The Three Gorges Dam is fully operational, and the power it generates is equivalent to that given by 15 nuclear reactors.

Well done China!

Yeah, but how many people were displaced to create the lake and dam in the first place, how much wildlife and eco-system has been destroyed for it.

Exactly. Hydro power is far from being a magic solution, taking huge areas under reservoirs and often changing the landscape quite drastically (combining many rivers into one etc.). According to wikipedia 1.24 million people were relocated for the three gorges plant.

On the other hand, nuclear power is also not as bad as a lot of people think (imo). It emits practically no green house gases and with the reasonable high demands for security, is very safe. From electricity point of view, nuclear power is quite nice, since you can often build it quite close to areas of consumption.

Go nuclear!

(partly joking, nuclear is no dream come true either)

It's relatively easy to complete huge engineering projects when you don't care about (a) people or (b) the environment.

Officially 1,24 and by other estimates up to 1.5 mio people had to be relocated. Archeological treasures had to be evacuated, just as in case of Lake Nasser south of Aswan. In case of Lake Nasser, wildlife not only recovered but that sizeable lake is now home to fish of sorts not present before. The eco-system may even be improved. But you only will see the longterm effects after a few decades.

About "It emits practically no green house gases "
True but quite a lot is generated by the building process & materials required.

How many people and animals were affected when Fukushima blew up? That were only two reactors, this dam has the power of 15 reactors.

P.S: The locals never complained that the got relocated - the problem was that the promised compensation payments apparently not really arrived where they should.

Swiss companies worked on this as well

Eco-systems recover and adapt.

Joke or not, what a load of tripe. Tell me, what do you do with the radioactive waste once it is used up?

I'm not specifically anti-nuclear, but the only real "cost" here is that of the people who were displaced.

Once that is settled (no pun intended), the rest is a win/win.

Yeah, nothing else. And as Treverus says above, it's really great even though there's a small hiccup of people not being compensated.

So, another successful large scale project of taking money from the population (in lost land, farming income, property) and putting it in the hands of the already rich (costruction firm owners, public company owners, local and central government officials).

it really wouldn't have cost much to have a proper consultation/compenstion package, but with everyone telling the Chinese government what a fanatstic job they're doing, why should they bother.

I know, Adrian, it isn't great.

But I would rather an motherEFing big HEP plant, rather than 15 nuclear powerstations run by a State who like to be economical with the truth, or for that matter x number of coal-powered plants belching out enough power to feed China's evergrowing energy demands.

Here's some interesting facts:

HEP has caused more deaths in the last fifty years than nuclear.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Number of deaths through Fukushima zero. Number of additional deaths of the next fifty years maybe 40 worldwide (statistically insignificant), making it impossible to attribute any one death to Fukushima. (Source, New Scientist 18 July 2012 )

Coal is the biggest killer by a huge margin - see also New Scientist March 2011 ).

Bloody scientists, confusing the issues with facts.



HEP produces significant quantities of CO2 and Methane. (Source New Scientist February 2005).

Bloody scientists, confusing the issues with facts.

__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

So, coal seems pretty feasible to me. On a more serious note, I'm not a fan of "so called" green energy, as in fact it is anything but green and rather expensive at at. I don't mind nuclear energy at all and taking all things in consideration, it does seem to be the cheapest as well as one of the safest solution out there.

I'm actually a big fan of nuclear power (despite recent failures) but you're right. China needs lots of power, and like you I'd rather they have a hydro-electric plant than more coal mines. The pollution coming from coal (at the plant, and people using coal directly at home for heating) is awful.

reprocess it or store it for several thousand years. no biggie.

the alternative is to grind it up into tiny particles and then release it into the atmosphere. "what are you crazy" you say? that's exactly what we do with coal power...

http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/780347.html

Sorry, i am not pro nuclear. Actually, i am sceptical about it at least for economical and political reasons and I wouldn't like Italy ,my country, to start nuclear energy program.

But i think that the common perception of danger (deaths and effect on health) related to nuclear energy compared to hydroelectric energy is misleading.

Two examples that i know:
171000 deaths : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
2000 deaths : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

Usually we think to Hydroelectric as a very save source of energy, and we consider only the effect of displacing people, but unfortunately citing from the OP's link:
" Over 360 million people live within the watershed of the Yangtze River. If the one in one thousand chance of a dam collapse occurred, the millions of people who live downstream would be endangered."

Have to say that the "1/1000 chance" seems exaggerated.

My 2 cents.

Trust me on this one, a nuclear program would be the least of the worries in Italy...

Why should I ?

I guess that China is not too worried that this "super-power generating" dam is built on a geologically unstable region. What would happen downstream from these dams should an earthquake collapse a dam wall?

But then again, I am sure they are fully aware of it... perhaps it is a form of population control.

Nuclear power is the only realistic way, currently, to meet future power demands. Fast breeder reactors convert readily available U-238 or Thorium-232 to fissionable Uranium - producing more than they consume of U-235. Thorium reactors may be the way forward. Of course, the holy grail is fusion. But that's been twenty years away for a long time...

The amount of waste is really very very small - but there's an irrational fear of radioactivity, coupled with a very rational distrust of politicians. Looking at it objectively, nuclear power is the cleanest source of energy we have - certainly very low in carbon emissions. Greenies should, in fact, be in favour of it, but there's been too much politics and investment in being anti-nuclear because of nuclear weapons for that to happen anytime soon.

__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!