running a computer. Almost all the (useful) energy input as electricity gets turned into hot air coming out. You can use that to heat your room, but nothing else.

So because electricity is so useful and high grade energy, we prefer not to use it "just" for resistive heating. Running heat pumps is an example of a much better use (you can get 4-5 times as much heat out).

<comment><USER42> >you can get 4-5 times as much heat out [...]

..but _why_?

The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of energy won't change, it can only change form, right? (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure). So the electricity should either remain electricity or turn into heat?

I get that it might not happen at the place where we want it to. For instance, we don't want to be heating up the ground between the power plant and my house where the cable runs. And I also get that turning heat _into_ electricity (as it happens at the power plant) might not be efficient. But I still feel that it should perform better than running a pipe with hot water which seems more likely to leak heat into the ground along the way.

<comment> semi-extrinsic >>you can get 4-5 times as much heat out [...]

> ..but why?

Because you are literally pumping heat from outdoors to indoors. You are reducing the energy of the outdoor air and increasing the energy of the indoor air.

The electric energy spent is used to drive a motor that is pumping a fluid round in a loop. The pump is placed where you go from outdoors to indoors. Opposite the pump in the loop, you have a pressure reduction valve, and together these give you a higher fluid pressure on the indoor side, say 40 bar vs 20 bar. The trick is that this pressure difference means that the low pressure fluid is also cold, so it can be heated by the outside air, and the high pressure fluid is warm, so it can release heat to then indoor air.

The thing about running hot water (e.g. district heating) is because you use heat that is literally free. E.g. if you have a waste incineration plant burning all the garbage, that's a lot of free heat. Or if you have a big data centre, lots of waste heat. Let's use it!

In systems like the OP post, the water acts as both energy storage and a convenient way to distribute heat. No DC/AC inverter, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I've come across this concept before. I think it might have been another post on the same site where they talk about direct mechanical use of hydro-power which made me look further into it.

I wonder what the efficiency of using direct hydro / wind power to power an air compressor (say rejecting the excess heat to preheat the hot water supply) and releasing the compressed air for air conditioning.

</comment><comment><USER43> I nearly flunked thermodynamics in college, so take this as the harebrained scheme/Burning Man hack that it would be.

But I've wondered if you could get a useful amount of cooling/greywater disposal/hot clean water supply by mounting a wind-powered vacuum pump on top of a tall (11m +) column of water so that the water in the column would boil at ambient temperature.

<comment><USER44> It turns out that water boils quite slowly at room temperature and low pressure, so you'd need a very large surface area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Why do we keep trying to come up with ways to heat things when a human is a 100 watt heater at rest?

Just insulate the building properly and then you can use rooftop solar to cool it down on those days when it gets too hot - largely because the sun is shining.

Moving heat is generally easier than generating it.

<comment><USER46> Unless you live in a styrofoam box, you're going to need heating. Also, people like windows.

<comment><USER45> PassivHaus standard can be warmed with a 1Kw heater at -10 degrees celsius. They have windows, doors and mechanical ventilation.

<comment><USER46> I just read about Passive House, thanks for citing it. The standard requires less 15kWh/m^2 per year. I live in the U.S. in a 1200 sq ft apartment, small for U.S. standards, and that comes to ~4.5kwH per day. To put that in perspective, an 80 Watt computer running all day uses up nearly half of that margin. A small 6000 BTU A/C (good enough for a small bedroom) uses up the entire allowance if you run it for 8 hours in your bedroom while sleeping. An electric dryer will use up the entire allowance if you do two loads of clothing.

I love that people are thinking about this, and I truly hope that it becomes standard, but it's not exactly reasonable for folks to expect such a level of efficiency without paying through the nose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The obvious critique is that people in extreme poverty deserve every attention moment they can get, to derive a benefit with the lowest cost (to them) possible. But, when this represents an ad-hoc, it can often leave them stranded on a low increment from zero. So, adding proper drains to a favela is good because it reduces child mortality from bad drains, but its still a slum: the fix is unclear but probably involves a revolution.

These mechanisms are good because they can be easily understood and whilst they will require patching and hacking and repair and are inefficient and can't do all things, if they can provide a stable heat source to remove the burden of burning things, which actually kills more women and children because of lack of oxygen, CO/CO2 poisoning, asthma and other effects, there is a huge positive upside.

But, as has been said since at least the 1920s what we really need is soviet power, plus electricity.

</comment><comment><USER48> I am curious about the potential for a hybrid wind turbine (clutchable):

Generate electricity during peak hours (high price) / Generate storable heat during off-peak hours.

Or would it be better to generate e-power all the time if the turbine is capable of it?

</comment><comment><USER49> What I don't quite understand is: heat will be a byproduct of using electricity anyway, since it is always the waste product in the end. So why not generate electricity that can be put to good use first?

</comment><comment><USER50> >The owner of this website (www.lowtechmagazine.com) has banned your IP address (x.x.x.x).

Anyone else getting this? I'm just going to read it on archive.org but it seems weird. I'm coming from a Digital Ocean NYC IP

<comment><USER51> Some sites block VPS's to mitigate bot abuse. Some just send you to endless captchas. Others block in haproxy. Some just 'ip route add blackhole ${ip}'

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I didn't see mention of the noise levels - I know that wind farms are noisy, I wonder how noisy a single windmill would be.

<comment><USER53> I have never found wind farms to be particularly noisy. Certainly not any more so than having a road nearby.

<comment><USER52> I did some research after I made that comment (as one typically does) and I wondering about use in an urban setting - it looks like the ambient noise would be much more obnoxious than anything the windmill puts out.

<comment><USER54> Cities can be surprisingly quiet at night.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I wonder if this could be scaled up to provide district heating for villages and small towns.

<comment><USER21> They discuss this: yes but small is key here. It doesn't scale to large towns much less a city. (though if you take each neighborhood separately...) Losses from transmission are high.

<comment><USER56> But no? It says small city. In my town we have residential heating for 100k people. It's a power plant dumping all of it's heat into the hot water grid. (Co-generation.) If there were windmills, at the power plant, or really just along the heat distribution waterworks, they could dump their heat into the hot water grid.

<comment><USER21> Presumably your small city is using waste heat, so efficiency isn't as important: the goal is electric and the heat is just waste heat that needs to be dumped anyway. When there isn't the co-generation involved efficiency matters more.

Note too that nobody has defined the actual size. Your idea of a small town could be larger than my idea of a large city. Local factors matter in this definition as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Or, wind -> electricity -> heat pump (1:5) -> lots of heat?

</comment><comment><USER58> Post links to front page. Direct link to article:

[https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house- with...](https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/02/heat-your-house-with-a-water- brake-windmill.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know how that happened but now it won't let me update the URL now.

<comment><USER59> Updated. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Possible/Pursue Grad School Researching on a Personal Idea? - <AUTHOR>

I recently graduated and now working on getting a start-up going at the moment. I've wanted to pursue graduate school and I like the research aspect of it, and I've done undergraduate research as well.
I have several ideas which are a bit more hardware/software mixes and more research oriented, and no patents exist for them either, so the first answer is walking the patent path and selling the prototype/idea or have it bought out.
Other option: Is it recommend or even possible to pursue a graduate degree with a focus on researching on the said personal idea? Any remote chance a professor/group might want to entertain my idea (in which case I wouldn't mind if the project gets merged with the school)? <comment><USER2> I have had an interesting experience in regard to this. My graduate program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has actually been incredibly flexible with the areas of research that I want to pursue. The program generally consists of just coursework, however I have been able to do pretty much whatever I want on the side (research).

With this freedom, myself and another graduate student began our own laboratory within the department that focuses on medical technology for developing countries. We have been able to convince undergraduate students, as well as graduate students to work within our lab for free. We have also set up an internship program, where students outside of the university can join. Our professor was also happy to put his name on grant applications for our project.

In my experience there are two types of potential professors. First the ones that are interested in their own research - in which case you are required to do something for them. Or the other (old skool) professors who think you should go about getting your degree on your own. The problem is this second type generally does not come with any type of funding.

My overall advice would be to pursue graduate school, especially if you need for time to work on your idea. Graduate schools have excellent resources to help you with your company (especially within this economy).

P.S. I'm actually involved in a start-up company right now while attending school. Perfect opportunity to incubate your idea while you wait to develop.

<comment><AUTHOR> Now that you mention regarding the two types of profs, I can closely relate to seeing that as well. I think I will set my mind and see if I can find the first type, I think the traction of grad school in any way along side my project is more valuable than funding at this point. Thanks, and good luck on your ventures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Based on my experience, this is long shot. But be SURE you have an agreement with a professor before getting into the program. The programs, from what I know, are about the professor's interests and ambitions.

That said, if your idea is particularly exciting, you may be able to induce a professor to get behind it, but this is something you'll want to have well understood before you enter the program; preferably before you even apply.</comment>


Tom Brokaw, Eric Schmidt, and Bill Gates talk about the Internet in 1995 - <AUTHOR> http://www.hulu.com/watch/67945/late-night-with-jimmy-fallon-tom-brokaws-early-reports-about-the-internet

<comment><USER2> Please do not put links to Hulu in HN. None of their Videos can be played outside the US which makes it near impossible for a large part of the HN readership to follow the ensuing discussion.

<comment><USER3> Here's a link to what, I guess, is the same video that works from the UK:

[http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2009/04/vintag...](http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2009/04/vintage- news-tom-brokaw-reports-from-the-dawn-of-the-internet/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting to see how the Internet has changed our mind set on the privacy issue. I mean Twitter you are begging for attention and could care less about your privacy. Think woman at OBGYN office and earthquake hit.

Goes to show what people initially think are crazy ideas eventually are adopted. Though sometimes such takes years to overcome current mindsets that evolve!

</comment><comment><USER5> "...one of the founding geniuses of this new computer technology..."

</comment><comment><USER6> it also has a CD-ROM player!</comment>


Ask HN: Do you use either C# or Java in your professional work? - <AUTHOR> I am curious to know how many people are using Java (and C#) as their primary bread-maker.
I want to get a reality check because from what I see on here, it seems like only a handful languages are ever discussed. I don't work in either language professionally and I feel I'm missing out on major career opportunities.
I understand the reasons why Java/C# don't get discussed too much, I just want to know how many of us use it.
Thank you.
EDIT: Thank you for the responses so far, it seems that I am indeed throwing away a lot of career opportunities.
As an aside, for the Java stack, is learning Core Java , Servlets / JSP, Hibernate (or other ORM) enough to meet the basic skills required for most of these jobs? <comment><USER2> Full-time .NET developer (doing all sorts of freelance jobs; ASP.NET, Xamarin, etc.). I think you'll find that if you look outside the silicon valley bubble, C# and Java are actually dominating the market and you won't get very far trying to find a Haskell/Rust/Go job.

<comment><USER3> This is very much true in experience as a developer in Raleigh, NC.

The bigs ones are Java, C#, JavaScript (usually Angular, and a handful of Node.js jobs) in my area. Followed by Ruby. Python is usually listed as a nice to know and there are also a handful of Python jobs around. Go is started get get listed as a "nice to know language" in a handful of jobs. It's extremely rare to see a job mentioning Haskell and I can't say I've ever seen a job looking for somebody who knows Rust.

<comment><USER4> I'm hunting for a python job in NC/SC right now, and yeah, it's all C#, Java, JS.

<comment><USER3> In RTP, since that's where I am:

[https://www.caktusgroup.com/](https://www.caktusgroup.com/)

[http://www.redhat.com](http://www.redhat.com)

[https://www.sciencelogic.com/](https://www.sciencelogic.com/)

[https://www.ansible.com/](https://www.ansible.com/)

I moved from Python to JavaScript a few years ago primarily because the market just isn't there locally.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, iends, I appreciate the info. I'm in Charleston, and have seen maybe one or two.

I will check these out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> C# pays my bills at the moment. There's never been a lot of love for Microsoft on HN, but politics aside, C# is an excellent language in my opinion and where I am (UK), there are lots of C# and Java jobs. They tend to be more "corporatey" than the Ruby/Python cohort.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use C# every day in my current job. I would say that most software development in this region is either C# or Java. I live in a city in California that is not in the Bay Area/Silicon Valley.

However, I don't read Hacker News for the Java/C# news, that's for sure. There's plenty of Javascript-related stuff here, which is also relevant to what I do, and I'm always interested in learning more about (and trying out) various other languages and frameworks.

I've been learning Node.js, and I've been contemplating learning Elixir. I may or may not need any of that in the future, but I think they are valuable to learn about anyway. Learning a different way of thinking about things improves my awareness of what is possible.

I don't think C#/Java is a waste of time, but don't stop there. Learn as much as you can about other languages and platforms. You'll find yourself in a better position than someone who is uninterested in anything that doesn't directly apply to the job they are doing right now.

</comment><comment><USER7> I do both C# and Java professionally - more of the latter right now because libraries/portability.

Java: The sad fact is that there is a huge surface area here, and which bit you focus on is going to depend on what kind of work you want to be doing (and where you're doing it).

As a bare minimum I'd want to look at the following standards: JPA (JSR-338); Dependency Injection (JSR-330); JAX-RS (JSR-339).

A solid understanding of Spring Framework would help, as that's pretty common. If you're deploying onto an application server, Wildfly would be the direction I'd look at.

From there it's religion - your best bet is to look at the jobs your interested and bone up on the toolchains that keep coming up.

Hope that helps :)

</comment><comment><USER8> C# Developer here, I think C# is an incredibly good language and the Microsoft ecosystem is moving in a much better direction.

You have way more options for OSS nowadays and you don't have to be as reliant on Microsoft's black-box frameworks. I think these changes could improve the popularity of C# in the coming years.

</comment><comment><USER9> I am founder and CEO of Codenvy and project lead for Eclipse Che, a next- generation Eclipse IDE. Of the 850,000 lines of code that make up Eclipse Che and Codenvy, about 70% of them are authored in Java. Another 20% or so is JavaScript.

Our customers include SAP, Samsung, Intuit, TIAA, Red Hat - mostly from technology cloud providers, financial services, and insurance. Every one of our customers have Java in their environments and value that our product was built in Java.

</comment><comment><USER10> I use C# every day and it pays handsomely when coupled with expert level knowledge within an industry. The language is pretty darn good and the tools are great as well. Plus, most problems are solved online so it becomes a question of conceiving the right solution at a macro level.

For C#: ASP.NET MVC, ASP.NET Web Api, WCF or ServiceStack for services, Entity Framework for data access.

</comment><comment><USER11> Enterprise Java guy here. I guess Java is not much discussed here since it's most popular in corporate scenarios - and it's not very sexy nor fun. I mean, even though it's my first language and the platform I know the best, whenever I do some coding in my spare time I'd rather hack something together in Ruby.

Java is the Cobol of the future so there should be plenty of job opportunities on that platform in the foreseeable future. Big IT service companies doing custom enterprise apps have however moved most of the development work offshore (India or Eastern Europe) at least here in Northern Europe but there's plenty of opportunities for more senior developers and architects.

Despite all that boilerplate and complex application servers Java EE is actually quite nice for distributed enterprise apps with complex integration requirements. So if corporate environment doesn't turn you off and you want to get started with Java EE, I'd suggest in addition to core Java you take a look at EJB3, JPA and CDI. JAX-RS is nice for REST. If you want to write your front-end in Java, take a look at JSF (and some "rich" component library like PrimeFaces) instead of JSP. Servlets are the technology behind there so it's "good to know".

Spring framework was very popular before EJB3 and JPA, and still remains popular in contexts where you don't have/need an EJB container. But if you know you are targeting a full Java EE app server most of the neat features offered by Spring are also available in vanilla Java EE.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yes, .NET/C#/VB on a daily basis for a long time. JEE for a good period as well. I constantly keep an eye on jobs and in my local area I would say 85% fall into .NET or Java, with the majority being .NET. Other standouts include PHP, Python, and a little of C/C++, even VB classic. I've seen maybe 3-4 Ruby jobs advertised in the past 4 years, never anything for the Silicon Valley trendy. But then again, I live in a very small town (Hobart).

</comment><comment><USER13> I live in a major U.S. metro that is not in California. Around here, I'd estimate that 75% of web development work is done in C# or Java. Thousands of jobs in both frameworks.

<comment><USER14> Seattle?

<comment><USER15> It says Minneapolis on his profile

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've had an easier time getting C#/.net work than anything else around Chicago, although I do get pinged for my iOS experience periodically. Lots of .NET jobs around here.

<comment><USER17> I'm near Dallas, and this is close to my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am currently developing an avionics network analysis tool in C#. A colleague built something similar (for a different avionics platform) in Java.

The job isn't all C# by any means, but language choice is flexible, and C# was a good fit here. I expect to be using it more on future projects.

</comment><comment><USER19> Here in Europe the big part of the market is in Java, then C# and then PHP. Even startups here are often using those languages (with some microframework like Spark for Java). The fact that also most universities teaches those helps

</comment><comment><USER20> C++ and Python are my primary languages, the ones I choose for my own projects, and the leads on my CV. I also do a fair bit of C# and Java, simply because they are so commonplace. For my current contract, C++ is the core lang, but extensions are in C#. On a previous project servers were in C++, and GUIs in Java. There's an awful lot of C# and Java out there, often in CRUD "enterprise" style systems.

</comment><comment><USER21> C# has been paying my bills for quite a few years. I hail from Italy, though.

</comment><comment><USER22> Almost every major tech company in the Bay Area uses Java in some respect: Google, Amazon, Facebook, EBay, Netflix, Yahoo, LinkedIn (almost entirely Java), and Square just to name a few. It's not discussed that much because it's not "cool" or "cutting edge", which frankly is how languages should be in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER15> I work full time remotely using Java. There are tons of Java jobs out there doing interesting work. On the remote front Java isn't that popular but it's still possible to find remote friendly Java companies (just not as ubiquitous as Ruby/Python/JS remote jobs).

Edit: I've been working with Java professionally for just short of 8 years.

</comment><comment><USER23> The team I work with use the Spring framework for backends and REST APIs, and most of what we make are webapps. I also know a good number of companies (at least in my area) that hire java developers.

As for C# I would image there are a decent number of people who use it for .NET. The only time I ever used it was in my senior capstone, though.

</comment><comment><USER24> I use a mix of C# and C++. C# for a few projects, C++ for most others.

</comment><comment><USER25> No C# here but lots of Java (Backend, Android). (Cologne, Germany)

</comment><comment><USER26> C# every day for 2.5 years.

I build Windows, iOS and Android (Xamarin).

</comment><comment><USER27> C# here for about 6 years.

</comment><comment><USER28> Full-time C# developer here.

(Edinburgh, Scotland)

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm a java developer. We use Spring. The latest version of it is pretty nice.

</comment><comment><USER30> No but I wish I did (C#).

</comment><comment><USER31> Both pay the bills here.</comment>


Oil Crash is Kicking Off One of the Largest Wealth Transfers in History - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-01/bofa-the-oil-crash-is-kicking-off-one-of-the-largest-wealth-transfers-in-human-history <comment><USER4> 1\. Calling a reduction in oil spending a "transfer of wealth" is confusing and clickbaity. In economic terms, a transfer is a redistribution of income that _is made without the exchange of any goods or services_. We do not call a drop in the price of computers a "transfer of wealth," we call it a price cut.

2\. While oil has a EDIT:LOW elasticity of demand (people need to drive to work and heat their houses), I've never bought the argument that cheap oil has a significant effect on car sales, especially in saturated developed markets. Who decides to make a $20k, 5-10 year investment based on something as volatile as oil prices? Car sales are driven mainly by income growth, marketing, and social pressures.

3\. Who is going to buy more oil because it has become cheaper? The plastics manufacturing industry might shift their recycled/new mix towards new as it is now relatively cheaper, but aggregate demand for oil would still be the same.

The article does a poor job of explaining oil market dynamics and is little more than unfounded speculation with a misleading graph and a few numbers thrown in.

<comment><USER5> > I've never bought the argument that cheap oil has a significant effect on > car sales, especially in saturated developed markets.

If you look at the sales figures it is quite obvious that you're not in the majority here. It's a little tricky to model because cars are all getting better mileage every year, but when gas is expensive gas guzzlers definitely experience a dip in sales (and vice versa).

[http://li.dyson.cornell.edu/pdf/AEJ_2009.pdf](http://li.dyson.cornell.edu/pdf/AEJ_2009.pdf)

<comment><USER6> I agree. I sell truck accessories. Yes, it does have a significant effect. People really are that short sighted.

<comment><USER7> Never underestimate the stupidity of people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The shortsightedness of this article (and I guess business analysts in general) is breathtaking. Isolated, it might be positive for consumers, but any increase in the consumption of oil due to low prices should be feared. Celebrating Chinese buying more SUVs, the worst automotive fashion in the last two decades? Yeah, great.

We'll pay for these short term wealth transfers with a further uptick in warming and a huge shock in the future when no one's saving energy any more, renewable energy installations have come to a standstill and oil rapidly becomes more expensive again.

<comment><USER9> If you are convinced of the latter point, then it's a great opportunity for you to invest in oil and benefit from your own wealth transfer.

<comment><USER10> What's the best way to capitalize on this assumption? USO?

<comment><USER11> I always suggest Vanguard funds - Vanguard Energy Fund Investor Shares:

[https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0051&...](https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0051&FundIntExt=INT)

Note that this is SUPER RISKY investment fund. If you look at the chart it has major swings up and down. The fund is down 20% for 2016 (yikes!). But if you had held it from 2012 -> 2014 you would have gotten a 40% return on your investment.

I like Vanguard funds since they have a low management cost to them and they tend to be a little more conservative in their selection.

Good luck, remember me when you make your million!

<comment><USER12> >Good luck, remember me when you make your million!

Oldest trick in the book: fove out free advice and take a share of the wins, but don't pay a share of the losses ;-)

<comment><USER11> No, the oldest is to give out free advise, get a commission on the buy and then win or loose get a commission on sale.

That's the key underpinning to the stock market. Just ask any broker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm really having a hard time with the current market conditions. Ok, so the Saudis are acting to stop fracking, oil-shale exploitation and all of the other increases in production from non-OPEC countries. Again. Yay.

I get that low oil prices mean bad days for energy companies, many "emerging" countries, and the financial markets, to whom any news is bad news.

But in the "developed" countries, this makes literally _everything_ else cheaper. In the short and medium term, yay. And when the Saudis have made their point, they'll drop production, prices will go back up, everything will return to normal, more or less.

So why is everyone worried?

<comment><USER14> The problem with that reasoning is that there's no fundamental law of nature that dictactes what "normal" means; instead there is a complex network of interrelated forces that is itself kind of resilient but whose individual states are very fragile. Under those conditions, it is practically imposible to "go back" after having disrupted the status quo.

On the one hand, there is such thing as supply destruction, oil producers that are marginally profitable and that go out of business if price collapses, taking tons of hard capital (not financial, but equipment, personnel know how, etc). The Saudis are pressumably aware of this and very much doing it on purpose.

The problem is that there also exist demand destruction. Companies that consume energy in large quantities to produce economically useful but expensive goods and services. This guys conversely go out of business when oil price spikes (there was some statistic going around in 2008 about how 5 out of the last 6 recesions in the US where correlated with high energy prices), which is the intended effect of Saudi strategy.

So, eventually, when the noise signal introduced in oil prices gets absorbed by the market negative feedback loops, the economy we go back to will likely be smaller than the economy we started with. We could debate wether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but many actors are nervous because this is a game of musical chairs, and very few can say they will have a guarrantied place at the table by the time the rubble stops bouncing.

<comment><USER15> > On the one hand, there is such thing as supply destruction, oil producers > that are marginally profitable and that go out of business if price > collapses, taking tons of hard capital (not financial, but equipment, > personnel know how, etc). The Saudis are pressumably aware of this and very > much doing it on purpose.

Doesn't that equipment get sold? If not immediately, then eventually, modulo the odd pipe that gets bent or rusted in storage.

And those people are largely available for the jobs they're experienced at when jobs are available, so they aren't "destroyed" either, they're just idled. Some will move on, some won't.

<comment><USER16> > Doesn't that equipment get sold? If not immediately, then eventually, modulo > the odd pipe that gets bent or rusted in storage.

A lot of it, no. A lot of equipment is built on site and would have to be destructively disassembled to be moved, but just leaving it there without using or maintaining it will cause it to rust or be damaged by the elements. And even the equipment that can be resold and still physically exists would have to be transported back to the site at significant expense. A lot of the sites are in remote locations.

> And those people are largely available for the jobs they're experienced at > when jobs are available, so they aren't "destroyed" either, they're just > idled. Some will move on, some won't.

The "some will move on" being the trouble. You have somebody who knows how to do a specific thing not many people know how to do, you lay them off and they go find some other job doing something else that pays about as well, move house, put their kids into new schools, now you want them back. Good luck with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A better title would be, "Oil Crash is Ending One of the Largest Wealth Transfers in History".

As oil prices drop, less and less money is being transferred from (EU+Japan+AU+China) to (Middle East + Russia).

</comment><comment><USER18> I've asked this thought exercise before (here) and I'll ask it again: what happens when the world stops paying for oil?

A significant portion of the world in terms of area and population derive virtually all their earning power from oil. When oil ceases to be valuable one must consider the consequences. Look at Nigeria which recently requested $3.5 billion dollars in emergency aid from the World Bank[0], like yesterday, to fill their budget gap. This will get worse not only due to current market conditions but let's look past those to utopia: a world with no need for fossil fuels. These economies are completely dependent on fossil fuels - <USER2> everything - what would that utopia look like for them?

If you adhere to the school of jobs and economy equates to less terrorism then the environmental panacea that awaits us in a world of free renewable energy will be paradoxically diminished by terrorism and human tragedy.

Discuss.

[0] [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3f2f140-c8f0-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3f2f140-c8f0-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html#axzz3z1eDb7iw)

<comment><USER19> Its going to come sooner or later though. Maybe this could be a good kick in the butt for nations that lived off selling their natural resources for so long that they have never bothered doing anything else. Middle east is the biggest offender, followed by Russia and a few in Latin America.

A few locals are already voicing concerns on that, e.g.: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvvomANbRo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvvomANbRo)

<comment><USER20> What about Norway?

<comment><USER19> Its kill.

[http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/nor/#Exports](http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/nor/#Exports)

Edit: yeah Norway is definitely going to go to the shatter unless they invest in high tech right now. Compare this with Canada for example.

[http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/#Exports](http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/#Exports)

Nor: >50% of exports are crude and petroleum based products Can: ~25% of exports are crude and petroleum based products

<comment><USER21> Norway is notable for not fixing their budget to their oil exports, they've been squirreling it away.

<comment><USER22> _In August 2014, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued at approximately US$884 billion (equal to US$173,000 per capita) which is about 174% of Norway 's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world_ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This will make food cheaper for billions around the world, as price of food is strongly tied to the price of oil.

In US alone, going from $4/gallon to $2/gallon gives $400B/year (oil and food) more spending money in the pockets of consumers. Oil industries favor relatively a few, but lower prices favor everyone.

On the flip side, the decade which includes heavy Iran sanctions and the Iraq war, Saudi's foreign reserve increased by almost $700B, in contrast the decade prior increased only by almost $20B.

The price crash triggered by Saudis wanting to make Iran a less interesting investment after Obama's Iran Deal (with a huge cash reserve, the thinking is they can last a lot longer) and the market prospect of more oil flooding the markets after Iran's sanctions were removed.

OT: How many know Saudis are the largest shareholders of Fox News outside of Murdoch family [0]?

[0] [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1308161/0001193125133...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1308161/000119312513352464/d586263ddef14a.htm)

</comment><comment><USER24> There is so much going on in this article. The quote from a wall street banker says lower oil prices "will push back $3 trillion a year from oil producers to global consumers"... But since oil companies don't pay us to take their oil, the only way that could be true is if you believe that the people's money is supposed to be yours. Which perfectly sums up the attitudes of wall street bankers.

If I used to pay you a big pile of money, and now I pay you a smaller pile of money, that isn't a shift of money from you to me.

<comment><USER25> Barring deliberate cost saving measures, consider something like electricity costs. Your electric use is probably pretty consistent whether the price is $0.10 or $0.15 per kWh (ok, perhaps not yours, but average across the economy). Depending on your environment and what you do, you _have_ to run your fridge, you _have_ to run your AC/heat, you _have_ to turn on lights, you _have_ to manufacture your goods (if you're a business and want to stay in business). The same (roughly) amount of electricity will be used regardless of the cost.

If electricity suddenly drops in cost by 50%, then money you expected to spend on electricity is now being left in your accounts. There's been no actual shift, but the expected movement of money has been altered.

<comment><USER26> I think the point was that the direction never changed, only the amount, yet it's portrayed as if the direction was reversed, leading to the conclusion that folks on wall st have a tainted view of the world.

<comment><USER27> Perhaps, but I think even untainted econ undergrads talk about everything in terms of rates instead of quantities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> As someone who cares about the environment. It's really sad to me that Truck and SUV sales are going up. It's kind of crazy that people have already forgotten about $5 oil...

</comment><comment><USER29> One wonders, when oil prices went through the roof, we got all these extra fuel surcharges on things like airline tickets.

Now that we are back to near $30/barrel, those charges are still there.

<comment><USER30> "All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures" - Gaius Julius Caesar

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is this really something that would traditionally be called a wealth transfer?

The oil producers are mostly going to be selling all that oil at a profit, so they aren't expending any wealth. The Saudi's are foregoing holding onto a bunch of wealth by selling oil at low prices instead of cutting production, but they aren't transferring wealth to oil consumers, they are spending their wealth on the national budget there. Other producers seem a lot more inclined to cut production, so they aren't really transferring wealth either.

<comment><USER5> Many (most?) petrostates budgeted a much higher price for oil so the current market has them running giant deficits and dumping any easy to sell assets they have (sovereign wealth funds have been liquidating bonds and stocks). Wealth transfer sounds about right.

<comment><USER21> Yes, but as I at least alluded to in my comment, I think it is reasonable to describe most of that as a transfer of wealth to their citizens, not to oil consumers (if you assume that they are still earning at least a small amount on the oil they sell, which is likely true for Saudi Arabia).

<comment><USER5> Saudi Arabia ran a record deficit of $98bn last year (~16% of GDP). That's massive and oil wasn't so cheap the whole year so 2016 could be really massive. The government and citizens of Saudi Arabia have a lot less wealth because of the oil price downturn.

To pay for it they are slashing spending and liquidating non-oil assets. Their foreign reserves have gone down over $100bn from their peak and is down to four years at current spending levels. Who wins? Whoever was buying their oil.

<comment><USER21> Yes, I understand that consumers benefit massively. But they are selling the oil at a lesser profit, not selling it at a loss.

If there was an extrinsic way to say that the value of oil in that ground is higher than the price they are charging for it, then it would clearly be a wealth transfer. Short of that, I don't think it is so clear, it can just be sensible trade.

A dumb insulting analogy: I build you a dresser (pump oil) and use the money you give me to pay for part of a car (I spend the proceeds locally, but also spend more than the proceeds).

If the price for the dresser is fair, I'm obviously not transferring wealth to you.

<comment><USER31> Even if they are not technically selling at a loss (I actually suspect that they are, but in any case), their opportunity for a particularly high profit margin is something that is priced in to their outlook when they are looking to invest and purchase assets. If all of a sudden they don't have as many marbles to play with, they either need to liquidate assets they currently have to the control of foreign owners and invest more strategically (greater chance of using these marbles in non-wealth creating opportunities) or don't invest at all and lose all of these opportunities in the future.

I can transfer my wealth to you either by just giving it to you, or I can transfer my wealth to you slowly over time by not being able to invest in wealth generation at the same rate as you while my base investments depreciate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Going a little bit off on a tangent here but this article reminded me of how the gold price against the dollar has historically been set:

>Every morning at nine o'clock, [acting treasury secretary] Morgenthau; Jesse Jones, the head of the RFC; and George Warren would meet with the president over his breakfast of soft-boiled eggs, to determine the price of gold for that day. They began at $31.36 an ounce. The next morning this increased to $31.54, then $31.76 and $31.82. No one had a clue how they went about setting the price, although everyone presumed that some subtle analyses of the world bullion and foreign exchange markets went into the calculations. In fact, the choice of price was completely random. All they were trying to do was to push the price a little higher than the day before. The exercise brought out the juvenile in Roosevelt. One day he picked an increase of 21 cents, and when asked why, replied that it was a lucky number, three times seven.

Source: "Lords of Finance"

<comment><USER33> The point of setting magic numbers in that manner is the continuous employment of people tasked with explaining how discovering that this was how it worked all along was "unexpected" and "surprising".

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Do you count a stable climate as wealth? If prices continue to ignore that cost and demand increases then that's a massive destruction of wealth.

</comment><comment><USER35> I do not get it. Are people really that shortsighted? Are analysts who only thinks, that people are shortsighted?

I get, that if oil/gas goes down, there is an incentive that I drive more with my car.

But I don't make a car buying decision depending on oil/gas prices. When I buy a car, I buy it for use for the next 3 years. But I will not know the oil/gas price in the next 3 years. So my decision depends more on the car price itself and not on the oil/gas price.

<comment><USER14> People that reason like you are in the exception, even if they come to the same conclusion, they will do so for different reasons.

There is a market for SUVs, and they are sensitive to oil prices. Specially because when oil prices go up, other necesities go up as well at the same time. On the other hand, price go down, and they will act on the aspirations they already had of owning a SUV. They see prices going down as an opportunity.

There is also a market for small cars. Whether they do it because they are frugal, or because they are green, or because they drive in down town and need a vehicle that will navigate the traffic efficiently and is easy to park in tight spots, they won't buy SUVs no matter how much the oil price goes down, or the SUVs price goes down I'd say. Many will see buying such product as going too strongly against their individual or tribal identities!

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> In my opinion its the other way round, the current prices are comparable to the ones 12 years ago, so the current oil prices have stopped the wealth transfer.

<comment><USER21> I suppose the perspective that I also missed in my top level comment is that the oil buried in the ground is a form of wealth.

So selling it cheap transfers that wealth to the people that use it. The global economy seemed functional enough at $60 oil, so the decision to keep the pumps flying when the price is below that is a little bit of a wealth transfer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> "Blanch still sees huge upside potential in terms of automobile penetration" Is that biz-speak for: soon more cities will be polluted like Beijing?

</comment><comment><USER38> This feels like a feel-good article designed to stem the negativity in the market over oil prices. Who thinks of falling prices as wealth transfer? And the article doesn't even show wealth transfer and instead talks about more consumption due to cheap oil.

<comment><USER39> _Who thinks of falling prices as wealth transfer?_

Seems like a reasonable description to me.

Oil price = $100/bbl Gas = $4/gal I spend $400 per month on gas.

Oil price = $25/bbl Gas = $2/gal I spend $200 per month on gas.

The extra $200 I have each month used to go to the oil producer.

<comment><USER38> It _was_ a wealth transfer when the prices were higher -- you were giving your money ultimately to the oil producers. When the price is down, you are just saving money -- there is no transfer of wealth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I believe wealth transfer is not the right terminology. Short to medium term economic leverage would be more appropriate, IMHO. Producers have temporarily lost the upper hand, while over capacity allows consumption growth that would not have been possible otherwise. The opposite mouvement that strong demand and restrictive policy caused pushing prices to incredible heights not too long ago. That enticed a ramp up of less economical production such as tar sands and fracking. The pendulum will swing, it's 100% certain, the key to profit from it is to time that swing... to see the signal in macro factors, some of which are alluded to in the article.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is short sighted, and fails to consider what drives the price of oil, and what the current movement means for the chaotic system that is the petrochemical economy.

Oil prices are down due to massive overproduction over recent years, due to high oil prices, and opec sitting quietly on vast reserves that weren't on the market.

The cause isn't important, though - what is is the effect. Over recent years petro companies have invested in getting at fuels based on high prices - <USER3> drilling, fracking, tar sands, all are really expensive. This means that they've invested in stuff that has eaten at their bottom line and they can't currently use as it's not economically viable.

Bp's earnings statement today illustrates this impact, and it's early days yet - if the price remains suppressed, which it likely will, there will be insolvencies, which will then be bailed out or bring down leveraged up to the eyeballs banks and investors with them.

Once that happens, supply will fall again, prices will rise, and we'll have another, even more violent cycle - except maybe we won't, as industry won't tolerate a wildly unpredictable energy price and will look to other more reliable sources.

Anyway. I reckon that we'll see the energy industry turned on its head before this chapter closes.

<comment><USER42> This happens every few decades. The supermajors (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Total, Shell) are all structured to survive events like this. Smaller upstream companies and suppliers are going to get wiped out, but the supermajors will persist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> >Take China for example, where the strategist sees the oil plunge helping to fuel a boom in SUV sales: "Moreover, the low oil price is encouraging Chinese consumers to buy increasingly larger cars. Sales of SUVs, the heaviest passenger vehicles category, are up 60 percent year-on-year in the last three months, while overall passenger vehicle sales are growing robustly at 22 percent."

This is terrible news for renewable energy causes.

</comment><comment><USER44> For more information, read the more accurate and in-depth coverage on the Oil crisis at Economist: Who's afraid of Cheap Oil? [http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21688854-low-energy- pr...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21688854-low-energy-prices-ought- be-shot-arm-economy-think-again-whos-afraid-cheap)

</comment><comment><USER45> While I have read so many different oil "stories" over the years from we're going to run out in 1981, to "peak oil", to "enough for millenia" to "its made by microbes not dead dinosaurs" to "we don't really need it, its just cheap". That it all sort of swirls together :-)

However, the bump in economic activity should be a wake up call to everyone that the current recession/malaise isn't about interest rates or fiat currencies, its about a lack of circulation of capital, not enough is getting back to the consumers to support economic activity (or at least that is what seems to be shown by giving people a bit more disposable income by reducing the drain from one of the 'must spend' sources[1].

[1] Typically food, housing, energy, and of late communications.

</comment><comment> norea-armozel I wonder how the Saudis and company will respond once EVs become as reliable as ICVs? Mind you, I don't see an EV 18-wheeler taking over any time soon, but I can see an EV sedan becoming the dominant vehicle in most of suburbia in the next decade. I think their attempt to kill shale oil is a bad move. They should be focused on maximizing the value of their reserves while they have time to do it. A soft landing should be preferable to a hard one where most oil becomes more or less a junk commodity (excluding plastics).

Also, I wonder how does all this factor in with regard to other renewables (just solar and wind, no fusion since that's a crap shoot either way). Any ideas where that may lead?

<comment><USER46> Even if they do kill shale oil, the reserves will still be there waiting to be exploited in future.

<comment> norea-armozel That's true, but I wonder if their game includes buying them out then? At least when they go under or are nearly bankrupt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash What about the emerging resource economies that send raw materials to China? If they lose serious business then for them it's not a wealth transfer - it's a cessation.

Besides, if we in the developed world have learned anything in 30+ years, it's that falling commodity prices fail to provide a sustainable higher standard of living when incomes stagnate and housing costs rise. I would hardly call that a wealth transfer, more like a temporary bonus - and a weak one at that.

</comment><comment><USER47> After 2013, things changed.

For the first time, there was an inverse correlation between oil prices and the US stock market.

[http://energyfuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/crude- oil-p...](http://energyfuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/crude-oil- prices.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER48> Yeah but it is literally trickle down wealth transfer.

They made millions but you are getting $10-$40 a month back.

Plus as a result we will get more war and extremism out of the middle-east and Russia as they start clawing back all kinds of perks.

</comment><comment><USER49> Growing up in Houston, Ive seen the boom bust cycle that seems to have been a part of the oil business since Rockefeller was running Standard Oil. Just because oil is cheap right now doesn't mean that people are going to stop working on clean energy and a replacement for petroleum based transportation. It may slow things negligibly but people who are smart enough to be looking into that aren't really swayed by the price of a barrel of oil.

The Saudis are trying to sweat out the more expensive production methods,(tar sands, bitumen, shale) as part of a long term play to get the price of a barrel of oil to where they want it ~80-100/bbl. I don't think they anticipated that US and other producers would just make up for the lost revenue by producing more(again, something that goes back to the beginnings of the oil business). The government is at risk of making themselves insolvent in the next 5 years or so if they continue this policy[1] and Im not really sure why they(or any producer) are making such short sighted decisions. Its not going to get better until the reduce the supply side glut[2]. Most producers are reactionary to this type of volatility and cancel well completions which take many months to bring online. Once we have reduced the over supply look for another swing as consumption overtakes available of supply until new wells can be brought back up to speed. From the information I have being in the business, that will take about 2-3 years or more, which may cause some pretty catastrophic financial crashes as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and other producers run out of money, which is already happening.[3]

keeping oil in the 50-100 dollar range is probably best for the world economy, but keeping everyone honest enough to produce the amount needed to get oil prices there is the problem. IMO, the blip in SUV sales isn't going to significantly impact the environment. Even SUVs are getting 20mpg hwy in real world driving now. This is easily 25-50% better than the last time oil was cheap 10-15 years ago. Government standards are still mandating better CAFE scores, and everyone will be producing electric cars in the next 5-10 years. Some of the supply glut could be blamed on the fact that most cars are more efficient now and are using less oil.

[1][https://www.rt.com/business/319465-saudi-bankrupt- projection...](https://www.rt.com/business/319465-saudi-bankrupt-projection- imf/) [2][https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W...](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPC0_SAX_YCUOK_MBBL&f=W) [3][http://www.businessinsider.com/nigeria-is-running-out-of- gas...](http://www.businessinsider.com/nigeria-is-running-out-of-gas-2015-3)

</comment><comment><USER50> In the long term this is bad for US dollar. Oil exporters will sell US obligations to cover their budget, this could possible lead to global deleveraging and US dollar collapse.

</comment><comment><USER51> autoplay video? Remind me to never ever visit bloomberg.com again.

</comment><comment><USER52> Unless you're in a country that isn't like the US, such as Canada. Then your dollar just tanks and everything besides the price of oil goes up, including food...

<comment><USER53> Don't the costs of some products include transportation costs, which should follow oil prices? Assuming gouging is under control of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Translation: Wall Street traders whine about losing money. Cry me a river...</comment>


Don't "Pull A Patzer" And Other Lessons Learned On Our Trip Down Sand Hill Road - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/28/dont-pull-a-patzer-and-other-lessons-learned-on-our-trip-down-sand-hill-road/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

<comment><USER2> This is a good contrast to those who speculated that Patzer sold because he was forced by VCs. That isn't a surprise, though: general wisdom is that if you take VC funding, you should at least be open to the idea of building-up a company and (ultimately) taking it public; VCs have the right to block an exit.

<comment><USER3> > VCs have the right to block an exit.

I don't know too much about the terms of VC funding, why is this the case?

<comment><USER2> > I don't know too much about the terms of VC funding, why is this the case?

VC model breaks down if they don't get back at least ten times more than what they've put in. With upper tier VCs, I believe that's even higher.

Angels are looking for a multiplier on their return too, _but_ generally the money they invest is so small, they won't bother blocking most exists.

Ironically, this sort of approach might lead to more "quick flips" (which Mint acquisition wasn't) than anything: you have built a highly innovative product which is starting to pick up some traction; you can sell it for $30mm to Google (netting yourself ~$2-4mm after taxes, effectively a life changing sum) or you can get (further) VC funding and try to swing for the fences. However, your chances of _any_ exit have now been decimated.

<comment><USER4> Why would you only net $2-4mm after selling for $30mm? (even after taxes!)

<comment><USER2> After giving money to angels + seed funding + possibly series-A VC funding, having an employee option pool (especially if "employees" include non-founder CFO/CEO/COO) and a second co-founder, you can expect _at max_ 20% percent (usually of common stock, vested with over time). Add to that taxes and (if you took series A or serious seed funding) liquidation preferences and 10% return sounds fairly generous.

<comment><USER5> strlen, i'm not really sure you know what you're talking about here.

seed funding + series A in a reasonable case is likely to have sold 35% of the company. another 15-25% for option pool leaves 50% or more for the founding team.

similarly, a reasonable liquidation preference is 1x. i doubt you would see aggressive liquidation preferences on something hot enough to then exit quickly via acquisition anyway.

in this case, it's also possible if the founding team has done reasonably that they still control the board, thus making your explanation of "vcs can block an exit" a bit weak at this juncture, as well.

sure, it CAN go badly like you said, but i don't think that's the average case.

<comment><USER2> Upvoting, great counter point. The percentages (pre-dilution founder percentages, especially) have been what I've personally seen in start-ups I've worked in / consulted for / friends' start-ups. In one case of the founders had only 13%, other two had 20% -- rest going to funders/option pool; in another case -- where there was a "professional CEO" brought in -- one of the founders had <10% and no seat on the board (with only _one_ founder being on the board at all). Granted these may be abnormal cases (the VCs weren't top tier either).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is why VC's are becoming amenable to letting founders take money off the table. (See: <http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/09/founder-liquidity.html>)

<comment><USER7> I wonder if it would have helped. Patzer was probably choosing between $40 million (or whatever) today and $80 million (or whatever) in a few years. The VCs would own more and he'd own less, so even with a bigger exit he's not looking at all that much more. During that time catastrophe could strike and wipe him out completely.

<comment><USER8> He also has a good job in which Inuit is giving him some free rein to innovate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Usually when somebody coins a new word, they pick a word that's not a word yet.

Patzer is a fairly well-used term in the chess world. It makes for some confusing headlines here on HN when you try to parse them using the meaning of the existing word.</comment>


fman (next-gen file manager) out on OS X - <AUTHOR> https://fman.io/blog/fman-is-out-on-os-x/ <comment><USER2> I find the licensing model described in a previous blog post [https://fman.io/blog/transparency/](https://fman.io/blog/transparency/) quite interesting:

 _If no commit is made to fman in more than 6 months, then it will be open sourced under a BSD license._

I'd like more closed source developed software adopting this model. Perhaps there could be a service automating this type of promise, especially for software with a bus factor 1. :)

Edit: Fixed autocomplete spelling errors.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Yes, it would be nice to have a platform that offers this. I haven't been able to find a simple ready-made solution though. So my "backup" in case I do get hit by a bus is my family.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Maker of the Day - <AUTHOR> https://makeroftheday.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, so let explain my latest project:

I'm still recovering from sadly not making Maker Of The Year last year.

This also got me thinking that once a year is probably not enough to give a maker award considering how many bright and talented Makers we have and we probably need to have someone daily!

So this got me to build Maker Of The Day. I was really surprised the domain was available! I think it's cool that now anyone who signs up, are guaranteed to have their 24 hours "Maker Of The Day" fame!

It runs on a first come first serve basis so you'll automatically be added onto the next available slot, which is visible on your Profile Page.

I made it paid because... well, I don't know... money?

Kind Regards from South Africa

</comment><comment><USER2> Interesting concept. Did you have many sales so far? Whats your promotion/marketing plan?</comment>


Europe's largest newspaper by circulation bans users with AdBlock - <AUTHOR> http://www.xing-news.com/reader/news/articles/118369?newsletter_id=8567&xng_share_origin=email <comment><USER2> Finally we'll have some good data about user tolerance especially if this is really some high profile/high value news outlet.

So far not many went as far to ban users afaik.

<comment><USER3> Well, it's a pretty 'shitty' Newspaper, but it's sold (and presumably also read) by many Germans.

Also, you can purchase a 'premium' account on their website and (according to their own advertisement for said premium account)

'..receive UP TO 90% less ads and UP TO 50% faster loading times.'

Go figure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Their paying version is actually quite acceptably priced really, so if I was a reader, I'd probably already be paying...

What irritates me is all the others who think they all deserve £9.99 a month. _Everyone_ wants £9.99 a month, even for services/sites you might use twice a month or less.

The sooner they realize it's not acceptable for users to have 5 or 8 of these going, and they need to readjust their prices, the better they will be...

</comment><comment><USER5> Every change that stops people from reading this awful newspaper should be welcomed..

though I somehow have the feeling that few of the people using AdBlock actually read Bild..</comment>