4 ms·

What strikes me is the fact that nuclear power has received an incredible amount of backslash after the Chernobyl incident (a few thousands deaths) and the Fuku

What strikes me is the fact that nuclear power has received an incredible amount of backslash after the Chernobyl incident (a few thousands deaths) and the Fukushima incident (one disputed death), but hydroelectric power is considered a "good" source of energy despite a few incredibly deadly incidents: - Banquiao (China, 1975): between 26.000 and 240.000 [1] - Derna (Lybia, 2023): between 6000 and 20.000 deaths [2] - Machchu (India, 1979): 5000 deaths [3] - Vajont (Italy, 1963): 2000 deaths [4] - Möhne dam (Germany, 1943): 1500 deaths [5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Derna_dam_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Derna_dam_collapse [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morvi_dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morvi_dam_failure [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6hne_Reservoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6hne_Reservoir

rkomorn 1y ago
And the environmental impact up and downstream (both for failure cases and regular operation).
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
I think this line of thinking comes from a westernized world where all water is controlled. Many dams have been built around the world not for power generation, but to control flooding. The power generation is a secondary concern. In aggregate dams have saved far more lives, by managing flood waters. The great thing in 2025 is that we don’t need either the dam or nuclear risk for our electricity needs. Just build renewables and storage and the risk for the general public is as close to zero as we can get. The only people involved in accidents are those that chose to work in the industry installing and maintaining the gear. We should of course continue to focus on work place safety but for the general public the risk of a life changing evacuation, radiation exposure or flood from dam failure does not exist.
- madaxe_again 1y ago
  As you say, dams are a net positive, and while failures do happen, these days we tend to be wiser about where we put PHES in particular. I guess I’m surprised it isn’t more of an option for California - the U.K. uses Snowdonia as a giant battery, and afaik there’s been one failure of a dam that wiped half of trefriw off the map a century ago - which wasn’t hard as it’s a speck of a place. Since then the lakes have pretty reliably and safely provided somewhere to stick excess energy, and now are largely pumped by the offshore wind arrays nearby. California has big mountains, but I’m not sure if the geology or terrain is right for PHES.
disentanglement 1y ago
Did you really just attribute the deaths from a bombing raid on a dam during WW2 to a hydropower incident?
- kakacik 1y ago
  If a nuclear reactor was bombed during the war, would the resulting deaths be counted as a nuclear disaster and used as argument against it, or just another war crime? Depends who you ask I'd say.
- ziotom78 1y ago
  I was going to reply, but kakacik already said what I wanted.
- mpweiher 1y ago
  Is Fukushima generally attributed to the Tsunami or to nuclear power?
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Does that really matter? The cleanup costs are still socialized. It is time we move on from the fossil tradition of socialized losses on private profits [1] and instead let the nuclear industry bear their true insurance cost. No externalizing of costs like today. [1]: https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international-convention-on-civil-liability-for-oil-pollution-damage-(clc).aspx https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international...
    - mpweiher 1y ago
      It does if you complain that a hydropower disaster had a different proximate cause, which the person I replied to did. The whole intermittent renewables scam is private profits and socialized losses.
      - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
hylaride 1y ago
In Quebec, most of the dams are in the middle of nowhere, but your point still stands. There are costs/risks for most forms of power. If you're in an environment where wind and solar can make economical sense, go for it. For reliable base loads, I still think order of preference should be: - geothermal (very rare and hard to do at scale, though) - hydro - nuclear - natural gas - oil/diesel (at very small, localized levels eg remote villages) - burning live babies and cute animals - coal

rkomorn 1y ago

And the environmental impact up and downstream (both for failure cases and regular operation).

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

I think this line of thinking comes from a westernized world where all water is controlled. Many dams have been built around the world not for power generation, but to control flooding. The power generation is a secondary concern. In aggregate dams have saved far more lives, by managing flood waters. The great thing in 2025 is that we don’t need either the dam or nuclear risk for our electricity needs. Just build renewables and storage and the risk for the general public is as close to zero as we can get. The only people involved in accidents are those that chose to work in the industry installing and maintaining the gear. We should of course continue to focus on work place safety but for the general public the risk of a life changing evacuation, radiation exposure or flood from dam failure does not exist.

madaxe_again 1y ago
As you say, dams are a net positive, and while failures do happen, these days we tend to be wiser about where we put PHES in particular. I guess I’m surprised it isn’t more of an option for California - the U.K. uses Snowdonia as a giant battery, and afaik there’s been one failure of a dam that wiped half of trefriw off the map a century ago - which wasn’t hard as it’s a speck of a place. Since then the lakes have pretty reliably and safely provided somewhere to stick excess energy, and now are largely pumped by the offshore wind arrays nearby. California has big mountains, but I’m not sure if the geology or terrain is right for PHES.

disentanglement 1y ago

Did you really just attribute the deaths from a bombing raid on a dam during WW2 to a hydropower incident?

kakacik 1y ago
If a nuclear reactor was bombed during the war, would the resulting deaths be counted as a nuclear disaster and used as argument against it, or just another war crime? Depends who you ask I'd say.
ziotom78 1y ago
I was going to reply, but kakacik already said what I wanted.
mpweiher 1y ago
Is Fukushima generally attributed to the Tsunami or to nuclear power?
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Does that really matter? The cleanup costs are still socialized. It is time we move on from the fossil tradition of socialized losses on private profits [1] and instead let the nuclear industry bear their true insurance cost. No externalizing of costs like today. [1]: https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international-convention-on-civil-liability-for-oil-pollution-damage-(clc).aspx https://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/pages/international...
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    It does if you complain that a hydropower disaster had a different proximate cause, which the person I replied to did. The whole intermittent renewables scam is private profits and socialized losses.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago

hylaride 1y ago

In Quebec, most of the dams are in the middle of nowhere, but your point still stands. There are costs/risks for most forms of power. If you're in an environment where wind and solar can make economical sense, go for it. For reliable base loads, I still think order of preference should be: - geothermal (very rare and hard to do at scale, though) - hydro - nuclear - natural gas - oil/diesel (at very small, localized levels eg remote villages) - burning live babies and cute animals - coal