Clean Energy Disinformation Primer

According to a recent report by the World Economic Forum, “misinformation and disinformation are the biggest short-term risks” to the global economy.

Clean energy myth-making is nothing new. Disinformation about wind, solar, and electric power has been spreading for over a decade. But in the past few years, the coordinated efforts to weaponize unsubstantiated information against clean energy projects are gaining traction across the country. Because the clean energy economy is growing at a rapid rate and provides 3.3 million jobs nationally, these attacks have serious consequences for regional economies that benefit from clean energy development.

Even back in 2016, long before the Inflation Reduction Act with its clean energy provisions was passed, anti-renewable activists used unsubstantiated statistics and claims about property values, public health, and climate impact to stall or prevent clean energy projects.

Recently, an investigative report by USA Today found that 15% of America’s 3,143 counties have effectively banned new wind and solar projects. Developers typically don’t have experience with the campaign tactics they are facing because, until recently, they haven’t had to. In the first six months of 2023 alone, permits for 70 large-scale projects were rejected, costing their potential host communities jobs and economic revenue.

With that in mind, let’s look at some of the common disinformation pushed into the clean energy discussion.

Solar Disinformation

1: “Solar panels are toxic.”

Anti-clean energy groups often claim that solar panels contain arsenic and other toxic materials that can poison communities, wildlife, or people. Solar panels are primarily made of three elements: glass (77%), aluminum (10%), and silicon (3%). There is no evidence that these panels produce toxic elements, let alone at a level that would adversely affect the surrounding environment. 

Although there are different types of photovoltaic technology, modern panels are consistently characterized as nonhazardous under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). They are safe to handle, install, and ultimately remove and recycle.

2: “Solar power is unreliable.”

This narrative is pushed by groups like Citizens for Responsible Solar, which promotes itself as open to solar projects, but routinely opposes them claiming that solar energy is inherently risky. 

However, recent natural events have shown how clean energy has saved a struggling power grid in times of extreme weather. Most notably, Texas has had recent encounters with both intense heat and cold, first during a 2021 heat wave and then Winter Storm Uri in 2023. In each case, solar and wind power helped save the state’s power grid by exceeding production expectations when coal, fossil gas, and nuclear plants failed across the state. Likewise, Winter Storm Elliot caused similar problems across the Midwest in December 2022. Solar and wind were able to meet or exceed expectations during these breakdowns.

The fact is, according again to NREL, regions of the national power grid “already operate with high levels of wind and solar generation, achieving a maximum hourly generation fraction of 70%–90% in grid regions such as California, Texas, and the central United States”.

3: “Solar panels will result in a mountain of waste.”

Anti-solar activists claim that by installing solar panel fields, the U.S. is setting itself up for a garbage problem that will devastate communities. 

The scale of solar panel removal is dwarfed by the current refuse and pollution of fossil fuels. Research from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) estimates that the volume of coal ash and oily sludge waste from fossil fuel energy is up to 300–800 times (coal ash) and 2–5 times (oily sludge) greater than that from solar modules.

Solar panels have a useful life of around 35 years or more, depending on the specific technology. There is a growing recycling and reuse industry for end-of-life waste management, including the ability to reuse semiconductor material and even the glass used to encase the panels. This circular lifespan allows for the recovery of materials as well as the creation of jobs.

4. “Solar farms will take up too much land.”

In various different ways, anti-clean energy activists argue that solar farms are “land-intensive”. They often include the fear that solar farms will take away too much land from traditional farms.

However, the Department of Energy’s Solar Futures Study predicts that solar farms could take up 5.7 million acres, which is about about 0.3% of the contiguous U.S. With respect to the impact specifically on farmland, there is an estimated 893.4 million acres of farmland, so even if all solar farms were built on farmland, they would occupy about 0.6% of farmland. 

Finally, there is a growing field of opportunity to combine agricultural operations and solar projects, known as agrivoltaics. Projects are able to use sheep for on-site vegetation maintenance and some projects are even finding  that they can still grow crops underneath the panels.  

Wind Disinformation

1: “Offshore wind is killing marine animals; onshore wind is causing cancer.”

The first claim surfaced in 2016 in New England, when the number of marine animals beaching themselves began to rise. These incidents predate the major recent offshore wind installations in the area and there is no link between wind turbines and cancer.

2: “Wind energy hurts nearby property values.”

While they are sometimes mesmerizing to look at, the claim that wind towers affect residential property values is misleading at best. A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that, on average, nearby homes did experience a short-term dent in their property value. On average, values fell 11% for homes located within one mile of a commercial wind turbine. Outside of a mile, the effect was negligible or non-existent. The catch is, these values rebounded to pre-project announcement levels within 3–5 years. So, there is an effect, but it is relatively small and short-lived.

Here are ten more wind energy myths, addressed by the National Renewable Energy Lab.

Electric Vehicle (EV) Disinformation

1: “Sales of EVs are declining.” 

Not true. EV sales in the U.S., while still in their nascent stage, continue to grow at exponential rates. For instance, sales of hybrid EVs were 59% higher in February 2024 compared with the previous year.

2: “Auto companies don’t want to make EVs anymore.”

Despite EV sales growing year after year, some anti-EV groups claim that companies are trying to get out of the EV game. There is certainly concern among automakers, but it isn’t because of EVs themselves, but more about the ferocity of anti-EV advocates. Take this recent quote from the head of Chrysler’s holding company:

Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares raised eyebrows last week when he told reporters he was prepared to adjust his company’s electric vehicle strategy if the political tides turn against EVs ahead of key ballots in 2024 on both sides of the Atlantic. 

“There are two important elections next year — the European Parliament elections in June and the U.S. elections in November. It could be that politics will be different then,” Tavares told Automotive News affiliate Automobilwoche on the sidelines of a press conference at the Mirafiori plant in Turin.

3: “There aren’t enough EV chargers to sustain them as a fleet.”

“Enough” is a relative term, of course. The best charging option is overnight at home, but EV charging infrastructure is growing. There are over 60,000 public charging station locations with over 160,000 public charging ports. Business groups like the San-Cap (FL) Chamber of Commerce are installing them at their offices, free of charge and the Department of Energy has set a goal to install and operate half a million chargers nationally by 2030.

…

There are numerous more false or misleading claims about clean energy out there, as anti-renewable activists, sometimes backed or funded by fossil fuel industries, spread this disinformation to cloud debate, hold up the decision-making process, or obstruct clean energy projects altogether. We hope this primer helps you recognize these bad-faith efforts at public discourse before they sink economic development projects that provide benefits to your community.