Ten reasons to avoid Amazon | Ethical Consumer
Ten reasons to avoid Amazon | Ethical Consumer
From ongoing abuses of its workers to aggressive tax avoidance, we list ten reasons to avoid Amazon.
You're viewing a single thread.
I agree with the message, but these two points following each other feels a little hypocritical:
โAmazon is supporting new nuclear plantsโ and โAmazon has a poor climate recordโ
Nuclear power is the most effective way to get out of climate change. Caring about climate change and being against nuclear power at the same time is a contradictory position to take, and needlessly puritanical.
If we could only rely on renewables, that would be very nice. That is not currently the case. We should strive to have more renewable energy, while keeping in mind nuclear power is here to stay and even be expanded as we eliminate carbon emitting sources of energy.
Imagine a capital juggernaut like Amazon invested in truly renewable energy instead of just trying to be power hungry assholes trying to race Google to the AI market.
The amount of technology that they could create simply from these investments could change the course of our planet. But, no. Line must go up next quarter. Not 2 years from now.
i disagree. nuclear power is expensive to build (usually exceeding the planned costs), is not resistant to high heat in summer (as shown by french summers), and a proper way of getting rid of nuclear waste is still not developed.
One Big Chart: how does the cost of nuclear power compare to renewables?
CSIRO confirms nuclear fantasy would cost twice as much as renewables https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/
Nuclear reactor in France shut down over drought Chooz Nuclear Plant on Belgian border turned off after dry summer evaporates water needed to cool reactors
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nuclear-reactor-in-france-shut-down-over-drought/1952943
And how many times the cost of renewables are the required batteries to make it not nearly useless? More than 2x, that's for sure. Nuclear is the clear choice for base load and renewables for loads above that.
I don't have them right now but you can find report showing solar has a very high cost. Especially end of life. And the method used to total up the cost of nuke vs solar ofen doesn't properly count other effects.
Genuinely, disposing of nuclear waste is not the slightest issue. Just dump it in one spot.
The good thing about science is that it doesn't care if you disagree, it just works the way it does
Building nuclear power plants is not a science problem, though, itโs an engineering problem. Just because we can harness energy by breaking up nuclear bonds does not mean that we can do so economically, given the constraints under which we have to operate power plants.
And OP never disputed the science anyways?
Also like solar wind and water power also involve science? As do coal plants? So like, really WTF are we even talking about with science "functioning"?
Edit: Seems like this is just the potato version of the "science is what's true whether or not you believe it" quote applied to policy...which actually doesn't work.
It doesn't matter whether or not nuclear plants are possible if humans don't build them. The science backing them existing is meaningless.
Nobody has ever died from nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste itself is a misnomer, there is no waste it's just uneconomical to use at a certain point, it still has a ton of energy potential.
https://newrepublic.com/article/48426/sadly-there-such-thing-nuclear-waste
If people stopped being hysterical about a technology they don't understand we could probably develop it.
They go so far over budget because of lawsuits, usually. Vogtle was announced in like 2011 and didn't even get to break ground until 2017, then got caught up in even more lawsuits, if I recall correctly. And while conventional nuclear plants will probably always have huge upfront costs that take 30 years to offset, SMRs are darn close to a full reality and those will be a lot cheaper, and will get cheaper over time, like solar panels did.
There's a plant in Phoenix Arizona that uses city wastewater to cool the reactors, so they can hold up to hot dry climates just fine if designed to do so. (Fun side fact, the plant has to clean the rad waste out of the water before they use it - the rad waste from medical procedures that get into wastewater would be enough to exceed their allowance of acceptable release).
I'll give you the waste issue, but it's 100% a matter of politics. You're going to have to convince a state to take it on and none of them will. But on-site cask storage isn't the worst option. It's worked for a long time. There's also a lot of research going into other stuff we might be able to do with it. (In fact, waste isn't an issue in France because they already recycle it; the US doesn't because some of the recycled materials could be used to build bombs).
By footprint (in terms of land and waste) nuclear is the best option still. It's still the most stable output (save perhaps geothermal, but you can't do that everywhere) One day we might have batteries good enough to make that less of an issue but right now it's probably not a good idea to abandon nuclear.
nuclear power is expensive to build
So? It pays for itself.
Horrible take.