https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE&feature=youtu.be

Michael Moore the darling of the left has put together a documentary that while discussing climate change elegantly skewers the hypocrisy of the renewables industry. Not only does he skillfully demonstrate their ineffectiveness, their short life spans and the rapacity of those organisations promoting them.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

It didn't attract much interest when it was first mentioned in the MSM. The subject is probably a bit like the China virus - most people are sick of it, and there's not much point in talking about because nothing changes.

Hi Shadow Minister,

According to "Science News" the film - "Planet of
the Humans," Michael Moore, Executive Producer,
relies too much on outdated information.

We're told that scientists and environmental activists
have already disputed many of the assertions in the
movie which was released on YouTube on April 21st.

One commonly cited problem is that the film's renewable
energy claims are often a decade out of date - ancient
in green tech years and misleading.

Here's a closer look at 5 of those claims:

http://www.sciencenews.org/article/what-michael-moore-new-film-gets-wrong-about-renewable-energy

anyone who is half interested in truth knew 15 years ago what a scam the renewables industry is/has been. We did not need Michael Moore to highlight the obvious.

runner,

In science new information and discoveries come
up all the time. Things change. It's not very
wise to remain stagnant with out of date
information. It's neither logical nor well-reasoned.

'In science new information and discoveries come
up all the time.'

true Foxy however pseudo science has always relied on a narrative not facts and truth. That is why the renewables scam and thieves have been able to brainwash so many.

We should, as individuals, question everything. And we have had plenty of time to do just that with renewables.

The answer lays in plain sight. It's a dogs breakfast for the influential.

Dan

runner,

Evidence please.

runner,

Evidence please.

20 years of abc lies. If you can't see that you are blind. Pity you did not give Pell case a requirement of evidence.

runner,

Not good enough.

Drive-by comments are intellectually lazy.
As are attempts at smear tactics.

Put up or shut up.

Foxy

Not good enough.

Supporting failed narrative are intellectually lazy.
As are attempts at smear tactics.

Put up or shut up.

runner,

It's your turn to do precisely that.

I can explain why we can never find the origin of the Universe.

Foxy,

Having read the article to which you linked I found it to be a simple polemic rather than an unbiased review. Given the author Carolyn Gramling's lack of qualifications in the subject and history of being an uncritical climate change cheerleader I shouldn't have been surprised.

Much of her claims are based on the film being out of date, however, she rebuts MM's claims by using claims of future tech advances in capability and cheapness. The high efficiency solar panels and sulphur batteries are not that new, and the reason that they are not used is that they are difficult and expensive to fabricate and run.

The reality is that the renewables movement has essentially claimed that building this renewable generation while expensive now will generate free energy in perpetuity.

Even CG acknowledges that renewables have a finite life so in 2045 everything built to date will be scrap with a huge price tag to remove like the skeletons of wind farms and solar farms built 2 decades ago.

Shadow Minister,

You know as well as everybody else that most of the renewable energy plant will come with a MADE IN CHINA label which means it will be crap so where did you get this 25 years of economical life from? Lucky if you get 5-7 years. Do a life cycle cost estimate for renewable energy plant and work out how many $$$$ in the red we will be by 2045.

Shadow Minister,

There are many links on the web that criticise Michael
Moore's film. I chose "Science News," because it
publishes articles and reviews in all disciplines of
science and Carolyn Gramling in her article cites
and gives full references to scientists and
environmentalists opinions to the assertions made in
the movie point by point. They are not her opinions
as you imply but those of experts.

Also she has BA degrees in geology and a PhD in
marine geochemistry from MIT to name just a few of
her qualifications.

Funny how you question her qualifications yet you
accept those of Michael Moore and his director and
narrator - Jeff Gibbs, a self-proclaimed -
"photographer, campaigner adventurer and storyteller,"
who's co-produced some of Moore's films.

We know that Michael Moore is a guy known for provocation.
Every documentary he's put out has been designed to
paint a world of sharp contrasts with clear bad guys. His
films are designed to get a reaction.

There's a reason that Breitbart and other conservative
voices aligned with climate denial and fossil fuel
companies have taken a shine to the film. It's because
it ignores the solution of holding power to account.
And of course predictably - you jump onto the band-wagon.

I'll leave you to it.

Foxy,

I am not claiming that Michael Moore is a renewable energy expert, but as a climate /renewables activist for decades no one can claim that he is biased against renewable energy. His film is not meant to be purely against renewables, rather against the motives behind the large companies making $bns from the industry and comparing their spin vs reality. That he has interviewed experts in the field is what gives his film credibility.

With regards Carolyn Gramling I am not claiming that CG is not smart cookie, but qualifications in geology and marine chemistry is hardly relevant to power generation and networks. That she has a long history of climate activism explains her motives, and why you jumped on the left whinge band wagon.

I would take a bet that you haven't even watched the documentary

Shadow Minister,

Actually I did watch it. However I would bet
that you did not read the link I cited because
you would have noted that they were not
her opinions
being expressed but those of scientists and
experts all you had to do is click onto them.

Moore's documentary came out on Earth Day positioning
itself up as some tough, real talk not just about
renewable energy but environmental groups. It cast
renewables as no better than fossil fuels and
environmental groups as sleek corporate outfits in bed
with billionaires helping kill the planet.

However the big critique was that the film ignores the
solution of holding power to account.

Science News was not the only critique of the film
The web had many others from scientists and experts.
But I'm sure you already know that, or you should.

Foxy,

Michael Moore is not a scholar or a scientist ( = Shadow Minister).

He is a social critic who uses filmmaking as a means to express his views about the world and he is not interested in portraying his topics and subjects in a scientific or philosophical perspective in the way scholars and scientists do.

So you need to take what he says with a gain of salt because he only tells you what he thinks about the world and not what he knows. Shadow Minister would understand this because like Moore SM also lacks scholarly and scientific credentials (and SM is almost smart enough to comprehend what I am saying.)

I thought I'd never say this. Mr O is not more than an ignorant smartarse. He has not seen the movie or researched the claims made. Mr O makes no contribution to scientific analysis of the claims he is not more than a sheepish follower of his Marxist professors - "just degrade the messengers: don't argue the claims". He is devoid of rational debate.

The claims The movie makes, demonstrates when humans try to turn back the tide of climate change they make a mess of of things. The outcome is worse than fossil fuel consumption as it involves highly toxic materials to be handled and disposed of.

Josephus,

In what way are you suited to make a scientific contribution (to anything)?

Are you a scientist or a scholar? Or are you just another vocationally trained drone that thinks he has all the answers?

Foxy,

The article you quoted like most of the criticisms by "scientists" were extremely unscientific. The attempt to discredit the documentary simply quibbled about some of the details on fringe and failed to address the main issues. For example:

The 8% efficiency figure given in the 2008 installation does not simply refer to the efficiency of the solar panels, as panels even then had higher efficiencies, but the efficiency is reduced by protective covers, dust, and simply not being 100% lined up with the sun. More efficient panels will improve the efficiency, but this has nothing to do with the points raised by the film.

Similarly, while solar panels if treated properly can last 20yrs or longer, the panels and support infrastructure is vulnerable to hail, wind etc. That the last hail storm in Sydney took out 1000s of roof panels is an example. Even if they last 20yrs, this generally gives a pretty poor payback without a thumping tax payer funded subsidy.

Finally, the intermittency of renewables is perfectly demonstrated by the German network whose renewables have generated 100% of demand for a small period, but due to overcast windless days have generated less than 6% for more than a week at a time. Their answer has been to build more coal fired stations or buy nuclear power from France to prop up their system.

Mr 0,

If you intend to be more than just a cretinous troll, perhaps you could try to add to the debate. However, I doubt that you have the IQ to even try.

Shadow Minister,

What bothers you the most is that I and people like me make you realise how little you know. You are the blame for that because you wanted to be just an engineer (aka mindless drone.)

Shadow Minister,

It seems that I'm the only one trying to
seriously respond to you and your claims.

You've still not read the citations given
in the article. You have not clicked onto
the scientific explanations and opinions -
obviously. Also there are enough sites on
the web for you to choose from that give
genuine and valid critiques of Moore's film
You ignore them all or are not interested.

Your claims are ridiculous. Renewables are going
ahead worldwide. From Sweden - which threw down the
gauntlet in 2015 to eliminate fossil fuels from
electricity generation by 2040. Costa Rica has
achieved 95% renewable electricity. Nicaragua 90%,
Scotland 98% - wind-powered electricity.

In the first half of 2018 Germany produced enough renewable
energy to power every home in the country for a year.
Uruguay's electricity - 100% renewables. Denmark - wind power
world record. Morocco - world's largest solar power
plant. The US solar industry now employs more people than
coal & nuclear combined.

More than half of electricity in Kenya is geothermal.
China - 2017 - 45% global renewable investment - and
the list goes on.

I think Michael Moore set out to do a promotional piece for alternate energy, & was first shocked, them horrified at what he found. Full marks to him for his courage in not only seeing alternate energy through opened eyes, but then publishing his findings of the disgusting industry for what it is.

Some people take a long time to actually grow up, & gain the ability to see the world through fully opened eyes. Some people never manage it, & continue to see the world through the lens of their brainwashing education. Some on here are half way through their lives, or even more, & are still parroting the brainwashing shoved into their heads by some silly little girl primary school teacher, herself the product of earlier brainwashing. I think his growing up has been extremely painful for Michael Moore

Michael Moore's film exhibits the result of his eye opening, & his considerable annoyance that he had been fooled for so long. The last bit of the film shows that his awakening was very painful, & he had to scurry back into the shelter of his indoctrination.

His next film will be interesting. Will he continue to survey the world through his newly opened eyes, or will he step back & try to appease his old friends. After all, honesty is not something welcomed or permitted in green circles, & is not easily forgiven..

Hasbeen,

Is that your view as a world acclaimed film critic or as an ex-astronaut, you great big chocolate (smarty)?

As I thought, the Fwit troll lacks the IQ to debate the issue.

Shadow Minister,

I see enough engineers at work. That's enough thanks.

I've often been asked what it is like working with engineers: Someone walks into the room with a bunch of drawings and throws them on the table and everybody jumps on them. That's the best way I can describe it.

I can tell you that I love discussing things with scientists and scholars which definitely leaves you out of the equation being just an engineer aka mindless drone.

Mr 0,

So it is the sight of people working that frightens you. Then the arts is definitely for you so that you will be permanently free of the shackles of employment.

Shadow Minister,

A wise man once told me that there are two types of people who work as engineers: Those who are mad and those who are going mad.

Hey Shadow Minister. Don't worry about opinion. He's a dick. Simple as that. Don't play with him or you'll have to wash your hands of it later.

Not_Now.Soon,

And you call yourself a Christian. You're as bad as an engineer.

Foxy,

I have read most of the links (the ones that don't need a paywall) and I find them remarkably lacking in specifics and when they attack the documentary, it is usually nitpicking.

The reality is that the countries with nearly 100% renewables almost entirely rely on hydro or geothermal, neither of which are available to most of the world, so Costa Rica, New Zealand, Norway etc are not role models for anyone.

Germany is a perfect example, its mix of renewables is roughly 30%. Sometimes it is 100% and often it is lower than 6% for weeks. This has lead to one of the highest energy prices in the world that would be even higher if it could not rely on coal and Frances nuclear plants for back up.

Michael Moore's documentary has simply been saying what energy engineers have been saying for decades.

Thanks Mr O, I take that as a compliment.

Clean yourself up when your done.

Not_Now.Soon,

Alright hypocrite, whatever you say.

You are exactly what people see when they think of a religious person.

You aren't by chance a member of the Pells Angels gang are you?

It is time to totally ignore the resident troll. If he wants to be a contributor he need to demonstrate his knowledge of science. He has no idea of science and technology like those that have worked their lifetime in real science and engineering. He has never studied, made or designed an electrical circuit that works.

Hasbeen, I agree Michael Moore had an intellectual conversion from green activist, after witnessing the facts of green energy and its toxic waste, to his present stand.

Foxy,

Planet of the Humans' venial sin was to understate the efficiency of modern solar panels, which barely detracts from its other main arguments.(tho' they naturally lose efficiency and need constant cleaning to reach peak generation)

To pick one of your examples where green politics is winning its way, rather than science and economic sense, consider the bogus claim Scotland is a whisker off being 100% renewable from intermittent sources. Rather than swallowing hype spend a few minutes at http://euanmearns.com/scotlands-wind-exports-to-england-and-the-myth-of-a-100-renewable-scotland/

There is no place on the planet achieving even a version of the claim without the assurance of attachment to the grid. Hypothetically, intermittents could produce enough electricity for the entire need of a community if it gets back from the grid, as needed, what it has already put in. This definition of '100% renewable' is then used by the slippery clueless as the template for every community (Mmmm... what could possibly be the problem with that, I wonder?).

Great to see Carolyn Gramling so conflicted about gas. Renewables are the front for the ongoing dirty business of burning fossil-fuels. There is no storage solution and there's extremely unlikely to be one, tho' the dream sustains the ludicrous renewables fantasy dragging us back to a pre-industrial age.

Josephus,

I must admit I have "never studied, made or designed an electrical circuit that works." Just lucky I guess!

But tell me, how did you know? Was it that obvious? Something I said that gave me away? Now you and everybody else knows.

And what about yourself? What's your story? Other than the fact that you like hiding behind an ancient Jewish historian.

Hi Luciferase,

Coal- and gas-fired power stations produce CO2. Renewables don't produce CO2 except in their construction, transport, assembly, maintenance, component-replacement, decommissioning and replacement, etc.

Presumably the planet can tolerate a certain amount of CO2 production, above and beyond what is taken up naturally by plant-life for its survival. Tree-planting and revegetation programs across the world can soak up much of that excess CO2.

So how much CO2 would be an acceptable level of production in the generation of energy, and from coal/gas-fired power stations, across the world ? In other words, how much fossil-fuelled power generation is quite acceptable ?

Joe

Each to his own, Joe. Make your choice:

http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/emissions_scenarios-1.pdf

For me, zero gets us where we need to go fastest. Only nuclear gets us anywhwere near it quickly and affordably while we get out of nature's way, maintain a high, urban living-standard extending into what is now the third world, bringing a commensurate levelling of world population.

Do you think I should compromise to appease the sensibilities of those who think otherwise? Nope, we have to stop burning $hit, asap.

Thanks Armchair Critic, and others for your patience.

As someone who has a fair background in engineering and electronics I've stayed up late at night thinking and reading about solving the worlds energy problems.

It often comes down to maths.

Solar panels and storage devices work on a completely different scale to other technologies and hence are relatively inefficient.

Coal and Gas power stations are highly efficient per unit of energy produced have built in storage. Basically a power station consists of very simple but reliable technology that has been tested for about 100 years.

One demonstration of this is in cars where you can have a car that can travel 500 km on a relatively small tank of fuel for twenty years given regular maintenance this doesn't even include the possibility of adding additional tanks. It's hard to get the same mileage out of electric power mainly because of storage despite the fact that electric motors have double the efficiency of petrol engines.

Unfortunately even for knowledgeable people it requires a fair bit of work to discover the subtlties of power systems and their triple bottom line costs.

Elon Musk is someone I respect but not always on the issue of renewable energy. He has made significant investments on renewable energy.

The engineering vs science problem means there is often a thirty year gap between research and practical implementation. Many potential solutions end up going down a research black hole. One example is the war on cancer of the 50's where billions of dollars were spent with no solution.

There are sometimes exceptions and they are inspiring- but sometimes it's important to consider that the resources could be spent in ways that create greater value in the community.

I'm not an expert but I would envisage to design a simple high efficiency hydrocarbon power station needs about twenty years of university degrees in the room- an Electrical Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Chemical Engineer, Process Engineer, etc, etc. It contains three main parts- storage for the fuel, burner for the fuel, working fluid/ turbine, along with various pipes or conveyers.

Once the plant is built it can last for many years with relatively minimal maintenance.

There are people on this forum that could build a power station from basic components.

If you are interested Foxy try looking at some of these elements like me you'll probably fail but you'll learn a lot.

The article you posted has a lot of subtext that the uninitiated wouldn't pick up on. AC has attempted to highlight some of these.

It's not easy to invent something as important as the wheel.

Engineering/ Science is different than Social Science. As Linus Torvalds says show me the code.

In answer to Joe- Loudmouths question.

Myself I disagree with many on my "side" in relation to the problematic nature of CO2. But given the population of the planet it's unsolvable currently.

You could have a war on carbon like the war on cancer but I'm not sure it would bring a different result.

There is some hope in the research (the research vs engineering problem again) that converts CO2 into hydrocarbons potentially making them into a renewable fuel.

Even if we solve the carbon problem there are many other problems that conspire to make population the common problematic thread.

To me we should concentrate on this