Yeah sorta like directing shutting down fossil fuel power generation plants just because they could. And, why should taxpayers fund any of it when a commercial market exists? If something is not commercially viable...it...just...won't...survive...anyway.

If a party is pro whatever, fund basic research for your favorite science and maybe some preliminary developmental engineering for the transition. In today's world (well in any previous time as well) a technology is not going anywhere unless it can stand alone competitively.

I don't think it takes much of a brain to figure out how to do cheaper, green and practicable energy. Natural sources plus nuclear.

And just because...it's not wrong to say big commercial wind farms and solar panel fields are ugly and environmentally damaging because they are, just in different ways than fossil fuels. Clean energy requires mines, lots of new mines for the metals and minerals required.

Democrats refuse to deal with energy transition reality and obstruct just about anything that involves the words "large project" because they are beholden to environmentalists. Republicans are funded by/beholden to legacy energy.

Of any piece of modern infrastructure that should not be politicized I think it is electrical generation and the power grid but yet, here we are. We desperately need wide spread policy political consensus, but legislators are more interested in winning the next election to keep their jobs...which takes donations.