2 ms·

Yeah, kinda? In "most" military situations, the enemy would not want the dam destroyed - because it's a valuable part of what they want to conquer, or doing so

Yeah, kinda? In "most" military situations, the enemy would not want the dam destroyed - because it's a valuable part of what they want to conquer, or doing so would flood their own supply lines, or whatever. And having a well-placed reservoir could save your butt if a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm#City_firestorms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm#City_firestorms got started. To keep providing power to the grid, everything from coal to solar to nuclear needs "forever" maintenance. Yes, an unmaintained dam is a hazard. That can be neutralized with a strategic breach, or (some locations) letting the reservoir silt up. But high-rise buildings, flood-control dikes, and quite a few other things are also "people die if not properly maintained" hazards.

vidarh 6mo ago
The issue is that many large dams will kill a huge number of people if they fail. The Banqiao dam failure alone is the worst power plant failure in human history by several magnitudes. Not many dams have the potential to kill that many, but there are thousands of damns with potential to make Chernobyl look like a minor little affair. As for wars, you just need to go back to 2023 for the last major dam to be blown as part of war. It "only" made 60k people homeless and killed 200-300. Just last year another dam was hit by drones but didn't burst.
- bell-cot 6mo ago
  While "big dam failed, lots of people died" is a very clicky headline, you are overselling it. Between the direct costs (at the plant), and still having a 1,000 sq. mile exclusion zone 40 years later, Chernobyl really isn't overshadowed by the potential of thousands of dams. And by the hellish standards of that war - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Total_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain... - 200 to 300 dead is a rounding error.
  - vidarh 6mo ago
    We could have a Chernobyl every year, and the environmental impact would still be a rounding error compared to hydro, if we're going to go to environmental impacts rather than lives. That is the weakest aspect of hydro - it causes massive green house gas releases during and in the aftermath of construction, and destroys vast ecosystems.

vidarh 6mo ago

The issue is that many large dams will kill a huge number of people if they fail. The Banqiao dam failure alone is the worst power plant failure in human history by several magnitudes. Not many dams have the potential to kill that many, but there are thousands of damns with potential to make Chernobyl look like a minor little affair. As for wars, you just need to go back to 2023 for the last major dam to be blown as part of war. It "only" made 60k people homeless and killed 200-300. Just last year another dam was hit by drones but didn't burst.

bell-cot 6mo ago
While "big dam failed, lots of people died" is a very clicky headline, you are overselling it. Between the direct costs (at the plant), and still having a 1,000 sq. mile exclusion zone 40 years later, Chernobyl really isn't overshadowed by the potential of thousands of dams. And by the hellish standards of that war - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Total_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain... - 200 to 300 dead is a rounding error.
- vidarh 6mo ago
  We could have a Chernobyl every year, and the environmental impact would still be a rounding error compared to hydro, if we're going to go to environmental impacts rather than lives. That is the weakest aspect of hydro - it causes massive green house gas releases during and in the aftermath of construction, and destroys vast ecosystems.