Current Events > Michael Moore documentary exposes Green Energy alternatives

(+) Yeah! (+)

Everyone should watch this video. It's free on YouTube for 30 days.

https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE

---

Michael Moore is dishonest.

---

tl;dw?

---

>watch something by a lying piece of shit who's been exposed as a fraud multiple times

nnnnno

---

CreepySmile posted...

>watch something by a lying piece of shit who's been exposed as a fraud multiple times

nnnnno

---

Vyrulisse posted...

Michael Moore is dishonest.

Watch the video if you want to see dishonesty. Moore is only the producer btw.

---

Zodd3224 posted...

Watch the video if you want to see dishonesty. Moore is only the producer btw.

I'll give it a go just hope he didn't have his grubby hands in it beyond backing it.

---

Vyrulisse posted...

I'll give it a go just hope he didn't have his grubby hands in it beyond backing it.

The documentary was originally envisioned as a pro green energy video trying to discover why there hasnt been more movement into solar, wind, and biomass energy sectors but while making the documentary they discovered the dark secrets behind the green energy movements. There is no such thing as a clean alternative to fossil fuels. This planet is fucked.

---

Zodd3224 posted...

The documentary was originally envisioned as a pro green energy video trying to discover why there hasnt been more movement into solar, wind, and biomass energy sectors but while making the documentary they discovered the dark secrets behind the green energy movements. There is no such thing as a clean alternative to fossil fuels. This planet is fucked.

Huh Ill watch it later, but how come solar is not clean? Wheres the carbon print on that?


---

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

The documentary was originally envisioned as a pro green energy video trying to discover why there hasnt been more movement into solar, wind, and biomass energy sectors but while making the documentary they discovered the dark secrets behind the green energy movements. There is no such thing as a clean alternative to fossil fuels. This planet is fucked.

Huh Ill watch it later, but how come solar is not clean? Wheres the carbon print on that?

Making the panels
---

CreepySmile posted...

>watch something by a lying piece of shit who's been exposed as a fraud multiple times

nnnnno

What is the context?

teepan95 posted...

Making the panels

Huh, but wouldnt it eventually outweight the negative. I mean...0 carbon emissions is impossible. Point is to lower it as much as we can. Ill watch it later.

---

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Huh, but wouldnt it eventually outweight the negative. I mean...0 carbon emissions is impossible. Point is to lower it as much as we can. Ill watch it later.

You will discover that pretty quickly into the video. But the short version is that both wind and solar are woefully inefficient on their own and are without exception used in conjunction with fossil fuels to produce any kind of meaningful energy output. In the end the environmental damage from wind, solar, and especially biomass is on par or even worse than just pumping the air full of the fossil fuels.

---

Vyrulisse posted...

Michael Moore is dishonest.

Feel free the point out the errors in this.

---

Just go nuclear and be done with it
---

Go nuclear or go home.

Tag for later viewing.
---

The premise sounds kind of flawed. How am I supposed to be outraged about companies trying to make clean technologies using polluting production methods when there are very few, if any, "clean" production methods to begin with?

---

His Nike docu and BfC were good.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

Maybe, but maybe not. Solar panels degrade over time, losing efficiency until they just don't work anymore. The manufacturers' cut sheets include these degradation curves. I don't know what the numbers are in terms of carbon costs to build vs. carbon savings during the useful life of the panel, but those savings are limited.

Again, it's also compounded by the fact that the panels are so inefficient they dont run on their own without fossil fuel backing them up. Every corporation (like Tesla for example) that says they have gone 100% solar are full of shit. They are still hooked up to the grid.

When you take that into account with the degradation it ends up being negative.

---

Crono99 posted...

Exactly

Just make sure you do it well so it doesn't melt down

They did not discuss nuclear power at all in the documentary. I know it doesnt have the same carbon emissions but I imagine the amount of nuclear energy you would need to replace fossil fuels would be massive and lead to tons of nuclear waste and potential meltdown risks right?

---

Zodd3224 posted...

They did not discuss nuclear power at all in the documentary. I know it doesnt have the same carbon emissions but I imagine the amount of nuclear energy you would need to replace fossil fuels would be massive and lead to tons of nuclear waste and potential meltdown risks right?

With proper maintenance the risk of meltdowns is low but the amount of waste generated would definitely be an issue and looking for places to store it.

---

I mean, just reading this I'm not so sure going nuclear is much of an option either.

https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html

---

Seems like a load of BS reliant on the notion that we never improve these technologies in any way

---

Bananana posted...

Seems like a load of BS reliant on the notion that we never improve these technologies in any way

Maybe they will improve them, but it's no where near close to viable as is.

---

Tag
---

Tag for maybe...

Not sure.

But I do like Solar at least at a hobbyist level.
---

There's still nuclear, right?

Edit: Nuclear waste can be recycled/reused: https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html

and nuclear accidents are much less likely to occur than ever before thanks to improved technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents Notice how the majority of nuclear radiation accidents happened in the 50s-70s, and the most recent major ones to happen involved old plants. So the solution is do decommission outdated, possibly unsafe plants and build new ones.
---

Moore is like the proto-dirtbag left. Dude is a moron and you can bet nearly everything in that doc is a lie.

You can also expect a ton of "even Michael Moore hates green energy!" headlines from right-wing media eager to exploit their useful idiot. Just like when he gave that pro-Trump speech in 2016.

Mr Hangman posted...

Around half an hour in this gives a lot of deceptively framed statistics about natural gas. "We're closing coal plant, but what they don't tell you is that they're building natural gas plants that are even bigger." Then it shows that they're bigger in terms of MW of electricity produced and in terms of BTUs of fossil fuels burned. But that's not what's important, it's the carbon emmissions that matter and they omit a comparison of that.

Well they do produce about half as much CO2 emissions as coal. But they produce a lot of methane, which is just as bad or worse depending on how much the plant in question produces. Natural gas plants are no better than coal plants in terms of environmental damage.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

There's still nuclear, right?

Edit: Nuclear waste can be recycled/reused: https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html

and nuclear accidents are much less likely to occur than ever before thanks to improved technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents Notice how the majority of nuclear radiation accidents happened in the 50s-70s, and the most recent major ones to happen involved old plants. So the solution is do decommission outdated, possibly unsafe plants and build new ones.

@Damn_Underscore

https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html

---

JuanCarlos1 posted...

Huh, but wouldnt it eventually outweight the negative. I mean...0 carbon emissions is impossible. Point is to lower it as much as we can. Ill watch it later.

There's no problem with making the panels. They do produce a highly toxic waste byproduct but so long as the waste is handled responsibly there's no real downside to solar.

Even in a worst case scenario it can't be worse than this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood

The ultimate end goal should be nuclear fusion though.

---

It's not like accidents are 0% concern, but nuclear power is still one of the safest energy sources and is much safer than fossil fuels: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

It's not like accidents are 0% concern, but nuclear power is still one of the safest energy sources and is much safer than fossil fuels: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

This doesnt say much other than less people die from them and that they dont emit carbon. I'm trying to imagine a world where all fossil fuels are replaced by nuclear plants and tbh that doesnt sound like a very sustainable future either. All of the radioactive waste and emissions from these plants once they are all over the damn globe... not to mention when you have as many of them as would be necessary there will without question be a lot more Fukashima incidents happening.

---

But you can reuse nuclear waste. France is the biggest user of nuclear power in the world and they do extensively.

Chernobyl and Fukushima happened because of outdated reactor designs. The solution to this is improved technology, which has already been happening for decades.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

No, they don't. Nuclear waste is typically stored on-site. It isn't emitted into the atmosphere. Burning coal does release radiactive waste into the atmosphere, though. None of that coal is anything near pure, there's always some amount of radiactive metals in there and in a coal plant it just goes up a chimney instead of into safe storage like a nuclear plant.

You're telling me this isnt going to be an even bigger issue than it already is once they start putting in tons more plants to replace the fossil fuel ones?

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

---

As little as the US seems to use nuclear power, it still gets about 19% of its electricity from nuclear. And this is with 4 nuclear reactors being built since the 70s, two of which went unfinished and the other two of which are still under construction.
---

What a piece of dishonest trash film. Just because tech companies still have infrastructure tied to the grid as a backup doesn't change the fact that they produce more green energy from panels, wind, water, etc than they use. Of course we're going to need to overhaul the grid to get off fossil fuels but that's going to take huge changes from the govt. Bernie wanted to do that but we're stuck with Biden/Trump so climate change will have to wait another 4-8 years or whatever.

The rest of the complaints are just functions of industry/class dynamics. And the US is uniquely poised for an embarrassment of riches with wind/solar, etc. The push for nuclear is 100% astroturfed and makes no sense for us.

---

Energy-efficient fusion is becoming more attainable every day. If we can crack it, we're made
---

Oh shit, Solar energy is a bust?

Damn, I have like 18 Solar panels on my Rimworld colony because there were only 2 geysers in the entire map so I couldn't rely on Geothermal energy :(

Damn it.

---

Nuclear is great, especially if we can develop more advanced reactors capable of producing more energy from less fuel.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

No it isn't. Nuclear is a good idea. Wind and solar is better where you can use it, but it will never be 100% unless there are unimaginably huge improvements in energy storage technology. You need a baseline power source that isn't dependent on the weather.

It literally is though. Nuclear is a risk to take for countries that don't have the unimaginably huge access to other powers like us. It's just going to take an actual commitment from the government to switch the grid. Not the bs tiny incentives for random companies to shit out a few crappy panels and then leave them behind once they're on to chasing the next check. We actually have the tech to do it too, unlike the magical waste free and (this time!) completely safe nuclear plants that bad faith dark money keeps fooling the public into believing is right around the corner. We have the luxury of making them prove it.

---

Bump

---

Mr Hangman posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

. All of the radioactive waste and emissions from these plants once they are all over the damn globe.

No, they don't. Nuclear waste is typically stored on-site. It isn't emitted into the atmosphere. Burning coal does release radiactive waste into the atmosphere, though. None of that coal is anything near pure, there's always some amount of radiactive metals in there and in a coal plant it just goes up a chimney instead of into safe storage like a nuclear plant.

Is this even considering clean coal?
---