One hundred solar panels per second reflects extraordinary technical progress. A platform that simply fosters noise over truth does not.
I’ve been working for the past four decades across natural sciences, climate change, clean energy, and future tech transitions. Over that work, my core commitment remains constant: to help develop science-based policy, evidence-based investment, and public conversations in data and facts.
But last month, I witnessed (yet again) how those facts can be buried beneath shouting matches, false comparisons, algorithm-driven misinformation, ignorance and pure stupidity.
On 24 July 2025, I posted the same statistics about China’s majority share of cleantech manufacturing in global markets, and China’s massive installation of solar panels in one month, on two different platforms: on X and on Bluesky.
My post highlighted a suite of verified metrics:
China manufactures around:
- 85% of the world’s solar panels
- 80% of batteries
- 68% of wind turbines
- 70% of electric vehicles, and
- 65% of energy storage systems
In May 2025, China installed nearly 100 solar panels per second.
That’s not a boast. It’s not political. It’s a statement of fact taken from recent data collected by IRENA (https://www.irena.org), IEA (https://www.iea.org), China’s NEA (http://www.nea.gov.cn/), and BloombergNEF (https://about.bnef.com/).
Responses came in quickly, and what happened was, on one hand, educational, and on the other, confronting – and the contrast deeply disturbing.
On Bluesky
Responses were supportive, curious, and constructive. People asked follow-up questions about China’s supply chain dominance. Others explored what this might mean for energy security in Europe, or the urgency of domestic clean tech manufacturing. Some even added relevant datapoints from their own research.
In short: it was the kind of encouraging, informed back-and-forth that makes social platforms such valuable spaces for public learning. Me personally, I’m addicted to collegiate discussion that often add new data, and feature genuine inquiry, sometimes extend ideas, and occasionally bring corrections (though on this occasion, none were needed).
On X
The post was immediately swamped – with trolls. Indeed, rather than draining the swamp, it seems to be a preferred destination for spawning trolls.
Dozens of comments attempted to tear down the data without offering any sources of their own. Comments ranged from:
- “China is building two coal plants a week”, said one.
Not true. While China’s construction of new coal-power plants ‘reached 10-year high’ in 2024, that’s constructions which for coal take 4-6 years to complete, while actual completions (30.5GW in 2024) are closer to one every 10 days, based on rigorous synthesis from Carbon Brief and Global Energy Monitor; almost all are “ultra-supercritical” technology, a good chunk built for backup capacity, and some replacing retiring older, inefficient units.
“EVs are worse for the environment than petrol cars,” said another
Again, incorrect. Extensive lifecycle analyses from the ICCT show the opposite.
- “Solar panels are made with slave labour” (an assertion taking old “zombie” data to wrongly generalise, and also ignores progress in ESG auditing standards in supply chains, especially in China).
The engagement wasn’t rigorous or fact-based disagreement. It was a flood of misinformed and misleading talking points (i.e. actual “fake news” as opposed to fake “fake news” – or more simply, false). Many claimed to be looking for “debate.” But to be clear, what I saw wasn’t debate, just naysaying, parroted, commonly repeated noise.
A repeat of a wider pattern
This wasn’t my first rodeo. I’ve been commenting on climate change in news interviews and on social media since 2006. Like many climate communicators, I see “zombie arguments” all the time.
Claims long refuted, such as solar panels requiring more energy to build than they ever produce, or that batteries aren’t recyclable (they are: up to 95% recoverable) still haunt the online discourse because they’re “engaging”.
These falsehoods keep coming back, not because they’re sound, but because they defend a counterfactual, ideological position.
Why the difference?
It’s not just chance – it’s design.
Platforms like X rely on engagement-driven algorithms and thrive on a for-profit model where “attention minutes” and emotional intensity drive ad revenue and paid subscriptions. Content that provokes (outrage, cynicism, tribalism) is algorithmically amplified because it keeps users on site longer.
Moderation has been minimised, especially since 2022, with controversial voices reinstated under the banner of “free speech”. The business logic: outrage and conflict draw clicks, and clicks draw ad revenue, structurally designed to reward precisely such forms of reaction-based engagement of disagreement without evidence, snark over substance, volume over veracity.
Meanwhile, Bluesky operates as a not-for-profit, enforcing community standards and proactively limiting antisocial behaviour.
Promotion, not profit, is its principal motivator and most commonly fosters polite, evidence-oriented rebuttals. The platform’s smaller, self-selecting user base, combined with active moderation, has so far helped foster genuine, evidence-led conversation, even if that means (for now) less scale or financial return.
Media and social history
There’s an old adage from the print era: “Right-wing papers sell more ads; left-wing ones don’t.” This logic – attention and controversy sell – is now repurposed at algorithmic speed. X has inherited and amplified this dynamic, using “clash” as a commercial engine. Bluesky (so far) has chosen another path.
Why does it matter?
Because disinformation has a cost. It slows everything.
The information ecosystem shapes public understanding. Platforms that allow zombie statistics and trolling to bury facts aren’t supporting free speech – they’re actively eroding our shared factual ground. That’s dangerous for science, for policy, and for a just transition to clean energy.
It affects climate policy, public trust, and clean-tech investment. When false claims go unchecked (or worse, when they’re amplified by algorithms optimised for “engagement”) it becomes harder for facts to succeed, evidence to lead, or urgent innovation to be funded at the scale we need.
I’m pro-discussion and the exchange of ideas, and at the same time not opposed to disagreement. Robust, evidence-based debate is vital. But platforms that reward noise and outrage above truth thoughtful contribution don’t empower the public; they weaken it. When shouting matches pass for dialogue and every source must fight for survival, our ability to solve problems like the energy transition slows to a crawl.
This is especially problematic in clean tech. Our planetary future depends on clear-eyed discussions about energy efficiency, storage, grid transition, EV rollout, and rapid decarbonisation. But when every attempt to surface verified data is met with noise disguised as “debate,” we all lose.
Where to from here?
- If platforms value “free speech,” they must also value structured conversation and epistemic quality. If they amplify noise without elevating signal, they risk becoming unusable for informed public discourse. And for the rest of us (scientists, analysts, futurists, informed, rational citizens, others alike) we must continue curating, flagging, and pushing back.
If we want thoughtful discussion of tomorrow’s technologies, Bluesky offers me that. X does not. (And that should worry us all.)
Prof Ray Wills is a futurist, head of Future Smart Strategies , and Adjunct Professor, The University of Western Australia
