Let's see if the dnc allows it. Bet they make bank off oil just like the republicunts...
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026
86 points (98.9% liked)
politics
29461 readers
2796 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good to see people coming around on "green energy is a matter of national security." Cuz that's what I've thought for years.
Dems seem to have sold climate change as a solution for national industry purposes. Doing something is good only if US is the one controlling it, including obtaining political donations to slow it down as much as possible. (AI is new fad for industry championing). Imported renewables and batteries are national security (defined as peoples freedom from extortion) because they are not dependent of fuel, and Hydrogen as a fuel can be made from these forever.
Renewables also needs more than their import value in local jobs and materials to deploy. Renewables, but only locally produced expensive renewables with tax subsidies for more profit, is not good policy. Boutique energy only. An actual national security item would be shoes, because you need new ones every couple of years. Could makes shoes that cost 3x, and pay $20/hour for job creation, and then offer deficit subsidies to make things appear somewhat affordable, but its a waste of peoples time and money, that stops people pursuing useful work.
If they want clean energy adoption they need to market it like they market any other product for Americans. Rugged individualism, self reliance, grind mindset, etc.
What that means in practice is subsidizing the infrastructure to sell it back to the grid and changing laws, updating our grid and battery technology. Americans don't want someone else to own the panels on their house for a reduction in their bill, they want to believe and see that they are "making money"
The problem with that approach is that the "rugged energy individualist" idea would only a thin veneer and as soon as you scratch the surface you see it isn't true.
Currently technology solar isn't able to affordably support the amount of energy consumption most Americans have or want. It would be either astronomically expensive for a single American household to have enough energy systems to be completely 100% self sufficient (in most States in the Union) or the American household would have to drastically reduce its energy consumption. I don't know if you know us Americans, but we don't like to cut back on anything.
The feasible technology we have today that is still expensive, but at least attainable by many, is for 30% to 70% household energy generation. The remainder (depending on the time of year) comes from our socialized system of central energy generation and distribution (the power grid).
I say this as someone with solar panels and EVs that has gone carbon free energy at home. Its expensive for the equipment and installation and still doesn't cover all the energy needs year-round. Nine months out of the year we have no energy bills. Three months of the year, we do. That's just physics and the limits of my wallet.
Just change the name to “cheap energy”
Renewable works, people are just weird about it because of propaganda.
I have two 500W solar panels that I mostly bought for camping but are hooked up to my house because why not. They average ~5kWh a day over the year which is about a gallon of gas a week (~34kWh). Every gallon of gas I've ever bought I've set on fire using it and have to buy another one.
The panels will be good for a few decades, though eventually it will take them 8 or more days to generate "a gallon of gas worth of electricity", and at that point they're mostly aluminum, glass, and silicon, which are all extremely recyclable. The degradation of solar panels is because that the shapes they need to be in to harvest sunlight get bent out of shape over time. They don't become worthless afterward.
is about a gallon of gas a week (~34kWh)
If you put that gallon in a generator (car not much different), you'd get 8.5kwh electricity out of it. It would cost you $4. or $16 for the same power per week. $832/year.
Data centers should be banned for national energy crisis reasons
This would put the US at an extreme disadvantage because the datacenter would be built outside of the US and used as leverage.
Better to put guardrails on how and where datacenters are built, and incentivize the things that cost more to do in the US.
Disadvantaged how? In what way is it beneficial to the nation that we have an overabundance of data centers? What are they accomplishing?
The power and water use is problematic to say the least. The lack of anything of value to show for it makes them a threat to national security. Somebody slightly more paranoid than me would theorize it to be a psyop conspiracy to drain our resources in preparation to destroy us.
It’s not like people in the US will simply stop using services that are hosted in datacenters. Putting them in other jurisdictions will create significant issues that eventually lead to cost increases or vulnerabilities.
The data centers aren't essential to the U.S. people . They are used to make child porn and mass surveillance and marketing manipulation.
They actively harm the citizens.