New movie about bullshit green stuff. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: joseph nicholas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 03:03:36 pm
content: Check this out.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14306648/Sounds promising.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 03:31:01 pm
content: just a sad obvious truth...a bit late as this folk obliterated that shithttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt12192654Paul

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 04:11:53 pm
content: Yeh, 'green tech' is capitalism's answer to the environmental crisis.Some of it may actually help but nonetheless the continued decline of our planet and its ecosystems seems almost inevitable from this point.8 billion+ people is just not gonna be long-term sustainable, unless maybe 7 billion live in mud huts eating insects.No democratic politicians dare talk about the one true solution - reducing global human population.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 04:25:28 pm
content: Quote from: joseph nicholas on May 05, 2021, 03:03:36 pmI wonder if it tackles the really big truths which must not be mentioned?Screwing around in the margins with renewable energy is what we do to avoid admitting that the true alternative to very likely catastrophic collapse of technological civilization and human population in a couple generations is massive population reduction or massive standard of living reductions. I'd rather just pray for singularity too and keep on keeping on, I consider demographic collapse among smart fractions and cultural instability a bigger short term problem any way. Screwing around in the margins with renewable energy won't matter much regardless ... so if it makes some people feel better about the gamble, why not?As long as it's not the truly stupid stuff which massively accelerates the coming catastrophes, like burning forests in refurbished coal power plants. Large scale biomass energy makes solar roadways look genius.

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 04:31:44 pm
content: I really hope it addresses the huge concerns around Windmill Cancer

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 04:57:20 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on May 05, 2021, 04:11:53 pmPretty much so yeah. That the same people/organizations who have been heavily promoting unlimited growth and unrestricted globalism are now promoting "green tech" and pseudo-green agreements should have given us a hint.As to human population, this is kind of a catch-22 situation. Now my view on this is that the world population has grown that much because it could: meaning because we have had enough energy available to allow it to grow that much. Reducing energy availability would automatically reduce the world population. Conversely, if we ever end up finding this "clean" and almost unlimited source of energy we are all after (nuclear fusion being one candidate), it will surely be good news in a way, but IMHO will inevitably make the world population literally explode.

author: Conrad Hoffman
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 06:08:59 pm
content: If you want to destroy society just come up with a source of free energy. I think there was a science fiction book or maybe short story about that. MaybeThe Gods Themselves, but not sure. Anyway, I've never seen a situation fail to resolve itself one way or another. Don't worry, if we do something or do nothing, mother nature will rebalance things as needed. It's just a question of whether you like the result. The right path? Not sure, but Thermodynamics 101 will point the way.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 07:33:02 pm
content: I think it would be a great shame if we did nothing, I really like all the flora and fauna (*), and extinctions are already on the increase.Regarding energy, true indeed.It's no coincidence we had two world wars shortly after the vast energy in coal, oil and gas reserves became available.Let's hope fusion wars don't happen.(*) except midges. Good ridence to midges.

author: Conrad Hoffman
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 02:18:02 pm
content: Watched the movie last night. They don't offer any feasible answers other than reducing the human population to a handful, and living in caves. As I mentioned above it may come down to understanding thermodynamics. Without energy input to the planet, everything winds down to cold and dark. But, we have energy streaming in every day. In theory we can use that to reverse almost every problem and even retain our industrialized society, albeit probably not in the form we recognize today. IMO, it's a very one-sided movie and not very useful.It's been said that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than it took to make it and I suspect that's still true. It wouldn't be if they operated long enough with minimal maintenance, but IMO the jury is still out. Wind might be better but the movie pointed out various problems with that too. There's a lot of resistance to the appearance of wind turbines near here. They've also had a high failure rate due to gusts and AFAIK, have generated little useful power.The movie didn't say much (anything?) about nuclear. If everybody drives an electric car I don't see where else all that power is going to come from. I also don't know how we're going to heat our homes, as electric heating is the most expensive way to do it. It's also a really poor use of a highly concentrated resource. You might enjoy reading what Don Lancaster has to say on the matter here-https://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.shtmlHe's not usually wrong about the fundamentals.

author: IDEngineer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 04:19:03 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on May 05, 2021, 04:11:53 pmFor a very simple reason - they can't seriously suggest that. They can wave their hands at it, but you won't see a seasoned career politician do anything meaningful about population reduction.Why? Because first world entitlement programs rely on an ever-increasing population to sustain what is effectively a Ponzi scheme. That is not a political comment nor a judgement on whether they are good or bad, just a factual recognition that such a system "pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors" (Wikipedia).If the lower age workers (the "more recent investors") were to dwindle in quantity then there are only two options to sustain the system: Reduce payouts, or increase income. Payouts go to "earlier investors", who are older and very reliable voters whom politicians must placate so their payouts aren't going to decrease in any meaningful way. That leaves increasing the income - but politicians can only raise worker taxes so far beforeworkersrebel and vote them out of office.Hence politicians are trapped by the very systems they created. Population MUST continuously increase or the systems will collapse of their own weight.If the existing population does not produce the necessary increase, one way to address that is immigration. This reveals why politicians will also hand-wave at "immigration control" but never quite get around to "fixing" it. Immigration, like increasing population, serves the political interests of elected officials.As I say about technical topics: Pay attention to the deliverables. All else is noise and distraction. Is the population problem truly being addressed? Is the immigration problem truly being addressed? The answers to those questions are not accidents, no matter what the rhetoric claims. This is not the first time in history that politicians say one thing while doing another.

author: IDEngineer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 04:26:37 pm
content: Quote from: Conrad Hoffman on May 05, 2021, 06:08:59 pmIndeed. A "free" (and hence unlimited) resource eliminates negative feedback and allows the associated system to go open loop. Negative feedback - in the form of "having to work for what you gain" - is a critical part of society.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 04:53:42 pm
content: Quote from: IDEngineer on May 06, 2021, 04:19:03 pmOf course. *Actively* reducing population is at least questionable anyway, or even completely immoral depending on how you see it, or how you do it.Now, as we said above, if we just limit the energy supply progressively instead of increasing it, it will have the same effect. But if you do it wisely and progressively enough, it will harm nobody. We will just end up reproducing less. It's an equilibrium.Quote from: IDEngineer on May 06, 2021, 04:19:03 pmThat's absolutely right. Linking this to the above question, it's no wonder most politicians do no want to talk about population reduction: it's against the immediate interests of the system. The moral factors are mostly just pretexts; exactly like most "green" measures that are taken on a large scale are just using the environment as a pretext to be able to make this Ponzi scheme system last longer.

author: IDEngineer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 05:16:23 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on May 06, 2021, 04:53:42 pmIt's sadly entertaining to watch certain activists and politicians say they're in favor of "zero population growth" one day, then promote increased entitlement programs the next day. You wonder if 1) they truly don't recognize that those two positions are diametrically opposed, or 2) they've just gotten comfortable with their own hypocrisy for political expediency.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 05:19:28 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on May 06, 2021, 04:53:42 pmMalthusian overshoot and resource wars are rather harmful.

author: Ground_Loop
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 01:31:19 am
content: Quote from: IDEngineer on May 06, 2021, 04:26:37 pmExactly. Every life form on earth exists to spin in a very simple cycle. We spend energy to collect energy. Work for what you gain. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations concisely aligned modern economics with this fact of natural law. We have no other purpose. And there is no long term alternative that doesn't lead to self destruction. The March of time and it's sibling, evolution, will ensure the cycle is perpetual.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 03:06:23 am
content: Quote from: Conrad Hoffman on May 06, 2021, 02:18:02 pmWell, scientific consensus is that solar power does produce net energy:https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2012.11.035Try promoting your "alternative" views somewhere less capable of basic fact checking.

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 09:14:00 am
content: Quote from: Someone on May 07, 2021, 03:06:23 amThe folk on this film puts far way better and substantial datathen this new one... after carefully review is undeniablethat the point of no return was reached.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12192654Indeed there is no more green solution..Unless some draconian attitude towards the causes..overpopulation, over-consumption, divert of nonrenewable resourcesfor luxury way of life..unless removing the causes the point of failure will soon be reachedPaul

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 10:13:09 am
content: Quote from: boffin on May 05, 2021, 04:31:44 pmWait, you’re saying windmills can get cancer?!? This is horrible! Save the windmills!

author: Conrad Hoffman
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 12:06:59 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on May 07, 2021, 03:06:23 amWow, first time in my life my views have been called "alternative"! Honored indeed. Alas, that study doesn't seem to be freely available, so I can't comment. I qualify my statements as best I can and if you read Don Lancaster in my earlier post, the case against PVoverallisn't looking good, though I thought the movie was too pessimistic.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 05:37:05 pm
content: Quote from: PKTKS on May 07, 2021, 09:14:00 amThe near inevitability of collapse of global industrial society is irrelevant to the question of EROI of solar panels. Getting some joy about being technically right about irrelevant minutia is all we've got leftMoore should have concentrated on Biomass. PV is screwing around in the margin, even if he wasn't wrong, it dilutes the message to bring it up.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 11:25:19 pm
content: Quote from: Conrad Hoffman on May 07, 2021, 12:06:59 pmThat is a meta analysis, confirming a consensus. You're free to do some research yourself and find any contradictory evidence, but just saying its something you heard and then dismissing credible and well researched conclusions is putting that very much in the "alternative" camp.

author: JohnnyMalaria
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 12:25:28 am
content: Quote from: Someone on May 07, 2021, 03:06:23 amFull article here:https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.035Bottom line, typically 1 to 5 years.

author: sandalcandal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 02:11:15 am
content: Quote from: Someone on May 07, 2021, 11:25:19 pmCareful! Next thing old mate is going to be telling us vaccines cause autism and COVID is a false flag for illness caused by 5G towersEdit:Apparently OP thinks people that make money off selling scare stories are a better source than scientific peer reviewed articles or common sense from any credible person that works in the energy/engineering industry much like anti-vaxers denying the scientific consensus or the word of anyone with medical expertise. If there's a slither of real and common sense truth that they're using to setup their FUD bullshit then is the very real danger of "Green Washing"Not that I'd actually want to waste my time trying to find OP's film then watch it. I don't know what the exact statements OP's film is making and trying to present as fact and I don't really want to be doing the fact checking if people in the discussion don't understand the difference between FUD flicks and actual scientific information. This thread belongs in the "Power & Renewable Energy" board or the "Dodgy Technology" board given the nature of discussion.Edit 2: Apologies to Conrad Hoffman,the Don Lancaster "articles"he is bringing aren't FUD flicks however are still zero value collections of un support statements which directly contradict scientific consensus and industry common sense. The musing of an old school technical blogger can be entertaining but particularly when they aren't sourced, substantiated or in anyway proven they aren't something you should be building your world view on over actual scientific research.

author: sandalcandal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 03:22:55 am
content: Quote from: PKTKS on May 05, 2021, 03:31:01 pmA critical response to that "documentary"

author: IDEngineer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 04:21:19 am
content: It's not all gloom and doom, folks. Consider this article:https://spectator.us/topic/just-best-decade-human-history-seriously/Quote

author: PKTKS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 12:58:10 pm
content: Quote from: sandalcandal on May 08, 2021, 03:22:55 amThanks for the info..Actually IMHO some pretty basic stuff will be prevalent:- No (zero none) politician will ever win elections saying that he willreally do what should be done against overpopulation and over-consumption- Rather the opposite a pretty large mass of people rely on these "green" jobsas the automation and lack of self sustained economy is more and more obviousSo.. I already expect ZERO impact of required draconian methodsand actually an accelerated waste of resource will be deployedsomewhere somehow from now..I am not any inclined to actually think a single bit of change inthe actual "way of luxury life" mega cities are imposing...Paul

author: sandalcandal
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 01:35:36 pm
content: Quote from: PKTKS on May 08, 2021, 12:58:10 pmFantastic. Glad to know it had an impact on youIMHO the politics around climate action, particularly massive disinformation campaigns by those with a vested interest against effective action are a huge barrier against getting what should be done, done.Some more videos that might interest you (still somewhat related to OP topic)All from the same person but hopefully his presentation style gels with you if his response to "Planet of the Humans" did.

author: Quarlo Klobrigney
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 02:01:53 pm
content: Ye canna trust annethin froom a man with flat window pane spectacles.Quote from: sandalcandal onTodayat 22:35:36>Quote from: PKTKS onTodayat 21:58:10All from the same person but hopefully his presentation style gels with you if his response to "Planet of the Humans" did.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 07:29:40 pm
content: Some interesting comments and videos here, thanks.While fossil fuels have accelerated the development and growth of human society,the environment has paid a heavy price, and continues to do so. I do wish fossil fuelshad never existed. Many wars would have been avoided, industrialisation wouldhave been more difficult, plastic wouldn't be killing the oceans. Society would haveprogressed at a slower but perhaps more sustainable pace, with enforced developmentof green energy sources (or maybe we would have just burned all the forests).I take some solace in the belief that this predicament was inevitable. The conditions onour planet gave life the chance to flourish for eons, simultaneously creating an amazingweb of life, and a vast store of carbon capable of destroying much of it - fossil fuels. Anydextrous intelligent life form would gain a thirst for energy and eventually discover andexploit fossil fuels just as we Homo sapiens have.Hopefully we are smart enough to put things right.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 08:38:08 pm
content: Quote from: IDEngineer on May 06, 2021, 04:19:03 pmNope. Has been done before.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policyQuoteKinda works. Not nice, but necessary.Softer measures are possible, and meaningful.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 11:41:25 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on May 09, 2021, 08:38:08 pmNah, overpopulation is going to turn much of Africa into failed nations before climate change can make much of an impact.Climate change might be the gigadeath problem to solve in this age, but overpopulation is the gigadeath problem to encounter in this age.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 01:05:22 am
content: What about addressing the animal overpopulation problem first? In other words, rapidly phase out factory farming and replace it with sustainable farming.

author: IDEngineer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 01:58:08 pm
content: Timely article on CNN today:https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/a-blinking-light-ahead-slowing-population-growth-raises-questions-about-america-as-a-land-with-unlimited-horizons/ar-BB1gxEifThe reason nobody seriously discusses population reduction is admitted right in the article: "Immigration is one way to keep the population growing at rates that will assure the economy has... enough tax revenue to underwrite the costs of government programs." Politicians are overpromising, and perpetuating the population Ponzi Scheme to keep those promises from imploding of their own weight.