A miraculous turn of events

Michael Moore and Driessen agree! Wind, solar and biofuel energy are devastating Planet Earth

Guest post by Paul Driessen

Never in my wildest dreams did I envision a day when I’d agree with anything filmmaker Michael Moore said – much less that he would agree with me. But mirabile dictu, his new film, Planet of the Humans, is as devastating an indictment of wind, solar and biofuel energy as anything I have ever written.

The documentary reflects Moore’s willingness to reexamine environmentalist doctrine. It’s soon obvious why more rabid greens tried to have the “dangerous film” banned. Indeed, Films for Action initially caved to the pressure and took Planet off its website, but then put it back up. The film is also on YouTube.

Would-be censors included Josh Fox, whose Gasland film Irish journalists Phelim McAleer and Anne McElhinney totally eviscerated with their FrackNation documentary; Michael Mann, whose hockey stick global temperature graph was demolished by Canadian analysts Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, and many others; and Stanford professor Mark Jacobson, who just got slapped with a potential $1-million penalty (in legal fees) for bringing a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) and defamation lawsuit against a mathematician who criticized Jacobson’s renewable energy claims.

These critics and their allies are rarely willing to discuss any climate or energy issues that they view as “settled science,” much less engage in full-throated debate with “deniers” or allow former colleagues to stray from the catechism of climate cataclysm and renewable energy salvation. They prefer lawsuits. But they sense the Planet documentary could be Fort Sumter in a green civil war, and they’re terrified.

Their main complaint, that some footage is outdated, is correct but irrelevant. The film’s key point is the same as my own: wind, solar and biofuel energy are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable, and they are horrifically destructive to vital ecological values. The censors believe admitting that is sacrilegious.

Director-narrator Jeff Gibbs never talks to coal, oil or natural gas advocates – or to “renewable” energy and “manmade climate crisis” skeptics. Instead, he interviews fellow environmentalists who are justifiably aghast at what wind, solar and biofuel projects are doing to scenic areas, wildlife habitats, rare and endangered species, and millions of acres of forests, deserts and grasslands. He peeks backstage to expose bogus claims that solar panels actually provided the electricity for a solar promotion concert.

After speaking with “renewable” advocates in Lansing, Michigan, and learning that the Chevy Volt they’re so excited about is actually recharged by a coal-fired generating plant, Gibbs visits a nearby football-field-sized solar farm. It can power 50 (!) homes at peak solar intensity. Powering all of Lansing (not including the Michigan State University campus) would require 15 square miles of panels – plus wind turbines and a huge array of batteries (or a coal or gas power plant) for nights and cloudy days.

The crew films one of those turbines being erected outside of town. Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earths, fiberglass and other materials. Every step in the mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and (20 years later) removal process requires fossil fuels. It bears repeating: wind and sun are renewable and sustainable; harnessing them for energy to benefit mankind absolutely is not. (Go to 36:50 for a fast-paced mining tutorial on where all these “clean, green” technologies really come from.)   

Then they’re off to Vermont, where a wooded mountaintop is being removed to install still more wind turbines. Removing mountaintops to access coal, bad; to erect huge bird-killing wind turbines, good?

An aerial shot features 350,000 garage-door-sized mirrors sprawling across six square miles of former Mojave Desert habitat – with the giant Ivanpah “solar” power plant in the center. The system gets warmed up each morning by natural gas-powered heaters, so that it can generate a little electricity by sundown.

This “environmentally benign” solar facility now sits where 500-year-old yuccas and Joshua trees once grew. “Outdated” footage shows them being totally shredded to destroy any evidence they ever existed.

Gibbs and Moore next discuss ethanol – and the corn, water, fertilizer and fossil fuels required to create this “clean, green, renewable” gasoline substitute, which emits lots of carbon dioxide when burned.

Even worse is the total devastation of entire forests – clear cut, chopped into chips, maybe pelletized, and shipped hundreds or even thousands of miles … to be burned in place of coal or natural gas to generate the electricity that makes modern homes, factories, hospitals, living standards and life spans possible. The crew gets “five seconds” to leave a denuded forest and “biomass” power plant area in Vermont – or be arrested. Haunting images of a bewildered indigenous native in Brazil and a terrified, mud-covered orangutan in Indonesia attest to the destruction wrought in the name of saving Earth from climate change.

You’re left to wonder how many acres of corn, sugarcane or canola it took for Richard Branson to fly one biofuel-powered jet to mainland Europe. How many it would take to produce the 96 billion gallons of oil-based fuel the airline industry consumed in 2019. How many decades it will take to replace the millions of acres of slow-growth forest that are incinerated each year as a “carbon neutral” alternative to coal.

“Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?” the producers wonder. “Renewable” energy systems last only 15-20 years, and then must be torn down and replaced, using more non-renewable resources, “if there’s enough planet left,” they say. “We’re basically being fed a lie.” Maybe we’d be “better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place,” than doing this.

Indeed. But bear in mind, the devastation that so deeply concerns Moore and Gibbs is happening in a world that is still some 85% dependent on oil, natural gas and coal, 4% on nuclear and 7% on hydroelectric. Imagine what our planet would look like if we went 100% (pseudo)renewable under various Green New Deals: millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of batteries, thousands of biofuel plantations and denuded forests, thousands of new and expanded mines, and more.

But where some see devastation, others see opportunity. Or as Arnold Schwarzenegger says in the film, where some see the Mojave Desert as miles and miles of emptiness, he sees a vast “gold mine.” Al Gore sees endless millions in profits, a lovely seaside mansion and cushy private jets. Koch Industries sees bigger solar and biofuel empires. The Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists envision raking in more millions off climate doom and renewable salvation, while 350.org founder Bill McKibben can’t seem to remember that the Rockefeller Brothers and other fat-cat foundations gave him millions of dollars, too.

But Moore and Gibbs aren’t indicting free market capitalism. They’re indicting government-mandated and subsidized crony corporatist opportunism. And the solution they ultimately proffer isn’t recognizing that climate change has been “real” since Earth began; that humans and fossil fuels play only minimal roles amid the powerful natural forces that brought glacial epochs and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Periods and Little Ice Ages; or that modern nuclear power plants generate abundant CO2-free electricity.

Instead, they propose that we humans must “get ourselves under control.” This means not just slashing our living standards (may we all have “carbon footprints” as small as Al Gore’s) and “de-developing” and “de-industrializing” the United States and Europe, while simultaneously dictating to still impoverished nations how much they will be “permitted” to develop, in accordance with former Obama science advisor John Holdren’s totalitarian instincts. It also means having far fewer humans on this glorious planet. (How exactly that is to be achieved they don’t say, though several twentieth century dictators offer ideas.) 

This is where Planet of the Humans takes a troubling, wrongheaded, neo-Malthusian turn. But these final minutes should be viewed attentively, to understand what still motivates far too many “environmentalists,” who too often get lionized or even canonized for their devotion to Mother Earth – even if the price is measured in billions left in unimaginable poverty, malnutrition and energy deprivation, and millions dying long before they should.

Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs have done us a great service in exposing the environmental degradation from pseudo-renewable energy. Now they just need to reexamine neo-Malthusian doctrines as well.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ● Black death and other books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

219 thoughts on “A miraculous turn of events

  1. Perhaps it’s time for legislation requiring all windmills and solar panels to be 100% recyclable.

    Also wind farm operators must post bonds so that the concrete bases for windmills can be removed to 1 metre below ground level.

    • Nah, just needs scrapping of all taxpayer subsidies for “renewables” and the whole scam will wither away very quickly.

    • Cheaper to just import a meter of topsoil and cover the concrete attaining the same 40″ topsoil cover
      Would also give some future archaeologists some mounds to excavate

      • Would also give some future archaeologists some mounds to excavate

        And laugh at the futility of our efforts to “stop climate change”.

        • I don’t thinks they’ll laugh,
          Industrial renewables are such a stupid idea they will never figure out what all these foundations were build for.
          If some archeologist would propose such an idea he/she would be laughed off the stage.
          They’ll probably think it was an ‘alien landing site’ or some form of ‘religious building’.

          And they would be right with the latter.

          Stay safe,

  2. I was nearly a Spartan and spent time on that campus and in that area, so I would like to make a minor distinction regarding Michigan State University. It is in East Lansing, which is a separate city from Lansing, though they are adjacent. This kind of trivia could be useful in games like Jeopardy.

  3. An aerial shot features 350,000 garage-door-sized mirrors sprawling across six square miles of former Mojave Desert habitat – with the giant Ivanpah “solar” power plant in the center. The system gets warmed up each morning by natural gas-powered heaters, so that it can generate a little electricity by sundown.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but…
    I believe this assertion is incorrect.
    Natural gas isn’t used to “warm the system up each morning”.
    The system operates with Molten Salt which cannot be allowed to cool and solidify.
    Gas is utilized for up to 8 hours daily or longer to keep the salt molten over night.
    Whether the system is operating with sunlight by day or Gas by night, it can still generate power 24/7 but still requires Natural Gas to do so

    • Both statements are correct.
      As you note, NG is used to keep the working fluid hot overnight. As Scissor mentions, NG is used to help out with power production.

      Red faces abound – At one point, Ivanpah needed CO2 credits to offset the higher than “expected” NG usage. (A solar power plant that needs to buy “Carbon Credits” ??????).
      Just when you think government cannot get any worse, it goes Green.

      Then there was the time Ivanpah set itself on fire. (!!!)
      Over the last several years, Ivanpah has been the source of much entertainment and merriment here at WUWT.

    • Bryan A

      I think you should include more of the history of the unit. It was not designed to have natural gas as an element of its daily power production.

      When initiated it requires heating with natural gas. That is reasonable. Each morning when the sun rises, it has to heat the “front end” of the system” above a certain temperature before power generation can commence. What happened was that it took so long to get hot (I recall it was 10 or 11 AM) that a significant portion of the day was lost. Then it generated power.

      By heating the system rapidly in the early morning, when the sun strikes the mirrors after sunrise it can start putting out power sooner, thus raising its performance, (the metric is kWh produced/day, not system efficiency).

      The gas is not used to keep the salt molten overnight. It is an insulated system that ideally can collect heat all day and produce power on demand after sunset. If the heat is not used, the system would be very hot in the morning. The cooling overnight is not from heat loss, it is from generating power between the hot side and cold side.

      As anyone might point out, it could indeed produce a small amount of power 24/7 but what is the point? the investment and cost to nature is far too high to actually use this as a method of power generation. They are making the best of a very bad investment by using natural gas to get the system temperature up by sunrise so to claim they produce useful amounts of power overall. They will get away with it because the public doesn’t know that the heat energy delivered from the natural gas would be far better utilized running a combined cycle gas turbine. In all likelihood they generate the most power during high demand hours, conserving heat to maximize that because the feed in rates are much higher than during the rest of the day.

      See for example https://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html how a feed-in rate varies over 24 hours.

      It is crazy to think that N American industry cold operate on thousands of these units. The monetary cost and environmental destruction would be unbearable, even for fanatics.

      • Which is why the goal is to only supply energy for the 5% who k!ll off the rest of us.

        • Rich: Bingo. The current scamdemic is headed in that very direction. Air travel and oil only for the rich who of course are already vaccinated against the viruses designed to take care of the 95%. Nature is a mother.

    • If I recall correctly the molten salt portion never was installed, and the 8 hours of natural gas is just to have the boilers running at optimal temperatures when the sun gets high enough to take over keeping the boilers at operating temperatures. To note this project was way over budget and in the first year only produced about 25% of its’ projected energy production, and if I recall correctly it fairly recently filed for bankruptcy.



  4. I think only 10 homes. U.K.’ s Drax power station gets £815 million in subsidy for burning American wood chips. £12pa for every man woman and child. Sits on a coal field , of course.

  5. “The documentary reflects Moore’s willingness to reexamine environmentalist doctrine. It’s soon obvious why more rabid greens tried to have the “dangerous film” banned”

    Strongly disagree sir. The main point of the Jeff Gibbs argument is not that climate change is eco wackoism. It is that climate change is not eco wackoism enough.

  6. As interesting a turn of events as this is, it is still mostly ignored [I hyped it among my meager crowd with NO reactions]. Like TDS sufferers, any negative news viz “climate change” is ignored by greens. I fear it will take Michael Moore and more like-minded individuals to actual “proselytize” this to make any difference at all. Is he promoting the film?? That would be the real test.

    • I would say that all my liberal friends would not watch this film, or give it the time of day. They just ignore it as you say.

      I posted the film twice on my Facebook page, and both times the only comments were mine.
      (There were two from 2 conservative friends of mine).

      – JPP

      • You need to introduce it to the Liberals the right way. Michael Moore just made a free movie about what he has learned over the past few decades about green energy. And I tell them, I think Moore is onto something because now even I agree with him.

        I have had a few liberals be wowed… and then little by little, I tell them how smart they are to be able to understand how to navigate what’s fake.

        Liberals are not all bad people, most are good people with bad information.

      • JonP: NONE of the liberals I know will watch it or even acknowledge it is out, but I send them the link anyway.

        You can’t unbrainwash people even if yer MM.

  7. I give Paul Driessen loads of credit for possessing the Job-like level of patience required for dealing with the corruption of the “Mistake On The Potomac” and the dimbulbs of American democracy.

  8. I’m still waiting for a shoe to drop. Moore is an avowed hater of Trump and yet this movie can only help Trump in an election year where the democrats can’t talk about anything other than Green New Deal.
    From that perspective, i still don’t get why this came out now.
    Moore isn’t suddenly so honest that he is willing to see Trump win?

    • Trump did not win the election via the popular vote. Hillary did. Trump was elected by the Electoral College, which was dominated by the Republican house and senate. Essentially, ANYONE but a democrat. Now, the house is democrat and the senate is republican. The next president will STILL be chosen by those few.

      • I’m guessing that you aren’t American and the only information you have on our political system is fed to you by your handlers.

        The electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with the US Senate and House of Representatives.

        The electors in the Electoral College are voted for by the people of the United States.

        As to whether or not Hillary won the popular vote, it was close enough that we will never really know. Even ignoring evidence of illegal voting, most states don’t count absentee ballots if the margin of victory was greater than the number of absentee ballots.

        • Hillary got over 99% of the dead votes, so I suspect Biden will get all of the COVID-19 death votes.

          • Marked ballot with each copy of Short Certificate you get. Votes will really add up that way!

          • Ballot by mail provides even more opportunities for vote stealing, that’s why the Democrats are so in favor of it.

      • You went to a public school, didn’t you?
        The Electoral College has no relationship at all to Congress except when a majority of Electors appointed by the States in a manner chosen by the individual States can not choose. Only then does the Congressional delegation from each State vote; 1 vote per State, to choose a President. The Senate then chooses a Vice President.
        The number of Electors allotted to each State depends on the total number of Representatives and Senators allotted to each State. Each State has 2 Senators and a number of Representatives determined by census with a minimum of 1.
        Are you seriously this ignorant of the Electoral system in this country?

        • Don’t be shocked, I know many college educated people who are totally clueless as to the functioning of electoral process at Federal level, and they are damned hazy on how it works at state, county and municipal level. Funny thing? They got their educations after 1985, many after 1990. People in earlier sets actually had civics education in high school, at least to some degree.

      • Trump did not win the election via the popular vote. Hillary did.
        So what? The United States is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers were very wary of democracies, and spoke of the “tyranny of the majority”.

        WUWT has a worldwide readership, it is OK when we sometimes see someone who does not quite understand the US system.
        (I freely acknowledge that the electoral system in Australia leaves me baffled.)

        • TonyL: many of the key FFs were Deists as well. They understood what had gone wrong in Europe. It worked it NA for about 100 yrs. Been down hill ever since.

        • From what I understand from sources like Judicial Watch who has successfully sued several California counties into removing illicitly included “voters” from their respective voting roles, Hillary didn’t even “win” the popular vote. Between all the illegally included people on the voting roles, jacked-up mail-in votes, etc., there are apparently well over 2.5 Million bogus votes in the 2016 Presidential. There is Hillary’s supposed popular vote win. It’s similar to how the despicable LBJ stole the election in 1948 in Alice, Texas. Stealing, lying, cheating, whatever it takes is apparently what democrats do.
          Of course apparently Hillary couldn’t even cheat her way into office like LBJ did.

          • Clay: A+, you’ll never hear any of that on the boob tube. I say if we must bear a “progressive” tax structure then your vote must be weighted in direct proportion to your rate of taxation. So, if of working age and not paying taxes, weight of your vote = 0 or some number close to it. As you go up the tax bracket your vote counts more since you have to pay more to be a member of society and thus should have a louder voice. At retirement the weight of your vote becomes proportional to your average tax bracket through out your career.

            Flat tax anyone?

        • The other “So what?” is we operate under the system we operate under. If we selected a president by popular vote that would change how they both ran their respective campaigns. Under a popular vote system would Hillary of won? We’ll never know. My guess is she still would of loss, not enough of a favorability factor amongst dems and she brings out the anti Hillary voters in repubs that are otherwise apathetic towards voting. FYI, I believe McCain would of beat Hillary if Obama hadn’t ripped the rug out from under her first. She’s a deeply flawed candidate.

      • re: John Shotsky May 8, 2020 at 7:25 am
        Trump did not win the election via the popular vote.

        EMBRACE the concept of “The United States of America” having been brought about through the idea of bringing about “a more perfect union” of states through the adoption of a document (drawn up by the involved 13 states at the time) and named The Constitution of the United States.

        That “union” of states through the adoption of a Constitution has STANDING RULES for electing the officers of that ‘more perfect union’ comprised of the individual states forming The United States of America.

        THE original thirteen ‘colonies’ would be DWARFED by the population of California today alone, (well, maybe CA and another state or two) and would have virtually NO SAY in the selection of the occupant of the office of the presidency WERE a ‘popular vote’ the basis for electing the US president. The so-called electoral college is the ‘answer’ or means of giving the smaller population (and original 13) states some SAY in the United States presidential election.

        Does that make it any clearer?

        • The population of the 13 colonies (approx 3,000,000) at the time of the Revolutionary War would be dwarfed by the population of Los Angeles County (approx 10,000,000).

          • re: “The population of the 13 colonies (approx 3,000,000) at the time of the Revolutionary War would be dwarfed by the population of Los Angeles County (approx 10,000,000).”

            If not for the discontinuity (anachronism) in time …

          • Dude, you’re the one who started this comparison.

            THE original thirteen ‘colonies’ would be DWARFED by the population of California today alone, (well, maybe CA and another state or two)…

            Don’t complain to me about anachronisms.

          • re: “Don’t complain to me about anachronisms.”

            CLEARLY you did not understand the context of my reply, and I don’t care. There are bigger ‘fish to fry’ than a misplaced complaints of yours … suggest maybe decaf as an alternative brew as well.

            Maybe you need a def of the term: a·nach·ro·nis·tic – adjective, “belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.”

      • The electoral college is a separate body from Congress.

        Each state has a number of electors equal to their their combined numbers of senators and representatives. As the system has developed through the years the people of each state vote for electors. (Originally the electors were selected by state legislatures.) The electors are (in practice though not in law) pledged to a particular candidate. Under the constitution “***no Senator or Representative , or person holding an Office of trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” The electors then cast their votes for the president. The presidential candidate with the most votes in the electoral college is the winner. Please see Article II section 1 of the constitution.

        Hillary won the popular vote. But the United States is a union of fifty sovereign states. The president is chosen by the states. If we chose the president by popular vote instead of through the electoral college the majority vote of a few large states, like for example California and New York would permanently control the union.

      • Are you aware that the electoral college is a state-level organisation and is one of the political distinctive that preserves the United States of America as opposed to the Federal Republic of America or the peoples’ republic of america

      • The founders were deeply thoughtful and intelligent. They knew what could go wrong. example The electoral college is their attempt to prevent the election of a tyrant.

        I can’t quickly find the link but someone observed that President Trump was elected by something like 95% of America’s geography.

        Is it fair that people living in the Dakotas are tyrannized by a bunch of ignorant coastal city dwellers?

        Think of Trump’s election as a safety valve and a warning. The warning is being ignored because liberals can’t believe that they could possibly be wrong.

        • At least the Electoral College is still with us. The progressives scored a huge blow to the Republic with the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913. This allowed for the election of Senators by popular vote instead of by appointment by state legislature. It removed one of more important checks from the balance. The New Deal and all it’s baggage was a direct result of this change.

          • +1000 Senators were representatives of the States, now they are a destructive drain on the entire nation.

        • “Is it fair that people living in the Dakotas are tyrannized by a bunch of ignorant coastal city dwellers?”

          Ignorant or otherwise that’s what the Senate is designed to prevent

      • I don’t know of *any* large scale democracy, don’t know of any state or country, don’t even know of any province here in Canada, etc., that *ever* works elections by *total popular vote* in the way that this sort of comment seems to imply should be the case? Generally speaking, the way things *really* work is that voters vote riding by riding, so in the end it is just the locally voted in representative, the M.P.,or the House Rep that you send in, etc., that gets chosen by plurality vote. On the larger scale, in your Parliament/House of Representatives/Legistlative Assembly, total popular vote doesn’t decide anything, it just never works that way.

        The only thing ‘unusual’ about your Electoral College in the U.S., is that the concept of voting riding by riding for a President as such, is there turned into a votes-alloted-per-state arrangement with a kind of ‘ridings’ structure implied in allocating the number of electoral votes assigned per state. This in turn is based on summing up the numbers involved in both the House and Senate ridings per state (although the Presidential election is an entirely separate vote from the House of Representatives and/or Senate elections as such). It is this arrangement that makes U.S. democracy quintessentially Republican in a way that democracy here in Canada is not.

        Now the ‘punchline’ here is that I see all kinds of whining from the American Left (including some I’ve seen from the redoubtable M. Moore), about Hillary possibly having lost in a way that was contrary to the total popular vote (plausibly) favoring her? Further, if a ‘foreign influence’ like myself (a Canadian, not a Russian, to be sure, but still) should make fair commentary, that could result in even *more* whining from the Left about ‘interfering in U.S. elections, possibly? The punchline, and the hypocrisy, is that,clearly, if Hillary had won ‘the College’, along with *Trump* getting the total popular vote number, this all would have been a great and good example of just how wonderfully the American Republic is set up, correct?

        • Hillary fully understands that winning the popular vote means nothing. Her husband Bill Clinton beat incumbent George H. W. Bush with slightly over 43% of the popular vote. He won because Independent candidate H. Ross Perot tallied over 19 million votes, mostly taken from George Bush, who lost to Clinton in the popular vote by about 5 million, but in the Electoral College by a large amount because it is tallied by State in winner-take-all fashion, for the most part. Abraham Lincoln won only 38% of the popular vote in 1860, divided by four regional candidates, but easily won in the Electoral College.

          Neither Trump nor Hillary won 50.1% of the popular vote. All such arguments are meaningless in US Presidential elections, where the candidates are elected by the States, not directly by the people.

          The Electoral College gives larger states MORE of a say than the predecessor to the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, where each state, large or small had a single vote. Though there was no single Executive under the Articles (one of its severe limitations among others) had that scheme been in place Trump would have won 30-20, again, regardless of the popular vote.

          • To be fair-minded, Hillary’s gripe is not that the candidate who wins an absolute majority (50%+1 vote) should win, but that the candidate who garnered the biggest number of votes did not win. Monica’s bf got the biggest number though far less than a majority.

            Every candidate knows the rules of the game. As a result, Trump didn’t bother campaigning much if at all in California, New York, Illinois, or Massachusetts, while Herself stayed mostly clear of flyover country and Texas.

            The design is not flawed. We need the process to force parties to nominate candidates acceptable to vastly different communities like Berkeley, California and Salt Lake City, Utah.

            I for one would join a revolution to split up the country if the alternative were to be dictated to by the sort of government that would be selected by San Francisco and New York City.

      • The point of the Electoral College was to prevent several large states from deciding all the national elections. Were it not for the Electoral College, the Los Angeles Basin, the SF Bay Area and metropolitan New York would determine all the elections for president. Without the EC, those 3 places would be the only places which would ever see a presidential candidate before or after the election. All government programs would be to help only those people who live in those 3 locations.

      • John are you really that misinformed? If you are an American, your teachers should be appalled and ashamed of their abject failure.

        The Electoral College is merely a mechanism for conveying the results of the presidential elections held in each sovereign state of the federal union.

        Each candidate designates electors who will participate in the event that the state’s electoral votes are to be cast for them. Except for the possibility of a “faithless elector”, the outcome is a preordained ritual, dependent only on the outcome of the voting in each of the states.

        Each state has as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives. This does not mean that it is the senators and representatives who act as the electors. The electors are selected by the candidates. The number of representatives for a state is based on population. Since each state has two senators, regardless of population, citizens of states with small populations have relatively more say in the presidential election.

        This is a feature, not a bug. It was designed to protect small states from being dominated by a few large states. It still does that today, protecting rural states from domination by California and New York.

  9. Great review.
    The bio-fuel wood chips/pellets segment was most disturbing, I see 3,800 BMPP’s up and running globally.
    Mass deforestation to burn wood that releases as much CO2 as coal. But it’s ‘green’.

    Hold on-https://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Sterman-Energy-World-May-2018-Wood-Bioenergy.pdf

    • Wood heating releases more CO2 than coal *), and more NO2 and particulates PM2.5 as all other heating

      *) charcoal, dependent of the origin
      black coal produces less CO2 than wood.

      • I still remember the “wood distillation” experiment from Jr high chem lab; the result was some VERY smelly liquids for starters …

      • So, to get Co2 up we need to burn more wood? Got it! And I will continue to do my part, may even add an iron box stove in basement to up our output.

        • 2hotel9,

          Not to mention deforestation, destroy the things that eat CO2. But they will grow back in ~100 years. Sad.

          • Trees=Renewable Resource. Take a drive from, say Cleveland, to NYC. Plenty of proof we are wiping out all the trees right there! :}

          • You give me far more credit than I deserve! I like a nice fire, ain’t burning 80 years worth in a day. And that 80 years figure is a bit, odd. Georgia-Pacific turns over a plot of pines for paper production in far, far less. Other species grow at differing rates. Lets use a rough estimate, I cut down an 80 year old oak tree, ship 3-4 16-20 foot long trunk sections for lumber and veneer(look up video of making veneer from oak logs, rather interesting and profitable) pull out 4-7 limbs for lumber or posts, the rest gets cut up for fire wood. You should get 3 to 4 cords of firewood out of a tree that size. Depending on how efficient your firebox/fireplace is, and how effective you are at working them, you should get several months out of that amount of wood.

            Now, lets us look at usage of wood from general clearing in your average city in US. Oh, lets us not. Vast majority of it is simply dumped to rot. You definitely have a point about wastage of wood. Won’t argue there. Borders on criminal.

          • @Krishna
            A 10-acre wood lot, well-managed, is capable of providing enough wood indefinitely to warm a typical 1,500 square foot American home.

          • @Krishna

            what will you tell me ?

            In response to your statement/query:

            What you burn in one day regrows only in about 80 years. Renewable ?

            I show that on a small scale basis, i.e. 2hotel9’s “iron box stove” that you can do much better than 80 years. I did the calculations a couple of years ago using information from the Oklahoma(?) forestry department. Or Texas or Missouri; the exact source eludes me at the moment. It was based on the indefinite yield, in cords, from a wood lot of a certain size and the number of cords of wood required during the heating season.

          • Mixed lot, maples, oaks, wild cherry, etc etc. Lots of fairly fast growing species to use for firewood.

          • @Daniel

            I show that on a small scale basis, i.e. 2hotel9’s “iron box stove” that you can do much better than 80 years.

            You misunderstood completely.
            It’s told, wood heating is climate neutral. What isn’t true.
            If you burn one tree, to neutralise the CO2 output with a new plantetd tree, there are 80 years needed.
            Your answer told me, that you didn’t read that right.

        • Except Moore talks about biomass power plants burning 30 cords per hour. That’s deforestation on a massive scale.

          • OHHHH, OK, now I understand, it came from Mikee. I’ll stick to reality, which means I don’t waste my time with any of his braindead crap.

          • Wood chips are generally produced from smaller wood, limbs and brush, the trimming you see Asplundh and such companies doing, well, pretty much everywhere. Grinding up larger tree sections gets progressively more expensive bigger you get. Lots of chips from de-barking in lumber cutting, too. Don’t see that grinding up cord-wood would be very efficient or cost effective. If these biomass operations were using the wood chip production from all the tree service/removal companies in, say, 100 mile radius they may be viable without subsidies or using good lumber/pole/post and firewood grade wood. I don’t see that happening, so fire them with coal and lets all move on with our lives.

      • Wood is primarily cellulose, a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates contain 1 mole of H2O [MW 18] for every mole of carbon [MW = 12].

        Wood: 12 / (18 + 12) = 12/30 = 40% carbon, by weight.

        Coal, on the other hand, is roughly 80% to 90% carbon by weight.

        Weight for weight, coal releases twice as much CO2 as wood when burned.

        • When cellulose burns 5 H2O molecules are produced for every 6 molecules of CO2. I think more energy is released by the oxidizing of that hydrogen than by the oxidizing of the carbon. The amount of heat released per pound burned is an important part of the calculation when attempting to determine whether burning coal or wood creates more CO2 during the production of a given amount of electricity.
          Since more hydrogen is oxidized when wood is burned, than when burning coal, less carbon needs to be oxidized to get the required heat output, when burning wood instead of coal.
          P.S. When wood is pressed into pellets water gets squeezed out.

          • SteveR: Coal out of the ground has a nominal heating value of ~10000 btu/lb while wood out of the forest has a nominal heating value of 4000 btu/lb. There are processing costs for both. To dry hard wood passively you need about 2 years in Tennessee. If kiln dried or even dried at the power plant as part of your cycle, heat is required. Even if you are squeezing water out to make pellets that takes power too. An honest life cycle mass and energy balance must must be performed on any fuel to fully understand it’s benefits and liabilities. Back in 1987 one got 15 btu return per btu input using wood fuel, 48 btu for coal, and 25 btu for gas. That’s probably why wood consumption as fuel peaked back in 1880.

            Clearing forests for fuel, or wind mills, or solar panels is a fool’s errand IMO. Let the trees make O2 for us to breathe.


            See also Norman Smith and Thomas J. Corcoran, University of Maine at Orono, “The Energy Analysis of Wood Production for Fuel Applications”

          • SteveR you ignore the latent heat in all that H2O (steam) that is generated. It goes up the flue and is not released until it condenses somewhere up in the air. That heat doesn’t generate any power.

            Plus it’s common sense that if coal were not a better source of useful energy, we would have deforested the continent before settling on using coal. What actually happened was that coal was used preferentially even where wood was abundantly available.

        • jorge: raw coal/raw wood ~ 10000 btu/4000 btu so you burn 2.5x as much wood to produce the same amount of heat. And unless you are sun drying the wood, and I don’t know that that is practical at the scale we are talking, then you must include the heat and associated emissions for drying the wood in your mass balance.

          I’d also speculate that strip mining results in many fewer trees being killed than clear cutting for biomass fuel. So loss of CO2 sink & O2 production would need be accounted for in your mass balance when comparing coal to wood.

          The last time I was involved in a biomass project I think we found if the wood came from more than 50 miles away that it could not compete with other fuel options based on transport costs alone (at that time).

          At that time a wet wood power plant had a heat rate of ~12740 btu/kwh vs modern subcritical coal at ~9330. Thus the coal plant is around 1.36x more efficient than the wet wood for producing electricity.

          I’ve wondered if deep mining coal with robots would be a practical way to address strip mining impacts.

  10. Michael Moore and all alarmists need a crash course in the Doomslayer, whose message was silenced with his untimely death less than a year after this powerful article was published:
    FEBRUARY 1, 1997
    “THIS IS THE litany : Our resources are running out. The air is bad, the water worse. The planet’s species are dying off – more exactly, we’re killing them -at the staggering rate of 100,000 peryear, a figure that works out to almost 2,000 species per week, 300 per day, 10 perhour, another dead species every six minutes.We’re trashing the planet, washing away the topsoil, paving over our farmlands, systematically deforesting our wildernesses, decimating the biota, and ultimately killing ourselves.
    The world is getting progressively poorer, and it’s all because of population, or more precisely, overpopulation. There’s a finite store of resources on our pale blue dot, spaceship Earth, our small and fragile tiny planet, and we’re fast approaching its ultimate carrying capacity. The limits to growth are finally upon us, and we’re living on borrowed time. The laws of population growth are inexorable. Unless we act decisively, the final result is written in stone: mass poverty, famine, starvation, and death.
    Time is short, and we have to act now.
    That’s the standard and canonical litany. It’s been drilled into our heads so far and so forcefully that to hear it yet once more is … well, it’s almost reassuring. It’s comforting, oddly consoling – at least we’re face to face with the enemies: consumption, population, mindless growth. And we know the solution: cut back, contract, make do with less. “Live simply so that others may simply live.”

    There’s just one problem with The Litany, just one slight little wee imperfection: every item in that dim and dreary recitation, each and every last claim, is false. Incorrect. At variance with the truth.

    Not the way it is, folks.
    Thus saith The Doomslayer, one Julian L. Simon, a neither shy nor retiring nor particularly mild-mannered professor of business administration at a middling eastern-seaboard state university. Simon paints a somewhat different picture of the human condition circa 1997.” end of excerpt

Julian Simon Was Right: A Half-Century of Population Growth, Increasing Prosperity, and Falling Commodity Prices
Feb 16, 2018


    How Julian Simon Won a $1,000 Bet with “Population Bomb” Author Paul Ehrlich
Simon was right then, and he continues to be right today.
Thursday, March 8, 2018


    Julian Simon was right: we create faster than we consume
4 March 2018
Population Growth Leads to Abundant Resources
December 28, 2018

LISTEN … and pray that someone like Julian Simon can emerge to bring reason and evidence back into the conversation
|Peter Boettke
June 01, 2019 at 08:31

    June 01, 2019 at 08:31
Earth Is Nearly 520 Percent More Abundant Now Than in 1980
Thanks to the ultimate resource: the human mind
RONALD BAILEY | 5.31.2019 12:17 PM

Simon Abundance Index Launch on Monday at the Cato Institute
Mark the 49th anniversary of Earth Day by celebrating human ingenuity.


    The Ultimate Resource 2 Paperback – July 1, 1998

Julian Simon
1932 – 1998

    • re: “Michael Moore and all alarmists need a crash course in the Doomslayer,”

      Looks like something the comedian George Carlin could have penned/performed regarding the environment, with a little different twist …

    • I’m going to get a lot of flack for this but here goes.

      The flaw in the Simon assertion of “more people, even more resources” is that it is high IQ people that unlock resources. For some reason, these are predominately found in parts of the world that make up a shrinking fraction of the world’s population. Those parts of the globe expanding the fastest have yet to produce any breakthrough technologies despite efforts to find “the next Einstein”. And even in the high IQ regions, IQs appear to be declining.

      Note that Malthus was “proven wrong” during the 19th and 20th centuries.

      • When you mistake ability for opportunity, expect to get flack.

        First off, the more people you have, the more likely you are to get more geniuses.
        Secondly, amongst a people that are brutally poor, who struggle to earn enough each day to feed their families, how likely is it that they will produce the next Einstein?

        Actually they are just as likely as any other group of people, the problem being that the child will never get the education that will allow his/her intellect to thrive.

        By blaming their genes rather than their circumstances you display a bias. And not a pretty one.

        • We have unsuccessfully tried to “close the gap” here for decades despite spending trillions. Apparently, the Flynn effect has limits. No rational reason to expect any better results in sub-Saharan Africa.

      • IQ is a poor measure of intelligence. High IQ individuals are not the sharpest knife in the draw most times, not even the sharpest pencil. I work with several very highly intelligent people, according to IQ, and I don’t turn them loose unsupervised on a job site.

        • Agreed, 2hotel9. I work with a few people who have, very, high IQ’s and are VERY gifted doing a particular thing but can’t follow the directions on a box of brownies.



      • Marginal nutrition, a couple of hours a day carrying water from a distant and probably unsanitary communal well instead of getting an education—not conducive to high IQ.

        When infant and child mortality is so high that 5-6 births are needed to assure 2 reach adulthood and most of the energy for farm work coming from human labor, all the incentives are to have many children.

        Let them have electricity, clean water, proper sanitation, and a tractor. Then see what happens.

        • It has been done in the past, the world saw the results. That is why leftists fight against that very “prescription” tooth&nail.

        • They inherited a first world country (South Africa). The results speak for themselves. And they voted for what they got in apparently free and fair elections.

          • South Africa is not a fair case study. South Africa and Rhodesia as you well know, were European settlements in the midst of much larger native populations. While a fair accounting would show that indigenous Africans were better off economically than their ancestors and their neighbors as a result of white rule, they did not have political self-determination. There may have been sincere attempts to raise living standards, but never at the expense of much higher standards for white communities.

            Democracy is no panacea and can only work well when all voters feel some sense of belonging to the same community.

          • “Democracy is no panacea and can only work well when all voters feel some sense of belonging to the same community.” And here in America the Democrat Party has spent decades driving wedges between groups and exacerbating those divisions for their leftist ideology.

          • 2hotel: Applaud your observation and had a similar thought re “and can only work well when all voters feel some sense of belonging to the same community.” WTF? How do you have “same community” in a melting pot? As a “true democracy” the best you can hope for is that all voices are HEARD…quoting from a Democracy Now ad from around 8 yrs ago that I can no longer find on the www. Remember freedom of speech? I’ve not had a “sense of belonging” for decades…nor a voice. My demographic attacked and besmirched on every show and ad. Higher taxes and no reproductive rights…all for the privilege of being the bad guy…who gets up before 6, goes to work, and is forced to feed numerous people who hate me. Slavery did not in back in the late 1800’s in NA, it merely expanded.

          • meiggs—
            The melting pot idea is “e pluribus unum”—out of many, one—that we all mix and transform into one nation like different metals melting and mixing to form one alloy.

            It doesn’t mean that you have to eliminate differences by intermarriage and adopting identical beliefs, but everyone has a strong common identity transcending tribal ethnic bonds. A common idea of the public good and how the country should be organized. Pride in one’s nation.

            What you’re arguing against is the idea of multiculturalism where everyone clings to their ethnic identity and jealously guards their group prerogatives at the expense of other groups. People are not judged as individuals by the content of their character. They are judged by the color of their skin.

            It isn’t enough for everyone to be heard. What will be the result of an election where 10 million Jews and 11 million Islamic State jihadists vote to decide if non-muslims should be k!lled?

          • Rich: You sound like the Priests of the Temple of Syrinx, who’s pulling the strings? Who is in charge of this amalgamation of disparate cultures? The Dems don’t seem to be doing a very good job of it to wit we the worker bees are supposed to be more concerned by an alphabet soup of a statistically insignificant number people with serious psycho/sexual problems rather than ourselves.

            Not arguing anything, simply providing a point of view. But your stmt “People are not judged as individuals by the content of their character. They are judged by the color of their skin.”

            In your world, who is the judge?

            On topic of voting for war, under the US Constitution I think congress has to vote to declare war and then of course come up with the money to fund it which involves tax payer pain so then they decide maybe it’s not worth it after all. What would be the result of going to war without a declaration of war? Trillions $ wasted and millions victims of genocide, sound sorta like current events for about the last 20 yrs or so?

      • May you be condemned to attend an eternal cocktail party populated by MENSA members.

      • Al Gore and Michael Moore, if rendered like whales used to be, would provide light and heat for a small town…and they would have made their first really worthwhile contribution to reducing the use of fossil fuels! Sorry, not sorry!

  11. Yes Gore et all deserve most of the blame. But corrupted a academia enables these fraudsters by publishing dishonest evaluations of each project. We live in a society where truth, morals and ethics have little or no value. The Covid pandemic has become a tool of .1% that is more dangerous than the disease itself. A $10 dollar cure is being hidden so that billion dollar treatments can enrich the few.

    • MR166: “became a tool” or is a tool crafted by same and now in use? This situation I have expected for some time now. The lambs are no longer needed, they have served their purpose?

      Unlike gore-ball worming we’ll probably get to see the outcome of this scam. Still wondering if it will come in the form of a bright flash or the next rev of CV19. I’d prefer the bright flash but those are hard on capital assets.

  12. In all religions, the heretic is seen as worse than the none believer. For they offer a real threat to the dogma and power of the religion. The green one is merely following this route.
    Mann just carries on with his thin skin massive ego combination which will one day see him thrown under the bus by his own side, hopefully soon.

  13. The world listened to a previous generation of environmentalists and stopped nuclear power from progressing as it should have. Would we be so freaked out about CO2 today if we had stuck with nuclear? If electricity was so cheap you would pay a flat monthly fee, like your internet?

  14. “It can power 50 (!) homes at peak solar intensity.”

    1) Peak solar intensity only occurs for a few minutes each day. Assuming a cloud doesn’t pass overhead at the same time.
    2) As soon as soon as they are installed, their efficiency starts to slowly drop.

  15. “But Moore and Gibbs aren’t indicting free market capitalism. They’re indicting government-mandated and subsidized crony corporatist opportunism. “……to be clear, “government-mandated and subsidized crony coporatist opportunism” is more accurately labelled…..FASCISM.

    • Bingo! But until Moore’s eyes were (supposedly) recently opened, he and millions of other Americans believed in that type of system as feasible, even preferable. A 50-year fail for our education system.

  16. “Removing mountaintops to access coal, bad; to erect huge bird-killing wind turbines, good?”

    Coal companies have to post bonds that guarantee that after the coal is gone, the mountain tops will be restored to what they were.

    Do the companies that own the wind turbines have to do the same?

  17. Yes, Paul! Strange times, indeed! The film has many good parts despite the Malthusian twist at the end.

    But there are too many closed minds out there unfortunately! Many people have been indoctrinated since childhood or have been taken in by the nonsense that the MSN and alarmist Politicians spew out every day!

    Even now, the usual suspects are trying to figure out how to steal even MORE of the people’s money after the lockdowns are lifted.

    It’s staggering but we can only keep on fighting the good fight against all this nonsense!

  18. Moore’s assumption of a ‘climate crisis’ is still wrong, imo. But a good job on exposing the green energy farce.

  19. For me the film merely reasserted the views I have developed over the years observing the climate debate. True, there were omissions and some questionable elements; but you can’t have perfection.
    I am grateful that at last someone has brought this to the attention of the mainstream media which has systematically suppressed information of this nature over the years. It will be interesting to note how the green contingent responds; but suspect that group cognitive dissonance will dictate the terms.

  20. Recently Moore stated that Covid19 is natures way of warning us to stop global warming, or else.

  21. “Even worse is the total devastation of entire forests – clear cut, chopped into chips, maybe pelletized, and shipped hundreds or even thousands of miles … to be burned in place of coal or natural gas to generate the electricity that makes modern homes, factories, hospitals, living standards and life spans possible. ”

    With regard to pellets, natural gas and electrical energy are used to produce pellets to increase/improve biomass density and handling. Chips are mainly used locally. Pellets are mainly used when biomass is shipped long distances.

    • In Europe there was a big fashion end of the nineties for pellets and lots of publicity for pellet ovens. Then came the real news: there’s not enough wood around and that already forests in Rumania are being illegally “harvested” to make them. Then came the news that the ovens would need additional particle filters to be safe. Now no one hears hardly ever from pellet ovens anymore.
      On top of that, there’s lots of dead wood just being left around in the forests where all sort of nasty beetles thrive. Then the forest has problems with insects and guess what the problem officially then is: global warming…

  22. Moore is a film journalist with agendas. This time his research couldn’t deny the facts and I give him credit for telling the truth. He merely reported what realists know and have been saying all along about the ‘renewable energy’ fiasco being perpetrated on the world. Hopefully it will open more peoples’ minds to what is really going on with CC.

  23. Folks have to realize that green energy is bait and switch. It’s a fraud. They suck people into agreeing to get rid of fossil fuels on the pretext that there is a better option. Once fossil fuels are gone, the hammer will drop and people will be forced into the situation where sufficient energy will not be available. Society will collapse.

    Fraud is a crime. People should go to jail.

    • commie: stupidity is not a crime but nature, according to Darwin, deals with it. It’s not hereditary for very long.

  24. If you google Ivanpah, you get no mention that it is now “a solar dead zone”, as stated in Michael Moor’s film.



    By the way, thing #6. not mentioned is that Ivanpah is now a solar dead zone. . . check it out on google earth. . . most of the mirrors are scattered about and not aimed at the towers. I can’t find any link that tells the truth about Ivanpah now!!! Does anyone have any first hand information about the current status of the 2.2 billion dollar Ivanpah plant?

    – JPP

  25. “Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earths, fiberglass and other materials.”

    Are you sure? 5M lbs is 2.5M Kg or 250,000 tonnes. Even here in the UK there’s only about 1,000 tonnes of concrete in every turbine base.

    It looks to me as if the weight has been over-calculated by three orders of magnitude or more.

    Doesn’t mean they’re any less stupid, though.

    • If 2.5M Kg equals 250,000 tonnes, then one ton equals 10 Kg. I think the person who is off by two orders of magnitude is you.
      Without the conversion to metric, 5,000,000 pounds would be 2500 tons.

      • Beyond that, the conversion from pounds to kilograms is closer to 2.2 than it is to 2,

        5,000,000 pounds equals approximately 2,270,000 kilogrames and 2,270 tonnes.

  26. Are you aware that the electoral college is a state-level organisation and is one of the political distinctive that preserves the United States of America as opposed to the Federal Republic of America or the peoples’ republic of america

    • David,
      You triggered me on one of my pet peeves. Most people fail to understand what “federal” means. It seems to have become a synonym for a central higher authority with states being relegated to subdivisions or districts.

      In fact, the United States of America as originally conceived was a federal union of sovereign states. Federation is the voluntary association of entities that choose to cooperate on certain things while retaining local authority over the rest. The United States of America could reasonably have been named the Federal Republic of America, which implies by the word “federal”, that its constituent parts retain sovereignty and are not mere administrative districts of a central government. It could not have been properly called the Republic of America, implying one single state with sovereignty over all matters throughout its territory.

      It’s not hard to understand why people have lost a proper understanding of what federal means. Generations of politicians have worked hard to destroy federalism and have sought to force a one-size-fits-all approach to all government policy and a Washington knows best interference in local decision-making. It serves their purpose to blur the meaning of federal and to transform the concept of state into administrative district. It is a subtle idea, to have a truly national government but which is limited in scope of action, leaving most government decisions to the states. Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional, predicated on an overbroad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

      • “voluntary association” There is the rub, it stopped being voluntary long ago.

          • Yep, obey their commands or the citizens get punished, all the while professional politicians continue to profit whilst pretending to “defend” states rights and citizens rights.

        • It was a voluntary and conscious act to form a permanent union in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777, unanimously ratified and in force as of 1781. The Constitution ratified in 1789 only adjusted the form of that perpetual union.

          You can argue that one generation cannot bind future generations. I would tend to agree. Lincoln didn’t agree, though.

          The South’s cause was not just. Slavery is a stain on our nation’s history. But if secession is not a natural right, then the American Revolution was also illegitimate.

          • It is now a suicide pact and we are all going down. We can’t get rid of our enemies who have infiltrated our government at every level, and they have been handed the ultimate weapon with this idiotic flu response. It is going to get ugly.

  27. Paul, Moore and Gibbs have a long record of being anti-capitalist. Full stop. That is very clear from Gibbs commentary throughout the film. Although Josh Fox is a bad piece of work some of his criticisms of the film are valid. After all, These two are always loose with the facts in every film they make. We know that and it’s the main reason we don’t like these guys. I’m sure that nobody could see what Moore/Gibbs were doing in this film better than Josh Fox who employs the same tactics. Fox and others of his type are just outraged that the low-life tactics were turned on them. While we greatly enjoy the teeth-gnashing this film has caused on the other side we shouldn’t mistake what Moore/Gibbs represent for an unspoken agreement with anything we stand for.

  28. “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
    -The Salesman’s Credo (as practiced by Michael Moore)

    The last time I saw Michael Moore he was prancing about with his pal Bill McKibben at a Green Town Hall promoting the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, hosted by the avowed social justice warrior and crypto-totalitarian Amy Goodman of the lunatic left-wing Democracy Now ! PBS propaganda news channel.

  29. A well put article of the damage and uselessness of green renewable energy production supported by conventional reliable energy.

    Maybe someday there will be economical and reliable replacement of conventional energy but not now.

    • re: “Maybe someday there will be economical and reliable replacement of conventional energy but not now.”

      What if … there were a device, about the size of a refrigerator, capable of over 50 kW output (representing at least 200 Amp at 240V service to a house) … this would represent first-off a reduction in size from an equivalent diesel genset plus required fuel reserve … the ‘noise’ output of such a device would be that of fan noise, no low-toned diesel exhaust ‘note’ from an 1800 RPM internal combustion engine. Such a device would use either MHD (MagnetoHydrodynamic) for direct generation of electricity or a heated to incandescence brilliance graphite (or Tungsten) ‘bulb’ in conjunction with high-efficiency high temperature PV cells and electronic DC to 60 Hz ‘inverter’ using the new high efficiency SiC (and diamond) insulated power FET technology …

      MHD demo:

      • What if we lined up a bunch of unicorns and collected their farts?

        If this device you keep trying to sell actually worked, you would be making them by the millions and have become a billionaire by now.

        • re: “If this device you keep trying to ”

          MarkW, the ‘house fly’ on WUWT, have you contacted Dr. Nansteel on the veracity of this topic, or are you a total idiot, nincompoop and moron after all? There is NO reason for you to continue this stupidity, MarkW, none whatsoever.

          I would appreciate in the future, MarkW, that you avoid me and the discussions on this topic as you are clearly possessed by insanity (and maybe an evil spirit as well) and no good will ever come of your continued badgering and haranguing.

          Posted AGAIN for MarkW: Dr. Mark Nansteel, Ph.D. Look him up, or write him, MarkW, and ask him about the subject about which you continue to misunderstand, bad-mouth and harangue.

          Mark Nansteel received the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering from the University of California at Berkeley in 1982.,He was an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, from 1982 to 1988, and an Associate Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, from 1989 to 1997. During this period, he carried out research in buoyancy-induced convection, two-phase flow and thermal conduction. Dr. Nansteel is a member of The Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

        • Once again, if this thing worked, he wouldn’t have to be trolling for suckers, er I mean investors.

          Create a working model, allow anyone in the world to examine it and prove me wrong.

          You won’t because it doesn’t work, it’s just a scam to fleece the unwary.

  30. Where I’m currently lockeddown in Limousin, France. A region famous for being rural and its cattle and sheep, but which is undergoing trial by green revolution. We have wind generators being erected left, right and centre. We don’t get many windy days but we get migrating European Cranes spring and autumn. The cows and sheep are being replaced by crops for biofuels. About 9km away there’s a gasification plant to convert crops to methane, currently maize and rye. This change in farming methods has involved the purchase of large tractors and trailers, and the ploughing up fields that had been grass for a long time, and removal of 50-100 year old trees and hedges (and the associated wildlife) to make fields large enough to suit the new equipment. I’m not sure of exactly what, but these fields now require more chemical fertilizers and pest control.

    There’s a big environmental debt to be paid back for both of these green follies

  31. One of the main themes among the critics of Planet of the Humans is that the footage is in some cases 15 years old and that solar and wind have seen significant efficiency gains since then. While debatable, even if true it misses the point. Solar and wind are not constrained so much by efficiency as they are by capacity factor. And biomass has ALWAYS been a bad idea.

    • you’re DEAD wrong- biomass (woody biomass from good forest mgt.) is a GREAT idea

        • Biomass production is part of good forestry because the forests are loaded with many low value trees which have no market other than for biomass. You can’t grow good trees which can make high value sawtimber without removing unhealthy/damaged trees. As for air pollution- that’s vastly exagerated. What industry has ZERO air pollution? Not many. Modern biomass burners have smokestack installations to minimize pollution. People like no pollution- they hate animals being butchered on farms- they hate mines- they hate industry but they love the modern life style. If you like wood products- learn to like modern forest management. And, here I’m talking about forestry in North America- not the tropics. Forestry is also pretty good in Europe- where it’s a huge industry needed to provide products to several hundred million people. Not using wood means using more cement and steel- which have a higher carbon footprint. As for being green- I’m a green forester for 47 years. I hate industrial scale wind and solar- so I’m not a “greenie” who is a climate change fanatic. I think climate change is nothing to be worried about. Just read a new report from climatologist Patrick Michaels: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CEIMichaelsDayaratnaEPAsEndangermentFinding.pdf

          You can see what good forestry- including biomass – looks like in Massachusetts- on another forester’s Facebook photo album: https://www.facebook.com/pg/MikeLeonardConsultingForester/photos/?tab=albums

          • to: Joseph Zorzin
            re: “Modern biomass burners have smokestack installations to minimize pollution. ”

            SOMEONE is deluded; what is creosote, where does it come from, and what causes it, what sort of ‘harm’ does it represent?

            Creosote is a category of carbonaceous chemicals formed by the distillation of various tars and pyrolysis of plant-derived material, such as wood … . Additionally, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that coal tar is carcinogenic to humans and that creosote is probably carcinogenic to humans. EPA has also determined that coal tar creosote is a probable human carcinogen.

            Without scrubbers on the ‘smokestack’, you’re putting that stuff into the air we ALL breathe.

          • “_Jim May 8, 2020 at 3:34 pm

            to: Joseph Zorzin
            re: “Modern biomass burners have smokestack installations to minimize pollution. ”

            SOMEONE is deluded; what is creosote,…”

            You will find it in some medicines too.

  32. I have not seen the film, but have heard about it. While it is relieving to hear that Moore has changed his mind, I caution that this is Michael Moore, perennial leftist, we are dealing with. I am willing to apply the Dan Bongino rule of giving this PLENTY of time before jumping on the applauding bandwagon. You just cannot trust the left these days.

    • Moore has changed nothing other than his line of attack, and is successfully sucking a whole new wave of people into his stupidity. And it makes him money, which is his only goal in the final measure.

  33. Off in the distance, separate and apart from Moore and this post and most of the comments is the truth. That truth is that utility scale solar with or without storage is now accelerating as it’s LCOE falls below various fossil fuels and wind. (Rooftop solar was never competitive.) You can either wake up to these nonlinear market trends and truth or look backward or stay in some echo chamber with betamax, mainframe computing, landline phone equipment, and nuclear cost excuses. The truth hurts sometimes but it does not slow down for stragglers or debates. Markets tend to do the same thing with more signal noise.

    • Solar is so efficient that it takes 10’s of billions of dollars in subsidies every year to keep it going.

      The only thing solar power is efficient at is transferring money from people who work, to people who buy politicians.

    • PS, It doesn’t matter what the cost of energy is, if it isn’t available when people need it.
      When you add in the batteries and the fossil fuel power plants that are needed for when the sun isn’t shinning, Solar becomes very, very, very expensive.

      Anyone who doesn’t take into consideration the cost of the entire system is either extremely ignorant, or extremely corrupt.

    • If the costs of wind and solar are falling as precipitously as claimed, why aren’t we seeing lower electricity bills, even those with municipal utilities? Why does Germany have the highest electricity costs in the world?

      • Kevin: And why are the renewable subsidies not kaput if LCOE is so good? Let renewable compete as long as my taxes, which are heavy, are not used to monkey with the market.

        Maybe your tax form should have boxes that you can check if you feel strongly enough to pay for renewables or not depending on your wont.

        • Why? Because the high cost players and rooftop installers make a lot of noise with lobbyists with such stupid claims as high number of jobs in the sector despite the push to reduce labor by the super league players with robotic factories and larger format panels.

      • Can’t explain the Germans except they were early adopters at much higher prices in solar.

        I do see prices falling for municipal ppa contracts even with mid sized solar projects, not the lowest lcoe prices of the very large utility scale. These are taking place in states that are not driven by mandates but with market forces alone.

        Better get up to speed on those new trends or you will be behind.

  34. It is a rather extraordinary film, I must say. Yep… took the hour-and-a-half to actually watch it. Another half-hour to replay bits I had noted on a piece of paper for review.

    For years and years I have been unabashedly criticizing the solar-and-wind-and-biofuels industries for their mendacity with regard to what they cost to make, what irrenewable resources they need to install, what environmental damage, both before startup, and even during they incur, and lastly the ‘legacy of removing them when spent’ costs, either sunk, or rusting in the wind decades off.

    My circle of friends includes a lot of people from Marin, Berkeley, Palo Alto, Santa Clara and Lafayette (CA). I went to school at UCBerkeley, back in the late 1970s. Chemistry, computer science, ordinary physics, materials science. Fun stuff, for a 1970s nerd.

    Before it was ever popular to say so, I was strongly and deeply hopeful for a day when solar power (hadn’t imagined the wind-power machine scaling!) would substantially add to The Grid, and to at least some degree, mitigate the ever growing demand for power generated by more conventional means. My frat brothers and I had endlessly loud-and-sometimes-amusing discussions about its potential.

    We ended up realizing — not unlike the conclusion Moore pulls at the end — that the problem is threefold.

    № 1 — demographics — population size incurs its own still-rising demands.

    № 2 — diurnal production-consumption mismatch — the sun shines … similar to, but not really ideally matched to human civilization’s consumption pattern. The pattern can be changed, as anyone who has lived amongst the dirt-poor villages of India, México, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, … can imagine. When you have no power-on-the-wire at all, well … you do what you do when the sun shines.

    № 3 — civilization’s mineral resources — we came to realize that there literally is no economic replacing much of what we completely take for granted, with petroleum, natural gas and coal resources. The keyword is “economic replacing”. There have been myriads of demonstrations of syn-fuels, syn-chemistry and so on. But their economics, even in the 1970s and 1980s was totally in question. Now they are known to be economic farces.

    Yet, even so … the Ecology Movement had found enormous public traction in doing things to remediate and reverse mankind’s depredation of Planet Earth. Satellites watched and exposed the endless deforestation of … everywhere. EPA-like agencies, Sierra-Club-like agencies, endless recipients of both taxpayer and private equity funding arose, gained law-support for their actions, and charged ahead.

    After all, there was (and remains if we are honest) and ENDLESS supply of 15-to–25 year olds going thru high school and college, who become (remarkably naïvely) enamored with Go Green, and imbibing the Koolaid that is ladled out to them in gushing tanker-carloads, each and every year.

    Thing is, the Koch brothers (generically as well as specifically), and all similar denizens of the profit-sphere have learned one of the great absurdities of public psychology: it may take nefarious redirection of monies thru channels that happily will rebrand the ‘investment’ under a super-righteous rubric … for to tap the flow for their own pocket lining, but the so-called GREENS are more-than-happy to take almost any funding so as to pave the path to their undermined agendas.

    IT WAS PARTICULARLY TELLING that none of the ‘interviews’ of charitable funds recipients could actually comment on the very practices (biofuels, in particular) that were destroying the forests, the glades, the greenlands that their charter(s) are defined to defend.

    That just about took the cake, for me.

    Because it IS human behavior in a nutshell: the louder and more vociferous the special-interest group, the more it can be undermined by creative investment (and pölïtically motivated appointments to its leadership) by monied interests.

    And never let a great Government Program go untapped, either. Right?

    IT WAS ALSO AND INDICTMENT of The Left’s Green New Deal thinking, to see that the billions-and-billions of Government funds have been almost entirely redirected to invest in green-sounding technology that actually destroys more forest, greenlands, oceans and everything else, than they can conceivably answer for. And that the Green Groups are complicit in the mendacity by way of taking endless, likely rather small, money drops from the same interests, quite at odds with their charters.

    I started out this month … depressed.
    Depressed by many things.
    Covid, you name it.

    Now … I am depressed by how quickly smart people can undermine good-intentioned groups … by dripping money in their general direction, through shell corporations that “launder the message”.

    VERY sad.

    ⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
    ⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅

  35. “Even worse is the total devastation of entire forests – clear cut, chopped into chips, maybe pelletized, and shipped hundreds or even thousands of miles … to be burned in place of coal or natural gas to generate the electricity that makes modern homes, factories, hospitals, living standards and life spans possible.”

    That’s total and absolute bullshit. I’ve been a forester for 47 years. Most biomass harvested from forests comes from managed forests. Anyone writing such a comment without doing their homeword doesn’t deserve to be considered a journalist. The person shown in the movie sneaking on to the biomass facility in Vermont is a well know forestry hating activiest. I’ve debated him in emails for years. He called me once and I told him that that he’s a phony- on his web site he only shows photos of giant clearcuts in southern swamps. I asked why he doesn’t show photos of well managed forests where SOME of the wood goes to biomass. He replied, “I’m an activist so I don’t need to show both sides of the story- I don’t need to be fair. To see photos of great forestry in Massachusetts where SOME of the wood goes to biomass- check out the Facebook photo album of another consultant in this state: https://www.facebook.com/pg/MikeLeonardConsultingForester/photos/?tab=albums

    However, I personally detest industrial strength wind and solar “farms” but I’ll save my comments on that subject for another day.

    • “Most biomass harvested from forests comes from managed forests.”

      How much is most? Jeff Gibbs talked on a global scale in the film.

      • Global? It is not being done on even a regional basis. The whole greendream has always been a fantastical fantasy. And no, Mikee has not seen the light, ain’t nobody took him outback and had a come to Jesus with him. He is still the screaming leftist, America hating and anti-human piece of sh&t he has always been.

        • It’s being done on a regional basis in New England and the American southeast. In the southeast, people bitch about forest being clearcut for biomass- which is a lie. Though there are clearcuts- as part of long term management on a large scale, only a small percent goes to biomass. Roughly 3% of all the wood cut in the southeast goes to biomass. In New England- there is a vast potential for biomass but there are forestry hating lunatics here who don’t want it because they think we foresters we’ll clearcut. Clearcutting is fairly common the far north of New England- but not the rest of it. I find it amazing how so many people think they know what’s happening in the forests because of something they read- without trying to find out from those who actually work in forests.

          • Worked in and around the timbering industry in several states. I see massive amounts of “biomass” being dumped and left to rot. Right here in PA regulations applied to pipeline companies required them to have timber operations clear much of the trees dropped along their routes, lots of ash, fir, maple, wild cherry etc etc taken to mills. Still tons of “biomass” material left to rot. Unless a law is enacted by Congress requiring all this waste to be used it will never be efficient or practical. And that will never happen because greentards fight it at every step. Their solution is to end all timbering/forest management.

          • Oh, and clear cutting, sometimes that is what has to be done, depending on the situation. Not using it all is the problem.

        • 2hotel9,

          I’m no fan of Moore. If you didn’t watch the documentary, you’re talking out your ass.

      • I’ll clarify- most biomass in North America- comes from managed forests. Of course there have aleays been people who hate managed forests- but of course, they just LOVE their wood homes, wood furniture and paper products- though they fail to understand where the wood comes from- like children who think that milk comes from the grocery store- not farms- and people who love meat but hate the idea of cattle being butchered. If anyone likes wood- I hope they get to like well managed forests.

    • Forestry was the first casualty of green propaganda in Australia.

      We alone amongst nations of men have a continent to ourselves, yet we import timber and every summer watch forests burn to the ground, along with much of the wildlife, through lack of management and a pervasive belief in wilderness.

      Some indigenous people here even espouse the wilderness rhetoric. I, for the life of me, cannot see the difference between the idea of wilderness in an Australian context and the discredited colonial notion of an Australian “terra nullius”, a land without people. It is as if these indigenous activists are denying the existence of their own preferred ancestral people (I say “preferred” because these activists routinely avoid any mention of their own obvious European ancestry).

      As for biomass, the green ideologues here are at their most convoluted on this issue. They may support the principle but will not support it in practice under any circumstances, including the use of waste material from logging for high-grade sawn timber. Nor will they support in practice any firewood collection by rural dwellers of lower socio-economic status.

      Every tree or fallen branch is sacred because trees are their cathedrals.

  36. The problem with Moore is that he has been too heavily influenced by the prevailing orthodoxies of the his “side” of politics (this is not an uncommon failing and one that is demonstrated on these pages often enough).

    This tendency seems to have increased in tandem with his fame, rather unsurprisingly, for political fame and independent thought are uneasy bedfellows at best.

  37. As far as the forest to energy conversion goes I think that the statement from the film, if true, pretty much says it all. ” If you burnt all of the trees in the US they would only supply electricity for one year.” Thus it is pretty obvious that this is not sustainable on a large scale since even the quickest growing trees take 10-20 years to grow back. As far as selective culling the less desirable trees for wood to power , it is not practical since the costs are higher than the fuel value of the wood.

  38. From the article: “Instead, they propose that we humans must “get ourselves under control.” This means not just slashing our living standards (may we all have “carbon footprints” as small as Al Gore’s) and “de-developing” and “de-industrializing” the United States and Europe, while simultaneously dictating to still impoverished nations how much they will be “permitted” to develop, in accordance with former Obama science advisor John Holdren’s totalitarian instincts. It also means having far fewer humans on this glorious planet. (How exactly that is to be achieved they don’t say, though several twentieth century dictators offer ideas.)”

    The solution to humanity’s problems is: nuclear energy.

    Burn fossil fuels while transitioning to nuclear energy. It’s the only way for society to continue moving ahead.

    • Dear Mr. Abbott,

      You are completely right: “The solution to humanity’s problems is: nuclear energy.”

      However, it is very sad, that this eventually trivial fact should be discovered again in the XXI. century. May I recommend, please, the famous roman (Hari Seldon’s “place of birth”) “The Foundation”? Surprisingly could I. Asimov forecast the future very well also on this field. Looking back to the history in the last 40 years, many topics in Asimov’s roman was rather well written even 69 years ago. I would say, Asimov was a real visionary.

        • Dear meiggs,

          I don’t think so. Instead my first guess would be, that Trump would be sent by the central (hidden) group of psychohistorians to save the world in Terms of the Foundation-Trilogy. Why? My “theory” (one can call it as a “conspiracy theory” and call me a “troll”): The globalists could convince Hillary, that a limited nuclear war could be won. If Hillary would have been elected, she has already would initiated such a “limited nuclear war”. However, a “limited nuclear war” doesn’t exist, only a global nuclear war. This fact was known also for the psychohistorians and somebody (Trump) has been sent to protect the world from a global nuclear war. If Hillary would have been elected in 2016 it could easily happened, that we could not write today here in WUWT, because we and WUWT (and our civilisation) would not exist any more after a global nuclear war. Of course this is only a speculation. However, it is very curious the sudden emergence of Trump from nothing. It could also be possible, that the real patriots of the US Army have recognised, that in a nuclear war there could be only losers, so they wanted to preempt a global nuclear war, and they supported Trump on their way to be elected as a president. It was also noticeable, that at the beginning of t Trump’s presidency the US military had key executive positions. Again, this is only a personal speculation. The most important from the point of view of the WUWT-community would be the fact, that Trump has decided to leave the Paris Climate Agreement. I am strongly convinced, that this has been a right decision. I hope also, that Trump could win a second term as a president, and there will be an offen-ended public discussion on the climate and CO2 hysterie. I think also, that such a discussion would be extremely important also for the EU and for my country (Germany) to avoid a voluntary harakiri (de-carbonisation and de-industrialisation).

  39. The film is an excellent illustration: The maffia buys into the politics to generate huge extraprofit (s. “Green New Deal”). The Godfather was only an amateurish dilettante beginner compared to Al Gore, McKibben, Greenpace, etc. A classical example would be the EV-hype with the equation from the view of the customer: The customer pays substantially more for 25-30% benefit (value) compared to ICEs. Of course most of the customers would not be not happy with such a “deal”, so some “motivation” would be necessary from the politics: For example sanctions against ICEs.

  40. Sometimes I have the feeling, that Al Gore, Greenpace, McKibben et al. (and all climate and CO2 hysterics?activists) would be Russian and/or Chinese agents, because the voluntary de-carbonisation and de-industrialisation (eventually harakiri) of the western countries would be clearly a substantial advantage for Russia/China, and this advantage would be free for them.

    • Hari: Correct. We’ve had power projects whereby the same folks say permit to build will be granted if union labor is given the work but if not we’ll be bludgeoned with the Serraa Club on environmental grounds… Their agenda has nothing to do with “the environment.” Control of “the planet” perhaps but more to the point control “your life” is their main aim.

    • Anyone following the measured CO2 emissions? Starting January/February, China and then the rest of the world have cut fossil fuel use. Production has been slowed and consumption even slower to the point oil tankers are being used to store the oil. Oil futures are selling at negative rates and current gasoline prices in the Northeast USA is $1.90/gal or lower.

      If humans are affecting the CO2 emissions, the plots are not showing it.

      • Jack: Human CO2 contribution is noise compared to natural sources, esp when looking at such a short time. The warmists are caught in a bit of a pickle at the moment…they’d love to say that the cold weather is due to less CO2 but there’s more not less. They love to point to a drop in the CO2 numbers…but they can’t…even if there were a dip the over all number is “hi” do how do they argue? It’s not the concentration, just the rate of change of concentration that drives the weather? Most people with a high school grasp of science could see through that though they might yet be afraid to point out that the king is wearing no clothes. So they are very, very quiet about it at the moment. But wait for the first warm weather to happen and they’ll be screaming from the roof tops…it’s summer time again….I mean it’s the end of the world…again…soon…

        • Jack,

          All I see are estimates. In the long run, what little gain there is will be exploited by the greens.

    • Dear Mr. niceguy,

      Unfortunately there is a big difference between theory and practice. For example the price of electricity has doubled since the introduction of the “free renewables” in Germany. So in the practice the “not free” electricity is much more cheaper then the “free” electricity…

  41. Few people realize how close the US is to being taken over by the few that control every aspect of the media and educational systems. Except for the election of President Trump we are very close to a choiceless one party system where the illusion of free choice is replacing actual free choice. In reality Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama were all members of the same “party”. All were working toward a One World Government and the destruction of US sovereignty. The destruction of our industrial base and the selling of US secrets and production methods to China was all aimed to collapse the system.

    • Mail in ballot push is a part of that tactic. Strip Americans of their voting rights by suborning the process into the control of a tiny minority who can not be held accountable.

    • MR166: It’s already happened long ago. Now you see consolidation phase. Plenty of morons out there that believe in the one party system. They are getting “stimulus checks” at this very moment from the Feds.

  42. I see Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have released a statement that we need a one world government to fight coronavirus.
    These guys are plugged in. They know global warming is wrung dry. We need a new looming catastrophe to take them and their fellows where they want to go.

  43. You do understand, do you not, that to “lionize” something it is to turn it into an actual lion? I can’t even see the attraction in turning them into figurative lions. Is it a good thing? (Of course, you can argue that it means whatever you want it to mean. To which I reply, “Meltrinuk boorash drogogog moo.” …Which in English means, “Language is systematic.” If it is not systematic, it is not language.)

Comments are closed.