Thursday, April 30, 2020

Planet of the Humans: A Review




Michael Moore’s documentary Planet of the Humans was released on YouTube in conjunction with Earth Day, 2020—a casualty of the Covid-19 pandemic as a theatrical release was precluded. I had heard of the movie and knew that it was about the limitations of renewable energy sources. I was glad that a renowned documentarian like Moore was putting a spotlight on the shortcomings of “renewables,” because the public has been largely seduced into believing that wind, solar and biomass can provide us with all our energy needs while averting climate change. Last weekend, I finally got to see the movie.

I had mixed reactions as I watched the documentary. Although Michael Moore is the Executive Producer, he does not appear in the film. The film is narrated by Jeff Gibbs who tells his journey of disillusionment with the green movement. I liked how effectively Gibbs dispenses with the myth that wind and solar lead to reduced emissions! Reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be our main objective, not simply installing renewable energy sources. Gibbs points out the massive amounts of steel, concrete, and other materials required for any wind turbine, which would last for only 20 years. Similarly, large quantities of commodities are also needed for a solar farm. Production of the commodity materials requires tons of fossil resources, which cut into the “greenness” of these installations. All the mining necessary to obtain the raw materials also degrades the environment.

Gibbs loses credibility when he asserts that it takes more energy from fossil sources than what is produced by wind and solar power plants. Many reputable life-cycle analyses show that these sources are net positive energy producers after five to seven years. By overstating his case against wind and solar and not acknowledging their contribution to carbon-free electricity, he leaves himself open to easy criticism by advocates of renewable “green energy.” And he has been criticized for that by many environmentalists.

That said, Gibbs is right in his overall criticism. Life-cycle analyses do not count emissions from sources needed to back up wind and solar. Those emissions are counted as emissions from coal or natural gas plants, even though in many instances these plants are expressly built to support a new wind or solar farm. The necessity to back up intermittent sources is the reason why Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions did not decrease even though the country spent over $500 billion on its Energiewende (Energy Transformation) program.

Another fallacy of the “renewables” is that it considers biomass carbon neutral. Burning wood chips (actually forests, as the movie points out) is not good for the environment and is ruining habitat. It also can take a hundred years or more for new trees to grow and offset the carbon dioxide emitted during the burning of wood chips. Gibbs dwells a lot (indeed, too much for my liking) on the environmental damage done by growing biomass for fuel or devoting farmland for growing crops to make biofuels.

Gibbs next turns his attention to the moneyed interests behind the “green” movement. He exposes many promoters of green energy as deeply vested in fossil energy sources. The reason fossil companies support wind and solar installations is that they know the renewables will have to be backed up by new natural gas plants or the predominately coal-based grid. [i]


Gibbs portrays many leaders of the environmental movements such as Bill McKibben and Al Gore as being in the pockets of fossil energy companies. Without convincing evidence, such portrayal is sure to raise the ire of the green movement. The movie seems to make the case that nothing good will come if we rely on market forces, forgetting the counterpoint that profit motive is exactly what drives innovation and solutions.

I was particularly disappointed by the documentary because it offered no solutions. It completely ignored nuclear power and just harped on the Malthusian theme that we humans are the problem since we have so increased in numbers and each of us is consuming too much! The last part of the movie showed scenes of rampant environmental damage and an orangutan clinging on to a lone tree surrounded by devastated landscape. Pure environmental porn; ugh!  

The movie leaves the viewer hopeless, and with a sense of despair that can lead to inaction, when what the world needs is rational thinking and concerted action. In an interview with Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore said that his objective in producing this film was to raise the alarm and motivate the younger generation into action. I am afraid, by not offering any hope the movie fails on that front.

So, what are we supposed to do?  Revert to 17th century lifestyles? That seems to be the message but recall that back then life expectancy was barely 40 years and infant mortality was ten times higher than today, and people spent almost all their time in the drudgery of procuring food and fuel rather than other pursuits. The world population in the 17th century was less than 1 billion; today it is 7.5 billion and about half are living in unacceptable poverty without access to electricity, clean water, and adequate food. It will take energy to lift them out of poverty so they too can lead healthy, productive lives. Where is that energy going to come from?

Incidentally population growth, a theme that the movie touches, is best addressed by raising living standards. The need for copious quantities of clean energy is evident.  The movie makes it amply clear that the required energy cannot be produced through the magical thinking of 100% renewables. It will require a substantial expansion of nuclear power—the one clean source that is safe, scalable, and cheap enough for global deployment.

As an antidote to the movie, I suggest watching this interview by Michael Killen of me and Alex Cannara. https://youtu.be/IjhnE-hgx0M







[i] Battery storage just does not scale to provide the required back up; besides it too is fraught with issues of materials supply.

4 comments:

  1. The exposure of what really goes on in the 'renewables' biz (it is a business) is good. The view of the future, however, is stunted by the artists' lack of science/engineering knowledge. That needs correction indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That film was a total failure. How could anyone with the pretence to have the expertise to criticize solar, wind and batteries ought not point out the proven Molten Salt Reactor, for another clean energy solution!

    That said, solar, wind and batteries are getting pretty cheap and much better. I can not imagine how it would be cheaper to machine mass produce 4 square kilometers of solar (with shadow spacing, totalling 4GW at 25% capacity factor) and all the batteries (~16 hours worth) in order to equal just 1 GW of molten salt nuclear (with almost 100% capacity factor). However, it seems to be getting accomplished. We have solar with 4 hrs backup for like less than $50/MWh, and we don't even have cheap, or longer lasting batteries - yet!

    Conventional nuclear is just too costly because of the safety requirements, liability and actual greater construction processes. The MSR could simply be mass produced, too. Less materials, less energy inputs and far less land than the solar/battery solution. The only problem would be the 400 year wastes (which isn't really a problem). Of course there's the pseudo problem of unscientific people (calling themselves "scientific Americans, even) going against the MSR simply because they'd be brainwashed by all the business interests that would be (definitely) threatened. The greens, "oh yaaaaa, all nuclear is baaaaaaad". The oil companies, "we don't want the liability", the reds, "good ole American oil is all we need", and the blues "don't you know, ALL energy is baaaaad". They want to trap us into a future of scarcity (yes, SCARCITY), just like THE socialism and communism they are now starting to embrace (sad how people forget their history)!

    Speaking of Michael Moore's film, it alludes perfectly to the last cruel mindset! Have they not heard of recycling (like duh)! Tesla (the only one that is responsibly INDUSTRIALIZING clean energy mission statement is none other than "TO ACCELERATE THE WORLD'S TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE ENERGY"!

    That film was based on 2009, even though they waited 11 years to make it public. I say this because that solar concert was from way back then! Solar has got about 10x cheaper and more responsible since then (Tesla is still relying on others at this time, though - give them time, they'll vertically integrate ALL of it to make it better and cheaper).

    Oh, I forgot, I'm supposed to be saying "nuclear is better". Maybe not anymore (as long as we can simply recycle everything with this almost unlimited energy we shall soon DEMAND!

    Yes, it's just a "political" film based on the cruel precept "go live in a cave because we are too stupid to find solutions". Guess what... there were no solutions - at all in this most horrifying science hating, people hating, vision hating film!

    ReplyDelete

  3. Thank you for providing us such useful information. i also had research on
    wordpress
    ufa88kh.blogspot
    youtube
    Casino Online2021-2022

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello Everyone, Amazing article The company also Best car engine oil in Tanzania to cater to local industry's demand. Scope provides exceptional customer service that is backed by experienced technicians and specialists.

    ReplyDelete