I don't think "bogus myths" is the correct description. Many, perhaps even most, of the people seriously interested in eliminating use of fossil fuels are well aware of how essential they now are. The problem is that they also imagine that with ingenuity and persistence humans will find replacements. They will also roll off lists of e.g. the latest technology advances from academics etc. that are paving the way to eventual success in those endeavors. In a nutshell the problem is not one of ignorance or misguided motives. It's purely about optimism and its close cousin wishful thinking. And these are not such easy targets for the critics.

What an absolute crock. It throws out a bunch of misleading claims, hoping readers won’t bother to fact-check. Let’s tear it apart.

First, the idea that wind and solar are useless because they’re “intermittent” is a lazy argument. No energy grid relies on a single source. That’s why we have battery storage, hydro, nuclear, and other backup systems. The whole point of a grid is to balance supply and demand. The claim that oil is the reason electricity exists is even dumber—electricity was around long before oil became a major energy source, and today, oil barely contributes to global power generation.

Mentioning that fossil fuels are used for manufacturing renewables is another desperate attempt to discredit them. Fossil fuels are used in production today, but that’s changing fast. Green steel, better recycling, and electrified industrial processes are already cutting down that reliance. Pretending that wind and solar can’t exist without oil is like saying cars will always need horseshoes because we used to rely on horses for transportation.

Then there’s the laughable attempt to make mining for renewables sound worse than oil drilling. Yes, lithium and cobalt mining have environmental impacts, but here’s the difference: once a wind turbine or solar panel is built, it lasts for decades. Meanwhile, fossil fuels require constant extraction, transport, and burning. How many oil spills, coal mine collapses, and pollution-related deaths do we need before people stop pretending fossil fuels are some kind of gold standard?

The claim that renewables are too expensive is also incorrect. Non-renewble energy sources get trillions in government subsidies, while solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of new energy in many places. Renewables are creating jobs and energy independence, while those clinging to fossil fuels are stuck with price fluctuations and political instability.

This article isn’t just misleading - it’s deliberate garbage. The transition to clean energy isn’t just possible - it’s happening. And the people railing against it aren’t doing so out of logic or concern for the environment - their motivations are purely ideological.

Renewables will indeed work BUT NEVER with 8 billion, and rapidly increasing, humans around, all of whom want better lifestyles and enough food to eat so as to be strong enough to keep breeding more and more humans........ad infinitum.

The only 2050 Zero target met will be zero space for disposing of "renewable Energy" infrastructure ! My guess is that the proponents for "renewables" will by then have made their Dollars & hide well away from these dumps overfilled with "renewables !

ateday,
That too. What no-one seems to be able or willing to explain is, how much of this "renewable" energy equipment is actually renewable ? Yes, progress is one-going but why create so much of a very long-term problem for a tiny bit of short-term gain, mainly for investors only anyway ?
Will they dig up & "renew" all these buried components ? What many blinded renewable energy proponents refer to as "renewable" is in fact mere replacement so, a total misnomer !

transition to clean energy isn’t just possible - it’s happening.
John Days,
Isn't the whole idea of renewables to bring down pollution ? At this stage renewables are simply too polluting to manufacture. If you have any evidence of such renewables of actually being renewed rather than simply replacing the components that had to be buried could you please provide information ?
We'd all love to see clean energy being produced cleanly & disposed of cleanly but that isn't the case is it & not for a long time yet ! The pollution factor from manufacturing renewables remains stronger than burning fossil fuels !

Indyvidual,

You're repeating a claim that’s been debunked many times over. The idea that renewables are “more polluting” than fossil fuels is flat-out wrong, and it doesn’t become true by adding a bit of hand-wringing or rhetorical flourish.

Yes, manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries involves mining and energy use. Nobody is denying that. But lifecycle analyses - which compare the total environmental impact from creation to disposal - consistently show that renewables cause far less pollution than fossil fuels. Burning coal or gas creates ongoing emissions, every hour of every day. Solar panels and turbines do not. Once built, they produce clean energy for decades.

A study from the US NREL found that solar and wind produce roughly 20 times less CO₂ per kilowatt-hour over their lifetime compared to coal. Even when you include manufacturing and disposal, renewables come out overwhelmingly cleaner.

You asked for evidence of renewables being “renewed” rather than buried. Sure:

- Wind turbine blades are now being recycled into cement or repurposed into construction materials.
- Solar panel recycling programs are underway worldwide, especially in the EU, with up to 95% material recovery for some panel types.
- Lithium battery recycling has become a booming industry, with major companies like Redwood Materials and Li-Cycle already recovering cobalt, nickel, and lithium at scale.

You don’t have to “wait a long time.” It’s already happening.

Meanwhile, fossil fuels aren’t just polluting during use - they pollute when extracted, when refined, when transported, and when burned. They also emit methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO2 in the short term. And unlike renewables, you have to keep burning them forever.

So no, manufacturing a wind turbine or solar panel once is not “worse” than endlessly pumping out carbon, toxins, and particulates. That claim isn’t just wrong - it’s dangerously misleading.

manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries involves mining and energy use.
John Daysh,
Why not also state that this is merely part one of the process & not as simple a process as you word it ? There's the massive amount of worn out, failed equipment & substantial amount of oil that has all to be discarded because none of it or hardly any of it is renewable. The much flogged term "renewable" is straight out fraudulent !
If the claims for saving the environment were even 50% true ambition then why not focus on avoidable environmental impact by frivolous industries ?
Hopefully there'll be an international DOGE on the "renewables" racket !

Indyvidual,

You're moving the goalposts now. First, you claimed renewables pollute more than fossil fuels. I explained why that was wrong, so you now argue that the term "renewable" itself is fraudulent because the equipment wears out. By that logic, cars, planes, and power stations shouldn’t count either, since they need maintenance and replacement.

Do you apply the same outrage to coal plants that wear out and get replaced with more coal plants? Of course not, because waste isn't your real concern.

Let’s be clear: renewable refers to the source of the energy, not the equipment. The winds will always blow, and the sun keeps giving off free energy. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are finite - you dig them up, burn them, and they’re gone forever. The emissions stay in the atmosphere, warming the planet long after you’ve flipped the light switch off.

As for the end-of-life equipment - you do realise fossil fuel infrastructure also wears out, right? Oil rigs corrode, pipelines leak, coal plants age and collapse, and they all create toxic waste. But I don’t see you railing against the fossil fuel industry’s trash pile; again, because waste isn't your real concern.

Regarding recycling, turbine blades are already being recycled into cement, solar panels are seeing material recovery rates above 90%, and battery recycling is growing fast. That’s not "none of it," as you said. That’s a clear trajectory toward a circular system - something the fossil fuel industry has never attempted.

And your “frivolous industries” comment? Absolutely. Let’s talk about fast fashion, endless plastic packaging, and overconsumption. But if you’re genuinely concerned about environmental harm, maybe start with the industries doing the most damage - and that still includes fossil fuels by a long, choking margin.

Calling for an international DOGE on “renewables” is a nice punchline, but jokes don’t override facts. The data’s clear: renewables pollute less, last longer, and are improving faster than anything in the fossil sector. If you’re going to argue against them, you’ll need better material than this.

cars, planes, and power stations shouldn’t count either'
John Days,
What a pi$$-weak & totally off the mark & utterly wrong quip. We're trying to reduce pollution & even village idiots will tell you that every manufactured energy equates into pollution, renewables in particular !
Car, & planes & power stations cause pollution yet still many times less than battery-powered vehicles & wind generators & battery storage.
There's nothing you can state that proves otherwise. You say it's proven that my claims are wrong. Really ? Saying I'm wrong is obviously easier for you than to provide actually data of my being wrong !
My argument is not about opposing renewables, it's about the claims that renewables are better for the environment. To "renew" means to re-use whereas your definition of renew equates to manufacture new & discard the old which also equates to leave more rubbish & pollution for future generations than is left by coal generated energy ! Until you can actually "renew" something, the term renew IS a misnomer of the fraudulent kind. It is fraudulent because it is used to imply that renewables are less polluting or even pollution free. They're not & to make matters worse they ARE worse !

Indyvidual,

Insults don’t make your arguments stronger, and repeating falsehoods louder doesn’t make them true. You’ve now shifted the goal from “renewables are more polluting” to “the word renewable is fraudulent,” as if wordplay trumps decades of environmental science.

You claim that cars, planes, and coal plants pollute “many times less” than EVs, wind turbines, and batteries. That’s simply false. The International Energy Agency, IPCC, National Renewable Energy Lab, and dozens of peer-reviewed lifecycle studies have shown the opposite. Here's a small sample of them:

ICCT (2021): “A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars”
http://theicct.org/publication/a-global-comparison-of-the-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-combustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars

MIT Climate Portal: Are electric vehicles really better for the environment?
http://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

EEA: “Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives”
http://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/electric-vehicles-from-life-cycle

Over their lifespans, solar and wind produce 90–98% less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than coal. Even when you include mining, manufacturing, and disposal, EVs still emit significantly less than petrol cars, especially as the grid gets cleaner. That’s not my opinion, that’s the scientific consensus.

Your “there’s nothing you can state that proves otherwise” line is telling because that’s how people talk when they’ve made up their mind before looking at any data. I’ve now cited multiple sources. You’ve offered none so far. Just personal certainty, vague claims, and a lot of emotion.

As for the “renew” argument: the term renewable refers to the source of the energy, not the reusability of the hardware. Wind and sun are naturally replenishing. Fossil fuels are not. You’re trying to redefine the term so you can call it fraudulent, which is like arguing that “wireless” internet is a scam because there are still wires somewhere in the system. It’s not clever, just misleading.

You say you're not against renewables, just the false claims. But the only false claims so far have been yours. If you’re serious about pollution, then you should be backing the technologies that pollute less, not stubbornly defending the ones that pollute more, simply because they’ve been around longer.

If you want to keep this conversation going, bring facts - not slogans.

That’s not my opinion, that’s the scientific consensus.
John Daysh,
I simply don't believe surveys & faux facts presented by those who have the most to gain from these fibs and, they're not the tax payers who benefit !
As for; Let’s be clear: renewable refers to the source of the energy, not the equipment." Now that is a cop-out of as large a proportion as the industry itself. Pollution doesn't discriminate between materials used to create energy & material used to use energy !
Coal-powered station equipment is recyclable, renewables are not ! " Too much environmental damage will be done before there's any chance of achieving renewability ! When you have this energy available then yes, use it but not as long as it is nothing more than a hellishly costly & destructive experiment !`

Indyvidual,

At this point, you’re not debating - you’re just declaring disbelief like it’s a trump card. You “don’t believe” the studies, the lifecycle analyses, the environmental agencies, the peer-reviewed science - because you’ve decided they’re all lying. That’s not scepticism. That’s denial.

You’ve dismissed every independent source, from MIT to the European Environment Agency, without offering a single piece of counter-evidence. Not one study. Not one credible analysis. Just gut feeling and vague conspiracies about who's “got the most to gain.”

Meanwhile, you continue making factually incorrect claims. You say coal infrastructure is recyclable and renewables are not - that’s just false. Wind turbine blades are being repurposed into cement and construction materials. Solar panels have recovery rates of 90%+. Battery recycling is a booming global industry.

You claim renewables are a "hellishly costly & destructive experiment" while ignoring that fossil fuels have already done the damage: oil spills, air pollution killing millions, decades of climate destabilisation. The science is clear - and no, it’s not “faux facts” just because you don’t like the outcome. You can check their claims yourself if you have time to invest. Many others have and came up empty handed unless they cherry-picked or quote-mined.

You don’t have to like renewables. But you don’t get to rewrite reality because it doesn’t suit your narrative. If you want to be taken seriously, come back with evidence. Otherwise, it’s clear to everyone here what this is: the fossil fuel industry’s talking points, recycled through indignation and mistrust.

The energy transition is happening. The only question is whether people want to engage honestly - or keep tilting at wind turbines.