CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Clean Power energy fact check site

Published on July 27th, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan

12

Energy Fact Check



 
Good news on the “tired of dealing with lost clean energy haters” front (or just with misinformed but open-minded citizens) — some good folks with real energy facts have set up a new site, EnergyFactCheck.org.

Here’s a pretty astounding note from Adam Browning of Vote Solar, who passed this along to me:

“Consider: of the negative advertising in April of this this election cycle, 81% have targeted renewable energy for attack. And when you factor this presidential election is shaping up to be the most expensive in history, with experts estimating spending in the range of $6 billion dollars, well, we got trouble.”

This is pretty good indication that clean energy is threatening some folks with a ton of money (i.e. King Coal and Queen Oil). It’s also a reminder as to why we focus a good bit of our time and attention on policy and politics! The record needs to be set straight.

energy fact check site

EnergyFactCheck.org is reportedly “a non-partisan source of facts, fact-checking, and corrections to the record on all things renewable energy.”

The fact-checking I’ve noticed on the site is 100% correct, and highly useful. Check it out!

Here are a few last words from Browning:

“If you see an article in your local paper that doesn’t get the facts right, send a letter to the editor with a correction. Same for your local TV newscast. As always, we recommend civility in your rebuttal. Catch more flies with honey, etc.  Similarly, if you see positive coverage about solar in your community that should be highlighted, ping the folks at info@energyfactcheck.org.  Let us know how it all works out.”

For more, connect with me on Google+ or zacharyshahan.com
 

 

Print Friendly

Tags: , ,


About the Author

is the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular cleantech-focused website in the world, and Planetsave, a world-leading green and science news site. He has been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and he has been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, and wind energy for the past four years or so. Aside from his work on CleanTechnica and Planetsave, he's the Network Manager for their parent organization – Important Media – and he's the Owner/Founder of Solar Love, EV Obsession, and Bikocity. To connect with Zach on some of your favorite social networks, go to ZacharyShahan.com and click on the relevant buttons.



  • Captivation

    The 81% represents the financial equivalent of the twisted metal caging that clamps down the cork on a champagne bottle.  The cork must be held down at ALL times.  The celebration must never arrive.  The good times must never flow.  New Year’s day must be kept at bay. The countdown must not begin.  The dawn of a new age must be perpetually delayed.

    If the cork was released, too many questions might bubble up…
    1.)  Since renewables create no emissions, why not set all standards to zero?  (IE no tolerance for mercury, acid rain, CO2, or particulate matter.)
    2.)  Since renewables are not just blessed by affordability, but doubly blessed by availability (anyone can operate a solar panel anywhere), why not include energy availability as a basic human right?
    3.)  While many wars have been fought over physical resources, no wars have ever been fought over sunlight or wind.  So why not shrink the military budget?

    I’m sure others can present longer lists of questions.  My point is that blocking clean energy discussion is the literal stopgap on a whole line of inquiry that business interests do not want explored.

    • David

      I agree with all of your points.  What do you think will happen in a few years – if wind and solar become the hands down cheapest form of energy?  Do you think the big oil and gas boys will coopt renewables – or will they be caught flat footed, and not know what hit them?

      • Captivation

        The first defeat in war is when you allow your opponent to choose the battle.  The oil industry would like the battle to be about economics, but even if renewable prices were three times higher there would still be lots of other reasons to move away from fossil fuels.  (IE asthma, economic self sufficiency, climate, environment, etc.)

        Its important that Climate Defenders not limit themselves to single sight lines.  The moral issues should be presented as strongly as the economic ones.  If we do that, there is a chance of catching the Climate Deniers flat footed.

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          Yes, as far as getting the public behind this much-needed transformation, the moral issues have to play a central role.

        • mk1313

           Actually, king coal and queen oil need to be fought on economics, just not the ones they want to use.  The full accounting of energy production needs to be addressed for both sides.  Health care issues such as cancers from mercury contamination, costs of asthma due to particulates, cost to purify water with the destruction of wetlands.  When those are included the price of coal energy, long touted as being the gold standard is in the realm of 30 cents a kilowatt.  The fight needs to be for accurate pricing including the hidden subsidies.

          • Captivation

             I partly agree, but without a moral component there cannot be a moral victory.  People are allowed to have moral victories in others parts of their lives, why not on this issue too?

            On the other hand, purely economic reasoning could backfire. Every business “discount rate” allows the destruction of the world as long as it happens slowly enough.

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            Right. I think the moral component has to drive the issue right now…. to make the market price things right and then let the economics kick in and dethrone the king and queen.

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            Exactly.

      • ToddF

        It is not a question of if but when. Disruptive innovation is unavoidable. Just ask the management of Kodak. Kodak invented all the core technologies used in digital photography in the 1970′s, but were so convinced that analogue film, which Kodak completely dominated, would NEVER be threatened by the expensive, clunky, inferior digital rivals. Kodak could not see the viabiliy of Photography Without Film. Most, but not all, current energy conglomerates cannot yet see Electricity and Energy Services Without Fuel. But we aleady have electric cars, solar PV, wind turbines, that all work, but are still expensive, clunky and have some inferior features compared to fossil fuels. All this will change in the next 2-4 years, just like what happened with digital vs. Anaolgue photography

        • Bob_Wallace

          Slide rules vs. calculators.
          Typewriters and ledger books vs. computers.
          Horses vs. cars.
          Steam engines vs. diesel.
          Vinyl vs. CDs.

          Tipping points are reached.  Common practice changes.

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          Well said.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      ” 1.) Since renewables create no emissions, why not set all standards to zero? (IE no tolerance for mercury, acid rain, CO2, or particulate matter.) ”

      Completely agree. This is just so common sense… yet so politically unacceptable. :(

      And totally agree on the others as well.

Back to Top ↑