OK, I'm 30 minutes into the movie and there is a MASSIVE plot hole here. The humans HAVE to take the dam because they need power. There's NO other recourse. Seriously?? Nobody thought to hit one of the many hardware stores and pick up a diesel generator or two?? Nobody could gather up some solar panels and batteries?? Ridiculous! The whole premise is completely unbelievable.
share[deleted]
Nevermind that it's not economically feasible. It's all Bush's fault. Obama has handed BILLIONS to green energy companies. And they have ALL gone broke. But hey, what's a little bankruptcy right? LOL
shareActually, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was created to help develop renewable energy. Oh, let's take a second to talk about the 2005 part. It was created under Bush not Obama. Anyway, the program has be profitable. I know, the horror, the government actually made a profit. Obama made the mistake of selecting the wrong company to use as the face of the program. It makes sense at the time because Solyndra was a huge, profitable company. Anyway the department of Energy lost money they loaned to Solyndra but made money in other companies.
Back to the story. Solar energy requires a lot of panel. I mean, a ton. Considering the number of human must be living in that sanctuary, there was no way possible. Also, you have to consider that during the last 10 years, a lot of stuff got destroyed. I mean, looked at the buildings, rubble everywhere. You can't expect generators or solar panels to survive whatever it is that destroyed those buildings. Once can argue that a dam can survive since they are mostly build away from civilization. And apes or human can just take a look and know that if the dam falls, flood is going to destroy everything.
Typical FOX NEWS watching moron the solar energy sector in the USA is one of the most successful industries with more growth in employment and new customers every day than any other sector. The failure rate in Green tech is 17% way lower than any other industry.
shareYes I'm just confused because I don't go by the *beep* numbers MSNBC hand fed you. California by far as the most "green energy" companies, and because the state is run by liberals, those companies upon FAILING applied for state (ie TAXPAYER support) and were granted it. The failure rate of green energy companies as nearly 75 percent, NOT 17 percent as you imply. These numbers are very, very easily gotten with a simple web search. More employment growth and new customers than any other sector in the country? LOLOL show some actual proof of that skippy. Most green energy is out of the average person's price range and being that nearly 3 out of 4 of these companies fail, they aren't considered a growth sector. Would be all anyone talked about if it were. But keep hugging your try and assuming MSNBC is telling you the truth. LOL
shareHmmm, let me see, Solarcity, Sungevity, massively successful solar companies partnered with installation companies across the country... installation costs rolled into affordable long-term per-month lease, meaning no money down with good credit... yeah, sure, they're a failure.
Not.
I had a eight-panel solar system installed on my roof for no money down earlier this year. It provides 95-100% of my monthly electricity use, for less than half the cost of what was my traditional fossil-fuel electricity cost... and the company that installed it is wildly successful, has been so for over a decade now, and who will handle free service and maintenance work over the estimated 40+ year life of the panels. Anyone with sense would realize that's a good long-term prospect and far more efficient economically.
Also, the failure rate of new companies in general is 90%.
But hey, keep smoking that conservative weed, deluding yourself that the "liberal media" is lying to you, befuddling yourself into paying more money and continuing to pollute the air with your fossil-fuel based, non-decentralized electricity. I'm sure that'll work out well for you in the long run.
Smoking the conservative weed? LOL dude LOOK UP THE NUMBERS. These green energy companies have been getting financing from the government to keep afloat. California is damn near broke and a good chunk of the money the wasted....WENT TO GREEN ENERGY COMPANIES.
But I know, I'm smoking that conservative weed because....gaaaasp....I take the time to actually looked for this new little thing called facts.
[deleted]
If what you said was true, very single home in California would have solar panels.
Free installation! Free electricity! Free everything.
Moron.
Here's the truth for folks reading this. These companies do not give you anything for free. Lets say you are paying $700 a month for electricity. These people come in, and true, for no money down, they install solar panels. But guess what, you don't get free electricity. You pay them a lower rate, say $500. Wow, you saved $200 a month. That is cool, right?
But of course you don't get solar power during the evening. So you get that from the grid.
The solar company sells the energy that is generated back to the energy company. They also keep the tax credits that you would normally get for installing solar. That plus the slow payment back on the panels, that is how they make their cash.
But, let's say you still manage to save a little money each month over your old bill. It will take one to two DECADES to pay off your panels. And the average home is owned for how long before people move? Quite often well less than that. And guess what, you cannot transfer the panels to the new homeowner. You move, you have to pay the balance. How's that?
Next, within a decade or two many homes, especially older homes, will require roof work. Either repair, leaks, or re-do. Who takes down and re-installs the panels? Most contracts indicate that is only allowed by the people that sold you the panels, and that will cost some serious dollars. Maybe even more than you have saved.
So the guy above is lying to you. You don't keep the energy generated, you pay the solar company a lower rate. He is saying it takes care of almost all his monthly electricity use. Liar. If in California, that must mean no AC after late afternoon, and I guess he doesn't use a washer, lights or anything else at dark.
Don't let shysters like this, who probably works for a solar company, pull a con job on you. If you could get a company to install solar panels for no money down, pay a small fee per month, and it magically takes care of ALL your electricity needs, like I said, every single home owner would have this magic system installed.
Amazing that he has the nerve to come here and spread his bull.
👆This. Best answer yet.
/thread🚪
Man, you must be an idiot or something. Solar is cost efficient for you now because of massive government subsidies. Otherwise, it would be a large loss.
Solar will become cost competitive with fossil fuel, excluding storage cost, in the near future. Maybe 5 to 10 years? But it is not here yet.
Once again, you are an idiot. Lol.
Mrx2848 pretty much said but also to add the oldmans character also mentions that they had about two years of power before they run out so they were thinking long term and not have to be so right with how much they use, remember they're trying to rebuild from scratch
shareMrx2848 and Chewie86 practically said it already. They were also trying to restore the civilization, bring the whole city back to life, not just provide the power for the surviving group.
shareLearn the definition of a plot hole please. And what's really unbelievable is that you couldn't pay attention to the movie.
Stand up for what is right, even if you are standing alone.
[deleted]
Nuclear reactors need nuclear fuel to keep them running.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Oh, that doesn't run out quickly. That'll last for hundreds of thousands of years. But they need water. They need a butt load of water to keep the nuclear fuel from melting down and if society breaks down then no one's around to keep the generators running so the water keeps going.
It was more likely that a number of nuclear power plants melted down.
I also did not understand this. The movie should have at least explained why the option of collecting other power sources was out of the question. Like solar panels.
On a secondary note, I also didn't understand why everyone was acting as if the human race would suddenly cease to exist if we ran out of power.
Did all the humans forget how our race used to live in pre-BC times? The apes seemed to have understood the concept of building shelter, making fire, and hunting/gathering a lot better than the humans. It's not as if most of the buildings are still relatively intact! Especially if you move a bit closer to the equator it gets a lot easier to survive without electricity. I agree with OP: utter bollocks!
On a secondary note, I also didn't understand why everyone was acting as if the human race would suddenly cease to exist if we ran out of power.
But didn't they have fuel and power for the ten years previously? And only now do they try to contact other people? And what's wrong with sending someone out to check? As it turns out there was an army just to the north. Did they not think to send someone on a motorbike, on a horse? To check the cities nearby? In ten years? And do you need a whole dam to create enough power to operate a ham radio?
The worst thing is this movie did not take its own premise seriously. They wanted their conflict and offered up a couple of unconvincing reasons why it must be this way, but ignored all the obvious points that might counter it, just to have their conflict. But the film would have been better and more interesting had they acknowledged these things.
The dam was a stupid MacGuffin, just so the apes and humans could come into contact (and conflict). They introduced it quickly, skated over the details and moved on without questioning it. The only problem being that now your entire movie is set up on this faulty foundation. So now the rest of the conflict has no weight to it, because it's a stupid group of humans fighting against a slightly less stupid group of apes all for a stupid reason.
Again, they were trying to restore the civilization, bring back the whole city to life, the industry, the production etc. You don't do that with solar panels, which can only be a temporary solution for the old devices that will eventually stop working because they're old. You need to rebuild everything in order for the civilization to continue. Ten years is a period of time when you can still find cans of food, electronic and mechanical devices that still work, spare parts etc. But looking into near future, that will all stop.
The dam wasn't a MacGuffin in this case. Hydroelectric power stations are lasting, powerful objects that are powered by natural sources (falling water). Dreyfus's group had the engineers capable of putting it back into work and, I'm sorry, but it really makes sense. A hell of a lot more than fetching fuel-powered generators, old solar panels and other means, hoping that they will last forever. The only thing I'm not sure about is the whole cable and sub-station infrastructure, whether it is possible just to put the power station back into work, and that all city just gets powered.
Considering the premise, one other thing. This is one of the rare SF films that is not centered on the human group and human viewpoint development of the story. We only know, more precisely we only get a mere idea, that Dreyfus's group spent 4 years after the flu epidemic fighting, and another 2 establishing that outpost and themselves as a community. We don't know anything about those conflicts, we don't know anything about what really had happened, who did they fight against, how it all went on, we only get a blurry idea about how the pandemic developed, and presume what kind of conflicts occurred later, comparing to other post-apocalyptic scenarios. The humans in this film aren't one-dimensional, undeveloped as characters etc., they're just not the focal point of the story and much is left unanswered, therefore easier to manipulate and develop the story. Given that, the dam plot does make sense. It's just told in a way we aren't used to.
It's not a question of why they wanted to get the hydroelectric plant working. It's why they had to wait till it was working before trying to make contact with other survivors? You don't need a hydro plant to power a shortwave transceiver. A diesel generator would provide more than enough power. An amateur radio operator with a small 150 watt transceiver can communicate with fellow operators all over the globe.
R G B
If they needed the hydroelectric plant solely to power the radio unit, then I take back what I said. Yes, I remember them saying that it wouldn't work without the dam working, but I figured they needed the dam for a lot more reasons.
shareExactly! Not powering the transmitter with generators is just stupid. Can't believe all the hater comments here don't get that. Sure you can power more things with the dam, but this is just a huge script error.
shareThey were very clearly shown trying to make contact BEFORE the dam was up and running. They want the dam running to boost power to their transmitter. More power = longer range of communication.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
They were very clearly shown trying to make contact BEFORE the dam was up and running.
Where in the movie is that shown? I remember Dreyfus saying they needed the hydro plant to power their transmitter. He didn't say they needed it to increase the range of their transmitter.
[deleted]
The amount of solar panels available in that part of the country is absolutely enough to power industry (including the production of more solar panels and other electrical parts). But there's also the Shiloh wind farm just east of San Francisco, with a capacity of over 500 megawatts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiloh_Wind_Power_Plant
(To give an idea of how much that is, it's enough to provide 2/3 of the power needs of San Jose, population one million.)
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
Based on the condition of the city and every other building we see, I have my doubts that many solar panels would have remained operational.
Based on the distances traveled, it would appear that the fictional dam in this movie is closer to San Francisco than Shiloh would be. Also it was probably easier and cheaper to use a dam as the power source over wind turbines when we're talking about movie production.
You're never going to convince me that solar panels (which are solid-state, no moving parts) are going to be in worse shape, and harder to repair, than a hydroelectric dam.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103281/board/nest/237146150?p=4&d=256789627#256789627
share404 error.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
It's a link to another very good answer to your solar panels query. It's the one of the very last posts at the bottom of the last page of this thread.
shareAre solar panels not fragile? Can they not be damaged/destroyed by harsh weather, rocks, animals?
Take a good look at San Francisco in the wide shots of this movie. Look at the state of damage and decay we see on EVERY building visible.
Now tell me that solar panels are going to be in better shape than everything else out there.
I understand your skepticism about the condition of the dam and frankly I agree with you. There is no way a team of 5 humans are going to get a dam operational in the few days they had there. The difference is I ALSO believe that solar panels would have succumbed to the same wear and damage that everything else has in this future San Francisco.
But I'm not talking about solar panels that are out in the elements (although I think you could find some in the desert, or in mild climates like Southern California, where weather wouldn't have much impact). I'm talking about the many that had to be extant in warehouses, Home Depots, etc.
Edited to add: In addition, with a hydroelectric dam, you also have to repair/rebuild and maintain the infrastructure of power lines, transformers, etc. between the dam and San Francisco, and everywhere within the city. Whereas solar panels can just be attached to each home or building individually with no need to worry about citywide and regionwide electrical infrastructure.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
And do you need a whole dam to create enough power to operate a ham radio?
[deleted]
On a secondary note, I also didn't understand why everyone was acting as if the human race would suddenly cease to exist if we ran out of power.
Did all the humans forget how our race used to live in pre-BC times?
The apes seemed to have understood the concept of building shelter, making fire, and hunting/gathering a lot better than the humans.
It's not as if most of the buildings are still relatively intact!
Especially if you move a bit closer to the equator it gets a lot easier to survive without electricity.
[deleted]
That's not what I said at all. What I said is that most humans today(Especially in North America) would not be able to survive without modern conveniences. We have become too reliant on super markets, canned food, pre-built shelters and electricity.
This is a simple truth and does not require your agreement.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
You are right, but solar panels would provide all they needed. Hydroelectric was unnecessary.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
I'm aware, but that wasn't part of my argument. I never said or suggested it is necessary.
I agree that they don't need the dam, that solar power could easily fill the needs of the community considering the panels would be free. Installing solar panels has to be much easier than fixing and maintaining an off site hydro-electric dam.
The only problem with that logic is that then we don't have a movie. There's no reason for the humans and apes to go to war if there's nothing to drive the conflict. I feel like simple xenophobia wouldn't be enough to create the same level of conflict. Since the apes live in the middle of the woods and the community is more urban.
So I forgive the fact that the humans feel like the dam is their only option. Even though logically I know it isn't true.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
I understand they need some kind of MacGuffin to drive conflict. But why couldn't it be something like clearing forest for farmland? They could rationalize it as being easier than tearing down houses and malls in suburbia and then trying to make the soil fertile enough. And they do need a long-term food supply.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
[deleted]
What part of "rebuilding civilization with modular solar panels, no moving parts, is way easier than restoring a grid commected to a hydroelectric plant", do you not understand?
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
[deleted]
Do you think solar panels just disappeared when humanity died? And it doesn't look like there's any shortage of places to buy solar panels in San Francisco, so there should be plenty to be hand. Even if these places got looted(which seems unlikely), the panels should still exist somewhere in the area.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=where+to+buy+solar+panels+in+san+francisco&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0CBoQvwUoAGoVChMIoIiaxpaFxgIVxGytCh1jVwAD&biw=1920&bih=907
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
[deleted]
Riiight, but they have the equipment to restart a hydroelectric power plant, not to mention to reconnect and maintain the electric grid between it and everywhere people need power. Ludicrous--you are grasping at straws.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
[deleted]
A solar power station? LOL. Nothing like that is needed. Just hook up individual solar panels wherever they are needed , very easy. Then you don't even need to have electric wiring running from house to house or anything. You can get solar power kits at home depot or just use the thousands of homes and businesses with them already installed in the Bay Area.
There is just no possible scenario in which someone would have the capability to get a hydro electric power plant up and running and properly connected to hundreds or thousands of homes and businesses but be unable to get solar panels working. That would be like someone who can rebuild a car's engine, but cannot change a flat tire.
And no: my son and I were looking forward to watching this movie, and then we got to the part where they made this claim that the hydroelectric dam was their only hope, and both of us just groaned and did not want to continue.
[deleted]
It's hilarious to me that you think after ten years, the solar panels that were there before (some in Home Depot or warehouses, and many connected to homes and businesses) will be totally trashed by the intervening "chaos", yet an intricate electric grid, that normally requires full time utility workers to maintain (and still has periodic blackouts and service disruptions) is going to be just fine after all that time.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
[deleted]
When you have no argument, you just fall back on lies.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
[deleted]
Nonsense. How does a human virus cause technology to be destroyed\unusable?
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
[deleted]
I understand they need some kind of MacGuffin to drive conflict. But why couldn't it be something like clearing forest for farmland?
They could rationalize it as being easier than tearing down houses and malls in suburbia and then trying to make the soil fertile enough. And they do need a long-term food supply.
They didn't say or suggest that. They suggested that when the power goes out, bad people do bad things. The implication was that without power, the people in the colony did horrible things to each other. Likely rape and murder was rampant.
Yes, they did actually. If someone were to take away ALL of your technology right now, do you think you could survive in the wild?
The difference is, the apes remember a time when they were primitive. Apples and oranges.
*beep* Not everyone knows how to feed themselves in the wild. Not everyone is a survivalist as your argument suggests.
[/quote]A character explicitly states that the difference between apes and humans is that apes can live without electricity or heat. They do nothing to indicate a history of the colony prior to this date and do not give any evidence of the ridiculous notion of a past rape or murder epidemic. [/quote]
It's implied that very dark things happened the last time they lost power. What exactly happened isn't explicitly stated, but that's meant to allow the audience to fill in the blanks. Why? Because it's more effective to let the audience use their imagination than it is to tell them what happened.
We don't know exactly what happened, but like I said, they make it very clear that bad things happen in the community when the power goes out.
Yes, and so could anyone else who actually wanted to live and not starve.
Everything in the ape's colony is based on early human settlements. Apes can't currently make fire, build houses, or ride horses. Where did they learn this? Probably from the same books and historic you seem to think don't exist and that people would be incapable of accessing.
Yeah, and learning how to take care of yourself would be stupid thing to take the time to learn when society collapses. You really think people wouldn't look into this?
Diesel generators run on fuel and they said they were running out. Plus, they said they wanted power for the whole city not just for a small group or area. How many generators and solar panels would be needed then....a whole lot. Yeah, that would be realistic. Seriously. Do people even watch and listen.
shareMaybe, if instead of acting stupid you would have listened to the movie characters, you would have heard that the reason they need the dam is because they are running out of gas for their diesel generators that they have.
solar panels? solar panels is *beep* solar energy is just not a viable solution and it certainly wont work for such survival situation.
Better question is nuclear power. they claim it has been "gone" for years. however we know that only 10 years has passed. it takes longer for reactors to cool down during shutdown, there is no way they could not keep it operational for 10 years because of fuel.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Seems you've learnt a bit about nuclear reactors then you did a couple hours earlier.
solar panels? solar panels is *beep* solar energy is just not a viable solution and it certainly wont work for such survival situation.
They are also high maintenance and provide far less power.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
I have never heard that they are high maintenance. Do you have a cite? I am extremely dubious that it takes more maintenance compared to keeping the whole electrical grid functioning, between the dam and the homes and businesses connected to it. Even with full civilization and repair infrastructure, we still sometimes have big blackouts.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
The last blackout i remember was over 10 years ago. Perhaps infrastructure where you live is worse.
All they have to do is have a good underground cable running from the dam to their city. the local subinfrastructure on the way is irrelevant since noone is living. it can fail without damaging their supply. And apperently it still worked decades after it was turned off in that movie, so thats not much to upkeep now is it.
The maintenance comes in keeping the panels clean, the nachanism working and replacing burnt out panels (yearly average 8% loss). some simply though experiment showed it isnt even profitable in small quantities:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/hidden-cost-of-rooftop-solar-who-should-pay-for-maintenance-99200
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
The article you link to is irrelevant, it highlights the conundrum over who should pay for maintenance on privately owned panels that feed back into the grid. In other words, should a panels owner be responsible for upkeep when most of that panels duty is spent producing power for an electricity company to sell on?
Even with the 8% yearly failure rate you mention (which is simply untrue) and an arduous maintenance routine (also untrue) solar panels would still be a damn site more sensible an option than the restoration of a junked hydro plant, a task that would require an army of engineers with a factory full of industrial tooling at their disposal.