In theory, I mostly agree with people like Jensen, but found Planet Of The Humans (2019/2020) more convincing with the same basic themes.
Both of the above could have focused more on the land and ocean space wind & solar power occupy, set to grow radically if full schemes are approved. There's already a major assault on what's left of scenic open space. That angle could really get the attention of environmentalists who've swept the sprawl issue under the rug. It's an environmental tragedy as bad as AGW in many ways. Look up the Net-Zero America project's 2050 projections and prepare to be stunned by the scale they seek.
The thing that sticks out (literally) with "renewables" is the extremely large physical footprint of the end product, especially noticeable with industrial wind turbines. The director even implies that landscape damage is relatively "unseen," though they show various panoramas of wind and solar projects. It's just strange that the biggest thing about them isn't highlighted.
Instead, they emphasize mining as the main resource problem, which is only true in the specific context of water pollution, etc. You don't see mines all over the place at long distances. They should have emphasized why low energy-density machines need far more space than fossil fuels, which build and support them anyhow. Mining is a must for many human endeavors, not just energy infrastructure and batteries.
Nuclear power is a critical alternative to sprawling wind & solar but they write it off as more of the same and offer no real options but primitivism. A realistic view would admit we're stuck with large economies that can't simply be dismantled. One segment made the weird claim that electricity is a luxury item, and asked why we even need it! I only skimmed the rest after that scene, having read the book and agreeing with their main points on blind growth.
This film came off as too anarchistic and non-pragmatic to sway anyone on the fence. I'd recommend the book for its more thorough analysis of technical issues. The term "Bright Green Lies" is a memorable slogan, either way.
Both of the above could have focused more on the land and ocean space wind & solar power occupy, set to grow radically if full schemes are approved. There's already a major assault on what's left of scenic open space. That angle could really get the attention of environmentalists who've swept the sprawl issue under the rug. It's an environmental tragedy as bad as AGW in many ways. Look up the Net-Zero America project's 2050 projections and prepare to be stunned by the scale they seek.
The thing that sticks out (literally) with "renewables" is the extremely large physical footprint of the end product, especially noticeable with industrial wind turbines. The director even implies that landscape damage is relatively "unseen," though they show various panoramas of wind and solar projects. It's just strange that the biggest thing about them isn't highlighted.
Instead, they emphasize mining as the main resource problem, which is only true in the specific context of water pollution, etc. You don't see mines all over the place at long distances. They should have emphasized why low energy-density machines need far more space than fossil fuels, which build and support them anyhow. Mining is a must for many human endeavors, not just energy infrastructure and batteries.
Nuclear power is a critical alternative to sprawling wind & solar but they write it off as more of the same and offer no real options but primitivism. A realistic view would admit we're stuck with large economies that can't simply be dismantled. One segment made the weird claim that electricity is a luxury item, and asked why we even need it! I only skimmed the rest after that scene, having read the book and agreeing with their main points on blind growth.
This film came off as too anarchistic and non-pragmatic to sway anyone on the fence. I'd recommend the book for its more thorough analysis of technical issues. The term "Bright Green Lies" is a memorable slogan, either way.