[sgustard]

Quebec has them both beat. Hydro rules!

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly

(To be transparent, there's controversy around calling hydroelectric renewable.)

[ziotom78]

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Derna_dam_collapse

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morvi_dam_failure

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6hne_Reservoir

[ViewTrick1002]

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.

[rkomorn]

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

[hylaride]

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

[disentanglement]

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

[idiotsecant]

I am a bit biased, as an engineer who works exclusively in hydro powerplants, but i think they're awesome too. With that said, it's becoming more apparent that in addition to the biosphere issues they cause, they also cause a pretty significant amount of methane to be released. https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-res...

It would put me out of a job but I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage, at least until we get fusion figured out.

[throwaway2037]

    > I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage

How about wind?

[oezi]

The linked article doesn't put these emissions in relation to anything. It is hard to imagine it to be a relevant amount of emissions, right?

[foobarian]

Hydro does rule. Top 8 power stations are hydro right now. And the top power station has been a hydro for over a hundred years now. Very cool! Three Gorges has capacity of 22.5 GW.

[zdragnar]

I really hope nothing bad happens at the three gorges dam. There's nearly half a billion people that would have to be evacuated, and tens of millions who likely wouldn't be able to evacuate in time due to proximity.

I'd rather live near a modern nuclear plant myself.