Michael Moore's logging movie

[Riwaka]

Michael Moore's The Planet of the Humans (with Jeff Gibbs) is done in the usual MM edit style.

The film over looked many new technical developments and had an overly negative editorial.

I hope someone is able to point out some of the additional film errors and there are worthwhile error corrections.

As well as logging/ biomass (42mins in) Burlington, Middlebury etc there is sections on solar and wind.

Hydro-electricity is almost overlooked except for a pic of Hoover Dam? when discussing irrigation.

[clearcut]

Available free on YouTube. 1:40:01


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

[47sawdust]

I find Michael Moore a little hard to take. You can make your point without continuing to hammer your audience with self-righteous verbiage.

[barbender]

I just read the film got pulled by the distributor because left wing environmental didn't like it either. Apparently he was calling out the fallacy of the green energy movement's notion that we can build enough solar panels and wind turbines to sustain our current lifestyles. I've never watched any of his stuff😂

[John Mc]

I just read the film got pulled by the distributor

It's still up on Micheal Moore's Youtube account.

[barbender]

I think maybe they put it on YouTube because of the distribution issue.

[John Mc]

I think maybe they put it on YouTube because of the distribution issue.

I didn't think it had actually been pulled, though I did read that there were requests/demands from numerous sources that it be pulled down.

[Texas Ranger]

It just may be me, but, I would like to introduce Mr. Moore to a bunch of piney woods rooters.

[rasawing]

As someone who has made it through several of his movies, let me tell you......it's not just what he does tell you that is often misleading and/or inaccurate.....it what he doesn't tell you that even more so misrepresents things. 

[Mountaynman]

so you guys got my interest up and i watched the nonsense while i am not a greenie by any means i have always had my doubts that any of this green energy made much sense when u look at the bottom line.

heres a couple points to take away that i always had thought and am still not sure of the real numbers because its hard to find all the info anywhere.

Solar great idea but need an unaffordable amount of storage to make it feasable when the sun doesnt shine so you have power. Also didnt even know that the larger facalities out west run on natural gas to keep them online during the dark times.

Windmills great idea again works great when the wind is a steady 8- 12 mph ,cant run in high winds but can make power thru the nite. Once again huge cost for storage and distribution. They also make the point of lifespan of components and high cost of construction for the payback.

Biomass our hot topic basically saying the offset from the cost to get the wood to the fire for the power generated is not there. Very true as we have all seen places shuttered and prices drop as soon as the govt subsidies went away.

Ethanol  and Biodiesel uses more fuel to make it than what is created once again subsidised by the govt

When we can take a load of chips to the mill and fill the truck up with fuel that was made there now we got something.

Working on a project for our little town up here just to keep my mind occupied. We have a hydro plant owned by the town that makes a good amount of power. Would it be feasible to power the town with a mix of all 4 sources of Green power not sure?

Stay safe all off to work

[Mountaynman]

The biggest issue with all of the activists is they dont know the whole story or picture and refuse to listen to the real numbers.

Went thru this 15 years ago with a big wind project near my home that got shot down by the greenies worried about noise from the 75 windmills would have provided free power to all town residents for 20 years and powered over 500 homes.

[Don P]

Haven't watched the movie... sorry :D

When we can take a load of chips to the mill and fill the truck up with fuel that was made there now we got something.

This comment brought up something from a documentary I saw not long ago. Apparently at one time Brazils fuel was cane derived alcohol. A farmer could drop off a load of cane and get fuel credit, and it was positive, it made more than it used. We are using corn which is way down the list of things you would grow for producing fuel. If producing fuel were the goal there. Hang on let me readjust my tin hat.

There is no better solar panel out there than a plant. Because of that "free" energy input they can outproduce the energy we put into them. I guess in a way we're sort of living proof of that. There are a lot of fermentables, often the brewers grains or whatever was fermented can be better quality feed than what went into the brewing vat, so there is not necessarily a loss of value of the input as it is used to make the fuel, it heads off to pay for that tractor time. I think that is done now from ethanol plants but I think that's forgotten in the anti ethanol math.

When Ford made his first cars the fuel of choice was still up in the air. His could run on either alcohol or gasoline by adjusting the dash mounted spark advance. Gas in the city, moonshine in the country. His comment at the time was that we had many more stills than refineries.

Anyway, it got me thinking, I'm not sure we can't grow and burn at least some of our liquid transportation fuel.

Honest officer, I'm hauling liquid transportation fuel :D.