• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Moore Documentary: Planet Of The Humans

Solitaire

Neoclinus blanchardi
Solitaire
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
3,096
Michael Moore Documentary: Planet Of The Humans

Gibbs, who produced Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11,”
didn’t set out to take on the environmental movement. He said he wanted
to know why things weren’t getting better. But when he started pulling on
the thread, he and Moore said they were shocked to find how inextricably
entangled alternative energy is with coal and natural gas, since they say
everything from wind turbines to electric car charging stations are tethered
to the grid, and even how the Koch brothers are tied to solar panel production
through their glass production business.

“It turned out the wakeup call was about our own side,” Gibbs said in
a phone interview. “It was kind of crushing to discover that the things
I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are
the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us ... but (also)
that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money ... It dawned
on me that these technologies were just another profit center.” Both
know the film is going to be a “tough pill to swallow.” It was a difficult
eye-opener for them as well.
Click to expand...

Okay.

I don't see how any of this is a surprise.

P. S. I wonder if they'll mention nuclear.
 
I don't understand why "tethered to the grid" is a bad thing. Did Moore think that people are charging their electric cars directly from windmills?
 
Even people on the Left don't pay much attention to Michael Moore anymore.
Never liked him much as a filmmaker. Always though his humor was forced, and he was never one fourth as witty and clever as he thought he was.
And his painting of repressive regimes on the Left in bright colors simply because they were "anti Capitlaist" always went down badly with me.
 
"It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center.”

Is he saying he only just now figured out that we're paying people to make the stuff we want?

At some point during the production of this documentary, it must have dawned on him that he expected a paycheck for his work, right?
 
PhantomWolf said:
You only read the first paragraph didn't you...
Click to expand...


No, I read it all. If you are thinking of nuclear energy as a way to produce nuclear weapons that doesn't make it less interesting (or profitable) for private investors.
 
If Michael Moore said the sky was blue I would go outside and check.

The guy is a buffoon.
 
dann said:
No, I read it all. If you are thinking of nuclear energy as a way to produce nuclear weapons that doesn't make it less interesting (or profitable) for private investors.
Click to expand...

No, I was meaning this part...

The report published by the German Institute for Economic Research (known as DIW Berlin) reviewed the development of 674 nuclear power plants built since 1951, finding that none of the plants was built using ‘private capital under competitive conditions’.
“The results showed that in all cases, an investment would generate significant financial losses. The (weighted) average net present value was around minus 4.8 billion euros,” the study says.

“Even in the best case, the net present value was approximately minus 1.5 billion euros. The authors included conservative assumptions with high electricity prices, low capital costs, and specific investment. Considering all assumptions regarding the uncertain parameters, nuclear energy is never profitable.”
The report authors are also pessimistic about the future of nuclear power, concluding that nuclear power will remain unprofitable into the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

If you care to provide evidence otherwise rather than just making claims, then I'm all ears.
 
The Nuclear Power Dilemma (2018)

More than one-third of US nuclear plants are unprofitable or scheduled to close. On average, it would cost $814 million annually to bring unprofitable plants back to a breakeven point. Plants owned by merchant generators that sell power into competitive wholesale markets face a higher risk of closure than regulated utilities that recover their costs from ratepayers.
Click to expand...
 
PhantomWolf said:
The Nuclear Power Dilemma (2018)
Click to expand...

Wow, that must have been quite the lemon-flavored tablet to swallow for the UCS, forced to admit that keeping nuclear plants online is better than letting them be retired. In fact, you could sense that they were coming quite close to supporting new plants. Of course, they hid that behind the veil of the carbon tax, which they hasten to assure us won't cost much:

A national carbon price and/or low-carbon electrify standard (LCES) would help avoid an overreliance on natural gas, while costing the average US household only $0.74 to $1.03 per month.
Click to expand...

It's going to magically not cost much but somehow do wonders for CO2 emissions? Pull the other one.
 
PhantomWolf said:
No, I was meaning this part...

If you care to provide evidence otherwise rather than just making claims, then I'm all ears.
Click to expand...


What do you think this means? "none of the plants was built using ‘private capital under competitive conditions’."

Let me give you a hint: It doesn't stop after, "none of the plants was built using 'private capital'."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom