And another proof why nuclear power is the safest form of power generation.
But, the cost appears to be very high. The nuclear reactor, is a very complex system of pipes and pumps, switches and relays, backup systems of backup systems, etc. It’s an incredibly complex way to produce electricity.
It moves around a lot of radioactive water, in its pipes. And then, it has a nasty waste byproduct, which will take 10,000 years to degrade before it becomes relatively safe. This is longer than recorded human civilization. And far longer than any continuous government has existed. And the container holding the waste might actually deteriorate before the waste becomes safe. Thus, the nuclear waste might end up leaking into the ground water, and now poisoning your water supply.
Whereas hydro is relatively safe. You’re just using gravity to spin the generator. Funnel the water rolling down a mountain, and let gravity do its thing. Easy. And no radioactive mess to deal with afterwards.
You can even float some solar panels on top of your dam reservoir, to generate more energy.
The dam will require maintenance of course. You have to clear the silt every few years. And then, you have to upgrade the concrete once every century or so. But, this is probably far easier, than dealing with radioactive waste.
Thus, they were determined to build the great Three Gorges Dam, to control the flooding. And even at the cost, where it would at least hold back the floods for a few decades, then this might be worth it, in order to prevent regular destabilization.
The society could at least grow and prosper for a while. This could buy the society enough time to build other fortifications, or do something to mitigate a future disaster.
These people here live in a flood plain. The water is washing down from the mountains, and the government didn’t build enough flood run off to handle the torrential downpour.
In the future, they should probably build their newer buildings on top of a 10 foot high concrete base. Or build more flood run off channels.
It’s easy to be a naysayer and cast your doubt about something. It’s much harder to actually do the research, and try to engineer something to hold back the forces of Mother Nature, for the greater benefit of their society.
I suspect there might be a bias towards high-profile dam failures in China involving hydroelectric dams because the larger dams obviously get more attention and were also more economically viable to incorporate hydroelectric power into.
Comparing apples to oranges and all that.
Evacuating 38mil is impressive, no less.
The UNSCEAR (GIEC group1 equivalent for radiation) rapport on Fukushima is enlightening.
Nuclear have a lot of drawback too (mining pollution, waste disposal) but is probably the energy ressource that killed the less people/MWh produced, and for sure the one destroying the less ecosystem/MWh.
I used to be anti-nuclear for the wrong reasons until an observation internship in a hospital were i learned how dangerous radiation actually was, but realistically, until a new breakthrough on superconductor is found and allow us a less expensive, more lasting magnetic containment for plasma, i don't see any other energy that can replace coal/gaz.