Social Blogs

Replies

• 

  Brett Allen May 1, 2020 at 11:20am

  Actually Michael Moore is championing population control. What Jeff Gibbs found was that you need traditional fuel sources to make renewables work, and always will.
  • 

    Prof. Daz > Brett Allen May 10, 2020 at 6:43pm

    Wrong, Brett, but the Bible is not a great source on energy economics, so I forgive you and will let you pass through the gates. 
    It is technically possible to back up renewables with battery storage. But that would necessitate overhauling the electrical grid itself. 
    Do not confuse pragmatic and business as usual grounds for possibility grounds. Of course you are free to do so and thus use the word "always" more loosely than Pell adheres to the spirit of Christianity, but honest argument such a conflation would not be.
• 

  Hell On Eels May 1, 2020 at 1:10pm

  

  Interesting doc. I agree with its basic premise: we can't get out of fossils - using electric, and solar and wind renewables - as they're dependant on fossils. And that they create other problems, besides their inefficiencies. Nor are biomasses/ biofuels a solution.

  Brett & Parratragic, as fine ambassadors of anthropogenic-caused climate change denialism, what do you think Moore's purpose of releasing this film is ?

   
  • This reply was deleted.
    • 

      Prof. Daz May 10, 2020 at 7:00pm

      

      Poppa, so why not address that CONTEXT???

      Fossil fuel corporations are violently opposed to losing market share to renewables. 
      
      Now let's do a hypothetical, Poppa, one that addresses the context. When cars were first introduced in the 1890's they were loud and dirty and fast for the times and only the rich had them and everyone else hated them. Then the Model T Ford came out in 1908 and was affordable and by the 1920's cars were IT and still are today. As the cost of renewables drops, more people equip their roof with solar PV, more utilities use wind and solar to supply electricity, and fossil fuels start leaning on governments for subsidies because they are dying industries with big lobby power. The beginning of the end for fossil fuel has already begun. The relevant context for an infrastructure technology - and transport and electricity are both infrastructure technologies - will always be economies of scale and the power of monopolies. Currently that context keeps fossil fuels going but it will not and cannot last, almost by definition - see "peak oil" (and where do you think gas fields are found?). 

      If we are going to talk context then let's actually talk context!!!
      • This reply was deleted.
        • 

          Prof. Daz May 11, 2020 at 9:50am

          

          My arrogance or otherwise is irrelevant, Poppa. If you spotted an error, prosecute your case. Everything else is just bluster. You have not pointed out any error. You claimed vaguely about a failure of renewables. Where? When? How? Specifics or you got nothin. 
          PS: and who is arrogant here anyway? You pontificate without vague assertions but that's OK. I get specific and I'm the a-hole? LOL
          • This reply was deleted.
            • 

              MeelK May 11, 2020 at 12:02pm

              

              Poppa, I'll throw a spanner in here if I may. You say: 

              "especially when you see the hard facts in the doc delivered by one of your own"

              How do you know they are hard facts? Do you have evidence to back up all the claims made in the documentary? And just to be clear, yes I watched it.
              • This reply was deleted.
                • 

                  MeelK May 11, 2020 at 2:09pm

                  

                  I'll admit I found it very interesting to watch, but when I was done I did some quick Googling to see what people were saying about it, and there are plenty out there disputing many of the claims made in the film. Plenty are discrediting it, and there are probably plenty supporting it too. Reality is the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but surely you couldn't just stand back and say well case closed everything he claims in the film has to be true?
          • 

            Hell On Eels > Prof. Daz May 11, 2020 at 4:35pm

            

            Daz, Just to add light on what Moore's intention actually is.

            The "con" is not climate change or scientists, as some neocons, such as Poppa, have suggested. Deniers con themselves: how can emitting millions of gigatonnes of CO2 and greenhouse gases, year after year, over 140 years, have no consequences?

            Even mid-19C backyard scientists knew CO2 raises air temperatures and the idea of compound interest has been around for donkeys years.

            On April 22nd, the day this film was released, the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, Moore was asked why he made this film...

            “Is the planet in better shape, 50 years after the first Earth Day ? No. It’s in worse shape. We already know that. [1:05]. The parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere we’ve gone past 350, it’s a 410 now [413 as of May 11th]. And we’ve been told, by the scientists, you can’t come back from that. It’s too late in that sense. Well, I refuse to accept that it’s too late.

            So, Jeff (Gibbs) and I and our friend Ozzie, we have been making this film to say: maybe the road we’ve been on is trying to fix our environment, while well intentioned has not been the right road [1:38]. Because, we’re so far gone at this point - not just with climate change, but a whole bunch of other things - that we are not going to be able to solar panel and windmill our way out of this. We need a serious new direction [1:54]. So the film deals with this and shows ways that we need to be thinking about this.  And of course I think a lot of use are hoping that the younger generation, Greta [Thunberg] and the others will [and they] are very active and very assertive right now, demanding that our generation which has handed them this earth - which is not better, it’s worse. It’s much worse [2:16]. We need to fix that, and change that and get on a different road. And that’s really what the film shows you. [2:23]

            This film is a wake up call. A siren call, to offer all of us to get involved. And don’t let this go by. I put it on youtube today [22 April 2020]. We don’t want to make any money off it. It’s all free. We didn’t want to wait to put it in theatres. We want people to watch it now. [4:15-4:35]”

            It's hard to dispute Moore's premise: we're not winning. Bottom line: globally, greenhouse emissions are rising as are global temperatures, ocean acidity levels and the dozen or so factors NASA website can show.

            Re renewables

            I'm not as convinced by them as you are, as they stand. You note: AEMO claims renewables “could” supply 75% of Australia's national electricity by 2025. Could is the key word here.

            Australia’s electricity is still predominately coal dependent, something like 60% and more coal mines in the pipeline; with gas turbines at 19%; Solar and wind at 13% combined; 6.7% from hydro [1]. So, good luck!

            Also, looking deeper into it: it’s not just about replacing electricity. It's everything.

            Without fossil fuels, how do we mine for the raw materials for solar panels and wind turbines? How do we transport them? How do we manufacture ? And how long do solar panels and batteries last; 25-30 years and what then, putting aside where we dump them ? Look at Costa Rica. It's almost 100% renewable, and they're still emitting greenhouse gases; rising throughout the last twenty years. Gas is often called clean fuel, but it's not. It's cleaner, not clean: it still emits about half or so of the greenhouse gases as coal. Also, without fossils, how do we mine for the gas to run gas turbines and NG fuels ? Mining, heavy transport, planes and so forth are still predominately dependent on fossils. Then there's heating, land use, re-use and so on. Can renewables fix all that?

            It's interesting comparing Germany's renewable solution with France's nuclear one. 

            France emits about half the greenhouse gases of Germany, granted its population is 67million to 83million respectively. France even emits less greenhouse gases than Australia now [2]. Also, the French offer cheaper energy costs for its consumers than Germany. Interestingly, in both cases I studied how much greenhouse gas reductions occured over the last twenty years and it's something like 13-15% reduction for both with France reducing it's emissions slightly more. So, there has been some impact. 

            Furthermore, look at how many land area is required for solar and wind. And they're not 100% reliable, too.lol. These are regular points Michael Shellenberger makes, a former renewable guru and Time magazine Environmental hero, who worked during Obama’s administration when they went renewable crazy. He's been proposing nuclear as well for some time after his experiences with renewables. However, even ‘safe nuclear’ has issues: it’s dependent on fossils initially, needs to be upgraded, and might get decommissioned after 50-70 years or so of use. So, even nuclear ...

            We need to come up with better solutions, imo.

            Sources:

            1. www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/appendices/australia-s-electricity.aspx

            2. Data from www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?regions=WORLD%2CAUS%2CCHN%2CFRA%2CDEU%2CUSA&source=PIK

             
            • 

              Kramerica > Hell On Eels May 11, 2020 at 4:52pm

              

              Great post HOE :)
              • This reply was deleted.
                • 

                  Hell On Eels > Hell On Eels May 11, 2020 at 6:58pm

                  

                  Poppa,

                  A lot of words to tell me I'm too wordy, lol. Yeah, fair call.

                  However, surely, even you can see the irony: you aren't exactly known for being short of a few words, you see that right ? 

                  I don't expect either of us to change, nor agree on much. We all have our own ways. Some will be okay with it. Some won't. Not my problem, Pops.