Talk:Energy accidents

Dam failures are not energy accidents

It seems obvious but apparently needs stating: dam failures are not energy accidents unless the accident was caused by the hydroelectric part of the dam or the dam was specifically build to generate electricity.

Dams with hydroelectric power stations are almost always built for some non-energy related purpose. In the case of the Chinese dam that failed electricity production was a nice side benefit, not the reason for the dam being built. That being the case the failure is clearly not an energy accident, it was a dam failure and the attached hydroelectric plan was destroyed along with it. To put it another way if your car crashed because the wheels fell off you wouldn't say it was a failure of the radio. The radio is a nice addition to the primary function of the car - to transport you. It would be fairly bizarre if the newspapers lead with "AM/FM radio injures car passengers", along side a photo of the car missing a couple of wheels. Mojo-chan (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, however, IMO more often than not, dams are being build for the sake of power generation. Anyway statements need references either way. -- Stratoprutser (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop selectively editing out material that doesn't fit with your point of view. The material you removed is well referenced in the document cited. To be friendly, you should be aware that life cycle assessments(LCAs) studies of energy accidents include the failure of hydroelectric dams as they are a vital component for the production of hydro-electricity, no dam = no 'head height of water' = no electricity generation possible, so as dams are essential for the generation of electricity, their negative impacts are included in LCAs. Moreover the Chernobyl RBMK reactors were not built(much like the Banqiao dam) for the singular expressed purpose of electricity production. Neither were the UK's Magnox reactors for that matter, both are examples of production reactors with electricity cogeneration as a a nice side benefit, so by your own criteria, if you exclude Banqiao you also exclude Chernobyl, as it wasn't a dedicated electricity generating power reactor like a US pressurized water reactor.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to include the reports by the Paul Scherrer Institute

Look them up, energy fatalities.

Is pollution an "energy accident"?

I admit I've just run across the term "energy accident", but it it seems strange to call pollution (including London smog) and black lung "accidents". Are there reliable sources that call them energy accidents?--Wikimedes (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to consult our resident expert on energy accidents, Prof. Benjamin K. Sovacool, at User:Bksovacool... Johnfos (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnfos, thanks for thinking of me. I know of two different definitions of energy accidents, neither of which include pollution. Researchers at the Paul Scherrer Institute used to run a database of energy accidents. The architects of that database defined a “severe accident” as one which involves one of the following: at least five fatalities, at least 10 injuries, 200 evacuees, 10,000 tons of hydrocarbons released, more than 25 square kilometers of cleanup, or more than $5 million in economic losses. My own (from the study in Energy Policy I think you're referring to) defined a “major energy accident” as one that resulted in either death or more than $50,000 of property damage.Bksovacool (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If pollution related deaths due to the use of an energy source, such as smog, are not regarded as "energy accidents" then that would exclude all off site deaths that are predicted to occur from Chernobyl's reactor no.4 fallout pollution, would it not?