Green Energy Development to see the light?

[Irrelevant]

New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables

“Planet of the Humans” documents how industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments.

www.forbes.com

I thought of a few of the contributors here as I read this, and hopefully watch it tonight. Hopefully even if it's found to have some major holes in it's story (which it undoubtedly does), it still gets picked up enough by the media to stir the pot a little and force people to actually think.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Interesting. He’s a little out there for me on most things, but anything to open some dialogue about the downsides of “green” energy would probably be a good thing.

 

[Irrelevant]

The author of the Forbes article has an interesting TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_s...ear_power_is_hurting_the_environment#t-826268

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I will definitely watch it... I watched bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911. Moore’s a gadfly, he certainly isn’t always 100% accurate, but I think he brings up interesting discussions and makes people think about the status quo.

This topic certainly echos my concerns with green lighting one form of development over another. Also I actually got into an argument with Bill McKibben about the Middlebury biomass plant, curious to see someone else confront him about the plant.

 

[Trial153]

Just me, I could never get behind a net benefit of Renewables vs habitat lose. They make sense to me on or in already already developed land and on buildings ect. The whole thing Just never passed the smell test. Dont take this to mean I think oil/gas pads and cut up landscapes are the cats meow either.

 

[Irrelevant]

Just me, I could never get behind a net benefit of Renewables vs habitat lose. They make sense to me on or in already already developed land and on buildings ect. The whole thing Just never passed the smell test. Dont take this to mean I think oil/gas pads and cut up landscapes are the cats meow either.

I never understood why a pumpjack and a wind turbine couldn't share a pad.

 

[Trial153]

I never understood why a pumpjack and a wind turbine couldn't share a pad.

Agree, goes along with the only gaining value if it was already developed. Not to say that the wind turbine wouldnt add to the over all detriment.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I don't think you could have slapped the grin off my face while I watched the show last night. Definitely over dramatic at times but does an adequate job of pointing out that there is no free lunch when it comes to energy production. That whole First Law of Thermodynamics is a real PITA. For wind and solar it focuses on both the habitat loss of the actual installation along with the resources needed to produce and operate wind and solar farms. Really beats up on biomass. Bill McKibbon (350.org) and Sierra Club come off looking like fools. This was the most satisfying part as they have both gotten a free pass The end focuses on the money to be made from renewable s and the hypocrisy of the Green energy warriors. For me this so no real eye opener but was good for someone to demonstrate it. I have never understood why anyone would believe that Big Green is any less capitalistic than Big Oil or Big Coal.

A good illustration of Buzz's line "Everywhere is someones Boundary Waters".

 

[BigHornRam]

What are your issues with the Middlebury biomass cogeneration plant wllm? What alternative solutions do think would be better?

FAQs | Biomass at Middlebury

sites.middlebury.edu

 

[406dn]

I never understood why a pumpjack and a wind turbine couldn't share a pad.

While I'm sure there are areas where both resources are present and viable,,,, the overlap is far from total.

 

[Irrelevant]

While I'm sure there are areas where both resources are present and viable,,,, the overlap is far from total.

I was thinking, Bakken, West/North Texas, and all of WY. Nat Geo's latest issue had a cool map of the over lap of Wind and Solar with traditional O&G extraction. If it ever lets me login I'll try to post a copy.

 

[lpcoutdoors]

Interesting, thanks for posting. I couldn't get the page to load right so I only caught the jist of the article, but I agree that this gets us thinking about the next evolution of energy and its net affects. There does seem to be more and more talk about a balancing of a number of issues, i.e. predator control and such, that recognizes that, to paraphrase Mark Kurlansky on the recent MeatEater podcast, "we have already screwed up the environment..." that we must come to terms with a next level of active management that forgoes just letting it be. So he talks about, and I assume or hope this documentary gets folks thinking about doing things, with energy in this case, right rather than just doing it however or not at all. Say in, an example they also discuss a little, of their topic from salmon, nuclear power or hydroelectric power. Of course, as they point out in another tangent, their is the claim of the producer doing it "right" and them actually doing it in a way that is sustainable and not ultimately harmful.

 

[406dn]

A good friend of mine is a retired professor whose work centered on wind generation. From what I have gleaned from him,, where we presently see wind farms,, they are the best of the best locations for wind farms. Since wind farms are barely economic using the best locations,, developing areas that are less than ideal would not be a money maker.

There are a lot of things that have to come together for a wind farm. Wind, obviously, but also ready access to the power grid is crucial. If you have to string lines for a long distance to get to the grid, it makes a site less profitable.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

The final message of the doc is the only real answer is population control. No matter how we produce energy for all these people we will deplete resources eventually. We have too many humans and we need less. China presented a solution, then we went and socially distanced ourselves and screwed that up too.

 

[BigHornRam]

The final message of the doc is the only real answer is population control. No matter how we produce energy for all these people we will deplete resources eventually. We have too many humans and we need less. China presented a solution, then we went and socially distanced ourselves and screwed that up too.

I was waiting for someone to touch the third rail. Thanks mulecreek!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What are your issues with the Middlebury biomass cogeneration plant wllm? What alternative solutions do think would be better?

FAQs | Biomass at Middlebury

sites.middlebury.edu

Hyperbole, more or less. I was frustrated then and continue to be now, that proponents of various energy sources obfuscate their downsides. OG, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass every one does it. As a student trying to understand the various pros and cons, I was disappoint with his evangelism and inability to have an open and fair conversation about energy.

Our society needs energy, we should select the best source for our communities based on their specific realities. Hydro works great some places, wind in others etc.

The conversation I was referring to was biomass versus nuclear, not biomass versus oil. Bill was hugely anti Vermont yankee.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I was waiting for someone to touch the third rail. Thanks mulecreek!

Glad I could be of some use for once.

 

[TOGIE]

glad this docu is opening up a conversation about these things that many around the country likely aren't thinking about

it's a little "out there" in some respects but highlights good points

two most important points I think it's highlighting for me 1) renewable's really are not what they appear to be, or are marketed to be and 2) everything goes back to the dolla bills, follow the money. more people need to think critically about this, and i am glad it's getting put out there, and getting out there by people who will likely capture an audience that otherwise might ignore a conversation with this thesis.

it still perpetuated some hyperbole that bothered me. and whatever truth there may be in the concept, simply buttoning it all up with a bow by saying "population control" is just a bothersome, falsely altruistic, dare i say lazy? do i even dare say slightly fear mongering? way of wrapping it all up

 

[lpcoutdoors]

Yeah, when I hear population control as an environmental measure, I always think of Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six, awesome read and game. I have to admit, the vision of the guys trying to drastically reduce the population for wildlife's benefit gives me fantasies of quails and sharptails and prairie chickens galore! But, now I feel a little psyco since those guys were bioterrorist, sorry for the 20 years past spoiler.

Oh, and turkeys and more quails, hell even buffalo!

 

[BigHornRam]

Hyperbole, more or less. I was frustrated then and continue to be now, that proponents of various energy sources obfuscate their downsides. OG, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass every one does it. As a student trying to understand the various pros and cons, I was disappoint with his evangelism and inability to have an open and fair conversation about energy.

Our society needs energy, we should select the best source for our communities based on their specific realities. Hydro works great some places, wind in others etc.

The conversation I was referring to was biomass versus nuclear, not biomass versus oil. Bill was hugely anti Vermont yankee.

Anyone dumb enough to let Michael Moore use them in one of his mockumentaries deserves to be made to look like a fool as far as I'm concerned. Bill sounds like a great candidate.