From Michael Moore’s Twitter:
https://twitter.com/mmflint/status/1252583111621144576?s=21
Free - Michael Moore Presents: Planet of The Humans | Full Documentary @ YouTube
Free - Michael Moore Presents: Planet of The Humans | Full Documentary @ YouTube
2352
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
And nuclear is cleaner then all of them.
The people in Fukushima want a quiet word….
@kale chips suck: Fukushima was a very old reactor using very old technology, built in a tsunami zone, with a complete unwillingness to implement updated safety protocols.
Have a look into some of the nuclear tech Bill Gates is trying to get going. It's really extraordinary.
@Dentshop: That's an extraordinarily dishonest appraisal of the effect of the melt down of 3 reactors.
What's the actual death toll from the event?
@kale chips suck: I may be wrong but I am simply passing on information from sources I deem to be credible. You will have to take up the dishonest part with those publishing the information. Google "fukushima deaths due to radiation"
@Dentshop: No, the dishonest part is the idea that only deaths from radiation from the Fukushima "incident" are relevant. The 600-odd people who died - but not of radiation - as a direct result of Fukushima apparently don't count. That doesn't inflate the safety record of nuclear power at all, does it? I doubt their families agree though.
@kale chips suck: Yes, people have died due to the evacuation which were labelled "spiritual fatigue" and "evacuation trauma". I don't know exactly what this means but taking the elderly away from their homes and putting them into shelters would probably contribute to their premature deaths. Your original argument was over the cleanliness of nuclear power though. I was as shocked as you were to realise that only 1 person has officially died from radiation in Fukushima and only about 30 in Chernobyl. If the argument is that nuclear power is unsafe due to possible radiation exposure, the evidence is very slim and not enough to dismiss it as an viable alternative for future energy needs.
@Dentshop: I'm afraid I can't follow your logic. You are looking only at the radiation death stats of the disasters and using that as the metric for the safety of nuclear power. The radiation statistics are only a very small part of the issue. Additionally, the figures within this tiny subset are hardly conclusive. You have stated 30 people died in the Chernobly meltdown. Other, credible, statistics put the number at over 6,000. Still others debate that figure, claiming it is too high. Yet more researches take the opposite view, and state it is likely too low.
Putting that aside however, what of this?
"The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2 (1,000 sq mi)[7] in Ukraine immediately surrounding the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant where radioactive contamination from nuclear fallout is highest and public access and inhabitation are restricted. Other areas of compulsory resettlement and voluntary relocation not part of the restricted exclusion zone exist in the surrounding areas and throughout Ukraine"
How much evidence do you need? How safe can it be when it requires that amount of land be cordoned off? From a single reactor. Slim evidence?
And this doesn't even consider the primary issue (to my mind, at least) of nuclear waste. Which has, to my knowledge, never been resolved.
@kale chips suck: You're right, I don't know enough about the issue. I did try to address your questions of deaths due to radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima. You then moved the goal-posts to ask about the overall number of deaths at Fukushima and then moved them again to question nuclear waste. You seem to be one new question ahead of my responses each time. It is probably better a conversation had in real life. I have become more interested in the issue though. Until next time.
@Dentshop: Dentshop, the issue here is that you seem to think my interest is deaths by radiation exposure. I have no idea how you've inferred that from my posts. That is not my point. I've never said that. I have said "total deaths from the event", meaning, all of the people who died as a result of the accident, because if we're talking about the safety of nuclear, that's a far more honest number to look for. Yet, whilst it is a more accurate metric than looking at the number of radiation deaths from nuclear disasters, even that doesn't address properly the question of whether nuclear power is in fact a good idea. Which is the real topic being discussed.
It's like you're saying "yeah, Covid-19 killed 75 in Australia. Pretty much just oldies with other health issues. From a population 24-odd million. Yeah, covid 19 isn't a big deal."
and I'm saying "wait, what? Not a big deal? What about all of the flow on effects?" and now you're saying I've moved the goalposts. Yeah, nah.
Hippies never seem to take into account all of the requirements when proposing solutions.
One requirement is minimal environmental impact. But another is affordability, and another is availability, two of which wind and solar fail at miserably.
And this is not and all or nothing equation. You can have a mix. Solar works out ok for residential, but not so much for transport and heavy industry (eg there is currently no way to make steel without burning fossil fuel).Also, don't mention all the dead birds…
How does stuff like this get upvoted?
For example, affordability:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plu…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/12/wind-and…
https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wi…
Wind and solar are straight up cheaper as newly installed capacity than coal as newly installed or even (in some circumstances) existing capacity. So it is just factually wrong to say that wind and solar "fail miserably at affordability".
@caitsith01: It's gets upvoted by people who can think instead of blindly read and believe. Let me demonstrate by using your own words "Wind and solar are straight up cheaper as newly installed capacity".
The key here is 'capacity'. Capacity is measured in MW, so a 1MW Coal power plant has the same capacity as a 1MW solar plant. The kicker is that the coal station can average 60% capacity 24 hours/day 7 days/week while a solar plant averages 30% and is only available when the sun shines. Where do you get your energy when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing?The other factor never mentioned in these 'studies' is scale. The land area required to generate the same amount of electricity with wind and solar is huge. Denmark, a leader in wind generation has something like 6000 (!) wind turbines with the total capacity of one large coal power station. 1 vs 6000!
Solar and wind have a place in the mix, but as of today they are not a magic solution to everything.
@1st-Amendment: See, here's the thing. There's one fixed variable here, which is that we have to stop producing greenhouse gases. So everything else has to fit around that.
So:
- coal, oil: absolutely incompatible
- nuclear: theoretically compatible but complicated, expensive, difficult social issues
- gas: better than coal, oil but not an acceptable long term solution
- hydro: great in appropriate situations but not viable in most locations
- wind, solar: entirely compatible but need a solution to baseload
Assuming your primary goal is to prevent the collapse of the global ecosystem and human civilisation, the best current bet is pretty clearly renewables coupled with storage and aggressive efficiency improvements. Where hydro and other clean options are available, great. Nuclear should not be written off (a flaw of the environmentalist movement is to just straight up reject it) but is not a realistic option for much of the world.
Even if you think, say, renewables plus batteries are slightly more expensive than coal per megawatt of available power (which is a pretty dubious claim) you can't ignore the "and also we don't all die" element which seems fairly important.
Anyone arguing for sticking with fossil fuels is arguing for societal suicide at this point.
@caitsith01: solar is garbage, you can't get anywhere near what is needed, you would need billions of panels which can't be created.
Nuclear is the only realistic option if you want to sustain the energy consumption we are used to
@caitsith01: You need to read those studies more carefully. Always look at the assumptions. Implicit is the continuation of existing market regulation and incentives that artificially lower renewable costs and artificially raise fossil fuel energy costs. It isn’t a magic pudding.
These are the things Moore identifies, as big corporations have been able to take advantage of these processes and government market interference to make a financial killing, avoiding scrutiny by hiding behind those who genuinely want to make a difference.
@entropysbane: Fossil fuels get $12 billion a year in tax based subsidies in Australia alone, together with much more in other forms of government support:
https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/ffs/
Renewables get about $3 billion in subsidies:
http://www.baeconomics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MCA…
And if you want to talk about ignoring stuff, people who support coal routinely ignore:
- the massive health costs of coal
- the massive environmental costs of coal
- the costs of commissioning and decommissioning coal power stations
- the huge amounts of water and infrastructure required to support coal mining
It is just straight up false that like for like coal is somehow cheaper or better in any respect. It's one strong advantage is steady baseload in all conditions, and that is being eroded fast. Anything else is just anti-environmental propaganda.
@caitsith01: "It's one strong advantage is steady baseload in all conditions"
You've answered your on question. Until that changes, Coal or Nuclear are the only options on the table.
Everything else is just wishful thinking.@1st-Amendment: Truth. It’s all well and good to compare the costs per megawatt of electricity generation by different methods, but if we all have to go without power between sunset and sunrise, we’re even more screwed.
Enough batteries to run entire cities off would have huge environmental impact long term as well.
One clean safe storage method I’ve seen proposed is to build a small hydro electric generation dam system with a pump that uses solar power during the day to pump water uphill. And then at night time this water is released downhill to generate hydro electric power. It’d be sustainable and wouldn’t damage the environment. The downside would be that it’d cost at least as much or more than a hydroelectric generator and a solar farm combined, so the cost per megawatt would not compete against coal or nuclear.
But not a real solution for the power needs of industrial society. If it needs to be backed up with coal it is just making everything more expensive for no gain.
It is a pity nukes are not able to be considered as the back up instead.
This is not a deal, IMO you could not even pay me to watch this Propaganda. Moore is a Hypocrite!
But each to their own right!
Thanks OP!
Watched the click bait trailer. Turned it off immediately
He's fat, he's rich, he's a leftie. And we all use electricity. I think we all knew that before the snowflake brigade got triggered here. But thanks for your input.
You obviously don't even know what the film is about. It's discusses how green energy is run by greedy corps, so it's actually probably in line with your views.
Ok half way through, so far there is a bias towards renewables suck and fossil fuels are good. Great laconic style of documentary making, seems like a Koch bros production, and asroturfing at it's best.
Look forward to be surprised.
Some of the statements shown seem to promote a specific agenda.I look forward to the reveal!!!,Great to see Richard Heinberg.Although he hasn't said much.
Also the arch-enemy Gore is afoot, one can only expect ecological bastardry with this villan.
What a thriller
(I have studied up to PG Cert Energy Studies and work in the industry and love this stuff, thanks Op!!)
It's interesting to see so many comments about MM here, and assumptions about this film because he made it.
He did not make this. If the commenters had watched it, they'd know that.
It examines the reality of "green" power, from someone who wants green power to be actually green rather than greenwashed. MM isn't in it. At all.
Dude, spoiler alert
?? Have you not read your own post??
Haven't finished it, kinda waiting for the Darth Vader is your father moment. However at 1:40 Koch brothers have entered on the side of good.
…. What next prevails….
I find it funny how people are so upbeat about green power and not actually thinking how green it really is. Some examples are; lithium batteries. How much waste and pollution is made during their production. Once they are used, what do you do with them. I'm sure you don't plant them like tree seeds to get more batteries.
Electric cars, the manufacturing process is exactly the same, minus engine. Still made the old fashioned way. And still goes to scrapyard just like the conventional car. Lithium batteries are not good for the environment.Solar panels… do you recycle them 100% after it's used? Of course not.
Wind turbines… how much of it can be recycled? Well, you certainly can't recycle blades, almost. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb…So that green energy of yours is not that green after all. Sure it is "better" than coal and gas, but it is nowhere as good as it should be.
I'll believe in green energy when it can be done like with a plant. You take it, use it, then plant seeds and get a new one.
You probably want to watch this film then, given that's what it addresses.
Me, I think the focus should be on energy minimisation. Lifestyle adjustments. Then the impact of the generation, whatever form it takes, is minimised.
BTW, my personal green energy is based on reusing second hand panels - so yes, I have recycled them - and my own repurposed batteries. Which actually does make it pretty green. Mostly though, I have focused on the consumption side. But that's just me, and I recognise that's not "standard"
Regarding lithium, life cycle analysis suggest lithium batteries are recyclable in the high 90% of resources range. Here's a commercial plant that states they get higher than that: https://www.lithionrecycling.com/
As to blades, etc - sure, there's issues. You'd assume (hope…) that those issues will be addressed. Because I agree, frequent replacement is not viable.
I would submit what we really need to know is the total life cycle cost of the various options, including subsidies, enviromental costs, etc, and then make genuinely informed decision for the immediate, medium and longer term about what mix we use. Without a rigorous LCA it's quite hard to make the best decisions.
"Me, I think the focus should be on energy minimisation. Lifestyle adjustments. Then the impact of the generation, whatever form it takes, is minimised."
That is what I think as well. Unfortunately you are forgetting one fundamental flaw, which is humans. Most humans will accept a bit of inconvenience, like with plastic bag ban, but to really solve this problem the humanity would lose 90% of that convenience, and that is what they are not prepared to give up. We can talk about it all day long, but it won't achieve anything and i find it useless because majority of the population will act only when it is a major thing that affects everyone. As we've seen in case of corona, people don't heed the warning. It's always been like that, it always will be. You have capitalism, and capitalism needs money to grow. So more things need to be consumed for a few people to get richer and for the earth to go… well it is just the earth held on by a shoestring. And it is getting thinner every day.
There are many things humans can do to minimise impact on this planet while searching for better ways how to utilise energy and leaving no footprint on this planet. Sure none of it is easy, but if they started it early, it would be easier as they move forward. Unfortunately, lazying on your sofa watching netflix want make the world better. Humans just keep consuming like there's no tomorrow.
I hear people saying how now you can see who are the good guys, and who aren't, like corporations, governments, people… and once this is over people will change.
Well, all I can say once this is over is, it will be business as usual. Bookmark this and tell me I was wrong in a month after corona is gone. Sure some will work from home, but I am talking about humanity and how they treat this world.
I work in the renewable energy industry. It's hard for me to gauge how people actually see renewable energy. If people think it is the solution to all our problems, then they're pretty short sighted.
We won't go from a 100% dependency on fossil fuels, to renewable resources overnight. Also to think you can do it in a way that is completely free of any of the same issues of industrialisation is a false premise. I think of it like stepping stones. Is solar panels and wind turbines and batteries a step in the right direction? I think Yes.
Approaching a problem from many different angles is the best solution. So I agree with what people wrote here about reducing your energy and material footprint.
So is there a silver bullet yet? No. Are we currently crossing a chasm that must be crossed with a transitional set of technologies? I think yes.
For people who are interested about the energy it takes to product renewable energy sources, read about Total Embodied Energy, which compares the energy to produce the product versus the energy it creates/cycles in its life. Regarding recycling of materials, I think we have some ways to go.
Also PS: Lead acid batteries are 98.5% recyclable into new batteries, and the rest can be used as fertiliser.For all that you said… you need humanity to work as a team. And am not hopeful on that point. There are too many Karens.
So you refuse to get on board because the (arguably) better/best option is not a 100% perfect solution?
I wonder what would happen when your boat sinks and the life boat is not up to code?
(supposed to be a humorous hypothetical, not a personal dig…..context is tricky via text)No, but because I saw how it all works out. You can't get people in your team at work to work together, so I don't see how 7 billion people will come together. Most people will listen and say, interesting, then immediately sit in their SUV and drive off with I am privileged face. As I said, humans will accept a bit of inconvenience, but not a lot. It is just how they are.
Not so long ago, just the last century, but even the world heard, it didn't listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdK0uYjy85o
So that green energy of yours is not that green after all. Sure it is "better" than coal and gas, but it is nowhere as good as it should be.
I'm not sure what your point is here? Other than a nirvana fallacy.
People are gonna use energy. It would be good if they used energy sourced from the most sustainable ways we have available.
A lot of people who use the "oh electric cars are still manufactured in factories that pollute" line then proceed to buy a fuel guzzler and drive with a lead foot… The nirvana fallacy hides their true opinion - they just don't give a shit about the environment (read: anyone else).
Well… I am saying that for all the hype about green energy, it is far from that. It is presented to humanity as the holy grail, yet it is very far from it. To get to that holy grail, there is so much work to be done before you can say, now, now we have made this world a better world. This world is still ruled by money, not by let's save this world for future generations.
"A lot of people who use the "oh electric cars are still manufactured in factories that pollute" line then proceed to buy a fuel guzzler and drive with a lead foot…"
Don't have a car, so that's that.
@bargainparker: I don't think anyone's claiming a few wind turbines will usher in utopia. But renewable energy is provably better than fossil fuels, so we should encourage renewable use as much as possible.
Reduction in demand etc can and should be pursued in parallel, but "renewables aren't that great" is, IMO, a dangerous argument because for many people it leads to the conclusion of "OK let's build more coal". I'm not saying that you have this view, but maybe other readers, or other people you talk to, etc. (e.g. my relatives that sprout Alan Jones type lines about not being able to turn on their lights at night because of solar power)
(e.g. my relatives that sprout Alan Jones type lines about not being able to turn on their lights at night because of solar power)
They can always use this https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/b1/2a/d9b12adf33b20ef09782… 😉
Spot on. I was reluctant to watch purely because he was associated with it.
I enjoyed the doco though because apart from the fact the content reaffirmed some of my long-held opinions, the fact he didn't even make an appearance was a positive.
I didn't watch it. I know nothing about it. I didn't even bother to read who's in it and what its about.
But I hate it and think you're all beta cucks. Thanks bye.That's very informative, thanks.
Ha ha that guy has problems with being called a 'beta cuck'. "…it's perfectly legal to be a cuck…harrumph!". The old sticks and stones defence.
hmmm seems ozbargain admins are 'left' judging by the banished comments and leaving the 'hate trump' comments lol
Thanks for the heads up on this. Much appreciated
This post is a great honeypot for identifying the ozbargain trolls.
Or the suck-ups.
I didn't mind his earlier stuff. He was right when he warned of deindustrialization of the United states, the forever desert wars and neoliberal corporate overreach. He was right that all of these things were going to be awful for working class America. I struggle though to take anyone suffering TDS seriously. It really was embarrassing to see him act like he did during 2016 and I can never forget. We know also that one can never recover from TDS and there is no vaccine. The only solution is social isolation for ever.
As @Kate Chips Suck (Uh, I've edited this username 4 times, what a great tongue twister!)said, its only presented by Michael Moore. It is not his documentary. Bit like how I go suckered into to watching a few movies recently that were presented by known directors who don't even make an appearance.
Came here for the MM comments and it disappoints that they are so downvoted I can't read them! Oh well, now I'll need to do my own google search for MM Untruths these ppl are talking about… meh, maybe later (not as fun as reading from Ozb comments)
A Great Movie giving you the truth about renewables or so-called Green energy it shows the Green Movement has been leading the people up the Garden Parth
The truth, no. Opinion yes.
Be careful as many of "truths" were presented in a way which was misleading.Though I agree logging of native Forest is always unpalatable.
The irony for me is that the docu received so many positive votes on Ozb. A website dedicated to consumersim…. 😀
Incorrect. This was not an objective documentary. Many key points omitted and unsubstantiated arguments.
I'm open to critical analysis of this sector, but this doco was far from it.
Its worth a watch, am very surprised that Michael Moore would present this. Don't be put off by this as its probably the exact opposite of what you think it would be.
This is a particularly average documentary. It poses all of the problems and doesn't come up with any solutions apart from there should be less people on the planet. There a logic holes all of the way through it which they don't address.
For example they mention energy storage and only talk about batteries when the biggest energy store is pumped hydro. By all means watch the doco to see what it says but it is far to easy to highlight problems without coming up with solutions.
Green tech is far from perfect, but it's better than business as usual.
Green tech is flawed and not green at all.. And that's what this doco points out even with best intentions its smoke and mirrors in most cases. If you can get Hydro that's the exception. The solution is Nuclear, Less population or Big Reductions in Energy Usage
That's incorrect. If you want to make wild statements, then please represent the emissions per MWh of all generation sources over its lifetime.
You can't simply make the strawman argument "need stuff to build windmill = windmill bad", like this doco does.
so you are a Nuclear advocate then? How much emissions does a nuclear power plant produce?
Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and over the course of its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and one-third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar.
I thought this was rubbish and I like Michael Moore docos.
Basically it's a hit job against renewable energy and sustainability industries. I'm all for critical analysis, but this doco really parrots right wing anti-renewables arguments and doesn't represent the arguments accurately (with lots of omission of relevant information). Also it's shot and narrated by some other bloke, not Moore.
here's my summary of it -
- Moore still believes in climate change
- He exposed renewable energy as not effective nor sustainable and causes more environment damage
- He exposes the rich having infiltrated the movement to make them richer
- He highlights the root cause of climate change is population growth that causes unsustainable consumption (ie. ozbargainers)
- He suggests that the only way to save the planet is to reduce the population (the purge?)
- 1
- 2
It's been established over and over again that solar and wind are a lot better for the environment than coal, oil and gas. But please, keep needlessly working to make it harder for us to make necessary changes so that we can survive as a species.