This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Sky News: Michael Moore's documentary 'has exposed green energy as a fraud'

image credit: ©2020 Rumble Films.
Bob Meinetz's picture
Nuclear Power Policy Activist Independent

I am a passionate advocate for the environment and nuclear energy. With the threat of climate change, I’ve embarked on a mission to help overcome the fears of nuclear energy. I’ve been active in...

  • Member since 2018
  • 6,979 items added with 240,298 views
  • May 6, 2020

Access Video

Michael Moore's documentary, 'Planet of the Humans', has exposed the "swindlers" who are peddling misinformation and the environmental benefits of green energy, according to Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly. Mr Moore's documentary, which is available free of charge on the internet, casts doubt over the efficacy of renewables, in particular solar and wind energy.

The documentary filmmakers argue some green energy is hindering, rather than helping, the fight against dangerous climate change. Many environmentalists, including Yale Climate Connections, have criticised the film, claiming it relies on outdated depictions of renewable energy. Yale Climate Connections said while renewables do have a carbon footprint, it is smaller than non-renewable energy. However, Mr Kelly told Sky News "Moore exposes everything about green energy."

"Moore's film, what makes it so important, is because he is a character of the left," he said. "This is the moment where they say, the emperor has no clothes."

Bob Meinetz's picture
Thank Bob for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
john Liebendorfer's picture
john Liebendorfer on May 6, 2020

This film has become highly controversial - putting forth many half truths and outdated information.  For example the film states PV panels are 8% efficient when today, many panels are over 20% eff.  Also states panels need to be replace in as litle as ten years.  - But most panels today are warrently to still put out 80 - 90% of their rated power in 25 to 30 years.  Why Moore has chosen to align himself with such nonsense is a mystery.  For those wanted a more complete review of the movie  see here

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on May 6, 2020

John, Producer Ozzie Zehner has responded to these criticisms by pointing out the irrelevance of whether solar panels are 8% efficient, or 20% efficient, or 100% efficient; whether they last 8 years, or 40, or 400. They're incapable of generating a steady stream of electricity, and always will be - whether they cost $3.41/watt, or they're free. That means they require backup electricity generated by burning the fossil gas mixture extracted from underground known as "natural gas" - and always will.

These fundamental truths have been conveniently ignored by proponents for 65 years, and their ignorance of them has been patiently tolerated by those who have always understood them. But no longer. As Jeff Gibbs has patiently but accurately pointed out, we face a global climate crisis which makes COVID-19 look like a minor annoyance. Enough is enough - time to go with what works.

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on May 6, 2020

Producer Ozzie Zehner has responded to these criticisms by pointing out the irrelevance of whether solar panels are 8% efficient, or 20% efficient, or 100% efficient; whether they last 8 years, or 40, or 400. They're incapable of generating a steady stream of electricity, and always will be - whether they cost $3.41/watt, or they're free.

From a messaging standpoint, if these numbers are irrelevant, why use the outdated and inaccurate ones? Wouldn't it be a more powerful indictment to show how even in a best case scenario it wouldn't work? 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on May 6, 2020

It would, Matt. But Jeff Gibbs started making his film in 2008 when he came to the same epiphany as I did at about that time. Though he's made significant contributions to several other Michael Moore films, he's not rich, and making a documentary film like Planet of the Humans requires an investment well into seven figures.

How do you get the money to produce a film that flies in the face of every common perception of "green" energy? You don't - so you make a film financed by your own savings. You scrimp and save to pay for every hour in the editing room, to pay a film student to be your cameraman. And if you're lucky, years later you get a director, someone you've worked for in the past, to step in help you finish your film and provide the necessary publicity to get it seen.

Maybe you could go back and shoot scenes with dated information to more accurately reflect modern realities, but that would add years to your production schedule and $millions to your budget (Michael Moore has amassed a lot less money from his documentaries than you might think). So you put the film out, warts and all, and offer it for free - you stand to make nothing for years of effort and money you've invested. Why would anyone do something so idiotic from an investment perspective? Because it was the right thing to do.

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on May 6, 2020

The movie is a starting point for any further "renewable energy" discussion. Bob, you and I shared years of insults, warnings, promises, begging, arrogance (modern politics). And now we share with the movie narrator (Jeff Gibbs) a sunken heart because of complete betrayal of our fundamental goal, a sustainable planet earth.

Bob, you and I have very different vested interests. But thanks again for sticking up for truth.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on May 6, 2020

Rick, thanks for your thoughts on this. With all of our differences I don't believe we have very different vested interests. We both want a sustainable planet Earth, and we want the truth - the important stuff.

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on May 7, 2020

Bob, please check out Stanford University's Center for Quantum Molecular Design.

About 1981 I started pushing a fiber optic super-network. Investors helped create Lightronics, Inc. A few years later I started reading reports of big organizations joining for big efforts. Silicon Valley and the Internet were born. All the arguments with fools left scars that the success never healed.

So I'll just say the movie informed me biomass is now popular. And I'm delighted they finally found some Biophysical Chemists to change history.

We tried send out an iPhone photo of a full moon last night. Terrible quality, but somehow we need to enlighten today's dead souls.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on May 7, 2020

Rick, though at times I'm massively frustrated by arguments with fools, they've never left any scars. Mine have been of my own making, when I was the fool who was so damn convinced he was right he was blinded to the possibility he didn't know as much as he thought he did. The scars now help me avoid arguments on subjects I don't fully understand.

Please elaborate on "they finally found some Biophysical Chemists to change history." Do you believe there's enough chemical energy in available biomass to power civilization?

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on May 8, 2020

Sincere thanks for the opportunity.

As we know, directly burning biomass yields little energy and much pollution. Burning ethanol/methanol powers race cars cleanly. The strength of self assembly of simple sugars into cellulose must be overcome in fire by optical quantum mechanical excitation; chemical reaction physics. Fire is an optical quantum mechanical process, not thermodynamics. "Copy fire." Biochar black dirt residue CCS is also nice.

At the Stanford web site they mention "light harvesting." Fiberglass roofing, dyes, etc. India can't have air conditioners blowing hot air on each other, powered by steam boilers.

As you see from the Stanford site, this "solar fuel" science is very real. Directly store solar energy to convert abundant, stable cellulose into high energy clean proven fuels. I have had great interest from Californians and Indians alike. Better than wildfire and baking alive. Very low tech.

I see no purpose in arguing with windmill and solar panel fools.

Best regards, Bob.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »