I'm a fan of clean energy. The problem is that the agenda of the far left, and the real science/facts are too often in conflict -- and when science (logic) and politics conflict, I usually go with science. (There are cases like eugenics where the science says you can breed humans like dogs for traits, but the politics says that's immoral -- and I agree). But this is just a list of articles/topics around Green Energy debates.
The first political point I have is that the left doesn't give a shit about Green Energy or the environment, or at least not as much as they care about their political agenda. And of course I'm not talking about all of them: I'm sure there's a few sincere ones that are trainable. It's just the 80% that give the rest a bad name. You show them something like how Nuclear Power is green, economical, scalable and could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels or coal, and most will think up dozens of creative reasons why they are against it. But if they really cared about CO2 as much as they claim, they'd be all for it. That demonstrable cognitive dissonance proves my point. They care.... just not enough to change their minds about their agendas.
I've debated this stuff since the 1970's (and I was an early teen). And the fallacies and facts have been surprisingly static and consistent.
I like the idea of residential Solar Power and people not being dependent on government regulated grids, and having the ability to survive in case of natural or man made disasters. I plan on adding it to my next home. What I don't like is lies (flim-flam), about how much industrial Solar Power costs, or the bullshit about how "green" it is. It is not as green as the proponents pretend, and if it was cheaper, how come places that implement it at scale have higher energy costs and less reliability? Someday, it might be ready (and that may be coming in a few short years or decades), but the point is that means they've been lying for the last 30 that it had already reached cross-over.