Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
Date: 9 Jan 2025 00:00:37 GMT
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <lu8ht4FiharU2@mid.individual.net>
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net z06TEsCz+QtFoBDOTiqjOAqGMb1yMLyo1b/auYWRZ3Hhsuj2JE
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7ISV1lyGJhxVhVMI/bki+qxb0mE= sha256:v5eYfPT87BGaDNVp3sfX57Q8nuPtgIwK//+Ik8dFPA0=
User-Agent: Pan/0.149 (Bellevue; 4c157ba)
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:64026

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.