UPDATE (15 May 2020): Forbes does a comprehensive take down of the doco. A good read for latest on renewables and population growth. Again, though, no mention of nuclear or SMR. [See article on nuclear and 3D printed nuclear power core]
UPDATE (9 May 2020): Pretty much all the reviews I’m seeing are slamming this doco. FWIW.Oh Boy! This is pretty depressing. Bear in mind: Michale Moore, producer and Jeff Gibbs, director, are both lifelong environmentalists, and supporters (heretofore) of renewables.
The overall message is: (A): Renewable energy have sold out to corporations and (B) therefore the only way out is to reduce population and consumption pre capita.
Questions:
1. Why no mention of nuclear? With Small Modular Reactors [SMRs] coming on stream everywhere, these will be better answer than wind and solar. And Bill Gates has his TerraPower new nuke tech.
2. Why no recognition that fertility rates are dropping and global population is likely to start dropping from 2050? [Reference]
Re the Biomass energy: I did wonder about the amount of Biomass energy that Germany was generating and calling “renewable”. At the time I thought “huh?”, how can that be? Renewable? And it turns out that it’s not, of course. It’s a con....
I also didn’t know that the Ivanpah Concentrated Solar plant, that Governor Arnie opened to much fanfare in 2010, was falling apart when they visited.
I was also pretty shaken by the statement that wind and solar farms are basically natural gas facilities, with the wind and solar tacked on.
I also didn’t know that the Ivanpah Concentrated Solar plant, that Governor Arnie opened to much fanfare in 2010, was falling apart when they visited.
I was also pretty shaken by the statement that wind and solar farms are basically natural gas facilities, with the wind and solar tacked on.
PS: apparently this is only available for a month, from now. And might even be removed, so watch quick.
ADDED (25/4): Critique of the film in Forbes. And environmentalists demand the film be taken down, in an article has a monumental straw man: saying the doc claims EVs are no better and maybe worse than ICVs.* It doesn’t say that, it simply makes the point that the more the electricity used to charge an EV is fossil fuel generated, the less green an EV is. Which is true. I’d generally agree that there are skewed perspectives in the doc. But it’s useful in making various points about renewables that many don’t know. Just how toxic the processes are to make solar panels, and wind turbines, for example.
And my greatest criticisms: no mention of nuclear. Without which no green electric future. And also ignores continued world fertility declines. It’s rather Malthusian in that way, as the Forbes article notes.
ADDED (25/4): Critique of the film in Forbes. And environmentalists demand the film be taken down, in an article has a monumental straw man: saying the doc claims EVs are no better and maybe worse than ICVs.* It doesn’t say that, it simply makes the point that the more the electricity used to charge an EV is fossil fuel generated, the less green an EV is. Which is true. I’d generally agree that there are skewed perspectives in the doc. But it’s useful in making various points about renewables that many don’t know. Just how toxic the processes are to make solar panels, and wind turbines, for example.
And my greatest criticisms: no mention of nuclear. Without which no green electric future. And also ignores continued world fertility declines. It’s rather Malthusian in that way, as the Forbes article notes.
*…The implication is clear: electric vehicles only burn coal and are therefore no better or perhaps worse for the environment than gas-powered cars.Gizmodos review
