[All Platforms][Other] Make spotify green - use clean energy for your servers!

Spotify should run its servers on 100% rebewable energy. Other music streaming portals do it! Why not Spotify?

Updated on 2019-08-21

Marked as new idea.

Comments
Rock Star 22
Rock Star 22
Status changed to: New Idea

Updated on 2019-08-21

Marked as new idea.

Denis_LT
Visitor

Why would you care what energy is used as long as it works and btw renewable energy isnt the cleaniest energy nuclear energy is much cleaner heres a video explaining this: https://youtu.be/lL6uB1z95gA

florig1
Casual Listener
"as long as it works" --> machine guns work, too, still I don´t like them
and they are not good for people. i think, you missed the point
"nuclear energy is much cleaner" --> ask the people from Fukushima how
clean they think nuclear energy is. deadly clean is probably the answer.
you must have missed a very big point here
Denis_LT
Visitor

Dude dont redirect our topic i was talking about the way things work not about things that work, that was very stupid example... i mean even comparing cars that use different fuel would be a better example but lets talk about nuclear energy now...

Okay lets add up Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters and nuclear energy still will take less lifes compared to other energy sources including renewable energy and if we will look at todays statistics less than one person per year dies because of nuclear energy, also nuclear power plants take much less space compared to renewable energy which can take upto 1/5 of the country to power it all, also the only subproduct of nuclear plants is nuclear waste which is recycled and the parts that cant be recycled are safely kept in the containers but who knows we might be able to recycle these too in the future, and if we will talk about lifes many many more people die building and maintaining these sturdy renewable energy sources and we need much more resources like metal compared to nuclear plants, also renewable energy is much worse for nature, tons of birds die every year just by getting sucked into wind turbines, many fertile fields or forests are cut just to build those solar panels and if you will look at countries like France and Germany you will see that french people with their nuclear power plants pay less money per kilowat compared to Germans with their renewable energy, also renewable sources dont produce energy continiously because sun doesnt shine all the time, wind doesnt blow all the time, and water sources like lakes can freeze in different seasons and geographical zones, but nuclear power plants produce energy continiously for years without stopping, bonus points is that to cool down nuclear plants use water making warm water cheaper for people of that country...

I hope you understood now that nuclear energy is much cleaner compared renewable energy and if you didnt understood until now other music services using renewable energy is just cheap marketing trick to make them more appealing to people.

Sure all people have their own opinion even if it's wrong and the one missinformed and missing huge points is you, if you dont believe everything i iust sayed you can google it and please next time find some information about the topic before writing your comments because you might look foolish

florig1
Casual Listener
I respect your efforts in explaining this. Really do. I would not do it.
However, I am German and my country is on the way switching off the nuclear
power plants and I think this is smart:
1. If the companies running the nuclear power plants would need to pay
insurance enough to match the possible costs of a blow out or melt down, it
would cost much more than any other power source. It's only cheap because a
catastrophe is not insured.
2. In Germany we have been looking for places to dispose the nuclear waste
for decades and they are at the beginning of the process. Everything they
found this far is not safe enough and needs to be cleaned out again - at
costs we cannot yet even estimate. The tax payer will need to pay all this.
And that will be something between 40 - 100 billion or even more. No one is
able to say.
So, it's only cheap because these costs are not included yet.
And Germany is not an exception. Only the US have so far a storage save
enough. Other countries are as clueless as Germany or even worse. And I
don't want to imagine what a cheap solution will look like e.g. in Russia.
3. There will be so much nuclear waste (like concrete from the buildings,
the pipes and insulations etc, etc...) that cannot be recycled. They just
need to put somewhere in the ground for hundred of thousands of years. How
can we just pass the bill to our kids and theirs and theirs and theirs...?
I really wonder how people will think of us today in a thousand years.
Thinking out that really embarrasses me.
4. Close to nuclear power plants and recycling sites the cancer rates have
increased. This has been observed in Germany and elsewhere more than once.
I wonder how you would feel with a recycling site or disposal cave right
next to your village.

As I have been following the discussions and the political process pretty
closely in my country, I feel quite informed actually. Thank you.

I know, solar power, wind turbines or water power plants have their
downsides. But they don't carry hidden costs. The materials used can be
recycled without any more risks or damage to our environment.

I hope I earned my effort points, now, too and I hope that I made clear,
that I did not make this proposal just because I have nothing else to do
than being a smart-**bleep**.
Denis_LT
Visitor

I actually dont know anything about state of nuclear power plants in Germany, but power plants in other countries are actually fairly safe infact because of all safety measures cancer rates around power plants are usually lower than in other places, also the chance of meltdown is very low, todays power plants are much weaker than russias chernobyl ones and are built by many of specialists with many security measures and if we're still talking about safety i found some actual numbers, its how much people die because of each source per 1 trillionth kilowat:

  • Solar takes 440 lifes
  • Wind 150 lifes
  • Hydro 1400 lifes
  • Hydro in U.S takes 5 lifes
  • Nuclear (including fukushima and chernobyl) takes 90 lifes per trillionth kwh
  • Nuclear in U.S takes 0.1 lifes per trillionth kwh

What this means is that nuclear energy still takes less lifes than other sources per trillionth kwh including fukushima and chernobyl accidents and in the U.S that never had these accidents nuclear energy takes 0.1 lifes per trillionth kwh while Hydro energy takes 5 lifes.

I agree with you that nuclear waste takes huge amounts of money to store, but price per kilowat in countries like France shows that these investments are still cheaper than investing into renewable energy and in the end the tax payers will pay less.

And yes the nuclear waste takes some place to store but it doesnt take up 1/5 of a country and i think that its better to store some waste in a hole underground than not being able to use 1/5 of a country.

Also people every year find new ways to recycle this waste, not long ago some guys made a diamond battery using nuclear waste, sure its output is weak but it could power low power devices like IoT for decades (around 5000 years), and people find new ways to recycle that shet of a nuclear waste.

Sure i agree that nuclear energy isnt perfect, but i think that its the best thing that we can do until we will create nuclear fusion plants