4 ms·

And they‘re building a new dam in Turkey which destroys large areas of cultural-historic land just to construct a hydro-plant with just 1200 MW installed electr

And they‘re building a new dam in Turkey which destroys large areas of cultural-historic land just to construct a hydro-plant with just 1200 MW installed electricity, just 1/4 of the power delivered by the new Akkuyu nuclear power plant. > https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/12/they-are-barbaric-turkey-prepares-to-flood-12000-year-old-city-to-build-dam https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/12/they-are-barb... A lot of severe stress environmental damage could have been prevented if we had built more nuclear power plants.

collyw 6y ago
Dams really aren't environmentally friendly in the way many people assume they are.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Or as safe; 230.000 people died in just one instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure). 112 people died building the Hoover Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths). Compare that to what are considered massive world news nuclear power plant tragedies like Chernobyl (about 31 direct deaths, long term effects are up for debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...) and Fukushima (1 direct death, low counts of radiation poisoning that can be attributed to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... ).
  - tedeh 6y ago
    Unlike water, radiation can't be seen which is why it is so frightening to the average person.
    - Carlton2082 6y ago
      >radiation can't be seen Not to be pedantic, but...
    - throwawayboise 6y ago
      > radiation can't be seen Neither can many other pollutants, but it can easily be detected, in fact it's probably one of the most easily detected.
  - natmaka 6y ago
    Not really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24301436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24301436
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Are there any studies comparing QALYs gained and lost instead of deaths?
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  Dams are MORE environmentally friendly than most of the alternatives so that assumption is not entirely wrong. If the choice is between environmental damage from fracking or coal mining and deaths from coal pollution or flooding a valley somewhere...
  - collyw 6y ago
    Conveniently ignoring nuclear power.
    - Ensorceled 6y ago
      MOST. I'm from Ontario and we get 58.3% of our electricity from clean, safe CANDU reactors. Why did you assert I'm ignoring nuclear power? It has nothing to do with Dams being LESS polluting than MOST of the alternatives.
  - ryathal 6y ago
    Other than the massive areas of land they flood and destroy (but you don't live there right?), or the fish that can no longer swim upstream, or anyone downstream that has to deal with reduced flow...
phaemon 6y ago
Unfortunately nuclear power plants are notoriously bad at providing a) water supply and b) flood control. Especially the latter. The Guardian kind of forgot to mention these as factors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il%C4%B1su_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il%C4%B1su_Dam

collyw 6y ago

Dams really aren't environmentally friendly in the way many people assume they are.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Or as safe; 230.000 people died in just one instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure). 112 people died building the Hoover Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Construction_deaths). Compare that to what are considered massive world news nuclear power plant tragedies like Chernobyl (about 31 direct deaths, long term effects are up for debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...) and Fukushima (1 direct death, low counts of radiation poisoning that can be attributed to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... ).
- tedeh 6y ago
  Unlike water, radiation can't be seen which is why it is so frightening to the average person.
  - Carlton2082 6y ago
    >radiation can't be seen Not to be pedantic, but...
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    > radiation can't be seen Neither can many other pollutants, but it can easily be detected, in fact it's probably one of the most easily detected.
- natmaka 6y ago
  Not really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24301436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24301436
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Are there any studies comparing QALYs gained and lost instead of deaths?
Ensorceled 6y ago
Dams are MORE environmentally friendly than most of the alternatives so that assumption is not entirely wrong. If the choice is between environmental damage from fracking or coal mining and deaths from coal pollution or flooding a valley somewhere...
- collyw 6y ago
  Conveniently ignoring nuclear power.
  - Ensorceled 6y ago
    MOST. I'm from Ontario and we get 58.3% of our electricity from clean, safe CANDU reactors. Why did you assert I'm ignoring nuclear power? It has nothing to do with Dams being LESS polluting than MOST of the alternatives.
- ryathal 6y ago
  Other than the massive areas of land they flood and destroy (but you don't live there right?), or the fish that can no longer swim upstream, or anyone downstream that has to deal with reduced flow...

phaemon 6y ago

Unfortunately nuclear power plants are notoriously bad at providing a) water supply and b) flood control. Especially the latter. The Guardian kind of forgot to mention these as factors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il%C4%B1su_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il%C4%B1su_Dam