StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

happydaze-00442 I've seen a lot of energy documentaries. Everything from Pandora's Promise (Pro nuclear), to GasLand (anti gas), to Fuel (pro renewables). All of these documentaries presented a very narrow view of the energy situation, and many were highly biased. Many energy documentaries are little more than commercials for a particular technology, or smear campaigns against a technology. I can honestly say this is the fairest representation of the world energy situation that I have seen thus far.It doesn't sing the praise of just one technology, or try to demonize another. Instead, it gives an honest evaluation of each energy source, weighing pros and cons. No source is held up as the end-all be-all magic bullet, which is pretty realistic.I do feel that it tried a little bit too hard for balance on natural gas. Natural gas is held up as a clean, green fossil fuel, but this is questionable. As they say, it emits half the CO2 that coal does, though some would say even half is too much. However, methane leaks from natural gas have raised concerns about whether natural gas can really help much with greenhouse gas reduction. Also, at one point they claim that natural gas just creates CO2 and water, with no air pollution. Not just reduced air pollution, but none at all. That's not quite true. There's very little talk of air pollution in general, or on health/mortality impacts. I dinged it -1 point for neglecting these details.It does skip on important details at times, but this is to be expected for such a broad subject. The strength of this documentary is in the scale of what it attempts- analyzing multiple energy sources instead of just one, and putting them in the larger context of our energy needs. Despite this, there are some good details here. The visits to each facility add to this by showing you exactly what each technology is and how it works. Overall, their projections for what our energy mix will have to be if we commit to an energy transition are probably not too far from the truth. I would say a bit less natural gas, but I would be nitpicking. It's a good documentary. The most telling thing is that they have been criticized by people from all sides, which shows that they're not slaves to any one ideology. They let you watch it and draw your own conclusions.

Michael Darmody I just watched Switch at San Juan College, which was hosted by the School of Energy and Four Corners Geological Society, and found it to be very revealing, but not as an honest look at our energy present and future, but just as a propaganda film for the oil and gas industry and nuclear power. It was very slick, very subtle. But it was basically a bait and switch move. So much misinformation. So much left out information. Just breathtaking.Most of the people of the world do not consume the mass amount of watts of energy per year the narrator assumes as a rule of thumb, based on his own life style. No one who lives on the continent of Africa, for instance,consumes even half as much as he does. For the narrator to use his personal usage as a globe-trotting, giant house living, electronic gadgets using engineer as a rule of thumb for everyone on the planet is just flabbergasting.To not even consider reducing consumption is irresponsible. To not even address the fallacy that nature is merely a "resource" is sickening.The crack about solar power being an "unreliable" or "intermittent" energy source almost made me choke. This part of New Mexico enjoys perfect sunny days 95% of the year. That's their idea of unreliable? Intermittent? The film suggests that the Andasol solar power station in Spain is down a significant part of the time due to inclement weather, when in fact it is not. California is building two huge solar gathering power plants in the Mojave. Does CA think solar is unreliable? There are huge parts of the world that get no rainfall EVER. Just one square mile of land receives something like 12 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year! All we need to do is figure out how to harness that! I could not stomach the narrator's cheer leading in the nuclear power section and had to leave. There are so many reported nuclear power plant-related accidents every year, each one threatening containment, not waiting for a tornado, not needing a tornado to cause trouble. We still have not solved the permanent waste storage problem, no matter what they say.The cost of coal is much higher than is reported, especially if you also factor in the respiratory illness children suffer in the vicinity of coal-fired power plants, such as the 2 here in the Four Corners.Just think what will NEVER happen with solar or wind power: another Chernobyl, another Three-Mile Island, another Fukushima, another Exxon Valdez, another Deep Water Horizon, another Exxon Pegasus tar sands pipeline spill (happening right now in Arkansas), an increase in CO2 emissions, artificial earthquakes, periodic estimates about how long it will be until it runs out.

Paula Williams If this film is truly about the importance of energy conservation, as it claims to be, why does it not mention this as an issue until the last 7 minutes of the (98 minute) film - and the credits roll at 3 minutes, so 4 minutes is dedicated to this issue? There are a bunch of conclusory statements made by Dr. Tinker in the course of the movie, for example, it will take decades before solar will be able to provide energy for a significant number of people. I am willing to consider this as true if there is some evidence, but there was not even a statement why he reached this conclusion, let alone evidence. Throughout the movie, there is emphasis on the fact that natural gas produces about half the CO2 emissions compared to coal. Tinker then "addresses" the water contamination issues associated with hydro-fracking using the example of the shale formations in Texas, which are about 8000 feet deep, according to the movie, and below the level that ground water is extracted, to support the conclusion that there has been no ground water contamination from hydro-fracking. There is no mention of the Marcellus shale formation in the East US and whether there are issues with ground water there. This "documentary" feels very much like a promotion of hydro-fracking for natural gas. Was this the industry answer to "Gasland?" He is also a big promoter of nuclear, and talks about how the disposal issue is solved in France by using vitrification. However, the issue of the amount of radiation left in mine tailings (usually higher than the radiation from uranium ore itself) wherever uranium is mined does not appear to be a concern.It just seems that energy conservation, which is a very important aspect of our energy use, is an after thought mentioned in the last few minutes of the film. It certainly does not do a good job of describing how our energy use can be lowered - it shows what he does to his own home. How many people can afford to do this? Public buildings use much more energy than private homes and there is no mention of how to transition these buildings. A big disappointment.

pnorris To begin with, I like documentaries....and this one is well made about a topic that should interest us all....this film proposes the alternatives that may come into play as we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels in the not to distant future....no, we are not running out of fossil fuel...exploration technology advances coupled with new extraction technology gives us perhaps more economically viable reserves than ever before....'peak oil' has turned out to be only half true....recoverable reserves did not peak....refinery capacity did....Scott Tinker is very engaging as he explores several viable alternatives...I especially enjoyed the Iceland segment and the "inside a mountain" segment....no doom & gloom here...this film is entertaining and highly informative....an excellent use of your time...