[fersho311]

Anyone watch the documentary planet of the humans on YouTube? After watching that, I’m no longer sure what renewable energy even means anymore, which no longer gives these accomplishments any meaning. Can someone help with my disillusionment?

[kitotik]

I just watched this and was left feeling rather disillusioned. I’ve not yet found any credible counter arguments to the case the documentary presents against biofuels.

For those that haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth a watch[0]. The side story of YouTube taking it down because it contained 4 seconds worth of supposed copyright infringement is silly. It had roughly 8,000,000 views before this take down happened.

[0] https://youtu.be/MrOcBdnC3kw

[gpanders]

The Wikipedia page[1] has some information on the scientific inaccuracies in the film.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans#Scientifi...

[clomond]

I'll try:

In order to solve climate change, we need to decarbonize all of our primary energy sources by shifting from fossil fuels to zero carbon sources (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear). Biomass (wood pellets) should not be treated as 'renewable' when looked at the lens of solving climate change.

I am optimistic because the costs of solar, wind, and energy storage are decreasing rapidly (between 15%-30%+ cost declines PER YEAR). And, in many markets today - these offer the cheapest form of new energy to put online.

Given the 0 marginal cost nature of generation for wind and solar, these sites can generate power without any 'fuel' or other input cost.

While many calculations are available, the EROI (energy return on investment) of these sources is usually ~10+ [1]. This concept was not mentioned in the film, and simply asserted 'coal is used to make solar panels'->'therefore they are not renewable'. An EROI of over 10 means, that by inserting 1 unit of (lets say 100% coal) energy into solar, you get 10 units of solar energy back in the lifetime of the project. This doesn't account for various methods of extending the longevity of solar/wind sites. On an 'energy returned' basis - renewables are a viable solution to decarbonizing the economy.

And circling back to the article - while electricity demand has been impacted by the current economic situation - given the UK's history of coal use (they were the largest coal user historically through the industrial revolution), the fact that this milestone has been reached should not be underestimated and be viewed as an indicator for where the rest of the world is currently heading.

[1] https://rameznaam.com/2015/06/04/whats-the-eroi-of-solar/

[aksss]

I think the only decent criticisms had to do with incremental technological process, i.e. solar panels are marginally more efficient than they were when the film was made. On the balance though, I don't think this negates the points the film made - the amount of mining, manufacturing and transportation balanced against the in-service life and the energy actually produced make for a very bad story. Burning biomass is also not good for the planet for the reasons outlined in that film and in this comment thread.

I'm a Vaclav Smil fanboy, so I get repetitive, but he has criticized the renewables industry pretty consistently and long before Michael Moore's film, so his material may be worth a look for those that want a stronger critique that doesn't have Moore's name in the sentence. "Energy and Civilization: A History" is a great book of his, and was relatively recently updated.

[pfdietz]

Solar panels are much cheaper than when the film was made. It's this reduction in cost that's driving the energy disruption, not increase in efficiency (although that helps).

Smil's critique seems off base to me. Yes, replacements of energy infrastructure take a long time if the replacing technology is developing slowly. But the cost of PV crashed by a factor of 5 in a decade. This rapid change will lead to existing infrastructure being ripped out before its normal lifespan.

(The next cost crash appears to be in electrolyzers, which will be the final coffin nail for nuclear.)

[dntbnmpls]

> Solar panels are much cheaper than when the film was made. It's this reduction in cost that's driving the energy disruption, not increase in efficiency (although that helps).

Solar is a nonfactor in energy. It counts for absolutely nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...

The only energy disruption we've had is natural gas in the last few decades.

To show you how insignificant solar is, it only makes up 15% of renewables. The largest renewable source is wind ( 3X more energy than solar ).

https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/4-charts-show-renewable...

[pfdietz]

> Solar is a nonfactor in energy. It counts for absolutely nothing.

You appear to be confusing the past with the future.

And, really, a reference from 2016? Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now. PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.

[dntbnmpls]

> And, really, a reference from 2016?

And what reference did you provide? Other than your supposed ability to predict the future?

> Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now.

It isn't. Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the world, especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground. Going from insignificant to worthless. But that's probably why you haven't posted any sources right? So you should be thanking me for using 2016 data because solar has taken a beating since 2016.

> PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.

5 times nothing is still nothing. You know.

Solar was a nonfactor in 2016. Solar is a nonfactor today. Solar will be a nonfactor in the future. Mindless zealotry won't change the facts on the ground.

[pfdietz]

> Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the world, especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground.

One need only look at the data to see you are mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country

Global installed PV capacity has more than doubled since 2016, and now accounts for 3% of total electricity consumption.

> It isn't

It obviously is. PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in a decade; that's about a factor of 2 in four years. You would have us believe that dropping the cost of PV by a factor of ~2 would make no difference. But this is clearly not true. We are seeing record low PV bids from all over the world. The most recent eye opener was from Abu Dhabi, where are 22 km^2 project was bid to deliver unsubsidized energy at $0.0135/kWh. This is many times cheaper than the power from the new nuclear plants being constructed in the Gulf region, and is perhaps the cheapest source of electrical energy on the planet.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/06/08/1-35-cents-kwh-record-a...

> 5 times nothing is still nothing. You know.

You seem to be another person who doesn't understand how exponential growth works. Solar is 3% of world electric consumption now; we are just 5 doubling times away from dominance. That's 20 years at the current rate of doubling. With demonstrated experience curves that will drive the cost of PV energy below $0.01/kWh in much of the world.

Ultimately, to legitimately gaslight you, your cognitive failure is to assume that things can't change quickly, and that your prejudices from a few years ago remain valid, even as the facts that underpinned them have vanished.