Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 09/01/2025 00:16, rbowman wrote:

but the cost of
generation is only zero if you defer maintenance to the point where it
isn't worthwhile.

That wasn't exactly my point.
My point is that once the capital costs of wind solar and nuclear  are sunk, and the maintenance costs, the *opportunity* cost of generating electricity with them is essentially zero.
Neither require more maintenance to *not* generate than to generate.
Neither cost more in fuel terms to generate than to not generate (the cost of uranium fuel rods is trivial - less than $0.02c/kWh. And that means that if the market price of elecxtri8city falls below the level at which burning coal or gas is profitable, its still worth supplying nuclear - or indeed renewable - power.
So, they are competing in the *same* space.
Now consider if you have enough nuclear power to power the USA on a dark windless winters night, which you need in case there is no wind or solar.
You already have the technology then to power the whole country without 'renewables' What is then the  point of having 'renewables' at *all*?
The short answer is that that there is no point, and in fact they simply increase the variability of what the nuclear power plants have to generate.
They are a cost with no benefit whatsoever..
Once you have nuclear.
To put it simply, once you have enough nuclear power there is no justification for subsidised renewable energy whatsoever.
It would in fact be cheaper to simply state purchase all the windfarms and close them down.
--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
"Saki"