Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

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