Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by doug, Jan 20, 2009.
Check your local listings.
NOVA - The Big Energy Gamble
NOVA | The Big Energy Gamble | PBS
They didn't really say anything about Tesla specifically but they did include a bit of 'footage' of Tesla engineers working on the PEM.
Also there was a segment on training solar panel installers and they had someone dressed up in solar city garb (shirt/hard-hat, etc.)
The show doesn't exactly push any conclusions about things - it just says it is yet to be seen if the plan to subsidize alternative energy will end up helping or hurting the CA economy in general. Usual concerns over higher taxes, higher energy costs and small businesses that may decide to leave the state because of it.
A big part of the show is about a push for more solar. And perhaps a push for more nuclear for those times when solar output is low (like if the state is generally overcast on certain days).
The quality isn't great, but you can watch online here:
NOVA | The Big Energy Gamble | Watch the Program | PBS
Funding provided by:
David H. Koch
Additional funding for "The Big Energy Gamble" is provided by the
Delacour Family Foundation.
PBS depends on some funding from a variety of corporate and private underwriters. I've yet to see it affect their objectivity.
Exclusion may make it so you never know...
True, however informed people get news from more than one source. I've seen several stories from PBS that could be considered negative by Exxon (the only sponsor above worth worrying about) or ADM, along with "full disclosure" statements about funding. I trust PBS and NPR over most commercial news sources. They're certainly less annoying to listen to.
Agreed and Agreed. We just never know how many "outing" stories were killed before they hit air.
When I saw who the sponsor was, I knew this would not be good.
- In chapter 2, narrator says "the theory is, the more efficient home is, less energy it will use." Its's not theory, it's fact!
- They chose two extreme enviromentalist guys and portrayed them as borderline silly.
- Notice looney music during chapter 2. Clear efforts to magnify above's silliness.
- The narrator tries to connect California's past brown outs with future wind/solar power. No mention of Enron's artificial brown outs. The message i got was that more wind/solar will bring us more brown outs. No mention of using solar to smooth out peak electricity demand. Resiential grid-tie PV advantage not mentioned either.
- Arnold is portrayed as a hypocrite for liking Hummers and talking "green" at the same time.
- Nuclear power bias. Energy needed for mining and enriching Uranium not mentioned. The waste problem not fully explained.
- Producers clearly filmed at Tesla Motors, but no mention about Tesla Roadster or other cheaper battery electric cars. But ofcourse, GM's Volt is shown.
Looks like oil companies are opting for gentler campain to smear/delay clean tech. But big thanks to PBS for disclosing who the sponsor was.
Yeah - I really noticed that. They used those brown outs as a reason to say our grid is in need of repair, but from what I know those brown outs were mostly related to Enron.
California electricity crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They made a point of showing him blowing cigar smoke at people a few times.
Yes, very much so. Mostly related to Arnold and Stephen Chu.
By the way they talked of energy storage issues as a reason not to consider Solar a good answer.
Why not use excess Solar PV to run pumps to send water back up hill when it is bright, and then at night and on cloudy days you use hydro-electric to generate the power you need by letting the water run back downhill?
My disagreement with the show is that it portrayed the movement as bad for business such as those mattress makers. It doesn't matter where you are, if you do not change with the times you will get left behind.
They complained how materials were getting expensive. Instead of complaining they should've looked for other if not superior materials that are more economical if not environmentally friendly at the same time. To me moving out of state will just delay the inevitable. They are following GM's footsteps.
I am not saying that they shouldn't move out of state to stay in business instead they should realize that sooner of later that problem will catch up with them. Anyways, in this world, it's the problem solvers that profit. Exxon has a problem that its profits move with progress too quickly for them to catch up, so Exxon has decided to slow it down.
I haven't seen the show, but from everyone's descriptions I can imagine what it was like. Media, even coming from good sources like NPR and PBS, never is good enough. You simply can't cram enough information in one hour without isolating the vast majority of viewers. And if you don't have viewers, a show can't stay on the air. That's why television is always a terrible source of info; they always have to compromise their quality.
At least that's my take on the issue.
Finally caught it. Saw the brief shots at Tesla that no one but a diehard would recognize but I also did not see Tesla as necessary to the story.
Great piece of work and very current (Chu was named as a designate)