https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2016/12/11/mosul-dam-coll...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-probl...
Until we live in a world where we can micro-generate terawatts of power on a fully distributed, dynamic electrical grid -- if that's even possible -- the only practical technologies we have for satisfying our hunger for energy involve concentrated areas of high potential energy. Big energy, big target.
I believe the reason people worry less about hydroelectric dam failures is because, if they fail, they do not leave behind a contaminated area. Besides, it's just water; many people are used to floods caused by heavy rain, and the danger feels similar. In fact, hydroelectric dams can even help prevent (or contain) flooding, so it's the opposite of causing damage in that case. Of course, we're not talking about tailings dams, which do leave behind a trail of contamination when they fail.
(An interesting case is the failure of a tailings dam many years ago which flooded the Rio Doce with pollution, with that flood being mostly stopped by a hydroelectric dam downriver. The hydroelectric dam contained the damage instead of causing it.)
I don't know what "people feel", but the reality of a large dam that is blown up is more like a tsunami than a normal flood. If it hits a city, casualties can easily reach the 10s or 100s of thousands, instantly.
In a way, an upstream dam is a health hazard for anyone in the area that might be flooded that should be concerning at the same level as living in an area that has had some nuclear contamination.
This isn’t common, to say the least.
Water is not that polite...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_d...
Rivers are often dammed to create an artificial body of water that can be used for power generation. You are storing water from the river when it has a high flow rate, in order to be able to generate power when needed.
There is nothing that requires the area downstream from the dam to have been previously underwater.
They very easily could, especially if they wipe out a chemical plant, a dump site, or a number of other things.
If someone blows up Kakhovka dam in Ukraine, it'll be about 18e9 m3, hundreds of thousands dead, wholesale destruction of everything downstream, shutdown of every energy plant that uses the resevoir for cooling, not to mention the hydroelectic station, and untold damage when winds blow the exposed sediment all over the steppe. Which is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world.
So? This Kakhovka dam is a legitimate military target as the last remaining supply route for russian troops in/around Kherson.
Not under the Geneva Convention "Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population." https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
More sanctions? Direct military action against a major (or any) nuclear power? Condemnation and isolation for decades or longer?
They have violated yet the Geneva convention (and its laws that oblige to hummanitary treatment of civils in a war) countless times in a few months, and at a level rarely seen before.
Couple of 1000lb bombs misplaced, some confusion and you can't stop it, only watch. Has to be a very unfortunate hit, but shit happens.
Compared to that, the Zaporoshya nuclear plant will just shut down as designed even if hit in all its reactors; release maybe a week's worth radiation, completely harmless, and then sit still. And it's just upstream.
Think about it.
So-called 'green energy' bears so much more hazards.
Intentionally breaching the dikes of the Yellow River killed nearly a million people, displaced several million more, and was a contributing factor to people turning towards the Chinese Communists and away from the KMT.
In case of nuclear incident, actual death may be lower but the affected people will keep being concerned about health issues and complain (rightfuly so) about the necessary relocation, which makes for stronger staying power in the news.
Bill a friend of mine built a large addition on a house which had flooded twice while he had been living there, once actually reaching the second story. In his mind it’s picture perfect 99.9% of the time so what’s an inconvenience every few decades. In the end he died before the next flood, but now there is a nice house in a flood plain.
This isn’t reserved to individuals, companies didn’t abandon large areas of NYC after the last flood. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/flood-hazard-ma...
So such trickle down just shifts who builds in such areas but it doesn’t prevent people from living or building in them.
I think we learned the answer to that question last winter down in Texas.
Replace the wind farms with nuclear power and the problem goes away.
A combined cycle plant costs around $1/W. A nuclear power plant costs around $10/W.
Why do you want to spend so much more money than you have to, just so you can split atoms?
Of course, the Geneva Convention bans attacking dams, just like it bans attacking nuclear power plants.
The pollution from burning coal has already killed more people than nuclear disasters conceivably could.
If we could use only wind and solar power to fully replace fossil fuels and hydro, that could be a reasonable argument...
But it seems unrealistic to get enough energy without using some higher-density sources of energy, whether that's hydro or nuclear or oil, and if we're picking based on which one causes the least death, even accounting for wars and failures, nuclear seems to be a head and shoulder above the rest.
The primary thing that seems to be driving using coal plants and not using nuclear is purely monetary cost: nuclear plants take a huge up-front investment, coal plants already exist, and wind/solar can be transitioned to gradually with less up-front cost. The talk about nuclear's "danger" to me seems, quite plausibly, to be a post-facto justification based on not wanting to put up the money.