Tech’s investments in nuclear is the single most compelling argument against solar and renewables being enough to sustain the grid.
For most of us the compelling argument would be the underlying data and decision making that Amazon made, not the outcome of Amazon's decision alone.
If big tech are rational actors—and I see no reason to believe otherwise—then they must have compelling reasons to think that their future growth of AI data centers can’t be met by renewables alone.
At least not cost effectively. Why?
It’s not proof that renewables aren’t enough but it’s compelling enough evidence to investigate further.
Finally: I also don’t know who “most of us” is; who do you believe you speak for?
I'd rather hear the case, than hear that some judge heard the case in secret and trust their conclusion.Especially as what is a strong case for amazon may including things irrelevant or outright mis-aligned to the public interest though.
I'm not going to pursue this argument further with you.
Edit: On the off-chance you're a journalist--because I do know a few who lurk here, though they'll never admit it--then consider this a compelling line of thought and evidence to do some actual legwork.
This argument makes no sense. There are a zillion different companies, research labs, VCs etc making investments into everything- better solar panels and better batteries and yeast that make biofuels and modular nuclear reactors and lower-energy CPUs and alternative ways to make fertilizer or concrete and on and on.
You're saying in essence, "Because a company with specific use-case X wants technology A, then technology B must be bad".