Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Demand-side management (DSM) has long been a tool for electric system management. In short, when power demands start mounting (think hot summer afternoon as air conditioners kick on), the call goes out to registered major users to reduce their demand (from turning off lights to shutting down production lines). Once required much negotiations and pre-arrangements to set up with phone calls to on-scene staff to execute, an increasing ‘smart’ grid and IOT (internet of things) enables near speed of light moves to shave demand to save money (for multiple parties) and reduce brownout/blackout risks.

A reverse item of DSM has been an element of price arbitrage: move uses to when power is cheap and thus flatten demand. This could range from homes running dishwashers in the middle of the night if they a “time of use” rate structure to large users making ice in off hours for use in cooling when demand is higher. Thus, time shifting is double DSM: decreasing peak while increasing off-peak demand.

Google is now taking a leap forward with (what we can call) double DSM (squared) to both clean up its data center usage and lower its operating costs. The basic concept:

• Google will track electricity prices and carbon footprints in real time
• It will shift data demand and usage to server farms that can leverage lower cost and lower carbon electrons created by high renewable production exceeding demand.

Now, this will first be a time-shifting exercise done at each Google facility:

our hyperscale (meaning very large) data centers [will] shift the timing of many compute tasks to when low-carbon power sources, like wind and solar, are most plentiful. … Shifting the timing of non-urgent compute tasks—like creating new filter features on Google Photos, YouTube video processing, or adding new words to Google Translate—helps reduce the electrical grid’s carbon footprint, getting us closer to 24×7 carbon-free energy.

But Google does see a path toward double DSM (squared) power demand shifting — across time and across location.

first version of this carbon-intelligent computing platform focuses on shifting tasks to different times of the day, within the same data center. But, it’s also possible to move flexible compute tasks between different data centers, so that more work is completed when and where doing so is more environmentally friendly. Our plan for the future is to shift load in both time and location to maximize the reduction in grid-level CO2 emissions.

One of renewable energy system challenges has been “stranded assets” — production that can’t find a viable end use due to constrictions in the grid or intermittent production poorly matching demand. Responses to this have included storage systems (from hydro-storage to, increasingly, batteries to moves for green hydrogen production). Google’s “carbon-intelligent computing” is an exciting next step in addressing the ‘stranded asset’ challenge for maximizing value creation from clean electrons.

NOTE: This is particularly interesting to see as, for awhile, I was an (informal, friendly) advisor to a pre-revenue start-up (that sadly didn’t move to commercialization) with a similar concept: to schedule and shift data center usage around the country to minimize data center electricity costs and computing carbon footprints. That startup had twists in its approach that vary from Google’s but, well, doesn’t have the $billions, massive(ly competent) staff, and footprint of Google.

In this guest post, CitiSven thoughtfully draws the clear contrast between Moore’s own movement building (enabling, promoting, fostering) documentaries and the Moore ‘executive produced’ (Jeff Gibbs written, directed, produced) movement damaging Planet of the Humans. For dozens more thoughtful examinations of the POTH mockumentary (mockery of a documentary), see Moore’s Boorish Planet of The Humans: An Annotated Collection.

I meant to write about the Michael Moore produced documentary Planet of the Humans right after watching it last weekend. But over the course of the week all of the wild distortions and misrepresentations in it got debunked quite expertly by dozens of people with much more knowledge on the current state of renewable energy than me (including our very own A Siegel), so I decided it wasn’t worth spending any more time on. My bottom line was that even though it makes a few good points, this film is so amateurish, dated, and in such bad faith that the highest award it could aspire to is to be forgotten. The End.

Regretfully, too many electrons have been burned delineating the multifaceted failings of the Jeff Gibbs written / edited / produced and Michael Moore promoted Planet of the Humans. This mockumentary (in this case, a mockery of a documentary), sadly, has topped more than 7 million YouTube clicks*. Amid the myriad of problems is the dated nature of much of the information, with one example falsely showing the supposed futility of electric vehicles since the demonstration PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) Chevy Volt was being charged off an electric grid which derived 95 percent of its electricity from coal-fired generation.

While even a decade ago that didn’t represent the US grid which was, at that time, roughly 50 (not 95) percent coal, April 2020 was a particularly absurd moment when it came to this.

In April 2020 …

In the United States, for the first time essentially ever, renewable electricity sources (hydropower, wind, solar) contributed more electrons to the grid than did coal-fired plants.

In the United Kingdom, coal disappeared from the grid for an extended period. As of 10 May, 31 straight days where coal generating 0.00% of UK electrons.

In Planet of the Humans, amid his parroting fossil foolish talking points, Gibbs asserts that renewables can’t replace fossil fuels. Rather absurd to be releasing a mockumentary making this dated (and never truthful) assertion amid milestone moments making clear that it isn’t just possible for renewables to replace fossil fuels, but a milestone month making clear that this is happening … and at an accelerating pace.

As Ketan Joshi put it in the third of his posts about POTH,

The deceptions in the film build towards a single claim about renewables: they are technically incapable of decreasing emissions. They pile on top of existing output instead of cutting downwards, they encourage over-consumption and the fossil fuels required to build them are far greater than anything they could displace.

It’s all wrong. The past decade has proven that renewables can kill coal, and increasingly, gas too. 2019 was, in fact, the first year that low carbon sources out-generated coal …

And, again, April 2020 provided a milestone month making clear how the world has changed since Gibbs conceived the film and, seemingly, locked into stone every ‘fact’ even though the decade since has seen dramatic change in the clean-energy sector.

It wasn’t so long ago that one had to developed “fully burdened” analysis (considering climate impacts, social impacts, etc …) to justify powering up from the sun. Many thought it was a pipedream in late 2007 when Google started its RE<C (renewable energy less than coal) effort (which it left behind seven years later) to develop renewable energy power (electricity) that would cost less than new coal plants. As the Obama Administration Department of Energy team developed the SunShot program under Secretary Steven Chu, many (including some involved in the process) thought that its targeting of 5 cents per kilowatt hour industrial solar by 2020 was an irrationally aggressive goal which I had explained to me by DOE leadership, then, as “worthwhile to have a stretch goal even if we fall short”. Over the past decade, those lofty (and seemingly unachievable) goals have been blown away.

For Earth Day 2020, Michael Moore announced 30 days of YouTube access of the Jeff Gibbs written/directed and Michael Moore ‘executive produced’ Planet of the Humans. This free mass release sparked viewership and a discovery that, sigh, this was mediocre propaganda. Like Robert Bryce’s work, this film has the same fundamental flaws:

• too error-filled for non-educated/knowledgeable people to watch due to misdirection & embedded deceit that might not be evident as the viewer has to be knowledgeable to see the truthiness and deceit.
• tedious and painful for those already knowledgeable as the core thematics/points aren’t news and it just takes so much effort to wade through the falsehoods and truthiness for having thoughts/perspective that are already out there in discussion.  

This post will provide an updated discussion of some of the better discussions of this boorishly propagandistic mocku-mentary.

While the dozens annotated (including these ones) beneath the fold all have value and provide interesting perspectives, these are particularly insightful pieces:

• Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths, Ketan Joshi
• Michael Moore’s environment film a slap in the face on Earth Day (on Medium), Cathy Cowan Becker
• 6 Reasons Why “Planet of the Humans” is a Disaster of Misinformation, Ben Wehrman
• 10 Reasons « Planet of the Humans » Gets Everything Wrong on Climate, Benjamin Tincq
• Why “Planet of the Humans” is crap, Tom Athanasiou, EcoEquity
• Film Review: Forget about PLANET OF THE HUMANS by Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore by Neal Livingston
• Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil, Leah Stokes
• Planet of the Humans Comes This Close to Actually Getting the Real Problem, Then Goes Full Ecofascism, Brian Kahn, Gizmondo
• Meet the New Flack for Oil and Gas: Michael Moore, Josh Fox, The Nation
• Inside Clean Energy: 6 Things Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Gets Wrong, Dan Gearino, Inside Climate News
• A Bomb in the Center of the Climate Movement’: Michael Moore Damages Our Most Important Goal, Bill McKibben, Rolling Stone
• POTH Traffics in Myths, Errors, and Dangerous Misdirection, John Rogers, Union of Concerned Scientists
• Planet of the Humans : Let’s just have a think…, Dave Borlace, Just Have a Think (note: a video response)
• Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Film Trashes Clean Energy, Offers Zero Solutions, Sally Ho, Green Queen
• The Important Debate POTH Misses, Kate Aronoff, New Republic
• Michael Moores New Film Turns Heroes into Villains and Villains into Heroes, Dr. Michael Mann, Newsweek
• What POTH got Right, Wrong, and Missed, Energy Justice Network, Mike Ewall
• POTH: One Moore Rebuttal To Widely Debunked Anti-Renewables Documentary, Climate Nexus
• If You Care About Climate Action, Don’t Watch POTH, Graham Turk

Some Reviews and Discussions

The following are some reviews/dissections of Planet of the Humans (POTH) that are worth your time.

So, three posts in two days on Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans is roughly three posts more than this atrocious mockumentary merited when we should be focusing on solutions and opportunities rather than engaging in constant defensive struggles against fossil-foolish truthiness and deceit. Sigh … In any event, this guest post below adds background and context to the two previous posts (here and here) on this.

Planet Of The Humans Is
Moore Trouble Than It’s Worth
(A Non-Review)

Last August, the AP published a story about the premiere of Michael Moore’s latest documentary at Michael Moore’s Traverse City film festival, which he tweeted out jokingly as his “August surprise.” Titled “Planet of the Humans,” it reportedly took a critical look at clean energy and the environmental movement, which is probably why Breitbart quickly posted the story. This was the first, of many, red flags indicating that this would ultimately be an unhelpful waste of time.

For Earth Day, Michael Moore released released the fundamentally misleading Planet of the Humans.  Highlighting this at Daily Kos generated attention with 356 comments (as of the moment), many defending Moore as insightful and too many dismissing Moore’s rampant truthiness.  For the same reasons that Moore got lots of soft-peddled media attention for the release, his notoriety led knowledgeable reviewers to (regrettably) take the time to watch the film (such as here) and, well, the detailing of errors, falsehoods, truthiness piled up.  And, a letter from scientists made this clear. With evidence in hand, one of the film’s distributor didn’t hesitate to act.

An interesting red flag for a distributor (or publisher), Moore refused to allow the distributor see (and have external review of) the film prior to release.

At Films for Action, (the extremely good and worth reading) Skepticism IsAn Healthy, but Planet of the Humans Is Toxic – A Critical Review ends

A movie that purports to care about the environment and the future of humanity and yet seeks to undermine support for the very things we must do to save this planet, and ourselves, is worse than a disappointment. It’s reckless.

Note that Films for Action is not the full distributor but a sustainable film clearinghouse.

UPDATE: Films for Action chose to reverse action and put the film back up on their site:

Providing a context for Moore’s truthiness

Yes, there are elements of truth in Planet of the Humans. Yes, neither solar nor wind is without environmental impact. Yes, human population is a real challenge that is too little discussed. Yes (YES), biofuels are overhyped and are (mainly?) damaging.  Yes … HOWEVER, Moore falsifies much, maligns (too) many people and institutions with partial truth or falsehoods, presents things in fundamentally misleading ways, and — writ large — does not provide a useful contribution to the discussion of our global (climate) challenges and solution options/paths to address them.

Like  Robert Bryce’s work (not that in anyway are producer Jeff Gibbs’ and Moore’s knowledge of energy issues as encyclopedic as libertarian, climate-dismissing Bryce’s), this film has the same fundamental flaws:

• it is too error-filled for non-educated/knowledgeable people to watch due to misdirection & embedded deceit that might not be evident as the viewer has to be knowledgeable to see the truthiness and deceit.
• For those already knowledgeable, the core thematics/points aren’t news and it just takes so much effort to wade through the falsehoods and truthiness for having thoughts/perspective that are already out there in discussion.  

Additionally, Gibbs’ and Moore’s truthiness and falsehood-filled product isn’t helpful because they created something that is being leveraged by climate deniers/delayers to attack (not complete, need to improve, are improving) solution paths. (For examples, see Emily Atkin’s thought-provoking The wheel of first-time climate dudes.)

NOTE/UPDATE:

To make clear, “a” distributor (with a limited footprint) pulled the film, not “the” distributor which is Moore’s Rumble.  From Rumble Media

I’m the distributor of Planet of the Humans. Rumble Media. The movie was released on Tuesday and has not stopped being in release for one minute. It’s on my YouTube channel where I’ve made it available free of charge as a public service. In these three and a half days it has had nearly 2 million views. Not sure where you heard it was no longer in distribution. Probably wishful thinking on someone’s part! This movie, like Rumble Media, exists in part to ignite a discussion, end greed/profit-motive/capitalism, and save the planet.

To reinforce his wonderful judgment in supporting Nader to undermine Gore and help give US George Bush, for Earth Day 2020, Michael Moore has released “Planet of the Humans”.

Sadly, with this, Moore demonstrates how not to do a quality film about important issues.  

Environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli (publications) clearly makes the case of Moore’s failure in the following twitter thread:

Basically the film presented any imperfect energy source (which is every energy source) as inherently bad. No consideration of pros vs. cons, just the cons.It’s fine to look at downsides; we’re already working to improve most of them. But ignoring the upside is not constructive

Moore’s work, btw, has many moments of borderline slander/libel.

Not surprisingly, Moore’s failure has been embraced by those who have long attacked renewables. And, sadly, been promoted across the media as Moore as this ‘left-wing’, man-of-the-people contrarian makes good press such as occurred with The Late Show.

Some other reactions.

The excellent Leah Stokes lays out Moore’s delivery of a “lump of coal” for Earth Day.

Economist Mark Paul identifies Moore’s philosophical grounding.

And, Jeff Nesbit has some people Moore could have spoken with.

Yeh, perhaps this would have turned out better if Moore had focused on those who know what they’re talking about.

UPDATE 1: Moore & Gibbs are like so so many climate delayers, focusing on highlighting problems in inadequate & improving solutions rather than making clear the disasters that are fossil fuels. @JeffGibbs & @MMFlint: true #FossilFools.

UPDATE 2:

Like  Robert Bryce’s work (not that in anyway are Jeff Gibbs’ and Moore’s knowledge of energy issues as encyclopedic as libertarian, climate-dismissing Bryce’s), this film has the same fundamental flaws:

• it is too error-filled for non-educated/knowledgeable people to watch due to misdirection & embedded deceit that might not be evident as the viewer has to be knowledgeable to see the truthiness and deceit.
• For those already knowledgeable, the core thematics/points aren’t news and it just takes so much effort to wade through the falsehoods and truthiness for having thoughts/perspective that are already out there in discussion.  

Additionally, Gibbs’ and Moore’s truthiness and falsehood-filled product isn’t helpful because they created something that is being leveraged by climate deniers/delayers to attack (not complete, need to improve, are improving) solution paths. (For examples, see Emily Atkin’s thought-provoking The wheel of first-time climate dudes.)

Under pressure from all directions (improving efficiency and alternatives (electrification); coronavirus economic collapse; and Saudi-Russian price war), the U.S. oil market collapsed (even further) today with WTI prices as low as $11.50 earlier this morning.

While there are reasons for the particular collapse (oil futures timing) and while the gap between WTI / Brent Crude is (in percentage terms) the highest it has ever been (as water-accessible crude has higher value in this environment than land-locked crude), this is a stunning data point in the massively changed (and changing) energy market space.

Seeing that chart raised the question — when were oil prices ever this low (in inflation adjusted terms)? First thought was ‘not since before Oil Crises’. It appears that ‘first thought’ was wrong. See this February 2020 look at inflation adjusted oil prices.

While Friday’s price was well above the December 1998 lows, the high inflation of the 1970s actually put ‘inflation adjusted’ oil prices prior to 1980 (often well) above $20/barrel in February 2020 terms dating back to at least May 1946.

Update: Last I checked, 1861 is before WWII …

PS: As a side note, when it comes to tar sands, Canadian producers need to pay people to take their products.

Amid Coronavirus’ horrific impacts across humanity (from illnesses and deaths to economic devastation) are glimmers of how to seize a better path forward and what could result from a concerted global impact.  From countries restructuring economies to emphasize assuring basic needs and human dignity (such as South Korea launching a Green New Deal as its path forward) to clear skies and breathable air in some of the typically most polluting places in the world, an opportunity for betterment is before US.

Regretfully, destructive special interests have their maws deeply into government processes, shamelessly and greedily exploiting urgent needs for massive programs to keep people from starving, maintain basic services, and bridge economies through an ‘induced coma’.

Poster Child #1: CARES’ Act Couldn’t Care Less Provision

Within the United States, the advertising slogan CARES Act is, in all too many ways, a poster child of exploitative interests securing much larger benefits than what is going to critical services and to Main Street. Within the CARES Act, with little more than a few sentences buried in hundreds of pages, a $170 billion (with a capital B) tax giveaway of primary benefit to hedge fund investors and real-estate business owners.  Hmm, any surprise that this that will overwhelmingly (well over 80%) go to the 43,000 households with over $1M/year in income? Senate Majority Leader McConnell snuck this into the CARES Act and, amid the pressure for quick action, Democrats didn’t begin to understand fully the implications of McConnell’s insertion until the bill was already out of the Senate. Why let a crisis go to waste when you can, instead, exploit it for $Bs in tax breaks for Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, and other equally ethical and ever-so needy individuals.

Now, there were other McConnell couldn’t care less for the future wish-list items that didn’t make it into the CARES Act including many billions for oil, natural gas, and coal interests which he sacrificed in a trade to stop renewal of renewable energy tax credits.

Never fear, Mitch, as the Fed is here to help.

Poster child #2: Federal Reserve Polluters’ Benefits Fund

The Federal Reserves’ moves to steady the economy are also filled with special interest plays. On 9 April, the Federal Reserve announced the rules for $750 billion (and, well, with a BOLDLY CAPITAL B BILLION) in corporate debt purchases. As a Friends of the Earth research team has documented in a new report, the benefits that many fossil fuel interests will receive under the convoluted rule set could well be an order of magnitude larger than what Mitch and the rest of couldn’t care less for humanity Congressional Republicans couldn’t deliver for them.

Let’s take a moment for context. While the image of the industry are excess Exxon profits and enviable Jed Clampett-like millionaires, the truth across much of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry for the past decade has been financially questionable operations leveraging privileged financial debt access. Even before Coronavirus-driven collapse in demand and prices, sophisticated observers have long-laid out how this fossil-foolish deck-of-cards was unsustainable with revenue not even keeping up with operating costs, debt servicing, and shareholder payouts — flipping debt has been more critical for many operator and investor fortunes than hitting an oil gusher. As per a 2018 discussion

The U.S. shale oil industry hailed as a “revolution” has burned through a quarter trillion dollars more than it has brought in over the last decade. It has been a money-losing endeavor of epic proportions.

As these over-leveraged firms, surviving via unsustainable financial practices in an unsustainable climate-destroying industry, hit the wall of Cronavirus demand and price collapses, more than a few said: Let them eat bankruptcy!

Sadly, it seems that the Federal Reserve doesn’t truly believe in capitalism — at least when it comes for politically connected industries. As FOE has documented, there is likely in the range of at least $50B in fossil-foolish debt buyout with much of this actually junk-status bonds that slip through the cracks of Fed rule sets.

• “ExxonMobil, Chevron and Conoco are together eligible for up to $19.4 billion in potential benefits, based on their credit ratings and outstanding long-term debt,
• “There are 12 fracking-focused oil and gas companies that could potentially qualify for the new program. Together, they may be eligible for over $24.1 billion in potential benefits.
• “Major fracking company Continental Resources, whose debt was recently downgraded to below investment grade by S&P, is potentially eligible for as much as $1.5 billion under new, weaker standards announced by the Federal Reserve.
• “As BlackRock begins purchasing “high yield” exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to bolster corporate debt markets, energy companies (predominantly oil and gas) stand to benefit disproportionately as the largest single issuer of junk bonds, at 11% of the entire US market.”

The Fed’s program is, in all too many ways, far looser than the CARES Act. Unsustainable firms, teetering on the edge of financial insolvency even before Coronavirus, are going to be able to issue additional debt that the Fed will buy at incredibly low interest rates. Not only will taxpayers being keeping poorly run firms in polluting industries afloat, but these firms will be able to use the Fed’s money (hint: taxpayer money) for stock buybacks and executive bonuses. What a dirty f—king bailout, indeed.

Lemon Socialism in action

While Republicans like to moan about “socialism”, they these measures are heavily polluted versions of the Grand Oil Parties’ real lemon socialist motto:

Privatize profits
Socialize costs