
Let’s bust some famous myths. “Eating carrots gives you excellent vision.” No, it does not. “Mice love cheese.” No, they do not; ‘in fact cheese can be deadly to mice. “If you pluck out a grey hair, you will get more grey hair.” No, you won’t.
Here’s one more myth to bust. “Clean energy is good for the environment.”
That may be so on paper, since clean energy – by definition – is energy that comes from renewable resources which produce minimal to no carbon emissions. This means that, unlike fossil fuels, they have less of a negative impact on the environment. But how true is that? International Business Review explores more.
How ‘Clean’ is That Solar Panel?
One of the most popular forms of renewable or clean energy is solar power, which is generated by photovoltaic (PV) panels or popularly known as solar panels. These are made from various raw materials such as silicon, silver, polymer, aluminium, and copper to name a few, which means that they have to be extracted by some means. Is that process really clean?
Large amounts of mining activities need to be done in order to produce large numbers of solar panels. According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), approximately 12 percent of all silicon metal, also known as metallurgical-grade silicon (MGS), produced globally is turned into polysilicon for solar panel production. China produces around 70 percent of the world’s polysilicon and 77 percent of the world’s MGS respectively. The process of converting silicon to polysilicon requires very high temperatures, and in China, in order to be able to carry out this process, coal is mainly needed to fuel these plants, especially in Xinjiang – a region in China which is rich in coal and low electricity prices. This particular region produces 45 percent of the world’s polysilicon.
Besides polysilicon, silver is also an important component in solar panel production. Silver mining usually takes place in Mexico, China, Peru, Chile, Australia, Russia, and Poland, and this sometimes causes heavy metal contamination and community displacement. For instance, in Guatemala, the Indigenous Xinka community signed a petition with more than 85,000 signatures calling on Pan American Silver to avoid restarting its operation as it causes water contamination.
Each solar panel uses a small amount of aluminium, which is sourced from bauxite found near the Earth’s surface. Bauxite mining takes up lots of land and often intrudes the indigenous land, especially in Australia where 28 percent of the world’s bauxite is produced.

Photovoltaic panels or solar panels being ensembled.
In addition to this already concerning issue, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency, by 2050, 78 million metric tons of solar panels may have reached their expiry date as normal solar panels have a lifespan of 25 years as claimed by most solar manufacturers and the world will be generating approximately 6 million metric tons of solar panel waste.
When this situation happens, what would we do? Expired solar panels usually will face a few possible fates. As of now, only the European Union has set strict rules for solar producers to ensure their solar panels are recycled properly meanwhile some other countries like Japan, India, and Australia, recycling requirements are still a work in progress. On the other hand, it is a different story for the United States of America. There are no solar recycling mandates whatsoever. Currently, around 10 percent of solar panels are recycled, claimed Sam Vanderhoof, the CEO of Recycle PV Solar, one of the solar companies in the US dedicated to PV recycling.

Gigantic wind turbines are positioned near coastal areas and farmlands or any considerably windy areas to generate electricity.
What will happen to the remaining 90 percent? Most of it will end up in landfills or be exported overseas for reuse in developing countries that lack environmental protection. Now that we put it this way, is it still clean?
The Dark Side of Wind Energy
Alex Nicole, a former policy advisor in Australia, reports that wind energy is actually a well-planned corporate scam. She mentions that wind turbine companies get subsidised with US$600,000 to US$900,000 per turbine a year which drives the companies to actively build turbines in lots of farmland or private land. Despite being fully liable for the turbines, farmers or landowners were only getting paid as much as US$12,000 by the wind turbine companies per year.
In the same revelation video, she also mentions that there was a surge in the price of power bills in Australia. Here is where it gets interesting. The extra charges were actually to pay for the turbines, which does not even work in the first place! Shocking, yes? She explains that the turbines need to generate power off the grid which requires coal fire to run. When the turbines finally generated their own electricity from the wind, the energy produced is unreliable and unstable. This is because once the power comes back to the grid, it needs to be balanced which is impossible because coal fire power stations require 24 to 48 hours to increase their heat. In the end, it will only let off steam which does not contribute to anything.
Meanwhile, in Scotland, almost 16 million trees have been chopped down on publicly owned land to make way for wind farms, which is contradictory to the intention of preserving the Earth’s greeneries by wiping thousands of hectares of it just to build wind turbines which do not even work efficiently.
In a podcast called Growing Impact, Stephen Chmely – an Assistant Professor of Agricultural & Biological Engineering at Pennsylvania State University – mentioned that there is actually a dirty secret behind ‘’clean’’ wind energy. He mentioned that the blades of the wind turbine that are made from fiberglass are ground up and put in a landfill at the end of its life. This process seems environmentally friendly; however the material itself is unable to be recycled. This is due to how it was made. Fiberglass is a composite material and for the most part, it is difficult or essentially impossible to recycle because they are a mixture of multiple materials.

The controversial Three Gorges Dam in China that caused a massive relocation of locals for it to be built.
As an example, the large Balbina hydroelectric plant, which was built in a flat area of Brazil, flooded 2,360 square kilometres of land and it only provides 250 MW of power generating capacity meanwhile a small 10 MW run-of-the-river-plant in a hilly location can use as little
2.5 acres.
Land flooding for hydroelectric reservoirs can cause huge environmental impacts as it destroys forests, wildlife habitats, agricultural land, and scenic areas. One of the instances was in China, during the building of the Three Gorges Dam. As mentioned in CNN, it was an extremely controversial mega-project as it disrupted the livelihood of 1.4 million people who lived on the river banks for generations. The people were uprooted, their ancestral homes destroyed, communities split apart and farmlands inundated. Innocent lives were disrupted in the name of clean energy but was it worth it?
On top of that, it is also impacting wildlife. Dammed reservoirs are used for various purposes such as agricultural irrigation, flood control, and recreation, so not all wildlife are impacted in the same way. However, hydroelectric facilities can still have an extreme impact on aquatic ecosystems. Marine wildlife is exposed to the risk of being injured and killed by the turbines. In addition to direct contact, there may potentially be wildlife effects downstream from the site and within the dammed reservoirs. Reservoir water tends to be more stagnant compared to normal river water, resulting in the reservoir having higher amounts of sediments and nutrients, which can cause an excess of algae and other aquatic weeds. These weeds must be removed manually or by introducing fish that consume the plants in order to prevent them from displacing other river animals and plants.
The impacts are not only limited to the ones that were mentioned as reservoirs can also cause the river downstream to dry out when too much water is stored behind the reservoir. Thus, most hydroelectric operators are required to periodically release a minimum amount of water at certain times in a year. If it is not handled properly, water levels downstream will drop and it will harm the lives of the animals and plants. Additionally, reservoir water tends to be colder than average river water and poor in dissolved oxygen. When this water is released, it could affect the downstream plants and animals negatively.
Despite promoting clean energy, generating the hydroelectricity reservoir actually emits carbon dioxide during the installation and dismantling of the hydroelectric power plants. Additionally, after the area is flooded, the vegetation and soil will decompose and releases both carbon dioxide and methane, which are considered greenhouse gases. The exact amount of emissions depends greatly on the conditions of the location.
With the intention of generating power from a ‘cleaner’ source, is it worth it for us to be losing so much land and wildlife? The flora and fauna are already on the brink of extinction and with all of these unnecessary developments, we are actually speeding up the process. Are we genuinely satisfied if it really happens? Is that what we are aiming for?
Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change: Is It True?
Our minds are fed with endless propaganda of how harmful greenhouse gases are and the danger of climate change since we are young but are we really fed with the truth?
Two months ago, Republican US Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana asked Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk a controversial question in the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. “If we go carbon-neutral, is it possible to lower down the Earth’s temperature?” The question was asked multiple times but no answers were given by David Turk, as he only kept on repeating that “we will be able to save a bit of money if we can get our act together now” but either way, trillions of dollars are still needed to accommodate the carbon-neutral efforts.
Furthermore, we are bombarded with the news saying that our world is sinking each year due to climate change and global warming but why do a lot of giant corporations spend billions on coastal developments if they are aware that it will end in a matter of decades? The real question is, is it really true?
Ever since we are in primary school, we were introduced to the term greenhouse gas which is often deemed as harmful to the Earth. However, we are actually living in constructed lies. AGA, a company that uses carbon dioxide fertilization, mentioned with the right amount of carbon dioxide, they can cultivate better, much healthier fruits, vegetables, and also flowers. Carbon dioxide also helps in producing earlier harvests as well as improving plants’ resistance to disease and pests.
While we are too invested in the idea of greenhouse gas and its harmful impacts, we actually failed to look into the natural variability that might be a cause of the Earth’s warming and cooling. The Earth is on a never-ending oscillation around the Sun which means the closer we are to the Sun, the warmer the Earth will get and vice versa. The Earth has been experiencing countless climate changes throughout history and none of it was caused solely by carbon dioxide.
What should we do?
With all the eye-opening, mind-boggling revelations from many different parties, are we still sure that clean energy is clean? Or is it just a well-constructed political scam to rake our money in the name of saving Mother Nature?
Our Earth is very rich. We are made to live in a forced perception of scarcity while in reality, the Earth is abundant. We have plenty of oils, minerals, and gas that can last for centuries ahead. However, our minds are controlled by elaborate propaganda and fancy jargon to make us believe that we are in danger and we need to opt for “cleaner” alternatives. But we are kept in the dark about carbon taxes, billions and trillions of money going offshore to God knows where.
What should we do now is not to develop another “clean” alternative but we should rather find a way to expedite reforestation in order to restore the Earth’s greeneries which will benefit everyone in the long run.
Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change: Is It True?
Our minds are fed with endless propaganda of how harmful greenhouse gases are and the danger of climate change since we are young but are we really fed with the truth?
Two months ago, Republican US Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana asked Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk a controversial question in the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. “If we go carbon-neutral, is it possible to lower down the Earth’s temperature?” The question was asked multiple times but no answers were given by David Turk, as he only kept on repeating that “we will be able to save a bit of money if we can get our act together now” but either way, trillions of dollars are still needed to accommodate the carbon-neutral efforts.
Furthermore, we are bombarded with the news saying that our world is sinking each year due to climate change and global warming but why do a lot of giant corporations spend billions on coastal developments if they are aware that it will end in a matter of decades? The real question is, is it really true?
Ever since we are in primary school, we were introduced to the term greenhouse gas which is often deemed as harmful to the Earth. However, we are actually living in constructed lies. AGA, a company that uses carbon dioxide fertilization, mentioned with the right amount of carbon dioxide, they can cultivate better, much healthier fruits, vegetables, and also flowers. Carbon dioxide also helps in producing earlier harvests as well as improving plants’ resistance to disease and pests.
While we are too invested in the idea of greenhouse gas and its harmful impacts, we actually failed to look into the natural variability that might be a cause of the Earth’s warming and cooling. The Earth is on a never-ending oscillation around the Sun which means the closer we are to the Sun, the warmer the Earth will get and vice versa. The Earth has been experiencing countless climate changes throughout history and none of it was caused solely by carbon dioxide.
What should we do?
With all the eye-opening, mind-boggling revelations from many different parties, are we still sure that clean energy is clean? Or is it just a well-constructed political scam to rake our money in the name of saving Mother Nature?
Our Earth is very rich. We are made to live in a forced perception of scarcity while in reality, the Earth is abundant. We have plenty of oils, minerals, and gas that can last for centuries ahead. However, our minds are controlled by elaborate propaganda and fancy jargon to make us believe that we are in danger and we need to opt for “cleaner” alternatives. But we are kept in the dark about carbon taxes, billions and trillions of money going offshore to God knows where.
What should we do now is not to develop another “clean” alternative but we should rather find a way to expedite reforestation in order to restore the Earth’s greeneries which will benefit everyone in the long run.
We should start to be bolder and take our stand in this matter. It is obvious that while they are trying to develop clean energy, carbon dioxide is still being used immensely. There is no such thing as zero-emission. Oil and gas are still crucial in power generation and certain parties are fully aware of it.

Tihange Nuclear Power Plant in Belgium consists of three actively working power plants located near Meuse river.
Nuclear, the Ace of Clean Energy
According to the Office of Nuclear Energy, nuclear is the largest source of clean power in the United States as it generates nearly 800 billion kilowatts of electricity each year and produces more than half of the US emission-free electricity which equals removing 100 million cars off the road.
Compared to the other clean energy sources, nuclear is actually doing a great job in producing zero-emissions energy. This is because nuclear energy produces low carbon. According to a nuclear advocacy group, The World Nuclear Association, the average emissions for nuclear are 29 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour (GWh) of energy produced, compared to other renewable sources such as solar (85 tonnes per GWh) and wind (26 tonnes per GWh). Meanwhile, it shows a hugely significant difference with fossil fuels such as lignite that produces 1,054 tonnes per GWh and coal (888 tonnes per GWh). From the statements. From the previous statements, it is safe to say that nuclear produces roughly same or the less amount of emissions, which can be considered clean energy.
Another good point about nuclear energy is that it is stable and not intermittent. Nuclear power plants have absolutely no problem running without any interruptions or maintenance issues, making them a more reliable option compared to other renewable sources that fully depend on natural conditions such as wind, hydroelectric and solar.
Besides, nuclear power plants are actually much cheaper to operate compared to coal or gas. It has been estimated that even after calculating the cost of managing radioactive fuel and disposal of nuclear plants, it is still between 33 to 50 percent cheaper than a coal plant and 20 to 25 percent cheaper than a gas combined cycle. It is also mentioned by the US Department of Energy (DOE) that the amount of energy nuclear produces is also better than other energy.
After seeing it in a different perspective, we might need to change our views on nuclear energy. We are too engrossed in the narrative that nuclear energy is bad for us when we are actually saving a lot more by using it. The main challenge that we need to overcome in order to be able to utilize more nuclear energy is to change people’s perspective. It’s a tedious thing to do but we need to raise awareness on how nuclear energy is actually doing better for our mother Earth.