4 ms·
>they still kill fewer people per installed GW and produced GW-h compared to coal, gas and even solar. By orders of magnitude. The worst hydroelectic catastro
by chasil 3y ago
>they still kill fewer people per installed GW and produced GW-h compared to coal, gas and even solar.
By orders of magnitude.
The worst hydroelectic catastrophe killed over 200,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
Coal has killed magnitudes above that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM
- jojobas 3y agoEssentially by not building proper nuclear we're scrimping on human lives.
- quickthrower2 3y agoThat first one might be of no use in a dataset for the US, UK etc. to make such decisions. It is a ridiculous outlier. 20-200k people die and there is a cover up.
- jojobas 3y agoWhether the government tries to cover up or not is of little consequence, the people are already dead. Multiple 100+ fatality dam accidents happened in the US and other Western countries about the same time, lower fatalities owing to lower population density rather than some different level of diligence.
- quickthrower2 3y agoThe cover up talks to the culture, which talks to the risk given the era and country involved. Dams are more dangerous than reactors in general, but really we should be looking at the risk of specific projects given all those factors.
- uecker 3y agoI would say that calling this a "hydroelectric catastrophe" is misleading. The main motivation for building this dam was apparently to control flooding.