What do you do if you spot logical fallacies in your renewable energy work?

The push toward sustainability and "net zero" have created many blinders. People want to do good things for the environment. However, optimizing one variable (for example, carbon emissions) has tradeoffs and environmental impacts that feed forward such that total human thriving isn't always improved. For example, groundwater pollution in Indonesia (nickel mining) or child labor in the Congo (cobalt mining) are harms that may surpass the benefits in our race towards electrification. We need to be open to exploring logical fallacies in our renewable energy work. One way to do this is to step back and use systems thinking. Continue to make the "systems" box bigger to address externalities that may be missed. Be open to new information!

The urgency to speed-up renewable projects just to appear as top-of-the -game against conventional energy may end up creating logical fallacies. That’s because the quest for speed may overlook design and robustness in the project. But I’m sure seasoned renewables project management professionals are quite seized of this and in the end, sanity prevails. And hence it is important to acknowledge in the first place that there has been a logical fallacy in the project due to overlooking of the speed-design/robustness trade off.

Encouraging critical thinking by asking questions that prompt the addressing of the fallacy. The evidences and scientific proofs provide enough reasons to reconsider the claim.During this process, the misconceptions can be clarified.

To address these fallacies, it's essential to first recognize their existence, which requires a keen eye and a commitment to intellectual honesty. Once identified, the next step is to dissect the project's operational aspects, applying a methodical approach like Kaizen to systematically rectify the errors. This involves breaking down the project into critical and non-critical stages, analyzing each segment, and implementing solutions that align with the overall project goals without compromising energy generation.

1. Admit Illusion 2. Examine the Context 3. Speak with Experts 4. Edit Work 5. Record Modifications 6. Exchange Perspectives

After acknowledging the fallacy, take a step back to analyze the context in which it occurred. Understand the assumptions that led to the flawed reasoning and consider the implications it has on your project. This may involve reviewing initial hypotheses, data sources, or models used in your analysis. By thoroughly understanding the context, you can identify the root cause of the fallacy and prevent it from happening again.

Renewable energy projects occurs in complex scenarios and it is very important to understand if the fallacy it's just contextual, or it's related to any other factors that can happen in other projects, or if it's a more structural one that need a complete rethinking of the entire structure of the solution.

Understanding the broader context helps identify the root causes of these fallacies, whether they stem from misinformation, miscommunication, or flawed assumptions. Review the underlying data, assumptions, and the reasoning processes used. Discuss these findings with your team to clarify misunderstandings and ensure everyone has the correct information. By addressing these issues contextually, you can correct fallacies and strengthen the overall validity and reliability of your project's arguments and outcomes.

In the complex and multifaceted environment of sustainable energy, understanding the context is essential for identifying distortions or errors in reasoning. By considering variables such as government policies, technological advancements, and market dynamics, professionals can critically evaluate the arguments presented and recognize possible fallacies, such as emotional appeals or false analogies.

Understanding the specific circumstances or arguments that led to these fallacies can help identify why they occurred. Look at the data sources, assumptions made, and the logic flow used in discussions or documentation. This contextual analysis allows you to pinpoint inaccuracies or oversights and provides a clear path for correcting them. Addressing these issues not only strengthens the integrity of the project but also ensures that future decisions and presentations are based on sound reasoning and factual accuracy.

Consulting with experts is a valuable step in addressing logical fallacies in your work on renewable energy. These experts could be colleagues, industry professionals, or academic researchers with deep knowledge of renewable energy systems and logical reasoning. Their external perspective can provide insights that you may have overlooked and help validate the corrections you plan to implement.

Listening to others, ideally experts, is the only way, especially early on as your key ideas are taking shape. Experts are the ones that will tell you what you don't want, but need to hear.

Some experts are more expert than others. Beware of those that are adamant that you have it wrong and don't appear to listen to other people's points or arguments. I was watching a DESaNZ committee oral evidence session recently and one of the experts' main expertise seemed to be in knowing that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

We often get a lot of queries from people who installed a biogas plant and face multiple challenges, which they didn’t account for at the time of installation. This is because they didn’t hire the right consultants or just became the prey to the equipment sellers. We need to understand that consultants have the job to guide you step by step, no matter what equipment supplier is telling. The right consultants can make your project a success, the wrong ones can doom it

n a world where information circulates rapidly, it's important to consult the veracity of information with experts in the field, especially for such a current topic as renewable energy. For business, it's crucial to work with accurate information and specialists in the subject.

This is like business generally. It's OK to be wrong, as long as you realize it and get it right. The founder of Honda when asked how his plans always seemed to work out, famously said that his plans were never right, he was just good at realizing how his plans were wrong, and correcting them quickly.

If I spot logical fallacies in discussions about renewable energy, I’d clarify the points and offer accurate information. For instance, if someone is using a fallacy like a false analogy or a hasty generalization, I'd gently point it out and provide relevant facts or data to support a more informed discussion

Begin by identifying where the fallacy impacts your work, whether it's in technical reports, presentations, or project plans. Revisit the underlying assumptions, data sources, and logic to understand where errors occurred. Correct the fallacy by adjusting your approach or reevaluating the data, then update the relevant documents to reflect these changes. Work with your team to ensure everyone is aligned with the revisions and understands the reason for the correction. Test the revised work to confirm its accuracy and reliability. By thoroughly revising your work, you can prevent the fallacy from undermining your renewable energy projects and maintain high-quality outcomes.

Once you've identified the fallacies, take steps to correct them. This might involve revising your analysis, updating your data sources, or clarifying your arguments to remove any misleading or erroneous reasoning.

When encountering logical fallacies in your renewable energy work, it’s essential to acknowledge them and address them thoughtfully. Addressing logical fallacies in your renewable energy work is crucial for maintaining accuracy and making informed decisions. Critical thinking and evidence-based discussions are crucial in addressing fallacies and advancing renewable energy solutions.

Use this opportunity to learn from the mistakes and improve your critical thinking skills. Consider how you can better identify and avoid logical fallacies in future work, and incorporate these lessons into your approach.

This should also apply to your initial documentation, that is you should record the reasoning behind your decisions, don't miss information out just because you think it's obvious. If anyone else is reading your work, they can always ignore something if it's obvious, but if it and there's no information then, unless they have superhuman mind reading powers, this could make it harder to identify where the fallacy is.

Share your experiences with colleagues and stakeholders to raise awareness about logical fallacies and the importance of rigorous reasoning in renewable energy work. By promoting a culture of critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making, you can help prevent similar errors in the future.

You can also seek feedback from your peer group. ‘I misinterpreted and explained this incorrectly. Do you understand my mistake, and could I have prevented it?’ Often, this provides new insights and perspectives. The most important thing, of course, is to learn from it to prevent it from happening again.

Sharing insights is probably good for almost any community. It can also be useful to consider insights from disciplines from outside the one you are currently working in, be it RE or any other subject.

There's no growing and no learning from mistakes if they're not shared in the right time withe the right people in the right context after a deep analysis. All works should be revisited, even the successful ones to check for things that went right or wrong.

If the fallacies are present in reports, presentations, or other forms of communication, be transparent about the errors and the steps you've taken to correct them. Acknowledge any shortcomings and demonstrate your commitment to accuracy and integrity.

It helps to be familiar with different kinds of fallacies and be able to name the ones that appear. Is it a non-sequitur? A generalization? A false binary? Sometimes, if you can't name the fallacy, it can be cumbersome to explain the mistake. It's worth studying up on logical fallacies alone to become familiar with them, no matter the topic.