Not specifically solar related but under the concept of “green energy” none the less. Don’t mean to discourage anyone from getting solar but I think u should get solar for the right reason. I am getting solar and lifep04 batteries myself but not to save the planet. It’s not a perfect movie and I completely disagree with the ending but it did open my eyes. Maybe you too.
Anyone here watched “Planet of the humans” by Michael Moore?
- Thread starter GGameBoy
- Start date
Woody
Solar Enthusiast
If you get a chance to hear an interview with the producer do so. The one I heard was interesting because the intent of the production was to promote green energy over dirty fossil energy and the more they got into it, well facts told a bit different view.
Basically green energy isn’t a magic fix. Green energy isn’t perfectly eco friendly as many promote it to be. We just need to be aware of its issues and push to have it as clean and eco friendly as possible. Solar, wind, hydro all have a place in the energy mix. However, I believe fossil energy will continue to be major source of energy until they figure out fusion power. Nuclear should be in the mix but after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, I’m not sure humans can harness fission safely. Let alone address how and what do we do with all of that radioactive waste.
Solar and wind can and will continue to play a bigger part as they incorporate industrial energy storage capabilities and a smart grid technologies. We need a smooth transition from one energy to another but it looks like we’re going to dump and jump before we’re ready. So secure your seat belts and build your own system to get by until they work out the issues because it’s going to be a bumpy energy ride in the next 10+ years. Having your own power system helps you to have power when others don’t and it lightens the grid power needs so that others can have the grid power that you don’t use.
Basically green energy isn’t a magic fix. Green energy isn’t perfectly eco friendly as many promote it to be. We just need to be aware of its issues and push to have it as clean and eco friendly as possible. Solar, wind, hydro all have a place in the energy mix. However, I believe fossil energy will continue to be major source of energy until they figure out fusion power. Nuclear should be in the mix but after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, I’m not sure humans can harness fission safely. Let alone address how and what do we do with all of that radioactive waste.
Solar and wind can and will continue to play a bigger part as they incorporate industrial energy storage capabilities and a smart grid technologies. We need a smooth transition from one energy to another but it looks like we’re going to dump and jump before we’re ready. So secure your seat belts and build your own system to get by until they work out the issues because it’s going to be a bumpy energy ride in the next 10+ years. Having your own power system helps you to have power when others don’t and it lightens the grid power needs so that others can have the grid power that you don’t use.
Just watched the movie “Planets of the Humans”. Fantastic! I can’t believe someone like Michael Moore, well actually Jeff Gibbs with Moore’s backing is calling out Al Gore, the Sierra Club, Progect 350 for their lying and hypocrisy. this needs to be shown in every school, in every developed nation.
I watched it. I have mixed feelings. For those who don't care for Mr. Moore, I don't recall seeing him or hearing his voice a single time in the film, but I might have missed him.
The underlying message is, "use less." That's it. It manages to paint all efforts at carbon reduction as negative to make its point, even if the net benefit is positive. They do an excellent job of pointing out how it takes carbon to reduce carbon, and that's very important. "Cradle to grave" needs to be taken into consideration, and often it's not. While they went overboard a bit, they definitely make this point.
The underlying message is, "use less." That's it. It manages to paint all efforts at carbon reduction as negative to make its point, even if the net benefit is positive. They do an excellent job of pointing out how it takes carbon to reduce carbon, and that's very important. "Cradle to grave" needs to be taken into consideration, and often it's not. While they went overboard a bit, they definitely make this point.
COVID shutdown proved one glaring thing...
when we ALL stop consuming and transporting... the changes are visible.
Is that a realistic solution... no. We need nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, and shutdown coal.
notice I said WE... not the earth. The earth doesn’t care, it will be here millions of years after we are gone. If WE can reduce the climate shift, we can be here in those millions of years.
when we ALL stop consuming and transporting... the changes are visible.
Is that a realistic solution... no. We need nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, and shutdown coal.
notice I said WE... not the earth. The earth doesn’t care, it will be here millions of years after we are gone. If WE can reduce the climate shift, we can be here in those millions of years.
Agree so hard.
Heh... Mr. Carlin was right. The Earth has plastic now. It doesn't need us anymore.
I haven't seen the movie but a quick look at the viewer's comments on IMDB showed that many people were disappointed - claiming it was factually misleading and not well founded.
I'm normally a big fan of Moore's previous work but this doesn't sound like one of his best efforts.
www.imdb.com
I'm normally a big fan of Moore's previous work but this doesn't sound like one of his best efforts.
Planet of the Humans (2019) - IMDb
Planet of the Humans (2019) on IMDb: Movies, TV, Celebs, and more...
www.imdb.com
All there is to know: 'Too many people and not enough trees!'
Most people who want to save the trees are adverse to any population control and vice versa.
Energy efficiency in motor vehicles wont help when they are getting larger and more numerous.
Solar PV is great but I hate seeing those vast arrays covering the countryside. Specially when there are so many spare roofs.
Gandhi's teachings were all about empowering the individual....obviously he foresaw the coming of Will Prowse!
Most people who want to save the trees are adverse to any population control and vice versa.
Energy efficiency in motor vehicles wont help when they are getting larger and more numerous.
Solar PV is great but I hate seeing those vast arrays covering the countryside. Specially when there are so many spare roofs.
Gandhi's teachings were all about empowering the individual....obviously he foresaw the coming of Will Prowse!
I think the movie only did a half ass job of pointing out the flaws of biomass electric power derived from deforestation. Trees are cut down by the tens of thousands and burned to make electricity. Those trees would’ve removed CO2 for the next 50 years. So make more electric cars too “save the planet” and it creates even faster deforestation, if Biomass energy is used. Not to mention that they burn tires, garbage etc. I’d rather live next to a Dow chemical plant. We have to be smart about How we address the issue of clean energy. Not all alternative energy sources are good. Hydro, nuclear and solar, seem to be the leaders so far IMHO.
Oddly enough, the U.S. is doing this quite well. Down to 1.7 children per female. Discounting immigration, the U.S. population will decline
D
Deleted member 23531
Guest
Not so, I think. I am personally concerned about the number of people (too many) as well as the number of trees (too few). Unfortunately, family planning isn't usually driven by climate concern for most people.
Edit: if you meant "population control" in the Chinese sense of # of children allowed per family, then yes I'm opposed to that. I meant "voluntary" population control.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 23531
Guest
This might be true; I haven't seen the movie. But actually burning young biomass and re-growing it is carbon-neutral (neglecting transport, etc. which is still fossil-fuel driven). The energy to reassemble those CO2 molecules back into a young tree comes from the sun, and we make use of that solar energy when we burn wood and turn it back into CO2.
Sure, if it's from deforestation, that's different. But I think a lot more deforestation happens for agriculture and, more specifically, meat production than happens for biomass fuel production.
That's a huge part of the film. The way these plants actually work is nowhere close to carbon neutral.
D
Deleted member 23531
Guest
I guess I should go watch it! Was the main thing all the diesel fuel for equipment and transportation or was it deforestation without replanting?
D
Deleted member 23531
Guest
I guess what I was pointing to is this idea:
Biomass fuels = 2.52–3.57 gigatons CO2-equivalent reduction by making changes
Plant-rich diet = 65.01–91.72 gigatons CO2-equivalent reduction by making changes
Prevent deforestation = 5.52–8.75 gigatons CO2-equivalent reduction by making changes
So perhaps Mr. Moore used atrocities of biomass fuel production/usage to make a point or make you feel something in the movie. But it's a relatively small drop in the bucket compared to some other things, like "meatless Monday" which would have a much bigger impact if implemented across a large population.
I encourage you all to peruse drawdown.org for whitepapers which might elucidate how they calculate these opportunities for mitigating the climate crisis.
Biomass fuels = 2.52–3.57 gigatons CO2-equivalent reduction by making changes
Plant-rich diet = 65.01–91.72 gigatons CO2-equivalent reduction by making changes
Prevent deforestation = 5.52–8.75 gigatons CO2-equivalent reduction by making changes
So perhaps Mr. Moore used atrocities of biomass fuel production/usage to make a point or make you feel something in the movie. But it's a relatively small drop in the bucket compared to some other things, like "meatless Monday" which would have a much bigger impact if implemented across a large population.
I encourage you all to peruse drawdown.org for whitepapers which might elucidate how they calculate these opportunities for mitigating the climate crisis.
I watched it. (Well, I tried: I think I fell asleep and missed some)
It was awful! All over the map: I didn't know what point they were trying to make most of the time.
A far cry from Moore's usual work where the message is crystal clear and the examples interesting, dramatic, entertaining and often funny.
I don't know why he allowed his name to be used as "Executive Producer" because it was clearly someone else's work.
It was awful! All over the map: I didn't know what point they were trying to make most of the time.
A far cry from Moore's usual work where the message is crystal clear and the examples interesting, dramatic, entertaining and often funny.
I don't know why he allowed his name to be used as "Executive Producer" because it was clearly someone else's work.
I tend to agree, not Moore's best work (or even close). The factual basis of much of what they say is flawed (old, already dis-proven theories), and they ignored considerable recent work in areas which were more optimistic and would counter their arguments.
It's too bad really because I do generally agree with one of their points, that it will likely take much more than everyone putting up PVs and driving an EV to solve the larger energy/climate issues. I just don't think that mis-information and willful ignoring of facts that counter your argument is the best way to make that point.
It's too bad really because I do generally agree with one of their points, that it will likely take much more than everyone putting up PVs and driving an EV to solve the larger energy/climate issues. I just don't think that mis-information and willful ignoring of facts that counter your argument is the best way to make that point.