Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:19:37 +0000
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <vlmmkp$2ugb8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vkjmdg$30kff$1@dont-email.me> <lto9qbFso18U3@mid.individual.net>
 <slrnvnegk1.2cl6d.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com>
 <8b262a1f-507f-ef10-e4d3-a981dca5b7d1@example.net>
 <vl8jdq$3st6d$1@dont-email.me> <vl8jul$3sqfa$4@dont-email.me>
 <vl8otk$3splv$3@dont-email.me> <vl8qm7$3u6t2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vl93dl$3vkun$1@dont-email.me> <vl9449$3vo6h$3@dont-email.me>
 <vl9aov$pp7$1@dont-email.me> <vla4hr$5n4v$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlblqj$harb$1@dont-email.me> <lttopaFoh2cU8@mid.individual.net>
 <vle8uk$12sii$2@dont-email.me>
 <c686fb74-4fac-0809-7005-417c76ee0e3b@example.net>
 <nbReP.633803$oR74.271654@fx16.iad>
 <2e17ec15-582f-5a71-84e5-d4d490274270@example.net>
 <vlj20k$25740$9@dont-email.me>
 <7454fa51-3534-2584-2197-90613efb2091@example.net>
 <q0925lxllh.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <vllu7h$2pqit$6@dont-email.me>
 <vlm0ig$2q8uf$3@dont-email.me> <vlm5ue$2re12$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlm9ai$2rt0b$3@dont-email.me> <vlmfb1$2t6l2$2@dont-email.me>
 <vlmlgg$2u6ja$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 21:19:37 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="db7a7601fe62b12a4d45a615e74a0b35";
	logging-data="3096936"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DOZLEo+x+qcOm7CE+kR5aPRZu5nuKwNI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kV++vl4wvVhR28afH7kqjnU/W2w=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vlmlgg$2u6ja$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5477

On 08/01/2025 20:00, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
> 
>> On 08/01/2025 16:32, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 08/01/2025 14:02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> No, it is not the people who dont want nucler, it is the oil gas and
>>>>>> renewable companies who don't want nuclear, and who spend an enormous
>>>>>> amount of money on negative propaganda and buying politicians and
>>>>>> regulators, who tell you that the people don't want nuclear.
>>>>> Well, we know that, at some point, oil and gas will become scarce and
>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what's in the nuclear objection for "renewables", though.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a nuclear grid there is no point in having any renewable
>>>> energy whatsoever. It simply adds cost complexity and unreliability for
>>>> no benefit whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Renewable companies are only too aware of the fact that widespread
>>>> adoption of nuclear power means the end of wind and solar.
>>>
>>> None of that makes sense to me.
>>
>> That is not my fault. I said it in as few syllables as I could, that
>> renewable energy intests are totally threatened by nuclear power, Is
>> that simple enough for you?
> 
> No, it's too simple. Probably simplistic as well.
> 
> I don't see how widespread adoption of nukes means the end of wind and solar,
> when those two coexist right now with oil/gas/coal generated power.
> 
Lol.

That's because you neither understand the reasons nor the economics of 
that coexistence.

> And it seems to be that the infrastructure for distributing electricity
> is the same once it leaves the generating plant.
> 
> But obviously my thought on this is not well informed.
> 
No, it isnt.

The salient point is that the fuel cost of nuclear is minimal. Once 
built fuelled and serviced the opportunity cost of generating 
electricity is pretty much zero. Whatever else you put on the grid 
nuclear can and will always undercut it to allow as much of the asset to 
generate income

Renewables can coexist with gas, because gas can save money if it 
doesn't generate.

But whatever space nuclear takes up, it will always be to the exclusion 
of all other technologies because it cost as much not to generate as to 
generate. Same as a windfarm or solar farm.

So nuclear coexists with gas for peak demand following, but directly 
competes with renewables for baseload. It is however a far superior 
quality product. It is independent of the weather, needs no external 
storage to stabilise the grid, can be built near demand centres and its 
ecologically and environmentally sensitive and efficient in terms of 
site usage. And far cheaper to maintain and less liable to downtime. And 
it lasts longer

We could run nicely on 30GW of nuclear and 20GW of gas with no renewables.
But we couldn't run on less than 100GW of renewables with 50GW of gas 
with any reliability.

 From the grid perspective, intermittent renewables simply add to the 
problem of a varying demand. Meaning far more capacity is needed in e.g. 
gas and other dispatchable plant. That costs money.

By taking renewables off the grid you only have variability due to 
demand. The amount of gas needed to balance drops dramatically and 
nuclear runs all the baseload.



-- 
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker