Flood control is often the goal of dams.
Comment on A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark
Forester@pawb.social 2 weeks agoThe chinese claim only 26k deaths some estimates place it at 260k deaths i’m not being exact its a ballpark. No one source tracks all deaths from renewables or fossil fuels or nuclear. 52 dams collapsed not one.
structural failures rather than a product of the power source and what do you think collapsed the dams if not the power source?
Its mismanagement and failure to properly engineer for the situation on hand. Water is heavy the built weak dams to generate hydro power. They had a cascade of containment failure events. likely ~130k people died directly from this event. The other ~10k is a rough estimate on other deaths from similar incidents en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st…
Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Forester@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
At the time, Chinese construction workers had no experience with building major reservoirs and, as a result, the design and construction was completely under the guidance of experts from the Soviet Union. The design of the dams overly focused on the purpose of water storage (for hydro electric power generation and farming) while overlooking the capacities of preventing floods.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
so… hydroelectric power stations collapsed, thus renewable energies like wind turbines and solar power are bad?
mirshafie@europe.pub 2 weeks ago
Wind and solar aren’t bad, they’re approximately the same as nuclear.
Forester@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
If nuclear is too scary because it killed ~5k why is hydro considered safe when it has a kill count 100X higher?
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
that’s not the question here. Why are you throwing unrelated things in with hydro?
Forester@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
Ah yes the unrelated renewable source that doesn’t make up 2/3 of all renewables production. Image ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy