if they’re using this nuclear generated electricity, then, someone else cannot be. This is pure greenwashing.

...but as a business, they have chosen a non-CO2 source of energy for a very energy intensive sector of what they do.

Yes, they could have built a new non-CO2 energy plant dedicated to their own use. You and I and everyone else could individually go off-grid also. If that is what you are arguing for, I agree to a certain extent.

Up through July 2018, Luzerne County produced virtually all electricity using their nuclear plant, then, they brought natural gas plants on-line:

(By-the-way, notice that nuclear production has decreased over the years.)

Up through July, 2018, Luzerne County produced very little greenhouse emissions from electrical generation. Then, they started to.


If Amazon increases electricity consumption, without increasing the supply of nuclear-generated electricity, that increased consumption will be supplied some other way (i.e. by burning “frack gas.”)

If Amazon had built a new data center, and a new nuclear plant was built (by anyone) to supply its electricity, that would be meaningful. This is not. This is just greenwashing. Amazon claims they’re using "green electricity," while causing an overall increase in GHG emissions. Meanwhile, the plant they’re using is 40 years old. How much longer do you think it will remain on-line?

If not, Amazon should be, I mean, you should be.

FWIW: I purchase solar “credits” from a “farm” which did not exist before (I was on the waiting list, waiting for them to come “on-line.”) Now, I’m not naive, my power comes from “the grid” but I’m partly responsible for solar being put onto the grid which was not there before. (Believe it or not, despite our latitude, New York leads the nation in “community solar.”)

This is not the same situation at all. For 40 years, a nuclear plant has been producing electricity. Now, some of that production is being purchased by Amazon, and the customers which had been purchasing that production are now purchasing electricity generated by other means (i.e. primarily from gas-burning plants, although there is a small amount of “renewable” electricity being generated in Luzerne County.)

This is greenwashing, pure and simple, and you’ve swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

...is better than someone else's purchase of non-CO2 on-grid power.

Got it.

Thanks for your input.

Amazon’s purchase is leading to more dirty energy.

https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/news/fracking-arrives-in-luzerne-county-community/article_9ab654be-54a7-5cd8-8dd8-1138a638f136.html

Project Updates

The Caithness Moxie Freedom Generating Station in Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, is online and selling power into the markets of PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in thirteen Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

This $1 billion, highly efficient facility uses Pennsylvania-produced, clean-burning natural gas to generate more than 1,000 megawatts of electric power, enough to supply approximately 900,000 homes throughout the region.

Using state-of-the-art technology, the plant is the highest efficiency user of natural gas in the region. The dry-cooling technology used by the plant means that water usage is 95 percent lower than a plant of the same size using traditional cooling technology. A 1,050-megawatt, highly efficient combined cycle plant such as Freedom reduces CO2 emissions by 3.2 million tons per year compared to the older steam plants.

During construction, employment peaked at more than 650 workers per day at the site. Overall, it took more than 2 million man-hours to safely complete construction while remaining vigilant to the highest safety and environmental standards.

The Freedom Generating Station transitioned to commercial operation in September 2018.

…

"Amazon’s purchase is leading to more dirty energy."

But that's quite a bit of an assumption. Amazon is reducing it's future non-CO2 energy use by planning their new heavy energy useage facility to be powered by a non-CO2 source.

Amazon does not have authority over the entire grid or where that grid energy comes from.

Yes, we need to transition ALL of our energy sources to non-CO2 sources. But your barking up the wrong tree if you think Amazon is going to take on that cost.

If anything, YOU are encouraging more CO2-emitting energy usage by DIScouraging individual attempts to find non-CO2 sources while we still have CO2 emitting sources available.

Energy is a market vulnerable to demand. If more of us demand non-CO2 sources like Amazon has, that transition will come a lot faster.

(And just to be clear, I do not like the Amazon business model in the least for many reasons, and I strongly suspect this decision to purchase this particular location was based on monetary factors, not a desire to be green for green's sake.)

Scenario #1: Amazon comes to town, and helps finance a new nuclear plant which generates more electricity than they need, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That’s helpful!

Scenario #2: Amazon comes to town, and builds a solar farm to power their operations. OK, that’s carbon neutral.

Scenario #3: Amazon comes to town and purchases nuclear power from an existing plant, driving existing customers of the plant to buy electricity from a new natural gas facility. That’s counter-productive, but, since they’re purchasing their power from a nuclear plant, they brag about it being clean. That’s greenwashing.

...to spend extra money creating their own non-CO2 energy source.

I doubt they feel that same obligation.

I notice you don't expect the 'existing customers' to have an obligation to demand the new facility be non-CO2 emitting.

And my apologies, but I simply don't have time to continue going around and around with you on this as you seem to like to do. Thank you for your input.