I find this is also a great way to decide if you even need it. I have a tab on my phone for stuff to buy. It collects so much crap I eventually deleted because the desire was fleeting.
I keep a paper list of large ticket items that I actually need so I can save up for them over time. I spend a lot of that time while saving shopping for the best option. I saved a lot while furnishing my house by buying secondhand because I had weeks and weeks to shop around.
Sometimes adding things to my online cart is enough of a thrill that I don’t even think about the fact I didn’t check out until the website sends me a coupon lol. Then I deleted it anyway because if I didn’t go through with it then I don’t really need it!
This is so so true. I cancelled prime ages ago so I don’t get fast shipping at all, and I only get free shipping if I spend over $35. Even in the cases where I decide it’s worth buying the thing on Amazon, I’ve got to wait to need more than $35 worth of stuff. Surprise surprise most of it just gets deleted out of the cart anyway.
That being said, I have only been able to find filters for my vacuum on Amazon (some no name brand I bought off there a few years ago) so they’ll still get some money out of me, but most stuff I can just ignore now. Next vacuum will be a big brand name so I can avoid that, but it will be a while before there’s a next vacuum, hopefully. Because in my mind it’s more ethical to keep using the old one as long as it works even if some more $ goes to Amazon vs buying a whole new item I don’t actually need yet.
The missing reason is that you should just buy less anyway and if you avoid Amazon it is slightly harder to just buy stuff.
That being said, if you need it cheap, quick, and you cannot source it locally, just buy it on Amazon. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You are not guilty of a moral crime by using them when the need exists.
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.
Ummm… Billionaires are people? Imma need a source on that.