Apple, Facebook and Google is the most environmentally friendly tech companies

>Apple, Facebook and Google is the most environmentally friendly tech companies
How does it make you feel?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
google.com/url?q=http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nrc-nuclear-safety-2011-full-report.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiwjLfOzr_RAhUDVyYKHSt6Du4QFggTMAQ&usg=AFQjCNEbrLd-GTmIGrJxAkhkSX8WdR263w
google.com/url?q=http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nrc-2010-full-report.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiwjLfOzr_RAhUDVyYKHSt6Du4QFggVMAU&usg=AFQjCNHcRQhUoXDaV7-BazY_RgpduFWYmw
world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Safety-The-Nuclear-Energy-Industry-s-Highest-Prior
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Almost makes me forget that they use slave labor.

>Nuclear
>Not clean energy

What do those numbers ( none of which add up to 100%) matter?
Do any of those companies build their own power plants? No. So they just buy up energy produced by renewable resources leaving less for the rest of the country and that makes them good somehow?

>waste that is still dangerous for millennia
>clean

>So they just buy up energy produced by renewable resources leaving less for the rest of the country
You mean they help expanding the market?

>Apple
>uses slave miners from africa
>uses cheap child labor forces in asia
>thinks shipping millions of phones, pcs etc to the other side of the planet is green
>it's cheaper than using local factories in countries with the larger consumer base because these countries actually enforce environmental regulations
desu i'm glad that shit isn't being produced locally, the damage the runoff of these materials cause far more damaging effects to the populations health than the economic benefits could ever conquer
saged cause OP is a baiting faggt
but i like being milked, so it's okay.

They're not, they use the same energy as everybody else. They just pay someone more so they can say they're using the "green" sources.

Still cleaner than coal plants, and still hundreds of times more efficient than useless wind or solar plants. Cheaper too. Nuclear power is the clean energy of the future.

>Still cleaner than coal plants
Sure but that's not saying much.

>still hundreds of times more efficient than useless wind or solar plants
>muh money
Pretty irrelevant if it isn't clean energy with the risk of a major fuck up. If the only alternative were coal plants, nuclear would be probably be worth the risk but given much better alternatives, it's not.

> Nuclear power is the clean energy of the future.
Not with the current advancements, no.

The risk of a "major fuckup" is still negligible, and even when accounted for it's still cheaper and more efficient and cleaner than everything else. Sorry but the grand total of like... 5 incidents maybe after decades of hundreds of plants operating all around the globe is NOTHING. The current "advancements" are based on subsidies and propaganda. Take that away and nuclear power is the only viable source. Luckily it's also the best one in all regards.

a lot of
>renewable energy
is in the form of solar/wind
meaning only specific times of the day are they actually viable.
if you run your factories/offices during the hours renewable alternatives are viable, then it really isn't a bad thing.
esp when hydro/nuclear is far cheaper and more accessible for the masses anyway.

The current nuclear industry in the US is more closely regulated and has a better safety record than ANY other type of energy. IAEA and USNRC studies confirm this. You have been led to believe political talking points.

Excep data centres which account for the largest fraction of power consumption of these companies have to run around the clock.

Smells like bullshit to me.

Radioactive materials are natural, so there's nothing to complain about.

Coal doesn't burn itself.

>Amazon
>26% nuclear

Makes me feel better knowing that the little bit extra I payed for my 12" retina macbook is going towards saving the world

>Amazon
>26% nuclear
Based Amazon

They also happen to be the most cancerous. I wonder how much they paid them off.

>hey guys we're green!
>meanwhile on the other side of the planet
>spew that coal power and electronic garbages.

>it wasn't dangerous before men mined it
>but now it is
>cuz reasons
>and we can't put it underground even though it radiates less than before
>cuz reasons
you are a special kind of retard, aren't you

stop watching green propaganda videos and think for a second in your life

t. physicist

I don't think that chinese factories are powered by wind turbines.

>put it underground even though it radiates less than before
More like dump it in Siberia or Africa because laws and corrupt local politicians will save you tons of money instead of burying it somewhere underground amirite senpaitachi?

nuclear energy still remains the cleanest, most efficient, and safest
if you give me the safest car on the market I can still be a retard and kill myself with it, won't make the car any less safe

Tell that to russian and african kids who will live next to nuclear landfill for next 200 years.

I don't care, it's not the energy type that is unsafe or unclean
I'm a scientist, not an environmentalist or a politician, I don't have to do anything with corrupt politicians or fucked up goverments, nor has nuclear energy

>o they just buy up energy produced by renewable resources leaving less for the rest of the country and that makes them good somehow?

Yes, "Green tariffs" from energy suppliers are normally more expensive than standard tariffs because generating the energy that way is less efficient in cost per watt terms. Most electricity companies have mandated renewables targets so they would still have to produce the electricity in the same make up but without people and companies falling for the "green tariff" BS all our bills would be proportionally higher.

This. 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl etc were all 1st/2nd generation plants built in 50s/60s. We are generations ahead in design now

But what about FuckUShima???

>useless wind
The county I live in is powered 100% by wind and tidal. Hell, the entire country regularly runs entirely on renewables for a day or more at a time.

Fukushima survived an earthquake stronger than it was officially certified for and, as per safety protocol, automatically shut down.
The problem was that the tsunami damaged the backup cooling system which is necessary as the reactor produces a small amount of heat even when shut down.

chinese companies don't give a single shit and that's why they're only getting bigger

A couple hundred people will eventually die because of this meltdown. Compare that to the number of people who will die from lung complications due to coal plant pollution and I doubt this will seem as bad, especially considering how many more coal plants there are.

With better placement of reactors (Montana) there would be very little risk of a meltdown and minimal civilian risk in the event of one

You can recycle nuclear waste up to 97%. U.S. is one of the few countries that doesn't utilize recycling.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

>Design

Not construction.

Do they use diesel servers?

Blame Obama

>Burn coal
>Release radioactive particles into the atmosphere
>Split the atom
>Bury radioactive particles in barrels deep underground

Can you see what is going on here?

>be France
>~80% of power is nuclear
>have cheaper power than rest of western europe and pollute less
good feel

>Hardware from the 60's and 70's starts to deteriorate
>at a site originally built for THE MANHATTAN PROJECT
>Nobody can enact a legitimate solution because people like (you) cry muh nuclear every time it's brought up
>thus, lawmakers or infrastructure committees won't get behind any kind of development for better containment
>resulting gimped clean-up takes decades leading to more muh nuclear
>people actually tyring to work on it can only stand around with their dicks in their hands
Still checks out

google.com/url?q=http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nrc-nuclear-safety-2011-full-report.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiwjLfOzr_RAhUDVyYKHSt6Du4QFggTMAQ&usg=AFQjCNEbrLd-GTmIGrJxAkhkSX8WdR263w

google.com/url?q=http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nrc-2010-full-report.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiwjLfOzr_RAhUDVyYKHSt6Du4QFggVMAU&usg=AFQjCNHcRQhUoXDaV7-BazY_RgpduFWYmw

world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Safety-The-Nuclear-Energy-Industry-s-Highest-Prior

Nobody undergoes the same amount of scrutiny and still stays running. Near misses in nuclear are taken as seriously a misses in any other industry.