New movie about bullshit green stuff.

[joseph nicholas]

Check this out.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14306648/

Sounds promising.

[PKTKS]

just a sad obvious truth...

a bit late as this folk obliterated that shit

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12192654

Paul

[voltsandjolts]

Yeh, 'green tech' is capitalism's answer to the environmental crisis.
Some of it may actually help but nonetheless the continued decline of our planet and its ecosystems seems almost inevitable from this point.
8 billion+ people is just not gonna be long-term sustainable, unless maybe 7 billion live in mud huts eating insects.
No democratic politicians dare talk about the one true solution - reducing global human population.

[Marco]

Check this out.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14306648/

Sounds promising.

I wonder if it tackles the really big truths which must not be mentioned?

Screwing around in the margins with renewable energy is what we do to avoid admitting that the true alternative to very likely catastrophic collapse of technological civilization and human population in a couple generations is massive population reduction or massive standard of living reductions. I'd rather just pray for singularity too and keep on keeping on, I consider demographic collapse among smart fractions and cultural instability a bigger short term problem any way. Screwing around in the margins with renewable energy won't matter much regardless ... so if it makes some people feel better about the gamble, why not?

As long as it's not the truly stupid stuff which massively accelerates the coming catastrophes, like burning forests in refurbished coal power plants. Large scale biomass energy makes solar roadways look genius.

[boffin]

I really hope it addresses the huge concerns around Windmill Cancer

[SiliconWizard]

Yeh, 'green tech' is capitalism's answer to the environmental crisis.

Pretty much so yeah. That the same people/organizations who have been heavily promoting unlimited growth and unrestricted globalism are now promoting "green tech" and pseudo-green agreements should have given us a hint.

As to human population, this is kind of a catch-22 situation. Now my view on this is that the world population has grown that much because it could: meaning because we have had enough energy available to allow it to grow that much. Reducing energy availability would automatically reduce the world population. Conversely, if we ever end up finding this "clean" and almost unlimited source of energy we are all after (nuclear fusion being one candidate), it will surely be good news in a way, but IMHO will inevitably make the world population literally explode.

[Conrad Hoffman]

If you want to destroy society just come up with a source of free energy. I think there was a science fiction book or maybe short story about that. Maybe The Gods Themselves, but not sure. Anyway, I've never seen a situation fail to resolve itself one way or another. Don't worry, if we do something or do nothing, mother nature will rebalance things as needed. It's just a question of whether you like the result. The right path? Not sure, but Thermodynamics 101 will point the way.

[voltsandjolts]

I think it would be a great shame if we did nothing, I really like all the flora and fauna (*), and extinctions are already on the increase.

Regarding energy, true indeed.
It's no coincidence we had two world wars shortly after the vast energy in coal, oil and gas reserves became available.
Let's hope fusion wars don't happen.

(*) except midges. Good ridence to midges.

[Conrad Hoffman]

Watched the movie last night. They don't offer any feasible answers other than reducing the human population to a handful, and living in caves. As I mentioned above it may come down to understanding thermodynamics. Without energy input to the planet, everything winds down to cold and dark. But, we have energy streaming in every day. In theory we can use that to reverse almost every problem and even retain our industrialized society, albeit probably not in the form we recognize today. IMO, it's a very one-sided movie and not very useful.

It's been said that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than it took to make it and I suspect that's still true. It wouldn't be if they operated long enough with minimal maintenance, but IMO the jury is still out. Wind might be better but the movie pointed out various problems with that too. There's a lot of resistance to the appearance of wind turbines near here. They've also had a high failure rate due to gusts and AFAIK, have generated little useful power.

The movie didn't say much (anything?) about nuclear. If everybody drives an electric car I don't see where else all that power is going to come from. I also don't know how we're going to heat our homes, as electric heating is the most expensive way to do it. It's also a really poor use of a highly concentrated resource. You might enjoy reading what Don Lancaster has to say on the matter here- https://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.shtml

He's not usually wrong about the fundamentals.

[IDEngineer]

No democratic politicians dare talk about the one true solution - reducing global human population.

For a very simple reason - they can't seriously suggest that. They can wave their hands at it, but you won't see a seasoned career politician do anything meaningful about population reduction.

Why? Because first world entitlement programs rely on an ever-increasing population to sustain what is effectively a Ponzi scheme. That is not a political comment nor a judgement on whether they are good or bad, just a factual recognition that such a system "pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors" (Wikipedia).

If the lower age workers (the "more recent investors") were to dwindle in quantity then there are only two options to sustain the system: Reduce payouts, or increase income. Payouts go to "earlier investors", who are older and very reliable voters whom politicians must placate so their payouts aren't going to decrease in any meaningful way. That leaves increasing the income - but politicians can only raise worker taxes so far before workers rebel and vote them out of office.

Hence politicians are trapped by the very systems they created. Population MUST continuously increase or the systems will collapse of their own weight.

If the existing population does not produce the necessary increase, one way to address that is immigration. This reveals why politicians will also hand-wave at "immigration control" but never quite get around to "fixing" it. Immigration, like increasing population, serves the political interests of elected officials.

As I say about technical topics: Pay attention to the deliverables. All else is noise and distraction. Is the population problem truly being addressed? Is the immigration problem truly being addressed? The answers to those questions are not accidents, no matter what the rhetoric claims. This is not the first time in history that politicians say one thing while doing another.

[IDEngineer]

If you want to destroy society just come up with a source of free energy.

Indeed. A "free" (and hence unlimited) resource eliminates negative feedback and allows the associated system to go open loop. Negative feedback - in the form of "having to work for what you gain" - is a critical part of society.

[SiliconWizard]

No democratic politicians dare talk about the one true solution - reducing global human population.

For a very simple reason - they can't seriously suggest that. They can wave their hands at it, but you won't see a seasoned career politician do anything meaningful about population reduction.

Of course. *Actively* reducing population is at least questionable anyway, or even completely immoral depending on how you see it, or how you do it.

Now, as we said above, if we just limit the energy supply progressively instead of increasing it, it will have the same effect. But if you do it wisely and progressively enough, it will harm nobody. We will just end up reproducing less. It's an equilibrium.

Why? Because first world entitlement programs rely on an ever-increasing population to sustain what is effectively a Ponzi scheme. That is not a political comment nor a judgement on whether they are good or bad, just a factual recognition that such a system "pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors" (Wikipedia).

That's absolutely right. Linking this to the above question, it's no wonder most politicians do no want to talk about population reduction: it's against the immediate interests of the system. The moral factors are mostly just pretexts; exactly like most "green" measures that are taken on a large scale are just using the environment as a pretext to be able to make this Ponzi scheme system last longer.

[IDEngineer]

it's no wonder most politicians do no want to talk about population reduction: it's against the immediate interests of the system.

It's sadly entertaining to watch certain activists and politicians say they're in favor of "zero population growth" one day, then promote increased entitlement programs the next day. You wonder if 1) they truly don't recognize that those two positions are diametrically opposed, or 2) they've just gotten comfortable with their own hypocrisy for political expediency.

[Marco]

Now, as we said above, if we just limit the energy supply progressively instead of increasing it, it will have the same effect. But if you do it wisely and progressively enough, it will harm nobody. We will just end up reproducing less. It's an equilibrium.

Malthusian overshoot and resource wars are rather harmful.

[Ground_Loop]

If you want to destroy society just come up with a source of free energy.

Indeed. A "free" (and hence unlimited) resource eliminates negative feedback and allows the associated system to go open loop. Negative feedback - in the form of "having to work for what you gain" - is a critical part of society.

Exactly.  Every life form on earth exists to spin in a very simple cycle. We spend energy to collect energy. Work for what you gain. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations concisely aligned modern economics with this fact of natural law.  We have no other purpose. And there is no long term alternative that doesn't lead to self destruction.  The March of time and it's sibling, evolution, will ensure the cycle is perpetual.

[Someone]

It's been said that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than it took to make it and I suspect that's still true.

Well, scientific consensus is that solar power does produce net energy:
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2012.11.035
Try promoting your "alternative" views somewhere less capable of basic fact checking.

[PKTKS]

It's been said that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than it took to make it and I suspect that's still true.

Well, scientific consensus is that solar power does produce net energy:
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2012.11.035
Try promoting your "alternative" views somewhere less capable of basic fact checking.

The folk  on this film puts far way better and substantial data
then this new one...  after carefully review is undeniable
that the point of no return was reached.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12192654

Indeed there is no more green solution..

Unless some draconian attitude towards the causes..
overpopulation, over-consumption, divert of nonrenewable resources
for luxury way of life..

unless removing the causes the point of failure will soon be reached

Paul

[tooki]

I really hope it addresses the huge concerns around Windmill Cancer

Wait, you’re saying windmills can get cancer?!? This is horrible! Save the windmills!

[Conrad Hoffman]

It's been said that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than it took to make it and I suspect that's still true.

Well, scientific consensus is that solar power does produce net energy:
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2012.11.035
Try promoting your "alternative" views somewhere less capable of basic fact checking.

Wow, first time in my life my views have been called "alternative"! Honored indeed. Alas, that study doesn't seem to be freely available, so I can't comment. I qualify my statements as best I can and if you read Don Lancaster in my earlier post, the case against PV overall isn't looking good, though I thought the movie was too pessimistic.

[Marco]

The folk  on this film puts far way better and substantial data
then this new one...  after carefully review is undeniable
that the point of no return was reached.

The near inevitability of collapse of global industrial society is irrelevant to the question of EROI of solar panels. Getting some joy about being technically right about irrelevant minutia is all we've got left

Moore should have concentrated on Biomass. PV is screwing around in the margin, even if he wasn't wrong, it dilutes the message to bring it up.

[Someone]

It's been said that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than it took to make it and I suspect that's still true.

Well, scientific consensus is that solar power does produce net energy:
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2012.11.035
Try promoting your "alternative" views somewhere less capable of basic fact checking.

Wow, first time in my life my views have been called "alternative"! Honored indeed. Alas, that study doesn't seem to be freely available, so I can't comment. I qualify my statements as best I can and if you read Don Lancaster in my earlier post, the case against PV overall isn't looking good, though I thought the movie was too pessimistic.

That is a meta analysis, confirming a consensus. You're free to do some research yourself and find any contradictory evidence, but just saying its something you heard and then dismissing credible and well researched conclusions is putting that very much in the "alternative" camp.

[JohnnyMalaria]

It's been said that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than it took to make it and I suspect that's still true.

Well, scientific consensus is that solar power does produce net energy:
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2012.11.035
Try promoting your "alternative" views somewhere less capable of basic fact checking.

Full article here: https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.035

Bottom line, typically 1 to 5 years.

[sandalcandal]

It's been said that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than it took to make it and I suspect that's still true.

Well, scientific consensus is that solar power does produce net energy:
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2012.11.035
Try promoting your "alternative" views somewhere less capable of basic fact checking.

Wow, first time in my life my views have been called "alternative"! Honored indeed. Alas, that study doesn't seem to be freely available, so I can't comment. I qualify my statements as best I can and if you read Don Lancaster in my earlier post, the case against PV overall isn't looking good, though I thought the movie was too pessimistic.

That is a meta analysis, confirming a consensus. You're free to do some research yourself and find any contradictory evidence, but just saying its something you heard and then dismissing credible and well researched conclusions is putting that very much in the "alternative" camp.

Careful! Next thing old mate is going to be telling us vaccines cause autism and COVID is a false flag for illness caused by 5G towers 

Edit:
Apparently OP thinks people that make money off selling scare stories are a better source than scientific peer reviewed articles or common sense from any credible person that works in the energy/engineering industry much like anti-vaxers denying the scientific consensus or the word of anyone with medical expertise. If there's a slither of real and common sense truth that they're using to setup their FUD bullshit then is the very real danger of "Green Washing"


Not that I'd actually want to waste my time trying to find OP's film then watch it. I don't know what the exact statements OP's film is making and trying to present as fact and I don't really want to be doing the fact checking if people in the discussion don't understand the difference between FUD flicks and actual scientific information. This thread belongs in the "Power & Renewable Energy" board or the "Dodgy Technology" board given the nature of discussion.

Edit 2: Apologies to Conrad Hoffman, the Don Lancaster "articles" he is bringing aren't FUD flicks however are still zero value collections of un support statements which directly contradict scientific consensus and industry common sense. The musing of an old school technical blogger can be entertaining but particularly when they aren't sourced, substantiated or in anyway proven they aren't something you should be building your world view on over actual scientific research.

[sandalcandal]

just a sad obvious truth...

a bit late as this folk obliterated that shit

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12192654

Paul

A critical response to that "documentary"

[IDEngineer]

It's not all gloom and doom, folks. Consider this article: https://spectator.us/topic/just-best-decade-human-history-seriously/

We are living through the greatest improvement in human living standards in history. Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 percent of the world’s population for the first time. It was 60 percent when I was born. Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America; child mortality has fallen to record low levels; famine virtually went extinct; malaria, polio and heart disease are all in decline.