[avahifi]

Interesting that the presentation never mentioned the Gen 4 nuclear reactor obvious solution.

Don’t go no, no, no until you have researched this a bit.

[Cappy]

Interesting that the presentation never mentioned the Gen 4 nuclear reactor obvious solution.

I noticed that too.

In Michael Moore's defense (and I give him a lot of credit for producing this documentary) -- it may be he is pacing his audience.  Before he can bring up the only inevitable solution he has to move his audience further down the comprehension road.

[Saturn94]

Interesting that the presentation never mentioned the Gen 4 nuclear reactor obvious solution.

Don’t go no, no, no until you have researched this a bit.

Unfortunately, nuclear has a huge image problem to overcome.  For so many, as soon as you say nuclear the door is slammed shut.

[Cappy]

Unfortunately, nuclear has a huge image problem to overcome.  For so many, as soon as you say nuclear the door is slammed shut.

But now, suddenly, green energy has a huge image problem to overcome.  Which should help even out the playing field.

[dflee]

Movie made it's point, never miss an opportunity to make a buck.
Need to be aware of two different types of nuclear reactions.
Fission vs Fusion.
Maybe we'll get the fusion figured out some day.
Only way out that I see being the little parasites we are.
However, as parasites usually need their host to reproduce and survive, it is not in their best interest to kill their host quickly. As such, with respect to some exceptions, parasites do not usually kill their host right away and, for some species, it could take years for the host to die from its parasitic infection.
We only have one host

Don

[Saturn94]

Movie made it's point, never miss an opportunity to make a buck.
Need to be aware of two different types of nuclear reactions.
Fission vs Fusion.
Maybe we'll get the fusion figured out some day.
Only way out that I see being the little parasites we are.
However, as parasites usually need their host to reproduce and survive, it is not in their best interest to kill their host quickly. As such, with respect to some exceptions, parasites do not usually kill their host right away and, for some species, it could take years for the host to die from its parasitic infection.
We only have one host

Don

Yep.

People focus on “save the planet” when it’s ourselves that we need to save by taking better care of the environment.   The planet/nature is more resilient than us.  Someday it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

[Wind Chaser]

Agreed!

[kevin360]

Need to be aware of two different types of nuclear reactions.
Fission vs Fusion.
Maybe we'll get the fusion figured out some day.
Only way out that I see being the little parasites we are.

Fusion isn't necessarily our only way out. If we can solve the problems with using thorium, liquid fluoride fission reactors would be an incredible solution. The fissile material doesn't become waste after a few percent is spent, due to the build-up of cesium, etc.. Even more important, such reactors can safely coast to a halt. Experimental liquid fluoride salt reactors existed in the 50s and could essentially just be switched off. I think the biggest obstacle is cost - too much front end cost results in far too many years before such a reactor starts making money. We're such a short-sighted species - parasites, indeed.

[WGH]

Fission vs Fusion.
Maybe we'll get the fusion figured out some day.

Fusion is always just 20 years away, but then maybe now only 15 years...

Fusion Energy Gets Ready to Shine—Finally
https://www.wired.com/story/fusion-energy-iter-reactor-ready-to-shine/

This Poloidal Field Coil Winding Facility (below) is one of 39 buildings on ITER's 445-acre campus. Since the isotopes creating the fusion energy will be 10 times hotter than the sun, two layers of magnetic coils ringing the machine will keep them caged within. That silver doughnut is a cryogenic chamber that will stress-test the coils.



"In 1988, engineers began designing the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, now just ITER. Along the way, 35 nations have split the $23.7 billion price tag to construct its 10 million parts. Now, surrounded by vineyards in France's Saint-Paul-lès-Durance, the 25,000-ton machine is set to be flipped on in 2025."

"The isotopes butting heads will be deuterium and tritium. To get the atoms whipping around the inner chamber of the Russian-nesting-doll-like machine, a magnet will drive 15 million amperes of electricity through them. They'll also be zapped by 24 microwave generators and three semitruck-sized particle guns, until they reach 270 million degrees F and, avec optimisme, crash into each other, releasing heaps of energy. There's no guarantee ITER will achieve fusion by 2035, as scheduled."

I always find it amazing what people can build, 32 years and $23.7 billion blows me away.

[sebrof]

But now, suddenly, green energy has a huge image problem to overcome.  Which should help even out the playing field.

Nuclear is green energy. Such an obvious solution if one were truly concerned about the climate they'd be all over it.

[charmerci]

Apparently, it's completely outdated. Didn't anyone else notice? Apparently, most of the information is over 10-12 years old.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths-95769/?fbclid=IwAR0ErUWj7DdVigwUTgSR1fGS-TfITw8CkG0PbQybb7VUZI3znq5D0c4RkXQ

[Rocket_Ronny]

Perhaps clean, cheap, energy is not part of the game plan.

  “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

  “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

We should have had the "Free Energy" Nikola Tesla was pursuing years ago, don't you think?

https://scholars.direct/Articles/electronics-and-communication/jec-1-001.php?jid=electronics-and-communication

Rocket Ronny

[sebrof]

Apparently, it's completely outdated. Didn't anyone else notice? Apparently, most of the information is over 10-12 years old.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths-95769/?fbclid=IwAR0ErUWj7DdVigwUTgSR1fGS-TfITw8CkG0PbQybb7VUZI3znq5D0c4RkXQ

I've seen several articles critical of the movie, but in the end the gist of the film is accurate IMO:
1. Solar and Wind are not able to provide anything close to the amount of energy the world needs.
The article sites 12-year old tech, but neither solar nor wind have changed all that much to change that

2. It takes a lot of energy and resources to make the solar and wind producing machines, and they only last a few decades.
The article linked even made this point when it talked about the filmmaker going to a solar farm that was empty, "Without knowing when the footage was taken, the only likely explanation for this is the pair of dudes visited the site midway through the point at which one of the fields was being removed and replaced with newer models, something which has happened several times over the past few decades." Yeah, no kidding. So go dig up the raw materials again, burn all the fossil fuels to make and ship and install the panels again...

I have solar on my roof that supplies all my electricity and I like to think it helps but I am also pragmatic knowing it's not the solution to save the world.

[jcsperson]

Back in 1798 Thomas Malthus warned against overpopulation of the planet and theorized famine was nature's mechanism for keeping population in check. His calculations were wrong, of course, because technology and agronomy continued to push up yields which supported an ever-growing population.

I'm not sure if technology will save us from a Malthus-like energy famine. And while some forms of energy are renewable, we're over-farming, over-fishing, and over-utilizing finite resources like minerals and metals, not to mention altering the climate.

The only solution is to reduce population. Clean renewable energy could supply our needs if there were fewer of us. The effect on climate would also be greatly reduced. I'm not sure how you tell people to stop fornicating, but it is the one sure solution to hundreds of our problems.

Here's a really informative film about Norman Borlaug, father of the "The Green Revolution."

The Man Who Tried To Feed The World

[charmerci]

Back in 1798 Thomas Malthus warned against overpopulation of the planet and theorized famine was nature's mechanism for keeping population in check. His calculations were wrong, of course, because technology and agronomy continued to push up yields which supported an ever-growing population.

I'm not sure if technology will save us from a Malthus-like energy famine. And while some forms of energy are renewable, we're over-farming, over-fishing, and over-utilizing finite resources like minerals and metals, not to mention altering the climate.

The only solution is to reduce population. Clean renewable energy could supply our needs if there were fewer of us. The effect on climate would also be greatly reduced. I'm not sure how you tell people to stop fornicating, but it is the one sure solution to hundreds of our problems.

Here's a really informative film about Norman Borlaug, father of the "The Green Revolution."

The Man Who Tried To Feed The World

Unfortunately, reducing population isn't going to happen. Jobs and growth and family - people gotta have 'em. My only hope is technology.

[sebrof]

Unfortunately, reducing population isn't going to happen. Jobs and growth and family - people gotta have 'em. My only hope is technology.

Agreed, but also I hope that we can become enlightened and consume less.

[pinkfloyd4ever]

Interesting that the presentation never mentioned the Gen 4 nuclear reactor obvious solution.

Don’t go no, no, no until you have researched this a bit.

YES. This x100000000000000000000

Modern nuclear should absolutely be, not just on the table, but our primary source of energy IMO. The science and safety is there. When you look at all the pros and cons, compared to every other viable source, it's a no-brainer.

What it needs is a good PR campaign that can educate the publice how safe it really is. Also a reduction in the red tape of the NRC would help a lot here in the US.

[jcsperson]

Unfortunately, reducing population isn't going to happen. Jobs and growth and family - people gotta have 'em. My only hope is technology.

In many western societies we see negative population growth. As controversial as it's become, Germany has had no choice but to import workers from the middle east because Germans just aren't making babies. Societies tend to have fewer children as they become more affluent.

When the third world becomes more affluent, it's likely their population growth will go down as well.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-%E2%80%93-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100-772x550.png

I've got maybe 20-30 years left on this big ball, and I don't have kids so this won't be my problem. But in the long run it'll be best for the planet if its burden was a little lighter.