4 ms·

As others have pointed out, this is a nuanced question. The dams were not built to produce power, they were built to protect the area. The power generation was

As others have pointed out, this is a nuanced question. The dams were not built to produce power, they were built to protect the area. The power generation was done _because_ the dams were there, not the other way around. That is, even if the power wasn't wanted, this disaster would have happened, so from that perspective, this is not deaths caused because of power generation. In the other power generation cases, the object causing the deaths is _only_ being created to create that power. Without that power need, the object would not have existed. For example, it is possible to generate energy from tidal waves. However I don't think that anyone would suggest that means that all deaths from a Tsunami should be attributed to tidal wave power generation. The parallel here is that this (series of) dam(s) was built to control nature, and failed spectacularly at doing so. Is that the result of the power generation? There _are_ dams that are build primarily for power generation, these would make sense to include in the stats. If the dam failed because of a malfunction in the power generator, that would make sense to include in the stats. But that does not appear to have been the case here.

globular-toast 6y ago
On the other hand, none of the deaths are caused by the power generation, they are caused by the infrastructure built for that power generation. It just happens that there's no reason to dig up coal and build a massive furnace to burn it for no reason, but there are other reasons to build dams. So it would be better to compare dangers associated with that infrastructure (ie. dams vs coal power plants), but then it's comparing apples to oranges; there's no simple metric to compare these things.
sampo 6y ago
Similarly, the Russian RBMK nuclear reactors were designed for dual purpose: Producing electricity and producing weapons grade plutonium. Following your argument, we should weight down the Chernobyl disaster, when counting statistics for nuclear power?
- aaron695 6y ago
  Can you cite where the Chernobyl disaster was made the worse by the weapons grade plutonium production? I have never seen that, but of course you would reduce the numbers. It would be zero, if like some nuclear facilities the electricity was purely a byproduct. Unless I guess something that does the power creates the mess.
  - sampo 6y ago
    > Can you cite where the Chernobyl disaster was made the worse by the weapons grade plutonium production? Plutonium production: Wikipedia right panel: "Primary use Generation of electricity and production of weapon grade plutonium" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK Design safety issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Design_flaws_and_safety_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Design_flaws_and_safety_i...
  - retrac 6y ago
    The ease of plutonium production was one of the main reasons they went with the RBMK design. Definitely dual purpose from the beginning. The British and French did it with their early Magnox reactors as well, which have a couple design similarities. Also dual-purpose.
DennisP 6y ago
Arguing that the power generation is not really at fault would be great for defending the power company from lawsuits, but it's irrelevant to determining how often dams fail. If you're addressing a question like, say, whether it would be safer to build more nuclear power or more hydropower, then you really just need to know "if I build N dams, how many people will they kill in the next 100 years," and the same for nuclear plants. Unless you have reason to believe that hydropower dams are inherently safer than dams built primarily for other purposes, it makes sense to look at all dam failures.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Well no, it's not, because the dam would have been built anyways to prevent flooding. You'd have gotten the dam and a nuclear reactor instead of just the dam.
  - DennisP 6y ago
    I'm not talking about old dams, but about building new dams specifically for the purpose of providing renewable energy. Pumped storage is the cheapest way to store excess energy from wind/solar. If we want to know the risk of doing that, we should get the largest sample size by counting all the dams.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Certainly. The issue is that the above table is weighted by TWh. If we just wanted risk/dam it would make sense, but that's not what the above table was measuring. A staggering amount of dams exist that don't generate electricity, so if I had to guess we'd be on average at around 1 death or less per dam. Personally I think that the best solution is to switch to nuclear for all the baseload and then some and convert existing dams to pumped storage if necessary.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - 6y ago

globular-toast 6y ago

On the other hand, none of the deaths are caused by the power generation, they are caused by the infrastructure built for that power generation. It just happens that there's no reason to dig up coal and build a massive furnace to burn it for no reason, but there are other reasons to build dams. So it would be better to compare dangers associated with that infrastructure (ie. dams vs coal power plants), but then it's comparing apples to oranges; there's no simple metric to compare these things.

sampo 6y ago

Similarly, the Russian RBMK nuclear reactors were designed for dual purpose: Producing electricity and producing weapons grade plutonium. Following your argument, we should weight down the Chernobyl disaster, when counting statistics for nuclear power?

aaron695 6y ago
Can you cite where the Chernobyl disaster was made the worse by the weapons grade plutonium production? I have never seen that, but of course you would reduce the numbers. It would be zero, if like some nuclear facilities the electricity was purely a byproduct. Unless I guess something that does the power creates the mess.
- sampo 6y ago
  > Can you cite where the Chernobyl disaster was made the worse by the weapons grade plutonium production? Plutonium production: Wikipedia right panel: "Primary use Generation of electricity and production of weapon grade plutonium" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK Design safety issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Design_flaws_and_safety_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Design_flaws_and_safety_i...
- retrac 6y ago
  The ease of plutonium production was one of the main reasons they went with the RBMK design. Definitely dual purpose from the beginning. The British and French did it with their early Magnox reactors as well, which have a couple design similarities. Also dual-purpose.

DennisP 6y ago

Arguing that the power generation is not really at fault would be great for defending the power company from lawsuits, but it's irrelevant to determining how often dams fail. If you're addressing a question like, say, whether it would be safer to build more nuclear power or more hydropower, then you really just need to know "if I build N dams, how many people will they kill in the next 100 years," and the same for nuclear plants. Unless you have reason to believe that hydropower dams are inherently safer than dams built primarily for other purposes, it makes sense to look at all dam failures.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Well no, it's not, because the dam would have been built anyways to prevent flooding. You'd have gotten the dam and a nuclear reactor instead of just the dam.
- DennisP 6y ago
  I'm not talking about old dams, but about building new dams specifically for the purpose of providing renewable energy. Pumped storage is the cheapest way to store excess energy from wind/solar. If we want to know the risk of doing that, we should get the largest sample size by counting all the dams.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Certainly. The issue is that the above table is weighted by TWh. If we just wanted risk/dam it would make sense, but that's not what the above table was measuring. A staggering amount of dams exist that don't generate electricity, so if I had to guess we'd be on average at around 1 death or less per dam. Personally I think that the best solution is to switch to nuclear for all the baseload and then some and convert existing dams to pumped storage if necessary.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6y ago