Things that Solar Batteries, EV Charging and Political Distractions Share

Have you ever been told that something works a certain way, only to find out it’s not true at all?

Statements like, “You can’t charge a solar battery and an EV at the same time,” sound definitive and  are quite misleading. This is a perfect example of a false positive – when something is presented as a limitation, and it’s not true for all cases. False positives don’t just create confusion; they can be used as a strategy to distract from other more important issues. This is not only true for renewable energy debates yet also evident in political narratives, such as last year’s Voice referendum.

A false positive is a claim or assumption that something is problematic, when in reality, it’s either situational or entirely incorrect. In renewable energy, the view that a solar system can’t charge both an EV and a battery simultaneously highlights this concept. While it may be true for small systems, well-designed setups can easily handle these demands. The focus on rare limitations detracts from the overall benefits of solar power.

Think of a solar system as if it were a water tank. With enough capacity and a smart allocation system, you can water the garden (run household appliances), fill a small container (charge the battery), and a large truck (charge the EV) all at the same time. This analogy illustrates how modern solar setups can effectively manage multiple demands when designed correctly.

Similarly, in politics, false positives are used to undermine ideas by highlighting speculative risks. During the 2023 Voice referendum, critics claimed the proposed Voice would create division and legal complications. These narratives drew attention away from the real issue: addressing systemic disadvantages faced by Indigenous Australians. The strategy of false positives shifts discussions from solutions to doubts, derailing progress.  We all k ow how that ended and that’s an opening for another post.

In renewable energy, critics claim that solar systems can’t handle charging an EV and a battery at the same time. However, many  modern solar systems, with the right design and capacity, can do both without any issues. High-capacity inverters and energy management tools distribute power efficiently.

In politics, some critics argued that the Voice to Parliament would create “special rights” or lead to legal uncertainty. In reality, the Voice was designed to be an advisory body, promoting inclusivity and addressing socio-economic gaps. Claims of division and inefficiency were speculative, shifting focus from the Voice’s actual purpose.

False positives in both cases highlight specific, often exaggerated risks to undermine broader, beneficial initiatives. For example, in renewable energy, these tactics are designed to slow down the transition to cleaner energy solutions, delaying vital climate change mitigation efforts and important targets. By casting doubt on solar power's reliability or scalability, opponents distract from the pressing need to reduce carbon emissions and foster renewable innovation.

Similarly, in political contexts like the Voice referendum, such narratives diverted attention from addressing entrenched inequalities and achieving long-term social justice. Both cases clearly show  how false positives can obstruct progress on issues critical to overall societal and environmental well-being.

Imagine a road with a small pothole. Instead of fixing it or talking about the quality of the road overall, people start saying the road is dangerous and unusable. This exaggeration inhibits drivers from using the road entirely. That’s what false positives do: they amplify minor issues to discourage action.

What if we focused on fixing the pothole instead of abandoning the road? In energy, this means improving system design to meet demands. In politics, it means addressing real problems rather than being distracted by unfounded fears.

False positives are not just misleading—they undermine the intelligence and common sense of the public. Politicians need to be   held accountable for using these tactics to dumb down issues and shift focus from meaningful and sustainable solutions, such as renewable energy .

As citizens and  voters and we have a responsibility to do at least three things:

1.   Demand transparency by insisting  on evidence-based discussions and question claims that seem designed to distract or confuse.

2.   Hold politicians accountable by  challenging those who use fear and unfounded speculation as tools to sway public opinion.

3.   Value informed debate by pushing for open and honest  conversations that respect the intelligence of  we Aussie voters and address real challenges with practical solutions.

It’s time to call out false positives for what they are—denials and distractions that detract and divert progress on renewables and maintain and protect the fossil fuel industry. If we ALL  call out these things  we can foster an environment where honesty and critical thinking take precedence over fearmongering and oversimplification.

By challenging these false narratives, we can ensure a path forward that respects both the truth and the capacity of the community  to engage with complex issues like solar versus nuclear.