"Planet of the Humans" is an eye-opening documentary film about the alternative energy "industry." As public interest has grown for environmental protection, a major area of concern has been about global warming caused by greenhouse gases. One way to curb these emissions is to reduce consumption and reliance on fossil fuels. So, we need to find alternative energy sources.
Electric cars cut the emissions from fossil fuel burning. Wind and solar power can replace coal, oil and gas plants to produce electricity. Biomass gets a nod in some quarters because it doesn't emit the same gasses. The public's interest and clamoring for environmental protection has been taken up in many sectors, government and private. But how much of the private attention is genuine interest in the environment and our public welfare? How much is the corporate sector willing to invest to preserve our environment, regardless of economic costs or benefits? And how much is the apparent "greening" of industry really helping the environment?
Those and other questions are what Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore set out to answer in this film. Gibbs had a reason to start looking, which he explains in the film opening. And this turns out to be an exposé of a green energy band wagon that doesn't deliver what it promises, and may even be more costly to the environment in the long run. Instead of helping the environment, many big businesses and the wealthy people that run or own them are creating a smokescreen. Some businesses and politicians profess to be going green, so the media and environmental groups tout them as good guys. But, most are just fronts that capture the eye but don't replace or reduce fossil energy use. And many of the enviro groups close to our hearts champion the very sources which just happen to also grease their coffers.
Perhaps most revealing of all is the real cost of the alternative energy sources - in money, yes, but more so in their impact on the environment. Biomass is one alternative that I could never understand. Burning of trees to generate electricity works, but is horribly inefficient and destroys whole forests that are crucial to our environment. Each tree at 10 years of growth absorbs 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and produces enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support two human beings. So, why would we burn trees for energy when they are necessary for the planet's health and it takes many years to replace them? And biomass produces its own emissions, including soot and odors. The film looks at this issue head on.
Electric vehicles are good and obviously reduce fossil fuel use. But the film points out that most of the energy used to recharge those vehicles is produced by fossil fuel plants. So, the emissions are transferred from the cars to the big plants. The real benefit will come when the power source that feeds electric cars no longer comes from fossil fuels.
At the end 2006, I retired from a large public utility. Our main energy source was hydroelectric power. Like any conscientious public utility, we looked to support other alternative energy sources as well. So, we bought the output of a private wind farm project in the 1990s. I climbed a 212-foot tower and looked at the inside of a wind turbine. We had to build a separate substation to take the power from those turbines to integrate them into our transmission system.
Wind energy sounds like it would make sense. But it only operates at about 40% efficiency. Then there's the environmental foot print that these turbines make. Each wind turbine unit weighs 180 tons and requires a 15-20-foot-deep concrete foundation. That's 60 truckloads of 750 cubic yards each. And, all the steel and plastic that goes into making the housing, tower and blades uses large amounts of energy. The wind turbines last just 20 to 25 years and when they are done, they are dynamited. The steel can be recycled but the fiberglass blades and other debris winds up in landfills.
Solar energy likewise has its drawbacks. The panels wear out. They take a lot of space to generate small increments of energy. And they use a lot of energy in their manufacture in the first place. This film shows abandoned solar and wind power sites. They resemble desert or industrial wastelands. That's an apparent byproduct of the then defunct alternative energy source, and who will clean up and restore those sites?
Moore and Gibbs did a good job with this documentary, and a real service, I think. This film does a good task of investigative reporting along the lines of the long-time CBS program, "60 Minutes." I can't understand why anyone (well, except for the billionaires and politicians that the film exposes) would be down on this film. People who care about our planet and our well-being should appreciate it. Those who belong to environmental action groups should be wary of the green-baiting by big corporations and politicians. And, we should all beware of green energy projects that only placate public concerns but turn out to be smokescreens that don't help the environment in the end.
I think there's great potential yet for renewable energy sources. We should continue to look for new ways to harness them. Ways that don't leave a big environmental footprint.
Electric cars cut the emissions from fossil fuel burning. Wind and solar power can replace coal, oil and gas plants to produce electricity. Biomass gets a nod in some quarters because it doesn't emit the same gasses. The public's interest and clamoring for environmental protection has been taken up in many sectors, government and private. But how much of the private attention is genuine interest in the environment and our public welfare? How much is the corporate sector willing to invest to preserve our environment, regardless of economic costs or benefits? And how much is the apparent "greening" of industry really helping the environment?
Those and other questions are what Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore set out to answer in this film. Gibbs had a reason to start looking, which he explains in the film opening. And this turns out to be an exposé of a green energy band wagon that doesn't deliver what it promises, and may even be more costly to the environment in the long run. Instead of helping the environment, many big businesses and the wealthy people that run or own them are creating a smokescreen. Some businesses and politicians profess to be going green, so the media and environmental groups tout them as good guys. But, most are just fronts that capture the eye but don't replace or reduce fossil energy use. And many of the enviro groups close to our hearts champion the very sources which just happen to also grease their coffers.
Perhaps most revealing of all is the real cost of the alternative energy sources - in money, yes, but more so in their impact on the environment. Biomass is one alternative that I could never understand. Burning of trees to generate electricity works, but is horribly inefficient and destroys whole forests that are crucial to our environment. Each tree at 10 years of growth absorbs 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and produces enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support two human beings. So, why would we burn trees for energy when they are necessary for the planet's health and it takes many years to replace them? And biomass produces its own emissions, including soot and odors. The film looks at this issue head on.
Electric vehicles are good and obviously reduce fossil fuel use. But the film points out that most of the energy used to recharge those vehicles is produced by fossil fuel plants. So, the emissions are transferred from the cars to the big plants. The real benefit will come when the power source that feeds electric cars no longer comes from fossil fuels.
At the end 2006, I retired from a large public utility. Our main energy source was hydroelectric power. Like any conscientious public utility, we looked to support other alternative energy sources as well. So, we bought the output of a private wind farm project in the 1990s. I climbed a 212-foot tower and looked at the inside of a wind turbine. We had to build a separate substation to take the power from those turbines to integrate them into our transmission system.
Wind energy sounds like it would make sense. But it only operates at about 40% efficiency. Then there's the environmental foot print that these turbines make. Each wind turbine unit weighs 180 tons and requires a 15-20-foot-deep concrete foundation. That's 60 truckloads of 750 cubic yards each. And, all the steel and plastic that goes into making the housing, tower and blades uses large amounts of energy. The wind turbines last just 20 to 25 years and when they are done, they are dynamited. The steel can be recycled but the fiberglass blades and other debris winds up in landfills.
Solar energy likewise has its drawbacks. The panels wear out. They take a lot of space to generate small increments of energy. And they use a lot of energy in their manufacture in the first place. This film shows abandoned solar and wind power sites. They resemble desert or industrial wastelands. That's an apparent byproduct of the then defunct alternative energy source, and who will clean up and restore those sites?
Moore and Gibbs did a good job with this documentary, and a real service, I think. This film does a good task of investigative reporting along the lines of the long-time CBS program, "60 Minutes." I can't understand why anyone (well, except for the billionaires and politicians that the film exposes) would be down on this film. People who care about our planet and our well-being should appreciate it. Those who belong to environmental action groups should be wary of the green-baiting by big corporations and politicians. And, we should all beware of green energy projects that only placate public concerns but turn out to be smokescreens that don't help the environment in the end.
I think there's great potential yet for renewable energy sources. We should continue to look for new ways to harness them. Ways that don't leave a big environmental footprint.