Michael Moore backed documentary critical of green energy

Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by KingDavid, Aug 8, 2019.

  1. KingDavid

    KingDavid Five-Star Recruit
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    657
    Likes Received:
    758
  2. UCFKnight85

    UCFKnight85 GOL's Inner Circle
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    71,881
    Likes Received:
    39,711
    lol this moron never ceases to amaze. They were "crushed" to find that companies selling alternative energy solutions may DARE to make a profit while doing it. [roll]

    "It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren't real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us ... but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money ... It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center."
     
    UCFWayne likes this.
  3. UCFBS

    UCFBS Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    Location:
    US-AL-BHM/Montevallo
    And this guy is considered a lefty and not pro-Trump, but he's 100% on-point. The whole video and the details are excellent, although if it wasn't for China, hydro would be even safer than anything short of nuclear. Been watching his videos for years, especially flights and other 'downtime.'

     
  4. Husk in butt

    Husk in butt Bronze Knight
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,246
    Likes Received:
    1,009

    Lol... America is capitalism. If you want to live in a sh!thole go to Venezuela.
     
  5. UCFWayne

    UCFWayne Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    18,564
    Likes Received:
    8,472
    Location:
    Casselberry
    god that guy is such a hypocrite
     
  6. EweSeaEff

    EweSeaEff Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,131
    Likes Received:
    11,449
    Location:
    Clearwater
    :joy::joy::joy:

    I made it a whopping 8 minutes into this brainiac's video until I finally had to admit to myself that I was wasting my very valuable time. Here's the first 8 minutes in a nutshell (aside from the fact that all he's doing is regurgitating the anti-renewable rhetoric and sensationalizing/spinning the narrative). Unlike the assclown in the video, I'll actually provide citations.

    * Wind turbines kill "hundreds of thousands" of birds and bats each year. - An operational windfarm produces no harmful pollutants like methane, mercury, SO2 or particulates (all of which are found in traditional forms of energy production and kill many types of wildlife, not just birds and bats). I always love the bird/bat death claim from these kinds of folks. Wind turbines cause fewer than 0.01% of all human-related bird deaths in the U.S. Habitat conversion, vehicle strikes and collisions with buildings and comm. towers are all far more deadly to birds/bats than wind turbines. The number one killer of birds/bats? Cats, and it's not even close. He raves on and shows pictures of bald eagles and other endangered species of birds. A handful of bald eagles have ever been killed in the over 40-year history of the U.S. wind industry. Further, golden eagle deaths are primarily concentrated in the Altamont Pass area of California. The Altamont Pass was largely developed in the 80s before the relationship between eagles and turbines was understood. There is a VERY strict permitting process in areas where endangered and even migratory birds may be impacted. These days, most wind farm developers won't even touch these areas because it's such a crap shoot with permitting, etc. https://www.awea.org/policy-and-issues/project-development/wildlife

    * Life span of solar panels is 20-25 years. - First of all, this is a very disingenuous statement. The average "useful life" of a quality solar panel is now 25-30 years. And, that doesn't meant that they stop producing power after 30 years - just that their production has declined by what would be considered a "significant amount". In fact, most "Tier 1" solar panel manufacturers provide a 20-year power production guaranty. I wish I could get a 20-year manufacturer's warranty with my car! https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/

    * Solar panels are toxic and there's no way to dispose of them. - This is fvcking laughable. First of all, the chemicals he's talking about are found in thin film (Cd-Te) solar panels. Cd-Te solar panels make up a whopping 5% of the installed market share of solar panels. The other 95% is crystalline (silicone) which doesn't contain the heavy metals, etc. that this joker is talking about (https://www.solaris-shop.com/blog/crystalline-vs-thin-film-solar-panels/). On the topic of disposal, there are already solar recycling and solar panel repowering programs that exist. https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling

    * Wind and solar only produce power when the wind blows and the sun shines. - Duh? Solar produces during the times when the electrical load is the greatest. Wind produces significant energy at night. Battery storage is the key to evening out production and consumption and the growth of battery energy storage systems (BESS) over the last couple of years has been nothing short of astronomical.

    * Capacity factor of 30% for wind. - Again, another disingenuous (at best) or blatant lie. The cap. factor for wind resides in the range of 38%-55% (depending on a variety of factors, including onshore vs. offshore, etc.). https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

    * Land usage - There's no getting around the usage of land for wind, outside of offshore wind farms anyway. However, despite a majority of solar installations being greenfield, there's an enormous number of solar rooftop installations (residential and commercial alike, through both distributed generation as well as net metering) and landfill/brownfield/Superfund installations.

    The answer from anyone with half a brain - even those at the top of the largest trade associations for wind and solar - is that a diverse energy mix is needed. Perhaps when more BESS gets installed then it might be the time to begin discussing 100% wind, solar, etc., but we're not there yet. In the meantime, there are geographies where it's vital to have 100% renewables because of infrastructure, fuel and/or delivery costs.
     
  7. UCFBS

    UCFBS Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    Location:
    US-AL-BHM/Montevallo
    Watch the whole thing. He's not against wind and solar, and far more for wind. Again, he says he's pro-wind at the end, and he's not against some solar.

    He's just tired of the lies about how they are 0 impact, and the 'costs' are excessive. This includes environmental costs, including total comparison against nuclear, even hydro. Why is the left so against new hydro?!?!?!

    He's totally against coal. This is not a right-wing video. It's a 'wake up call' for the people believing in non-sense.
     
  8. UCFBS

    UCFBS Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    Location:
    US-AL-BHM/Montevallo
    But ... how much can solar actually generate there? Solar is not viable en-masse and never will be!

    Here's an experiment ...

    Put your hand out in the sun.
    Now put it in an open flame.


    Even factoring in the loss in steam-turbine ... huge difference!
    Nuclear and hydro is what we should be investing in ... not excessively wind much less solar outside of rooftops.

    Considering that argument, he's 100% right.
     
  9. Crazyhole

    Crazyhole Golden Knight
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    5,552
    Likes Received:
    3,487
    As of right now, solar is a joke. That being said, it's advancing faster than we can measure and if Fisker really has figured out solid state batteries like they claim, we may only be 10 years away. It'll have to be small scale self contained arrays, and it will still have to be supplemented, but it's not too terribly far off.
     
  10. goodknightfl

    goodknightfl Todd's Tiki Bar
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    24,694
    Likes Received:
    1,824
    He is afraid they will outlaw cows..
     
  11. EweSeaEff

    EweSeaEff Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,131
    Likes Received:
    11,449
    Location:
    Clearwater
    Please define "en masse". Microgrids and distributed generation are actually a very attractive proposition as it relates to solar. Of course, continued BESS innovation will be required; but, microgrids have been in operation for years and we continue to see their viability and use in areas where infrastructure costs, fuel and delivery are an issue (as I've already stated).

    And I'm not debating that nuclear is a good option, or even hydro for that matter; however, you're poo poo-ing solar because of your perception that it can't have widespread deployment, yet you're championing hydro? Ok! And you post a nutjob's video (that's plagued with lies) that points out that wind is responsible for hundreds of thousands of bird and bath deaths and then you trumpet hydro? GTFO with that ish. Hydro (both impoundment and run-of-river) does more damage to the ecosystem than wind and solar ever will. Again, not saying that it's not viable in certain places but don't be Mr. Confirmation Bias.

    Also, do you know who the #1 owner of wind energy facilities in the world as well as the #2 of solar energy facilities in the world is? If you said the parent company of Florida Power & Light (FPL) - NextEra Energy - then you'd be 100% correct. Do you know who some of the others in the top-20 solar owners are? Let's see...Southern Company (an investor-owned utility serving customers in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, etc.), ConEd (an IOU serving customers in New York, New Jersey, etc.), and Dominion Energy (an IOU serving customers in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Wyoming, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Georgia). For the record, Duke is #24 on the list. If solar and wind aren't viable, then why is it that so many utilities have embraced those technologies? o_O
     
  12. Crazyhole

    Crazyhole Golden Knight
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    5,552
    Likes Received:
    3,487
    Most of what you said is true. That being said, is there any question that if there were fewer regulations on new coal, NG, hydro, and nuclear production facilities that the power companies wouldn't go for those options first? The utility companies are in a battle to keep up with increased demand and their options are somewhat limited, not to mention the fact that we subsidize wind and solar construction.
     
  13. KnighttimeJoe

    KnighttimeJoe Diamond Knight
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    As a non-libertarian, I think everything you said is spot on. You win.
     
    ChrisKnight06 likes this.
  14. UCFWayne

    UCFWayne Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    18,564
    Likes Received:
    8,472
    Location:
    Casselberry
    i would like to see the us look at nuclear power again. ive heard there is an ability to use a different fuel that doesnt have as much of a risk as uranium/plutonium. i think it was called thorium. i dont think it can be used for weapons either.
     
  15. UCFBS

    UCFBS Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    Location:
    US-AL-BHM/Montevallo
    Typical DC or San Fran resident argument that we should get 100% of our power from solar and wind, that it's easy, cheaper and has 0 impact.

    I grew up believing such people didn't exist, but then I worked in both places, was saturated by their BS, and then they took over the US media and are driving policy. That's why this video is directed at, the low-cost/0 impact BS argument.

    I regularly love to show them an example, 'managed' community + commercial/industrial 'area cost' of such.

    They then label me a liar and right-winger.

    I then ask them why they are so against nuclear and hydro and they literally can't come back with anything other than more BS.

    Where did either he or I argue against such?

    Watch the *whole* video because he says we *should* invest in solar and wind, but we cannot have so many ignorant people who don't realize the costs, and how hydro and nuclear are far better and less impact.

    I'm 100% *for* solar on homes and buildings, and keeping microgrids local to usage.

    *BUT* that won't meet 10% of our needs without *major* land usage. People are top ignorant to understand solar.

    Of course, solar still has *extremely limited* output for area.

    Again, sun v. flame. Why is it that any 3rd grader can understand that versus liberal arts majors who can't?

    The problem is that we're so anti-hydro and anti-nuclear. Basically everyone but France and China are, although China's hydro accounts for virtually all its deaths.
     
    15 UCFBS, Aug 12, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
  16. UCFBS

    UCFBS Diamond Knight
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    Location:
    US-AL-BHM/Montevallo
    The video covers that too, including getting away from the fast sodium reactor design that was always questionable.

    The video is extremely educational to people who watch the whole thing. It's anti-mainstream BS, not anti-solar or wind, along with being pro-nuclear and, to a lesser extent, talking how hydro is safer than wind.

    But even if we stick with Uranium, we have over 100 years from just nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, followed by medical equipment, are the biggest cause of nuclear waste, not nuclear power, which is tiny in comparison.

    And hydro has to come back. It's almost as safe as nuclear, other than when the Chinese do it. Why is the left so anti-hydro? Wind is far worse on ecosystems than dams.
     

Share This Page