Social Media Platforms: Discussion vs. Disinformation on Solar Facts

The remarkable achievement of installing one hundred solar panels every second showcases significant advancements in technology. However, a platform that prioritises noise over truth fails to contribute meaningfully to the discourse.

With four decades of experience in natural sciences, climate change, clean energy, and technological transitions, my unwavering goal has been to promote science-based policies, evidence-driven investments, and public discussions grounded in data and facts.

Recent Experiences on Social Media

Last month, I encountered yet another instance of how facts can be overshadowed by shouting matches, misleading comparisons, and misinformation driven by algorithms. On 24 July 2025, I shared the same statistics regarding China’s dominant position in cleantech manufacturing and its impressive solar panel installations on two different platforms: X and Bluesky.

My post presented a collection of verified statistics, revealing that China is responsible for approximately:

• 85% of the world’s solar panels
• 80% of batteries
• 68% of wind turbines
• 70% of electric vehicles
• 65% of energy storage systems

In May 2025 alone, China managed to install nearly 100 solar panels every second. This information is not a boast or a political statement; it is a factual representation derived from recent data collected by reputable organisations such as IRENA, IEA, China’s NEA, and BloombergNEF.

Contrasting Responses on Different Platforms

The responses I received were strikingly different between the two platforms, revealing a concerning trend. On Bluesky, the feedback was largely supportive, inquisitive, and constructive. Users engaged with follow-up questions about China’s supply chain dominance and its implications for energy security in Europe, while others contributed relevant data from their own research. This kind of informed dialogue exemplifies the value of social platforms as spaces for public learning.

Conversely, on X, my post was inundated with trolls. Instead of fostering meaningful discussion, the platform seemed to attract those intent on dismissing the data without providing any credible sources. Comments ranged from claims about China’s coal plant construction to assertions that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than petrol cars, both of which are unfounded. The engagement on X was characterised by a barrage of misinformed and misleading statements, masquerading as debate but lacking any substantive evidence.

The Persistence of Misinformation

This experience was not an isolated incident. Having commented on climate change since 2006, I frequently encounter what I term “zombie arguments”—long-debunked claims that resurface in online discussions. Misconceptions such as the idea that solar panels consume more energy to produce than they generate, or that batteries are not recyclable, continue to circulate, not because they hold any truth, but because they support a counterfactual ideological stance.

The Role of Platform Design

The disparity in responses can be attributed to the design of the platforms themselves. X operates on engagement-driven algorithms that prioritise content provoking outrage and conflict, as this keeps users engaged and generates ad revenue. Since 2022, moderation has been minimised, allowing controversial voices to thrive under the guise of “free speech.” This business model rewards reaction-based engagement, often at the expense of factual discourse.

In contrast, Bluesky functions as a not-for-profit entity, enforcing community standards and actively limiting antisocial behaviour. Its focus on promoting evidence-based discussions fosters a more respectful and informed environment, even if it results in a smaller user base and less financial gain.

The Impact of Disinformation

The implications of disinformation are significant. It hampers progress by distorting public understanding. Platforms that allow misleading statistics and trolling to overshadow factual information are not champions of free speech; they undermine our shared foundation of truth. This erosion of factual discourse poses a threat to science, policy-making, and the transition to clean energy.

Unchecked false claims, especially when amplified by engagement-driven algorithms, hinder the success of facts, the leadership of evidence, and the funding of urgent innovations necessary for a sustainable future.

The Need for Thoughtful Discourse

While I advocate for open discussions and the exchange of ideas, I also recognise the importance of evidence-based debate. Platforms that prioritise noise and outrage over thoughtful contributions do not empower the public; they diminish our collective ability to address pressing issues. In the realm of clean technology, our future hinges on clear discussions about energy efficiency, storage, grid transitions, and rapid decarbonisation. When verified data is met with noise disguised as debate, we all suffer.

If platforms genuinely value “free speech,” they must also prioritise structured conversations and the quality of information shared. Amplifying noise without elevating meaningful discourse risks rendering these platforms ineffective for informed public dialogue. As scientists, analysts, and engaged citizens, we must continue to curate, flag, and challenge misinformation.

For those seeking thoughtful discussions about future technologies, Bluesky provides that environment, while X does not. This divergence should be a cause for concern for all of us.