5 ms·
It's good that you don't mention hydroelectric energy, because based on your criteria this is the most dangerous way to produce electric power, killing 170,000
by folli 10y ago
It's good that you don't mention hydroelectric energy, because based on your criteria this is the most dangerous way to produce electric power, killing 170,000 people in a single incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
- makomk 10y agoExcept that Banqaio Dam was required anyway for flood control purposes, so the choice wasn't between killing 170,000 people and using some other form of power. All that not using hydroelectric power would've achieved is to ensure that nuclear proponents could no longer blame those deaths on hydroelectric power. Not only that, nuclear power didn't exist yet when it was built. Which is probably a good thing - Banqaiao Dam was build significantly under the specs recommended by its engineer for cost reasons, then operated unsafely; can you imagine what would happen if China built a nuclear power plant with the same approach?
- folli 10y agoCouldn't you use the same reasoning for Chernobyl? A requirement to build an electric power plant, sloppy construction, sloppy operation, resulting in a catastrophic accident.
- mpweiher 10y agoExactly. Chernobyl was an unsafe design, when safe(r) designs were well known. Its operation was not just sloppy, the operation that was performed was a crazy experiment that was well beyond the operating specs of the reactor, clearly illegal and unsafe even in the best of times.