Michael Moore bangs up against the truth - almost

[JoMack + 547]

So, the famous left wing darling, baseball cap wearing big man, Michael Moore, was the executive producer of a documentary about renewable energy.  When I heard about it I thought, oh no another Al Gore fatalistic story about how the world will either blow up, blow away, or disappear unless we removed fossil fuels from our existence.

I'm not certain if anyone has posted this or seen his documentary but it is on YouTube.  He said he planned to sell it to a streaming network, but Netflix and the others turned him down flat.  If you get a chance, catch it:

planetofthehumans.com

If this doesn't link up, watch it on YouTube when you get an hour or so free time.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Actually, I thought it was rather well done.  Moore pointed out the folly of various so-called "renewables" projects, basically designed to line the pockets of the developers, at the expense of the locals (in the case of the Lowell Mountain wind machine project) and the overall environment.  I give him credit for the insight and for sticking his neck out. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

16 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, I thought it was rather well done.  Moore pointed out the folly of various so-called "renewables" projects, basically designed to line the pockets of the developers, at the expense of the locals (in the case of the Lowell Mountain wind machine project) and the overall environment.  I give him credit for the insight and for sticking his neck out. 

Penn and Teller took a lot of heat for their show Bullshit, where they followed the recycling trucks with cameras and saw that the whole shebang was just thrown into the same pile of garbage. But virtue signaling…

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

39 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, I thought it was rather well done.  Moore pointed out the folly of various so-called "renewables" projects, basically designed to line the pockets of the developers, at the expense of the locals (in the case of the Lowell Mountain wind machine project) and the overall environment.  I give him credit for the insight and for sticking his neck out. 

It sure put "bio fuels" into a new light for me.  Interesting how statistics about renewables almost always have an * that says something like "Including Biofuels".

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, JoMack said:

So, the famous left wing darling, baseball cap wearing big man, Michael Moore, was the executive producer of a documentary about renewable energy.  When I heard about it I thought, oh no another Al Gore fatalistic story about how the world will either blow up, blow away, or disappear unless we removed fossil fuels from our existence.

I'm not certain if anyone has posted this or seen his documentary but it is on YouTube.  He said he planned to sell it to a streaming network, but Netflix and the others turned him down flat.  If you get a chance, catch it:

planetofthehumans.com

If this doesn't link up, watch it on YouTube when you get an hour or so free time.

 

To answer your question, there was a thread on here (started by @Jan van Eck??) that was specifically about that documentary.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

To answer your question, there was a thread on here (started by @Jan van Eck??) that was specifically about that documentary.

Yup.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

41 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Penn and Teller took a lot of heat for their show Bullshit, where they followed the recycling trucks with cameras and saw that the whole shebang was just thrown into the same pile of garbage. But virtue signaling…

My collector, Advance won't even pick up extra large amounts of cardboard unless I can fit it into the recyclable 50 gallon barrel. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

29 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

It sure put "bio fuels" into a new light for me.  Interesting how statistics about renewables almost always have an * that says something like "Including Biofuels".

There are many sources for biofuels. Some are better than others. Some involve raising trees and harvesting them. Some involve turning fecal waste or production waste into fuel. All of them are useful for fuel. All forms of fuel can be criticized one way or another. It is all a matter of preference, what is available, and what are the pros and cons. Solar, wind, nuclear, are all ways of collecting energy. The pros and cons of each must be measured over the lifespan. All can be presented as desirable or undesirable. That is usually done by the competitors favoring another technology. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There are many sources for biofuels. Some are better than others. Some involve raising trees and harvesting them. Some involve turning fecal waste or production waste into fuel. All of them are useful for fuel. All forms of fuel can be criticized one way or another. It is all a matter of preference, what is available, and what are the pros and cons. Solar, wind, nuclear, are all ways of collecting energy. The pros and cons of each must be measured over the lifespan. All can be presented as desirable or undesirable. That is usually done by the competitors favoring another technology. 

 

The lab I worked at was in a shared space with Natural Resources Canada and one of the scientists was working on a interesting project that involved using waste water from a sewage treatment facility to fertilizer and water a short-rotation willow crop. Win-win; you get rid of waste water and get a valuable fibre/energy product without the safety concerns if it was a food crop.

You can even bale small trees like hay! There were a few bales on site next to the experimental plots for demonstration, neat stuff!

 

https://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdfplus/10.5558/tfc2013-009

https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/134/4

Edited June 24, 2020 by Enthalpic

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

 

The lab I worked at was in a shared space with Natural Resources Canada and one of the scientists was working on a interesting project that involved using waste water from a sewage treatment facility to fertilizer and water a short-rotation willow crop. Win-win; you get rid of waste water and get a valuable fibre/energy product without the safety concerns if it was a food crop.

You can even bale small trees like hay! There were a few bales on site next to the experimental plots for demonstration, neat stuff!

 

https://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdfplus/10.5558/tfc2013-009

https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/134/4

There is no issue using sewage sludge on certain types of crops that are to be processed / cooked. 

In the UK sugar beet, grains, rapeseed, Flax are fine for sewage sludge. 

The risks come from using it around pasture by completing the lifecycle of certain human parasites (tapeworms , round worms) and read to eat crops - salads and fruits*

* Mind u - I regularly piss on my fruit trees. 

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

47 minutes ago, NickW said:

There is no issue using sewage sludge on certain types of crops that are to be processed / cooked. 

In the UK sugar beet, grains, rapeseed, Flax are fine for sewage sludge. 

Not really.  The idea "looks good," it "sounds good," but the practice fails to recognize that tere is going to be a lot of phosphorus in that sewage, far more than the ground can absorb.  The further problem is that if the ground is frozen or semi-frozen, in Winter and the edges of the winter season, then the ability of the soil to absorb the sludge remains limited.  What happens is that the excess, and there is always excess, will run off the land and into the ditches, then from there into the creeks, and from there into the rivers and downstream into the lakes that those rivers feed into.  

What happens next is acutely unpleasant:  the sludge, the liquids or leachate, containing all that Phosphorus overloads the ability of the lake waters to cleanse themselves, and you get these mass cyanobacterial blooms.  The blooms becomes surface scum, they rob the oxygen out of the water, amd toxins take over.   Lake Erie had such a bloom a few years back that extended some 22 miles out into the lake!  That bloom cut off the drinking water for over 400,000 people  for over 4 months.  (And of course it kills off the sport fishing, so there goes your fishing tourism.)

The better way to deal with sewage sludge, the solids, is to dewater them and either burn the solid dry residue as a boiler fuel, or to sterilize the material and use it mixed with dredge spoil to deposit on rocky lands, to create new planting lands.  

[NickW + 2,714]

28 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  The idea "looks good," it "sounds good," but the practice fails to recognize that tere is going to be a lot of phosphorus in that sewage, far more than the ground can absorb.  The further problem is that if the ground is frozen or semi-frozen, in Winter and the edges of the winter season, then the ability of the soil to absorb the sludge remains limited.  What happens is that the excess, and there is always excess, will run off the land and into the ditches, then from there into the creeks, and from there into the rivers and downstream into the lakes that those rivers feed into.  

What happens next is acutely unpleasant:  the sludge, the liquids or leachate, containing all that Phosphorus overloads the ability of the lake waters to cleanse themselves, and you get these mass cyanobacterial blooms.  The blooms becomes surface scum, they rob the oxygen out of the water, amd toxins take over.   Lake Erie had such a bloom a few years back that extended some 22 miles out into the lake!  That bloom cut off the drinking water for over 400,000 people  for over 4 months.  (And of course it kills off the sport fishing, so there goes your fishing tourism.)

The better way to deal with sewage sludge, the solids, is to dewater them and either burn the solid dry residue as a boiler fuel, or to sterilize the material and use it mixed with dredge spoil to deposit on rocky lands, to create new planting lands.  

Which is why the water company (who usually do the injection (its not spread)  via a contractor) test the phosphate content  as do the farmers in terms of their fields and apply it according to the crops that are going to be planted. 

Secondly their are buffer zones between rivers and where you can apply fertilisers to protect them from nitrate / phosphate leachates

This pretty much minimises the problems you describe and means we have an effective reuse system for sewage sludge instead of dumping it in the sea. This is the UK approach which works reasonable well. 

Incineration is expensive and polluting. We don't really have any close by rocky land to transport the sludge to. 

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Which is why the water company (who usually do the injection (its not spread)  via a contractor) test the phosphate content  as do the farmers in terms of their fields and apply it according to the crops that are going to be planted. 

Secondly their are buffer zones between rivers and where you can apply fertilisers to protect them from nitrate / phosphate leachates

This pretty much minimises the problems you describe and means we have an effective reuse system for sewage sludge instead of dumping it in the sea. This is the UK approach which works reasonable well. 

Incineration is expensive and polluting. We don't really have any close by rocky land to transport the sludge to. 

 

Around Decatur, Illinois and the Sangamon River. We use the sludge to fertilize corn and soybean fields. Those fields are near the Sangamon which dumps into the Illinois river and then the Mississippi and then into the Gulf of Mexico. So, we have a very rich stew of chemicals enriching our river systems and the Gulf. So far fish still do well except for the "dead" areas of the Gulf. I think that the algae blooms cut off the O2 but I don't hear a lot of complaints from the people who live near the gulf. Water pollution needs to be dealt with but growing food is our first concern. Farms throughout the Midwest and South contribute their chemical overdoses to the Mississippi River Drainage.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

On 6/23/2020 at 3:50 PM, JoMack said:

So, the famous left wing darling, baseball cap wearing big man, Michael Moore, was the executive producer of a documentary about renewable energy.  When I heard about it I thought, oh no another Al Gore fatalistic story about how the world will either blow up, blow away, or disappear unless we removed fossil fuels from our existence.

I'm not certain if anyone has posted this or seen his documentary but it is on YouTube.  He said he planned to sell it to a streaming network, but Netflix and the others turned him down flat.  If you get a chance, catch it:

planetofthehumans.com

If this doesn't link up, watch it on YouTube when you get an hour or so free time.

 

Michael Moore made a fortune conning left wing Gullibles for decades. He decided to expand his income portfolio and start conning right wing Gullibles. Gullibles, regardless of where they land on the political spectrum, are always thirsty to satisfy their confirmation bias. 

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Michael Moore made a fortune conning left wing Gullibles for decades. He decided to expand his income portfolio and start conning right wing Gullibles. Gullibles, regardless of where they land on the political spectrum, are always thirsty to satisfy their confirmation bias. 

Amen Brother. 

Nail on Head