Innovations to reduce the consumption of fossil fuelsThe last Michael Moore green business

Innovations, ideas or patent to reduce fossil energy consumption, for example, new wind, new solar panels, geothermal system evolved ...
User avatar
phil12
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 508
Registration: 05/10/09, 13:58
Location: Occitan
x 139

The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby phil12 » 28/04/20, 10:53

Bonjour,

The latest Michael Moore, free, uplifting on green business and on the ignorance of many people about "green" energies

2 x
Sustainable energy consulting for construction
http://www.philippeservices.net/

ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2266
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 127

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby ABC2019 » 29/04/20, 10:02

really excellent, to recommend to everyone ...
0 x
ENERC
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 430
Registration: 06/02/17, 15:25
x 130

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby ENERC » 29/04/20, 19:30

I loved the whole part of the film on biomass. This is absolutely correct.

Afterwards, on solar and wind, he says that there are no energy returns, which is no longer true today. PV is about 2 years of production to erase the carbon footprint. And a PV does not last 10 years, as he says. Manufacturers today guarantee 80% at 30 years.
In the USA, it's true that you need backup gas. But the more solar and wind, the less gas we consume. However, you have to agree to pay more expensive kWh, of course. And it will eventually impose ENRs load shedding to avoid negative prices, that goes without saying.

What bothers me most is that this film is very pessimistic. It looks like whatever we do is fucked up.

In fact, you have to watch this film, then Tomorrow by Cyril Dion and Mélanie Laurent. And in that order. : Mrgreen:
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2266
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 127

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby ABC2019 » 29/04/20, 19:38

ENERC wrote:I loved the whole part of the film on biomass. This is absolutely correct.

Afterwards, on solar and wind, he says that there are no energy returns, which is no longer true today. PV is about 2 years of production to erase the carbon footprint. And a PV does not last 10 years, as he says. Manufacturers today guarantee 80% at 30 years.

it's true if you take the energy balance in kWh, but it prevents that lots of steps are only done with fossils, and if it had to be done without, would cost much more (and therefore energies with ), and would place even greater constraints on biomass if carbon is needed.
In fact there is no production of renewable energy devices in a fossil-free society, it does not exist. EnR will only extend (by a few% ...) the life of the fossil society.
What bothers me most is that this film is very pessimistic. It looks like whatever we do is fucked up.

yeah like what you do you end up dying, you know that huh? :) (see at 50 'in the film the psychological considerations on the refusal of death).
In fact, you have to watch this film, then Tomorrow by Cyril Dion and Mélanie Laurent. And in that order. : Mrgreen:

why not in reverse order? : Mrgreen:
0 x
ENERC
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 430
Registration: 06/02/17, 15:25
x 130

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby ENERC » 29/04/20, 19:54

it's true if you take the energy balance in kWh, but it prevents that lots of steps are only done with fossils, and if it had to be done without, would cost much more (and therefore energies with ), and would place even greater constraints on biomass if carbon is needed.
In fact there is no production of renewable energy devices in a fossil-free society, it does not exist. EnR will only extend (by a few% ...) the life of the fossil society.

It depends on the mode of production of renewables.
Take the case of solar which I know better:
- currently we produce in China with coal electricity. It's cheaper, but catastrophic for the planet.
- we could produce with nuclear in France or hydraulics in Norway and we would be close to zero emissions.

On PV, the mining extraction processes are a tiny percentage compared to the manufacture of silicon ingots and their treatment to transform them into cells (a few tens of baking at 1200 + ° C). The glass industry is also made with coal, whereas it could be done on a hydrogen + electricity basis.
It is above all a question of process and location of production.
0 x

User avatar
phil12
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 508
Registration: 05/10/09, 13:58
Location: Occitan
x 139

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby phil12 » 29/04/20, 20:17

[quote = "enerc"] I loved the whole part of the film on biomass. This is absolutely correct.

Afterwards, on solar and wind, he says that there are no energy returns, which is no longer true today. PV is about 2 years of production to erase the carbon footprint. And a PV does not last 10 years, as he says. Manufacturers today guarantee 80% at 30 years.

We agree on this point.
0 x
Sustainable energy consulting for construction
http://www.philippeservices.net/
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 13880
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 568

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby Flytox » 29/04/20, 20:21

ENERC wrote:
it's true if you take the energy balance in kWh, but it prevents that lots of steps are only done with fossils, and if it had to be done without, would cost much more (and therefore energies with ), and would place even greater constraints on biomass if carbon is needed.
In fact there is no production of renewable energy devices in a fossil-free society, it does not exist. EnR will only extend (by a few% ...) the life of the fossil society.

It depends on the mode of production of renewables.
Take the case of solar which I know better:
- currently we produce in China with coal electricity. It's cheaper, but catastrophic for the planet.
- we could produce with nuclear in France or hydraulics in Norway and we would be close to zero emissions.


No, "we could produce with nuclear in France" by adding carbon pollution to nuclear pollution just as catastrophic.
And it is totally phony / dishonest to come and mix "hydraulics in Norway" or elsewhere, the pollution of which is in no way comparable / comparable to that of nuclear power, either near or far.
And then, to speak of "close to zero emissions" when we speak of energy production is a vast illusion for the use of lobbyists and other antics. : roll:
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4486
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 460

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby moinsdewatt » 30/04/20, 00:37

phil12 wrote:
ENERC wrote:I loved the whole part of the film on biomass. This is absolutely correct.

Afterwards, on solar and wind, he says that there are no energy returns, which is no longer true today. PV is about 2 years of production to erase the carbon footprint. And a PV does not last 10 years, as he says. Manufacturers today guarantee 80% at 30 years.

We agree on this point.


Or the 10 years are false.

The last large solar park contracts are now for 30 years.
voir http://www.oleocene.org/phpBB3/viewtopi ... 0#p2302040
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4486
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 460

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby moinsdewatt » 30/04/20, 01:12

Moore's documentary is full of errors.

New Michael Moore-backed documentary full of errors, fundamentally misunderstands electric system

April 24, 2020 evwind

A new Michael Moore-backed documentary has been released that examines the climate crisis and the lack of progress made so far in combating the problem. Unfortunately, and somewhat strangely, the filmmakers chose to focus much of their attention erroneously critiquing a leading climate solution — renewable energy.

The reality is wind and solar today are already avoiding substantial amounts of carbon emissions, and the potential to cut even more CO2 emissions is enormous. Today wind avoids 42 million cars' worth of carbon pollution a year, and that number will steadily grow as wind's near-record pipeline of projects in development comes online. The book Drawdown is a comprehensive examination of 100 different solutions to climate change, with input from more than 100 of the world's foremost climate researchers. It finds onshore wind power is the second most effective way to reduce emissions, and offshore wind ranks 22nd on the list

Let's set the record straight on where this film gets it wrong. See this article for an in-depth look at the film's problematic portrayal of solar power.

A misunderstanding of the power system
..........
..........



lire https://www.evwind.es/2020/04/24/new-mi ... stem/74482
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2266
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 127

Re: The last Michael Moore green business

Unread Messageby ABC2019 » 30/04/20, 05:03

ENERC wrote:
it's true if you take the energy balance in kWh, but it prevents that lots of steps are only done with fossils, and if it had to be done without, would cost much more (and therefore energies with ), and would place even greater constraints on biomass if carbon is needed.
In fact there is no production of renewable energy devices in a fossil-free society, it does not exist. EnR will only extend (by a few% ...) the life of the fossil society.

It depends on the mode of production of renewables.
Take the case of solar which I know better:
- currently we produce in China with coal electricity. It's cheaper, but catastrophic for the planet.
- we could produce with nuclear in France or hydraulics in Norway and we would be close to zero emissions.

even in China you don't just need electricity; did you watch the film? we are already starting from very pure Quartz, which is not a fossil energy but a foodstuff in limited quantity, therefore nonrenewable, which we reduce with coal (fossil), in steel ovens, made with coal (fossil ), then with a whole bunch of chemical processes (otherwise polluting), all in factories made with concrete, steel, metals, plastics, insulators, ... all made with fossils.
On PV, the mining extraction processes are a tiny percentage compared to the manufacture of silicon ingots and their treatment to transform them into cells (a few tens of baking at 1200 + ° C). The glass industry is also made with coal, whereas it could be done on a hydrogen + electricity basis.
It is above all a question of process and location of production.

even the simple fact of having an electrical network requires fossils. An African village may be able to feed you Nile perch, cocoa beans or coffee, but not solar panels. The thing is, you so constantly bathe in a society where everything around you is made with fossils that you don't even realize it. Go buy a box of nails or chatterton, it's so trivial isn't it?
0 x


Back to "Innovations to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 1 guest