Sometimes, perhaps, it is the audiences and environments in which we discuss and encounter.
Yes, there are people (too many) who don't understand the difference between electricity and oil in the American (and global economy) and will gleefully talk of solar as replacing oil (in the US) without discussing how this only occurs if there is serious transportation shifting from liquid fuel to electricity (whether PHEVs, EVs, electrified rail, ...). And, well, those people tend (perhaps strongly) to be primarily from the Democratic Party.
And, there are people who believe that the answer to all our challenges is simply drilling more wells and who discount (ignore) the entire concept of externalities in terms of energy system costs. And, well, those people tend to be Republicans.
And ... there are fallacies that can be put into ideological structures.
If I am writing on liberal web sites, then disabusing tends to be "D" -- on the other hand, in the daily life, the "misconception" correcting is almost entirely dealing with "R" and misconceptions about how 'green jobs don't exist', renewable energy is impossible, drilling is all we need to do, etc ... Direct misinformation (such as Bryce) and purposeful misdirection does not, imo and my experience, tend to come from the D side of the political dialogue. Check who brings who to Congressional hearings, for example, the questions they ask, and how they interact with witnesses. This is quite revealing.