Nope. It’s run by people whose policies and action's don’t align with the world order you so badly desire.

For at least a few years, "common sense" has been hijacked by populist politicians, now it just means whatever simplistic idea that fits their worldview, even when it's not complicated to see that said idea is clearly misguided. The original meaning seems lost to me.

"Common sense" might also mean "do the simple thing" which, given how cheap it is to invest in renewable energy sources like solar farms, and how much room we have to build daytime capacity that way without large scale storage, might mean installing a lot more solar.

Don't pretend the current US admin is anything but corrupt and stupid.

"common sense" is common sense because it is the "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts" (1).

Maybe what you meant to say is that the position isn't, in fact, "common sense", that it is neither sound or prudent?

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common%20sense

There will always be a place for common sense - the Greeks used to call it phronesis or "practical wisdom".

You also need to distinguish between expert opinion and elite opinion. The two are not the same.

In politics, "common sense" just means that they don't have a real justification. You can just apply it to anything and your base will accept it.

You dont need deeper understanding of knowledge for everything. Ask Grandma whether she needs a chemical engineering degree to bake apple pie.

Then there is the Theory of Bounded Rationality which tells us expertise may exist but resources, time, energy, info, attention etc etc may not therefore bounds and limits of expertise alone must be recognized and solutions reached are satisficable rather than optimal. Aiming for optima when other factors havent been sorted just creates new problems.

> “… without deeper understanding or knowledge.”

Ha! Like the common sense to dam migratory river systems to make hydroelectric power. Good idea at the time, and who cares about salmon. I have a toaster, and a percolator, and a new fangled “ice” box (formerly chilled by ice, now a maker of ice).

S/ My common sense says 1.2B compensation to not do something we otherwise need is bananas as opposed to the common sense—pound salt response. Good thing I’m not in government, yeah. /s

Common sense is the sense of commoners. The entirity of science if a fight against common sense.

In Poland the closest phrase to "common sense" is "na chłopski rozum" which means "according to villager's mind/smarts".

That’s not a good idea. Millions would be left without electricity.

And in the winter in the North people are just supposed to freeze?

While I do not know if the following is relevant for the Carolina Long Bay area, and while neither Republicans nor Democrats can be trusted, it is not without precedent for offshore wind turbine projects to be disallowed due to radar concerns.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/11/11/why-swe...

> Why Sweden nixed new wind farms for fear of missing Russian missiles

> BERLIN — Sweden’s government this month blocked the construction of 13 offshore wind farms over concerns that they would shorten the country’s early-warning window for a Russian missile attack.

> ...

> That is because wind farms can interact with radar signals, reducing the quality of the situational air picture or even outright blocking out parts of the sky.

Other possibilities than radar concerns is that the stopping of the project here hinders corruption, or is corrupt itself, or it moves corruption around (as in both the old project and new project was corrupt). Whatever the case, a way to avoid corruption would be helpful. Perhaps like making it market-driven and contest-driven as much as possible. Solar and wind is already significantly cost-efficient and market-driven despite their significant drawbacks like not producing energy consistently and on demand. If the main challenge is creating domestic production of wind turbines and solar cells instead of being reliant on other countries and without state support ending up being mired in corruption, perhaps some bidding and contract process that moves the financial risk onto private companies, such that the government never pays in advance, could work.

I agree with posts here saying that a mosaic or plethora of energy sources should be used. Wind, solar, fossile, nuclear (for big countries like the USA at least), geothermal, etc. In general, energy companies should not be focused on just one kind, but lots of kinds.

That leaves a lot of free energy sources untapped - especially hydro.

> The only common sense I can think of is solar+storage

Even in Texas/California photovoltaic output in the winter is measly, anywhere more to the north and it's effectively inexistent. Solar+storage requires massive overprovisioning, to the level that it's cheaper to burn literal money.

Windmill farm outputs tend to dip during summer and peak over winter. With a given minimum power output windmills + photovoltaics + storage is massively cheaper per unit of yearly energy. Of course, if you value any semblance of network stability.

Solar+storage is clear path towards either guaranteeing reliance on fossils or brownouts. The smart energy meter you got that encourages running the washing machine during cheap hours will ensure that you voluntarily go dark during undersupply as the cost will skyrocket.

Yes. "The economy is energy, energy is the economy".

China understood this and is not just betting on both solar and nuclear like mad, they're also burning coal (so that the EU btw can cosplay being green, while offloading the production of many things it consumes to China).

As a result energy prices in China are something like 7x cheaper than in Germany.

Those with lots of energy saw their GDP growth in the 21st century while those like the EU, with ultra pricey energy (due to stupid decisions like closing nuclear power plants only to then reopen them) saw hardly any GDP growth, inflation-adjusted in USD, in the 21st century.

No GDP growth means ever more poor people and ever more indebted governments.

I'm all for transitioning away from fuel and coal, but do it pragmatically. We don't need communists (that'd be the "green" parties [1]) who want to make the lives of everybody miserable taking decisions related to energy.

[1] green people who, like watermelons, are only green on the outside and then bright extremist red on the inside

won't happen with capitalism which has an emphasis on economic growth forever...

Does it do it efficiently though?

This is absolutely true. He has been angrily obsessed about this for years, and since he is a malignant narcissist with an ever greater need for narcissistic supply, his irritation has been manipulated by powerful lobbyists that tell him his instincts are brilliant and correct.

I'm sure you would welcome a data center in your backyard

[flagged]

I'm not a huge fan of their aesthetic in its own right, but it beats the aesthetic of fossil fuel infrastructure any day in my view.

That's the problem. It diminishes His Majesty Trump I.

Are you saying that wind farms think you are ugly and noisy?

We don't need to "think" if they are noisy. We can measure that. So how noisy are they?

Evidently this cute comment was not understood by some.

@iso1631 is saying that wind farms (and by extension, their supporters) think Trump is ugly and noisy. So, they mutually think this of each other.