I always try to take a philosophical view of these arguments and see both sides, because there is rarely 100% black and white, and many people are making an argument based on something they've seen in a crystal ball -- which is something I don't have.
Taking solar as an example. . .
It takes a long time for a solar panel to "pay back" the energy used to manufacture it, or the money you spent to buy and install it. (Some people still think, incorrectly, that the costs are never paid back.) You could put that money into an interest-bearing account instead, and buy grid electricity during the meantime, and possibly come out ahead financially. So, it could be argued that solar panels portrayed as "free energy" are a fraud.
Likewise, if you want to talk about displacing some significant percentage of the country's electrical needs with solar, then you are looking at covering large amounts of land with hideously expensive solar collectors -- and then you have to figure out some mechanism for storing energy, because the sun doesn't shine 24/7/365. So, it could be argued that solar portrayed as a solution to all our energy problems is a fraud.
The true solar advocate will then respond that solar panels are being researched heavily, and they are going to be cheaper and more efficient Real Soon Now. I hope they are right, and I think they might be right, but I just don't have their crystal ball.
For what it's worth, I do believe solar power has a definite role in the future. I'm just not sure how big or how soon. To expect it to be huge in the near future requires a leap of faith that some people are willing to make and some are not. And that's also true, to varying degrees, with biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear power and even electric cars too. This is why, as DDB says, it's usually best to let the free markets work things out.