Moore Contrary Ideas?

I must admit to having been amused, on many occasions, by Michael Moore's contrarian views, wry comments and visual imagery. His latest output 'Planet of the Humans' has reportedly already had more than 5m views on YouTube in its first  2 weeks, so it appears to be potentially very influential. There is, of course, no reason why people with commercial interests in 'alternative' energy provision or even environmental issues, in general, (being greener than thou?) should be immune from questioning and even ridicule. The programme seems, however, distinctly ill-targeted, especially when set against the vested interests and media power of the climate change deniers (who are not a tiny group in the USA). A number of conservationists have taken issue with a number of aspects of this film (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/03/once-again-michael-moore-stirs-the-environmental-pot-but-conservationists-turn-up-the-heat-on-him). One charge is that a number of the 'shock/horror' clips featured are based on out-dated footage (in some cases, pilot studies) or cite ideas that are no longer held by the featured 'authority' (who told the film producers so to no avail). The major concern, however, surrounds the impression given that renewables are, in energy terms, no better than fossil fuels. Of course, the benefits of renewables can be over-sold but any scientist knows there is 'no such thing as a free lunch'. They are fully aware that it takes time for the energetic costs of creating solar panels or wind turbines to be paid off. These structures have, however, relatively long post cost-creation lives, when they continue to generate energy. We do know that they wear out and have to be replaced but the costs versus benefits calculation is in their favour. Hydro-electric power has similar characteristics to solar and wind power but the energetic costs of creating a large dam (concrete based) may be relatively high and it may take a long time to 'pay off'. The problems of storing energy on the grid from renewable sources has actually been solved, contrary to the impression given in the film. In contrast, coal, gas and oil-powered plants also take energy to create but, of course, they burn carbons throughout their working lives, continuously generating 'greenhouse gas' emissions. The jury appears to be out on biofuels as, although they capture carbon by photosynthesis, they return it  to the atmosphere when they are burned (some appear better than others). Of course, the real fundamental  problem is the burgeoning human population and its insatiable appetite for energy but renewables may at least give us a breathing space.