Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:00:16 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>

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.

>
For the most part the wind and solar projects are subsidized for political
reasons. If nuclear generated power was cheaper and wasn't limited like
fossil fuels what would be the rationale?
 

And it seems to be that the infrastructure for distributing electricity
is the same once it leaves the generating plant.

>
There's the rub. In the US effective solar is limited to the southwest.
Suitable wind sites are more widely distributed but both are often far
from where the energy is needed. Iowa has wind capability but the
infrastructure to bring it to Chicago is lacking. I'm not going to hunt up
a cite but I believe almost all current nuclear plants are within 75 miles
of the area they service.

First of all, The Natural Philosopher seems to be ignoring the costs (and
paranoia) of storing the spent nukes safely.

Second, it seems to me that the "renewables" would still be useful to "fill in
the gaps" in service. But here I'll stop.

--
Beauty is one of the rare things which does not lead to doubt of God.
-- Jean Anouilh