14 ms·
>Despite local and international objections, the city and its archeological sites are soon to be flooded due to the completion of the Ilisu Dam. People who obj
by Grue3 7y ago
>Despite local and international objections, the city and its archeological sites are soon to be flooded due to the completion of the Ilisu Dam.
People who object to nuclear power often claim that in the worst case scenario, the plant might blow up and render large area uninhabitable. And yet we routinely flood settlements and fields with water for "clean reusable energy" even before any energy is generated! And in the worst case scenario the dam will burst and flood even more cities! Not sure how seismically active this area is, but a nuclear plant near this town might've been more preferable in all possible ways, including the amount of energy produced.
- bluedevil2k 7y agoTurkey is very seismically active, they just had a 5.1 earthquake there 2 days ago.
- ptah 7y agogood point, i think there is a backlash against hydro as well. turkey is planning some nuclear facilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Turkey
- eloff 7y agoI never looked at it like that, but you're right. Nuclear seems more attractive than many hydropower projects that get much less criticism. If only we humans were more rational about making decisions.
- Bartweiss 7y agoHydropower has started to get a worse rep, at least. First-world countries are generally tearing down more large dams than they build, and the Green New Deal explicitly excluded large-scale hydro (i.e. dams) from its definition of "renewable" on this basis. But it's true that the public backlash to dams is far weaker than nuclear. And together with developing nations being free to dam rivers, but blocked from refining uranium, bulk hydro is probably going to keep outpacing nuclear for a while.
- klingonopera 7y agoHydro can actually (easily) keep up with nuclear in terms of power capacity and actual generated energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations
- shawnz 7y agoHydro is on par with nuclear in capacity, but has caused an order of magnitude more deaths per kWh. EDIT: Almost an order of magnitude if you take the favorable numbers https://www.businessinsider.com/dam-safety-statistics-risk-of-death-2017-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/dam-safety-statistics-risk-o...
- beerandt 7y ago1.3x-8x multiplier per that source
- klingonopera 7y agoGiven the most favorable estimate for nuclear (0.2) and the most deadly for hydro (1.6) from that source, that's not even a single full magnitude. Flip the favorable/deadly bias around, and hydro looks to be safer (1.0 vs. 1.2). EDIT: Also, what's with that variance on nuclear? Another thing is that calculating the long term effects of nuclear fallout is quite difficult. How much evidence for and against could we have for rising cancer rates in Europe since 1986? (I don't actually know what the cancer rates are, but figuring out causation is probably very difficult, and may or may not have something to do with Chernobyl)
- jeremyjh 7y agoAs a proponent of nuclear I still feel compelled to point out that a nuclear catastrophe in Turkey could render much of Europe and the Middle East uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Chernobyl very nearly was that serious.
- macspoofing 7y ago>Chernobyl very nearly was that serious. No it wasn't. At no point did Chernobyl threaten to make 'much of Europe and the Middle East' uninhabitable for hundreds of years. About the worst that could have happened with Chernobyl happened. There just wasn't enough radioactive material in the reactor to have that big of an impact at that scale, and saying this does not invalidate the regional devastation that it did cause.
- klingonopera 7y agoNo, it actually could've been much worse: https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-...
- macspoofing 7y agoI don't think so. I'm trying to find some sources, and it seems like all the clickbait articles reference a book by some guy named Andrew Leatherbarrow, "Chernobyl 01:23:40" (and Leatherbarrow is just some guy without any particular expertise). I can't find any justification for why there was a chance that millions would have died and half of Europe was almost rendered uninhabitable. It smells like clickbait bullshit.
- klingonopera 7y agoI actually agree with you that the article sounds click-baity, unfortunately, HBO has made it so much harder to get good information regarding Chernobyl on the Internet nowadays[0]. Just one of four reactors "melted down". I'm no expert, but I imagine the worst possible is all four reactors literally exploding simultaneously, or one after the other in a rapid chain reaction, or something like that. [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09...
- pjc50 7y agoWith the hydro plant you at least get advance notice.
- beerandt 7y agoI don't think there's much of a practical difference. With the exception of withholding public knowledge, as in the case of Chernobyl. If anything nuclear warning systems (in the us, at least) are extensive within the ~30 mile zone (sirens everywhere), and have published plans for a ~60 mile zone, while I've never heard of warning systems for dams. Which isn't too say they're not-existant. Also, dam failures tend to happen during bad weather where evacuation is greatly hindered. This was an issue with the Oroville dam partial failure in 2017. Whereas in Fukushima, the warning and evacuation was effective even in the midst of the tsunami aftermath.
- mattkrause 7y agoI saw some dam failure warning sirens in Alaska. They were mostly in narrow, valleys in mountainous areas, or bridges crossing them. Here’s a brief article about testing them: https://www.ktoo.org/2013/07/17/aelp-to-test-sirens/ https://www.ktoo.org/2013/07/17/aelp-to-test-sirens/
- arethuza 7y agoThe book Atomic Accidents by James Mahaffey start with the description of an accident at a Russian dam that happened without pretty much without any warning and killed 75: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano-Shushenskaya_power_station_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano-Shushenskaya_power... Edit: I'm pretty sure that's the right accident - been a while since I read the book!
- gwbas1c 7y ago> nuclear plant near this town might've been more preferable in all possible ways Nuclear plants typically need to be paired with storage, which often involves pumping water. Thus, a nuclear plant in this location could still result in some form of a dam or artificial lake.
- jandrese 7y agoNowhere near the same magnitude as a hydropower setup though. We're talking about large swimming pools vs. flooding the entire valley.
- beerandt 7y agoIt also could be done independently and without affecting the natural flow of a major river/ecosystem. But I've never actually heard of nuclear requiring storage, except for emergency cooling.
- jandrese 7y agoNot even emergency cooling but for regular cooling. A place to stash hot detritus while it cools off over the course of a few weeks or months. Things like irradiated valve covers, spent fuel rods, etc... They toss them into a big pool and let the water moderate the neutrons until the part is cold enough to move to long term storage.
- beerandt 7y agoNot that kind of storage, hydraulic power storage. Dam / large lake scale stuff. Off course they need cooling pools with radiators, but that doesn't require a dammed off river.
- kragen 7y agoNuclear plants need utility-scale energy storage? Citation needed! Typically the situation is the opposite.
- asabjorn 7y agoYes, and hydro often has incredibly large negative effects on the environment. Same with wind energy that kills more birds than almost anything else. For instance, the Aswan dam on the Nile has decimated the flood deltas ecosystem and disrupted traditional eco friendly farming practices. https://www.quora.com/How-has-the-Aswan-Dam-negatively-impacted-the-Nile-River https://www.quora.com/How-has-the-Aswan-Dam-negatively-impac...
- gumby 7y agoI’m not a huge fan of nukes for various reasons but dams have a number of problems not well appreciated by the general public. There is often an ecosystem issue (as they cut of migration of animals and plants) which can have cascading fissures, and can build up a reservoir of heavy metals, farming runoff etc behind the dam. These problems have lead to dam removal (in he western USA at least) to restore fisheries and other resources. Nothing is without consequences of course so it’s hard to praise or condemn any single approach.
- beerandt 7y agoI've never heard of using "nukes" to refer to nuclear power plants. I assumed bomb at first.
- throwaway5752 7y agoMethane emission, also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-emissions-may-swell-from-behind-dams/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-emissions...
- cmroanirgo 7y agoNuclear power requires that we have safe nuclear storage facilities for the next 10,000 years or so. That's a huge investment. Considering most Western governments change hands every 4 years or so, then the vote to keep the nuclear storage facilities maintained must succeed at least 2500 times in a row. Also, do not forget that Fukashima is still an ongoing disaster that's only just recently begun to stabilize.
- bb88 7y agoChernobyl was just restabilized after 30 years, and will have to be restabilized again in another 100.
- beerandt 7y agoNo, the design lifespan of the new containment is 100 years, but decommissioning will be finished before then.
- selectodude 7y agoWhat do you mean by restabilized?
- stale2002 7y ago> requires that we have safe nuclear storage facilities for the next 10,000 years or so Not really, no. You should take a look at how many people die due to coal, and how much long term environmental damage coal is responsible for. Even in the worst case scenario of a Nuclear Accident, I would still rather that happen, than deal with the effects of coal.
- specialist 7y agoI can't separate civilian & military. Nor past, present, future. Nor the fissile material and all the byproducts. Nor the gathering (mining) and the disposal (reburying) of same. I'm strongly in favor of traveling wave reactors. We need more tools for reducing, mitigating our stockpiles. When the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's contaminants in the water table reach the Columbia River, everything downstream dies. For me, any discussion about new civilian nuclear is fullstop until all the other aspects are addressed. Meanwhile, we prop up the nuclear power we have during the transition to wind, solar.