View Full Version : Choosing the Right Kind of Power Plant


xGBox
Dec 21, 2005, 05:55 PM
Just a good guideline when it comes to factories and power plants:

You can start building factories as soon as you complete the assembly line. Although it's pretty late in the game, it is highly recommended if you want to produce things in your city faster. Alone, a factory gives +25% productivity. With power through one of the three power plants, you get an additional +50% productivity. With a forge, you can have up to +100% productivity in a city. Add this with some productive resources like aluminum, iron, coal, or copper, and daaaaamn! How about with Ironworks? Production would practically skyrocket to around +200% if you have both coal and iron for it!

There are four ways to get power in your city:

1. Coal Plant - Let it be known that even though you can build a coal plant without coal, you do need coal for power. However, along with a factory, this brings a total of +3 unhealthiness. That's not good, so try to counteract that with aqueducts (with Masonry, Mathematics) and hospitals (with Medicine). I actually recommend this if you also focus your research on Ecology, which then you can build recycling plants. Recycling plants eliminate all unhealthiness caused by buildings. Ultimately, a coal plant will have the features of a hydro plant, but only eventually.

2. Nuclear Plant - A nuclear plant requires uranium to give power. Although it doesn't give off unhealthiness, it has a small chance of a nuclear meltdown. It says "small", but personally in due time a nuclear meltdown will occur, but that's if you play for quite a long time. If you're close to year 2050 (for a time victory), I doubt a nuclear meltdown will happen so soon. But if you're trying to withstand the test of time, avoid this and just go with a coal plant or hydro plant.

3. Hydro Plant - Obviously, the best of the three. The only drawback is that you can only build this in cities next to a river, not the ocean. If your city can build a hydro plant, be sure to pick this out of all three because it is clean and doesn't cause a nuclear meltdown.

Now, above all else for the +50% prouctivity, there is a world wonder that also gives power:

4. The Three Gorges Dam - You can start building this as soon as you build plastics (Plastics can be built after Industrialism). This world wonder gives power to all cities on the continent that it is built on. So, only build it on the continent where you have the most cities for maximum effect! If you have 6 or so cities on a continent, just rush for this so you don't have to waste turns making power plants for every one! You should think of this as a priority when you're playing on a single continent, such as Pangaea and Great Plains.

(If you have better strategies when it comes to power plants, please be sure to comment and I'll change this post accordingly!)

Krikkitone
Dec 21, 2005, 11:28 PM
actually a
forge gives +25%
a Factory gives +25%
Powered Factory gives +50%

for a total of +100% (the power 50 is added to the factory's 25 base)

Unless one is having serious health issues, coal and waiting for recycling seems to be better than nuclear (hydro/3GD being the best of course)

xGBox
Dec 22, 2005, 01:16 AM
Riiiight. ;)

Fixed!

CargoCult
Dec 22, 2005, 01:57 AM
Am i alone in finding it iratating that this and many other games think its so likley the nuclear plants go boom?

Far better i would think to give them unhapiness boost to the city - match current (if in my opinion misguisded) opiions on the matter!

DaviddesJ
Dec 22, 2005, 02:07 AM
Am i alone in finding it iratating that this and many other games think its so likley the nuclear plants go boom?

The rate in the game seems similar to the rate that we've observed it to happen in the real world (one catastrophic real-world meltdown, in less than 50 years of nuclear power).

Maybe your objection is that the game should let you decide whether to build safer plants which are more expensive to build and operate (as in the US and Western Europe), or to cut corners on construction and maintenance (as the Russians did). In the game, there's just a single fixed price, which presumably represents something like the average of those.

CargoCult
Dec 22, 2005, 06:33 AM
Fair point satistically

i'd forgotten the time frame ;-)

was a composite objection from both here and sim city...

i'd say though a 4th powerplant would be a bit confusing, though a resonable idea

DaveMcW
Dec 22, 2005, 08:14 AM
If you're going for a spaceship with lots of cottages, coal plants are the best.

1. They are 25% cheaper than hydro, and available with an earlier tech.
2. You're going to get Ecology soon anyway.
3. Your best city will be tied up building Apollo and spaceship parts, so 3 Gorges Dam is a waste of production.
4. -2 health costs you about 4 shields/turn. If the game is going to be over soon, your investment in a cleaner plant will never pay off.

Hamato
Dec 31, 2005, 02:22 AM
Just wanted to add that a recycling center does NOT negate the 2 unhealthiness from a coal plant (at least in 1.52, don't know about before). Found that out by mousing over the health situation in a city with coal plant and recycling center

Glinka
Dec 31, 2005, 08:37 AM
This world wonder gives power to all cities on the continent that it is built on. So, only build it on the continent where you have the most cities for maximum effect! If you have 6 or so cities on a continent, just rush for this so you don't have to waste turns making power plants for every one!

I find this a bit confusing, with respect. The Electricity tech provides electricity to your entire civ, correct? So if you mean electricity when you write "power," then it's the tech, not the TGD Project, that delivers. And the Project doesn't replace all power plants. Does it replace all hydro power stations? Or does it simply increase their effectiveness?

Crimso
Dec 31, 2005, 10:11 AM
The Electricity tech provides electricity to your entire civ, correct?

It does not.

Yuufo
Dec 31, 2005, 01:02 PM
Imagine I have a city with Factory and Coal Plant, and Coal. (so I get +3 unhealthy).
If I build later an Hydro Plant, will I go back to only +1 unhealthy?

DaviddesJ
Dec 31, 2005, 02:04 PM
Imagine I have a city with Factory and Coal Plant, and Coal. (so I get +3 unhealthy).
If I build later an Hydro Plant, will I go back to only +1 unhealthy?

Yes, you will.

Yuufo
Dec 31, 2005, 03:29 PM
That's great news indeed!
Happy new year to you! ;)

trundle
Dec 31, 2005, 10:08 PM
If you're going for a spaceship with lots of cottages, coal plants are the best.

1. They are 25% cheaper than hydro, and available with an earlier tech.
2. You're going to get Ecology soon anyway.
3. Your best city will be tied up building Apollo and spaceship parts, so 3 Gorges Dam is a waste of production.
4. -2 health costs you about 4 shields/turn. If the game is going to be over soon, your investment in a cleaner plant will never pay off.


OTOH, if you're going for a spaceship with lots of cottages, you may have plenty of cash around to rush stuff with. 2 turns wasted in one city (to take off that first turn fee) and one huge chunk of cash may be worth it compared with the time and/or money to build a coal plant in every city (even just every city you're going to use for the spaceship). You can't rush Apollo or the parts, so if you've got money piling up or a Great Engineer sitting around, it's better spent here than not at all.

The big downside I see is to 3GD is just that it shows up later in the tech tree. Not much later, but depending on your tech path it may make a big difference.

dog77_1999
Jan 02, 2006, 01:07 AM
Hmm, if you have a coal and a nuclear plant, which one will the city use?

Babake
Jan 05, 2006, 02:57 PM
If one has a coal plant and builds the 3 Gorges dam, will all the coal plants one has become obsolete? I tried selling the coal plants or dismantaling them and had no luck. Any suggestions?

DaviddesJ
Jan 05, 2006, 03:16 PM
If one has a coal plant and builds the 3 Gorges dam, will all the coal plants one has become obsolete? I tried selling the coal plants or dismantaling them and had no luck. Any suggestions?

The coal plants are no longer used, and so they won't generate a health penalty. They stay around, and, e.g., if someone were to capture the 3 Gorges Dam from you, then they would resume functioning (and the health penalty would return). There's no way to dismantle plants, but there's not much reason to do so, as they don't cost anything to maintain.

JJ10DMAN
Jan 08, 2006, 10:02 PM
But there IS a rather nasty bug.

I accidentally went with the suggestion of a city and built a nuke plant; I then built the 3-gorges dam one city over. I tried like crazy to find a way to ditch the nuke plant, but as far as I can tell it's impossible.

I don't know about coal plants and unhealthiness, but the nuke plant had a meltdown in less than 30 turns. :nuke: :blush: :nuke:

ArmyOfOne
Jan 10, 2006, 11:29 AM
Hi,

What if I went and built all three power plants? I wouldnt get the bonuses three times? If not, which plant would the city utilize?

Flendon
Jan 11, 2006, 03:12 AM
Am i alone in finding it iratating that this and many other games think its so likley the nuclear plants go boom?

Far better i would think to give them unhapiness boost to the city - match current (if in my opinion misguisded) opiions on the matter!I know the statistics on this have already been gone over. What I would like to see however is that the percentage of meltdowns should go down as time passes. A nuke plant now is considerably safer than Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Speaking of them if you do have a meltdown your other plants should become safer as a result, it was the accidents at these locations that drove much of the current saftey regulations. And finally with the discovery of Fusion your plants should become meltdown free.

dirtyparrot
Jan 12, 2006, 06:09 AM
3GD is one of the most valuable wonders in the game, which is why i usually save a great engineer or two to make sure that i get it.

Captorian
Jan 15, 2006, 10:54 PM
I'd also like to know what happens if you build multiple power plants, ie coal and nuclear.

Carewolf
Jan 16, 2006, 05:18 AM
Hydro and nuclear both just replaces the coal plant. I do not know if nuclear plants will be at risk of melt-down with a hydro, as I've never build both.

Conquete
Jan 16, 2006, 06:54 AM
I know the statistics on this have already been gone over. What I would like to see however is that the percentage of meltdowns should go down as time passes. A nuke plant now is considerably safer than Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Speaking of them if you do have a meltdown your other plants should become safer as a result, it was the accidents at these locations that drove much of the current saftey regulations. And finally with the discovery of Fusion your plants should become meltdown free.
1. Nuke plants wear down over time=more chance of meltdown
2. if ur plants use fusion, then there will be ever more chance of a "meltdown" b/c a fusions plant would use something equivalent of a Sun
IF u watched Spiderman 2 (movie) it explains well the danger of a Sun on Earth:goodjob:

Flendon
Jan 16, 2006, 09:53 AM
1. Nuke plants wear down over time=more chance of meltdown
2. if ur plants use fusion, then there will be ever more chance of a "meltdown" b/c a fusions plant would use something equivalent of a Sun
IF u watched Spiderman 2 (movie) it explains well the danger of a Sun on Earth:goodjob:Spiderman 2 got the entire fusion thing completely wrong. Fusion can be achieved on a very small scale. You don't need to contain your entire supply of fuel within the reactor. Unlike fission you only need two atoms to have a fusion reaction. To sustain a reaction you need more of course, but the amount is exponentially lower. A fission reactor stores around a years supply of fuel within the reactor while a fusion reactor has about a minutes supply with a steady stream of deuterium and tritium replacing it. You kill the flow of fuel into the reactor or kill the magnetic field and the entire thing will shut itself down within a minute.

Even if the reactor failed catastrophically the explosion would not be big enough to destroy the entire reactor, let alone the building housing it like happened in Chernobyl, and would leave little contamination with a short half-life. It just does not contain enough material to cause significant damage. A catastrophe is just not going to happen with fusion reactors. It is possible that the design changes required to produce a positive energy ratio could change this completely, but it is doubtful.

ZippyRiver
Jan 16, 2006, 10:34 AM
When a coal plant is replaced, do you still suffer the -health from it? You can't remove the building.

Do you lose the -health if you cut off your only supply of coal? (I assume you would not get the production benefit)

DaviddesJ
Jan 16, 2006, 01:57 PM
When a coal plant is replaced, do you still suffer the -health from it?

No. And this has already been answered several times in this thread.

Conquete
Jan 18, 2006, 06:58 PM
Spiderman 2 got the entire fusion thing completely wrong. Fusion can be achieved on a very small scale. You don't need to contain your entire supply of fuel within the reactor. Unlike fission you only need two atoms to have a fusion reaction. To sustain a reaction you need more of course, but the amount is exponentially lower. A fission reactor stores around a years supply of fuel within the reactor while a fusion reactor has about a minutes supply with a steady stream of deuterium and tritium replacing it. You kill the flow of fuel into the reactor or kill the magnetic field and the entire thing will shut itself down within a minute.

Even if the reactor failed catastrophically the explosion would not be big enough to destroy the entire reactor, let alone the building housing it like happened in Chernobyl, and would leave little contamination with a short half-life. It just does not contain enough material to cause significant damage. A catastrophe is just not going to happen with fusion reactors. It is possible that the design changes required to produce a positive energy ratio could change this completely, but it is doubtful.
True true..
now dat i think about it...... i dunno wat i was talking bout there..
smack myself on the head
P.S. movies NEVER make it right

ArmyOfOne
Jan 18, 2006, 07:15 PM
Hydro and nuclear both just replaces the coal plant. I do not know if nuclear plants will be at risk of melt-down with a hydro, as I've never build both.

Will the Nuke plant replace the hydro or will the Hydro plant replace the nuke? Or both ways?

And it isnt possible to have all 3 power plants give power to the factory? Only one Plant can give power?

KillerCardinal
Jan 31, 2006, 12:25 PM
1. Coal Plant - Let it be known that even though you can build a coal plant without coal, you do need coal for power. However, along with a factory, this brings a total of +3 unhealthiness. That's not good, so try to counteract that with aqueducts (with Masonry, Mathematics) and hospitals (with Medicine). I actually recommend this if you also focus your research on Ecology, which then you can build recycling plants. Recycling plants eliminate all unhealthiness caused by buildings. Ultimately, a coal plant will have the features of a hydro plant, but only eventually.


Now, this information is from 1.09 I think, so it may have been fixed/changed since then. However, I noticed that my coal plant gave a +2 unhealthiness from power rather than from buildings. I thought, "Hmm, that's interesting", and resolved to check back after building the recycling center to confirm that the +2 still went away. Then I built a recycling center and sure enough, all the from buildings went away, but I still had the from power unhealthiness.:eek: Due to this, I ONLY build a coal plant in a city that I am willing to deal with a permanent(until hydro power at least) +2 to unhealthiness.

Krikkitone
Feb 03, 2006, 11:28 AM
Now, this information is from 1.09 I think, so it may have been fixed/changed since then. However, I noticed that my coal plant gave a +2 unhealthiness from power rather than from buildings. I thought, "Hmm, that's interesting", and resolved to check back after building the recycling center to confirm that the +2 still went away. Then I built a recycling center and sure enough, all the from buildings went away, but I still had the from power unhealthiness.:eek: Due to this, I ONLY build a coal plant in a city that I am willing to deal with a permanent(until hydro power at least) +2 to unhealthiness.

Although once you have a recycling center, then even with a floodplained city, you don't need too much health anyways, because then your only unhealth is
1. population
2. power
3. Terrain

And by this point you are getting 2 health for almost all of your primary health resources (from granaries, supermarkets, and for coastal cities harbors) plus 2 for aqueducts and grocers provinding secondary health resources. So if health is a problem by this point, it can be fixed very soon.

Also any city that can get Hydro has +2 anyways from Fresh Water

They do mean you have to divert research to Medicine, Refrigeration, and/or Ecology[Hospitals for +3 health, Supermarkets are +2-4, and Recycling Centers are +2-3, depending on your situation]. However, a health penalty usually takes a while to be a real penalty as opposed to the immediate production boost from a coal plant. (you can also research Biology which provides the counter to -health as food.)

All in all this means that Hydro/Nuclear plants and the 3 GD are not truly power buildings/Wonders but Health buildings/Wonders, build them in situations where you need extra health. (3GD is an exception due to the instant power provided if you have undeveloped cities on the continent.)

MosquitoE
Feb 07, 2006, 03:21 PM
...a fusion reactor has about a minutes supply with a steady stream of deuterium and tritium replacing it. You kill the flow of fuel into the reactor or kill the magnetic field and the entire thing will shut itself down within a minute.

Even if the reactor failed catastrophically the explosion would not be big enough to destroy the entire reactor, let alone the building housing it like happened in Chernobyl, and would leave little contamination with a short half-life. It just does not contain enough material to cause significant damage. A catastrophe is just not going to happen with fusion reactors.

Sounds like you know what you're talking about. Where exactly is this fusion reactor at?
Seriously though fusion reactors are still just designs, no one has yet made it work. Not that this should keep them out of CIV, afterall it has SDI.:nuke: :nuke:

Archbob
Feb 09, 2006, 12:04 AM
Actually, I usually just end up buying 3 gorges rather than building it. Just turn the money slider up to full for like 4 turns, it won't hurt you that bad.

imagod284
Feb 09, 2006, 01:23 AM
There's never been a meltdown in the world, ever. Nuclear power is feared only because the word 'nuclear' is feared (and it's usually by the people who pronounce it 'nuke-u-ler'). I wish the United States was smarter and would build some more nuclear plants, but, unfortunately, the ridiculus fears of many dumb people outweigh the informed knowledge of considerably fewer. I've said it before and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work :-P

DaviddesJ
Feb 09, 2006, 02:20 AM
There's never been a meltdown in the world, ever. Nuclear power is feared only because the word 'nuclear' is feared (and it's usually by the people who pronounce it 'nuke-u-ler').

Whatever you want to call it, the negative consequences of nuclear accidents in the game are comparable to those of the Chernobyl accident in real life. I think you would have a hard time convincing the Ukranians that there's no possible reason to have any concern about nuclear power.

Beamup
Feb 09, 2006, 05:28 AM
Seriously though fusion reactors are still just designs, no one has yet made it work.
Untrue. There is at least one research fusion reactor (in France, as I recall) that is indeed functional. They have achieved controlled fusion reactions and generated electricity from them, as I understand it. The principal problem still remaining is that running the thing takes more electricity than it generates.

jams
Feb 09, 2006, 05:35 AM
Sounds like you know what you're talking about. Where exactly is this fusion reactor at?
Seriously though fusion reactors are still just designs, no one has yet made it work. Not that this should keep them out of CIV, afterall it has SDI.:nuke: :nuke:

Existing (operational) fusion reactors:

JET (European) | JT-60 (Japan) | Large Helical Device (Japan) | EAST (China) | T-15 (Russian) | DIII-D (USA) | PPPL (USA) | Shiva laser (USA) | PACER (USA) | NIF (USA) | Z machine (USA) | H-1NF (Australia) | MAST (UK) | START (UK) | DEMO (International)

Offcourse, as Flendon said, almost none of these succeded in producing more power from the fusion proces than what was needed to start & maintain it (only JET is stated have been able to produce excess power for few seconds).

source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactors)

Sidhe
Feb 09, 2006, 05:42 AM
I believe there are plans to build a joint nationality toroidal fusion rector somewhere in the world on the drawing board, to test if the theory that this engine might possibly produce a slight excess of power. But it's currently myred in political wrangling. I believe the US is funding several research projects in this area though as are the Europeans and Japanese above and beyond the actual building of fusion reactors.

1. Nuke plants wear down over time=more chance of meltdown
2. if ur plants use fusion, then there will be ever more chance of a "meltdown" b/c a fusions plant would use something equivalent of a Sun
IF u watched Spiderman 2 (movie) it explains well the danger of a Sun on Earth:goodjob:

You really need to stop getting your physics knowledge from Spiderman films;) :D

Fusion produces virtually no radioactivity and thus is much cleaner also it uses Deuterium hydrogen with one neutron and one proton from heavy water D2O and tritium usually extracted by fission of lithium or recycling of neutrons(Hydrogen but with two neutrons and a proton) making it radioactive(but far safer than Plutonium or Uranium) to produce helium total 2 neutrons and 2 protons = Helium +1 spare neutron which can be reused to make tritium as mentioned before. A temperature of 40 million kelvins is needed to overcome the coulomb barrier and fuse these particles together. Which is alot really:)

So the only by product is helium an inert and safe gas. If the plants huge magnets break down the worst that could happen is that the plant would burn down and plasma of 40 million+ degrees would be carried in whatever direction the super ionised mass would be blown. Leaving a very small amount of radioactivity and a rapidly cooling plasma wandering around for a while even if it could somehow escape the physical chamber it's in which without magnetism it's possible it wouldn't live that long anyway before cooling to harmless temperatures again. Your not producing the energy the sun pumps out every minute or anything even remotely close, what your doing is mimicking the suns power source. putting immense energy into atoms to get them to fuse to form heavier less reactive elements. and hopefully some excess energy at the same time. Unfortunately therein lies the rub. The sun had a enormous gravitational energy to set off it's fusion reactor. Without coming up with some way of converting gravity or any other energy source for that matter into electromagnetism/heat eficiently enough to produce millions of degrees temperature it might be a little tricky to come up with a way that is energy efficient. Which is why fusion reactors don't blow up:lol: Don't quote me on that though Im sure if you tried really hard you could get it to explode in some way or another spreading millions of tonnes of toxic helium across a vast area ;)

Krikkitone
Feb 09, 2006, 12:14 PM
Whatever you want to call it, the negative consequences of nuclear accidents in the game are comparable to those of the Chernobyl accident in real life. I think you would have a hard time convincing the Ukranians that there's no possible reason to have any concern about nuclear power.

The negative consequences in the game are the same as a nuke going off right? (I've never had it since that's what I heard somewhere) If so, the consequences are far overated (just like the consequences of the game nukes are far underated.)
Especially considering Chernobyl was a Reactor that the Soviets were basically testing to see if it Would melt down (can we do X and still not meltdown the reactor)

Also regarding the cleanness of Fusion reactors
yes they probably wouldn't meltdown (difficulty of sustaining a reaction), but they do produce radioactivity.
Their 'exhaust' isn't radioactive like fission plants, however, they would produce enough neutrons to make the containment vessel radioactive (so that when a fusion plant finally is decommisioned, a large part of it would be radioactive waste.... much better than fission but not perfect

DaviddesJ
Feb 09, 2006, 03:05 PM
Especially considering Chernobyl was a Reactor that the Soviets were basically testing to see if it Would melt down (can we do X and still not meltdown the reactor)

The causes of the Chernobyl accident are still in dispute, but I don't see that it makes any difference why it happened. Whatever the reasons for it happening in real life, it could happen in the game for those same reasons.

Crighton
Feb 14, 2006, 08:10 AM
Chernobyl proved that a poorly designed and equally poorly run reactor will indeed go boom. There are also two, and possibly even a third, nuclear "events" that occured in the Soviet Union that were never really explained by the Soviets.

I've stopped building nuke plants in CIV IV because I always have a meltdown. I even had two meltdowns in one game about 15 turns apart. Which I would think would be damned unlikely.

Now I build hydro whenever I can and then Coal if have to.

Hydro plants work by building a dam and then funnelling the water to move turbines etc. Has anyone ever had a dam burst? I don't think it's possible in CIV IV but it would make a nice addition towards realism if you ask me.

I also agree with the above about Nuke's being safe, and that there should be an unhappiness penalty in any city there built in. Of course, the same penalty should be applied to cities building and storing ICMBs too.

jhas015
Feb 15, 2006, 03:02 PM
This is where civ3 had it right with aircraft and spies in that you could target improvements in a city.
With power plants in particular think of the dam busters from WWII.

Without going back to the abuse of bombers in Civ3 though there is no way to do this (maybe spies).

I've never had a problem with meltdowns but the number of times i've had a 97% chance of a swordsman killing an archer and loosing is really starting to bug me.

akinkhoo
Jun 10, 2006, 12:36 AM
Chernobyl, the only destructive plant diaster was not a complete nuclear power plant; it was still undergoing experimentation at that time and has yet being stabilized. unless all the reactor in the game are unprotected like Chernobyl, a meltdown is almost impossible unless you have homer simpson on the controls... :lol:

IMO, meltdown should occur only once for any civ (each civ should have the risk to make it fair and the early adopter are not penalized)... after that as seen following Chernobyl, nuclear power plant safety standard were improved against meltdown and has become far safer and without meltdown... :scan:

seriously, you think USA would waste billions of dollar investing on nuclear carriers if nuclear were uncontrolable; and they risk a continous possbility of losing 8000 men and an enitire fleet even in peacetime sitting in the dock; would be an unthinkable political disaster for the government and military... :sad:

DaviddesJ
Jun 10, 2006, 01:18 PM
Chernobyl, the only destructive plant diaster was not a complete nuclear power plant; it was still undergoing experimentation at that time and has yet being stabilized.

This is entirely false. The Chernobyl reactor #4, which exploded, had been operating and producing electricity for 2 or 3 years before the accident. The other reactors on the site (part of the same power plant) had been operating longer. The Chernobyl plant, at the time of the accident, produced a significant fraction of all of the power used in Ukraine.

pigswill
Jun 10, 2006, 04:51 PM
OTOH Civ takes ideas from real life; it does not attempt to be an exact replica of real life.

Zombie69
Jun 12, 2006, 08:17 PM
If you're reading this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.

How about if i'm a German reading this in English, should i thank a veteran? What for?

s.c.dude
Jun 28, 2006, 05:45 AM
How about if i'm a German reading this in English, should i thank a veteran? What for?
uh i thought we were talhing about civ 4 and what's a cheynobyl:confused: :confused: :confused:

markofmayhem
Jul 21, 2006, 10:10 AM
I just wanted to weigh in with a very quick, easy, and comprehensive source on this entire subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

VERY NICE article.

Where Civ 4 gets the "based on real world" mechanic is summed up nicely in this article:
"Several nuclear meltdowns of differing severity have occurred thoughout the history of both civilian and military nuclear reactor operations. All nuclear meltdowns are characterized by severe damage to the nuclear reactor in which it occurs. In some cases this has required extensive repairs or decommissioning of a nuclear reactor and in more severe cases it has required civilian evacuations."

Throughout the small 50 year history, there have been two recorded civilian meltdowns (YES, meltdowns, not "meltdowns", actual meltdowns) and several unrecorded. None of the military meltdowns were recorded for public record. Non-military and non-civilian meltdowns (government funded research facilities) are also not recorded for public record. 100% of all known civilian nuclear meltdowns resulted in a large population loss within the city of the occurance. The one in Chernobyl was direct loss of life, the one on Three Mile Island was due to a near 80% property sell off. People didn't like living next to the big concrete dome that has a million years worth of deadly gas trying to escape within in it, go figure. So while Civ has a population penalty that seems to be more Chernobyl related, it could also be pseudo Three Mile Island related, except the game can't handle "exodus", so the population disappears.

Nice write up, it seems that the 3GD is the way to go on a heavily city-dotted continent.

gdgrimm
Jul 21, 2006, 11:30 AM
How about if i'm a German reading this in English, should i thank a veteran? What for?

:D You should probably thank both a teacher and a vet. Since I doubt that Hitler's Third Riech, if he had been successful in implementing it worldwide, would have allowed you to learn English from a teacher to read this.

Of course, you would probably then be a German reading this in German. And Hitler would be one of the leaders in CivIV. :satan:

Krikkitone
Jul 21, 2006, 05:58 PM
How about if i'm a German reading this in English, should i thank a veteran? What for?

Thank your local veterans, for not taking up a guerilla war against the American occupation... because then you'd probably be reading this in Russian... and not off of a computer screen. (or you might not be alive to read it at all)

civictor
Sep 07, 2006, 05:15 PM
But there IS a rather nasty bug.

I accidentally went with the suggestion of a city and built a nuke plant; I then built the 3-gorges dam one city over. I tried like crazy to find a way to ditch the nuke plant, but as far as I can tell it's impossible.

I don't know about coal plants and unhealthiness, but the nuke plant had a meltdown in less than 30 turns. :nuke: :blush: :nuke:

That _is_ a nasty bug. I am going to not build nuke plants at all. Thanks for the warning!

DaviddesJ
Sep 07, 2006, 05:55 PM
Hydro plants work by building a dam and then funnelling the water to move turbines etc. Has anyone ever had a dam burst?

Do you mean in real life, or in the game? In real life, there was a major failure of the Teton Dam in Idaho, in 1976. Several people were killed, along with billions in property damage. Looking farther back, the Johnstown Flood (failure of the South Fork Dam in Pennsylvania, in 1889) killed thousands of people.

Shillen
Sep 09, 2006, 10:45 AM
If you're going for a spaceship with lots of cottages, coal plants are the best.

1. They are 25% cheaper than hydro, and available with an earlier tech.
2. You're going to get Ecology soon anyway.
3. Your best city will be tied up building Apollo and spaceship parts, so 3 Gorges Dam is a waste of production.
4. -2 health costs you about 4 shields/turn. If the game is going to be over soon, your investment in a cleaner plant will never pay off.

Just read this article and was going to make the same exact comment as DaveMcW. I build nothing but coal plants in my cities as I can have them done before I even research the 3 gorges dam tech most of the time.

Brain69
Nov 12, 2006, 03:56 AM
i played about 5 long games on Civ 4, all of my cities built a nuclear reactor and i have never had a meltdown, bound to happen soon though, how do you change the reactor or does it automatically change when you build a new one?

Brain69
Nov 12, 2006, 07:55 AM
oh #!@", speak of the devil, i just had a nuclear meltdown on my best base and all my workers are on another island

Nightmare99
Jan 11, 2007, 05:44 PM
oh #!@", speak of the devil, i just had a nuclear meltdown on my best base and all my workers are on another island

Mohahahaha

Canadian Bacon
Jan 13, 2007, 12:04 AM
I always, always, always build coal plants everywhere. Seriously, -2 health is not a big deal at all. You get coal plants so many turns before hydro or nuclear that the added production more than makes up for the unhealthiness. +50% production at the maximum cost of 1 citizen production (-2 food means 1 less citizen can be born). And thats only if your city is at the healthiness brink. Usually, my cities can absorb the unhealthiness easily.

Another consideration is cost. Coal plants are 150, hydro 200, and nuclear 250 (I think these are the right numbers). So not only can you build coal plants everywhere, unlike hydro (assuming you have coal), without meltdown risk like nuke plants, they are cheaper, and come many, many turns earlier.

ModernKnight
May 31, 2007, 09:28 PM
Attached find a zipped Excel spreadsheet showing production cost versus health provided, for buildings in Civ4. Is this useful to anyone? Are things clear?

In re: fusion energy, a radiation health physicist I know described it this way: The cost of producing the containment field on a commercial basis is dropping, while the energy produced is rising, slowly over time. Perhaps in a few decades, they will intercept.

Then our only worry will be in regards to managing the heat produced, laugh.

Perugia
Jun 27, 2007, 06:01 AM
Attached find a zipped Excel spreadsheet showing production cost versus health provided, for buildings in Civ4. Is this useful to anyone? Are things clear?

Very useful indeed. Reminds me of a similar spreadsheet I did for myself for CivIII listing the relative culture costs of buildings & wonders.

I like the multiple lines for vaiable-health that's a really clear way of showing the relative cost.

BTW in the grocer/supermarket section the require techs should be Guilds, Currency/Refrigeration (you left off Refrigeration when grouping the two buildings on one row).

This is a bit off topic you might have already but if not you should give this a thread of its own somwhere in Strategy & Tips or better still attach to Cabert's ways into health (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=190583) article as it's more applicable to his Chapter 2 on health giving buildings :king: .

ModernKnight
Jun 30, 2007, 12:17 AM
Hey thanks Perugia,

I'll do that when three people show an interest. I'm into a number of games; two highly actively at any one time. Be happy to list them if you want. Anyway.

You're a vote of 1. In six months. I gather there is not much interest.

You can always take my info and edit it; it's simple stuff. It would be nice if you attribute me, if you do.

The correct place to show such stuff is actually on the Civ4 wiki.

Think of the message forum as a bar. The wiki as a library. Folks can debate in the bar, because basic info can be interpreted many ways.

But the library has the basic, correct (and easily correctible/editable) info upon which the barroom brawl is based, laugh.

Any more votes/ideas for this to be revised/posted to the wiki? I figured nobody cared since I got no response - til now.

FWIW

I played Civ2 forever. Made tons of analyses that would've gone into a wiki these days, but was only for me, then. Got really po'd by Civ3... maybe it made sense, but it did not relative to Civ2. If I'm a total expert and the next version fails me at Standard difficulty, too bad, game. It's more than that; it felt poorly done. Civ4 brought it back around to make a very well done game.

Sorry for the outburst. They happen from time to time, eh? Thanks for your idea. Anyone else want to see more on power per dollar?

Arnesson
Jun 30, 2007, 06:41 AM
I've never had a problem with meltdowns but the number of times i've had a 97% chance of a swordsman killing an archer and loosing is really starting to bug me.

Me too! Frustrating when that happens (although winning those 30% chance battles is kinda cool too).

dragodon64
Nov 24, 2007, 09:22 PM
Thank your local veterans, for not taking up a guerilla war against the American occupation... because then you'd probably be reading this in Russian... and not off of a computer screen. (or you might not be alive to read it at all)

That's a bit like propaganda isn't it?

Derbus
Nov 25, 2007, 07:52 AM
Don't think this has been answered in this thread yet....

But, is power... power ??

ie: apart from the obvious health debuffs, is one source of power just as good as the other??

It's good to know that you don't suffer the health debuff from coal, once you upgrade to hydro. I often hold off building the plants because I'll get 3GD. The city screen should show some indication of the health effects.... very misleading for nooobies like me

KMadCandy
Nov 28, 2007, 12:07 PM
apart from the obvious health debuffs, is one source of power just as good as the other??

yes. the factory just cares whether it has the yellow lightning symbol or not. if it does, it's happy and gives you more production. if it doesn't, it's lazy and doesn't give you as much.

3GD actually has a downside in BtS. it provides power to all cities on the continent, which means that it provides the free bonus 2 :yuck: that BtS added to power. it gives that even to cities without factories yet, so they're not getting any benefit from the power. even brand new cities you build there after 3GD start out with an extra 2 :yuck:. it's still worth it on a decent-size continent imo, since you save approximately a zillion hammers and tons of :yuck: overall. and by that time you have enough resources so those baby cities will be fine until they're grown up enough to make :health: buildings if they need to. but it's rather weird that now a world wonder has a bit of a negative attached to it.

dragodon64
Nov 28, 2007, 10:36 PM
Well, new cities (in late game=after many wars of resource capture) have lots of health resources with just a cpuple of :yuck:. And a granary or harbor could increase that :health: in no time.

TheDS
Dec 26, 2007, 01:21 PM
Also new to BtS (I think it is, anyway) is that you get unhealthiness from Coal and Oil, so when you build a Coal Plant, you typically get +6 unhealthiness, and if you build the Industrial Park, you get another +4. The Recycling Center will only remove the unhealthiness from the buildings themselves, which for Forge, Factory, and Industrial Park, adds up to -4 unhealthiness. You still get the malus for Power, Coal, and Oil.

This increase in pollution is meant to make Environmentalism a more useful Civic - I never used it before these changes. Envio has a lot of good health bonii, so much so that it was necessary to put in a substantial malus in the form of higher Corp payments.

Nowadays, I tend to get Coal power first, but I'm careful not to spread it everywhere - indeed, I'm hesitant to build them at all. I typically beeline for Plastics so I can build 3GD, and if I'm smart, I'll've built Ironworks in a river city and build 3GD there.

When 3GD isn't an option, Hydro power is best, only giving the +2 unhealth for Power, but there are so few places it can be built.... Why can't it be built in places with rivers on the city screen, not on the city itself? (Levees need this power too; they're difficult enough to justify building them as it is.)

If you have Ironworks in your capital and run Bureaucracy and Organized Religion, and you've got your Forge and Factory running, plus a Coal Plant, that's +275%. If you're Industrious, it's +325%. You should get it built in no time!

True, you can have Coal Plants built in all your cities in the time it takes to get the 3GD built, but your pollution will drop (meaning more people in your cities), and any newly gained cities won't have to waste the hammers on a power plant.

I don't build nuc-plants for two major reasons. First, I tend to get Fission well after Plastics, and second, they're more expensive. In cities that my 3GD doesn't provide power, those cities are generally small enough that the pollution hit doesn't affect them. That nuc-plants might explode plays a minor role in my decision, but just the same, if they're going to explode so violently and pointlessly, then what's the point of even having them?

As was said, there might need to be two different kinds - one that's cheap and failure-prone, another that's expensive and reliable. (But then, no one would ever build the cheap one, so again, why have it?) A better solution is to have a new event. Once you built a nuc-plant, the event triggers, and you're given a choice: spend no money and plants have a chance to meltdown (not explosively - just eliminate the building), or accept a -5 gold cost per plant and they remain perfectly safe. (Considering that one of the Quests give you a reward choice of a whopping +1 gold per harbor, -5 gold per reactor is both doable and relatively expensive. Where to put the -5 on the balance sheet then becomes important. If it's added in like any other income, then Banks and such will make it a bigger drain, but if it's a city expense, then Courthouses will make it smaller and Inflation will make it bigger. I don't think any of these effects should be present, but I don't know if this presents a special difficulty in programming it.

DrJambo
Jan 07, 2008, 06:21 AM
I use Nuclear plants all the time and have yet to experience a single meltdown. What's the % chance for a meltdown?

King of Town
Jan 08, 2008, 03:39 AM
No one seems to have mentioned the Shale Plant which is toku's underrated UB. +10% production and no unhealthiness. can be built anywhere, a very handy thing.

TheDS
Jan 12, 2008, 07:12 PM
No unhealthiness? Admitedly, the last (the ONLY) time I played as Japan was with Vanilla, and I'm pretty sure it caused pollution then. I take it BtS changed this? If so, it would make building 3GD almost pointless for Japan, saving a bunch of hammers.

King of Town
Feb 15, 2008, 03:51 AM
it gives the normal you have power pollution, but not the pollution of the coal plant. Yes 3GD is poitnless with them. In vanilla there were no shale plants.

TheMeInTeam
Feb 18, 2008, 08:29 PM
:D You should probably thank both a teacher and a vet. Since I doubt that Hitler's Third Riech, if he had been successful in implementing it worldwide, would have allowed you to learn English from a teacher to read this.

Of course, you would probably then be a German reading this in German. And Hitler would be one of the leaders in CivIV. :satan:

I am almost a bit surprised he isn't. Stalin made his way into the game...and more people died by his hand than hitler's...

As for nuclear plants melting down, remember that aside from realism, fireaxis had to consider something else: game balance. This is also why nukes don't cut a city pop to 1/4 and make most of its nearby tiles unusable.

If nuclear plants in the game didn't stand a decent chance of meltdown, then why even bother with hydro? Then again, if they melt down too much, then why build them ever? I don't know if the incidence of it is right or not...i almost never build nuclear plants because i need the production ASAP so I go coal and start taking the world...

skallben
Mar 03, 2008, 01:37 PM
I am almost a bit surprised he isn't. Stalin made his way into the game...and more people died by his hand than hitler's...

Not really. Hitler's death camps had more total casualties. However it seems to be a trend to include Soviet victims to starvation to that deathcount, starvation that would likely have happened with or without Stalin. Stalin was insane and paranoid while Hitler was calculating carefully what he did, not attacking political enemies but attacking ethnical groups. Sorry for the derailing but I strongly dislike when the weight of Hilters crimes are diminished.

Edit: And I am an idiot for Necromancing threads :mad: Need to remind myself to not browse new and old threads simontanlesously.

jkp1187
Mar 06, 2008, 10:28 AM
I strongly dislike when people derail threads that I'm otherwise interested in reading. I'm sure you have a doctorate-level degree in history and have published many papers in peer-reviewed historical journals, but even so, can we please keep such opinions to the off-topic forum?

That said: I am curious if there's really a reason to build nuclear power at all the way the game is set up. I mean, all it takes is a Recycling Center to eliminate a lot of pollution worries. I suppose it could be an issue if you don't have coal but DO have uranium....but in that case you've other things to worry about, too.

skallben
Mar 07, 2008, 08:27 PM
I think the Nuclear Plants are slightly cleaner than Coal, else I'd guess it's what you said, when you got Uranium but no Coal. I still is available more easy than Hyrdro and doesnt require rivers. Personally I build them late in the game in cities that has no other plant and are not eligible for Hydro's or connected to the Hoover Dam.

jkp1187: You are of course correct and I actually agree with you. However Im sure you also recognize the feeling when you feel so extremely strongly about something that you just have to say it. History shouldnt be rewritten in a movie, book or even a message board. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

SpaceCowboy_MA
Jan 11, 2009, 08:46 AM
Sorry if I missed a post that answers this in another thread. I couldn't find an answer to my question and this seemed like the best place to post it... I read through this entire thread (even all the off-topic blech) and still couldn't determine if there is any advantage to nuclear plants?

Civ3 balanced the meltdown chance with increased production, but I can't seem to find any corroborating evidence for this in Civ4. If there is still the meltdown chance but no increase in production over the other available plants, why would anyone use nuclear power?

(I was holding off for 3GD but just missed it without a GE or the coin to rush it in a late tech game. Now I need to build some power plants and have all of them available to me. Trying to decide which way to go...)

dragodon64
Jan 11, 2009, 12:44 PM
They don't require you to have coal, thereby preventing massive unhealthiness. Frankly, I don't even connect my coal (no road) if i have oil in my territory for early IA, then when its time for power plants, if i have no uranium, and a significant number of non-riverside production cities, I have to connect it. But if I do have uranium, I go nuclear anywhere I can't go hydro (if I don't get 3GD). But in most games, no I don't build any nuclear plants.

Sidhe
Jan 18, 2009, 04:51 AM
Fusion is the wave of the future.

Tephros
Jan 25, 2009, 01:42 PM
Sorry if I missed a post that answers this in another thread. I couldn't find an answer to my question and this seemed like the best place to post it... I read through this entire thread (even all the off-topic blech) and still couldn't determine if there is any advantage to nuclear plants?

Civ3 balanced the meltdown chance with increased production, but I can't seem to find any corroborating evidence for this in Civ4. If there is still the meltdown chance but no increase in production over the other available plants, why would anyone use nuclear power?

(I was holding off for 3GD but just missed it without a GE or the coin to rush it in a late tech game. Now I need to build some power plants and have all of them available to me. Trying to decide which way to go...)

Well this thread was started a long time ago, but generally I'll say this, from best to worst:

Hammerwise: Coal Plants (cheapest), Hydro Plants, Nuclear Plants.
Techwise: Coal Plants, Nuclear Plants, Hydro Plants
Healthwise: Hydro Plants, Nuclear Plants, Coal Plants
Availability: Coal Plants, Nuclear Plants, Hydro Plants. Hydro plants can only be built in riverside cities.
Eventwise: Coal Plants, Hydro Plants, Nuclear Plants. Hydro plants have a random event that sucks:
Event165
Broken Dam
Prereq: City with Hydro Plant
Obsolete: None
Active/Weight: 75/100
Result:
1.lose Hydro plant AND +1 angry face (like whipped) AND -1 population in city
2.pay gold (260 base) AND +1 angry face (like whipped) AND -1 population in city
3.pay gold (360 base) AND -1 population in city

But that event doesn't suck nearly as much as a nuclear meltdown, which is equivalent to getting nuked. Coal plants are better than the other two, but will accelerate global warming, which will render random tiles useless. This could permanently cause some cities to lose population. Meanwhile, Coal plants have a positive random event:

Event164
Better Coal
Prereq: own plot with Coal AND Mine
Obsolete: None
Active/Weight: 75/100
Result:
1.+4 production from coal plants
2.+2 production AND +1 health from drydocks

The health problem of coal plants can be enough to reduce the population of your cities. But if your city has limited growth anyway due to overlap or food shortage, there's no penalty besides climate change.

Personally I will build plants in some cities, especially coal in those that can afford the health hit, but try to get the three gorges dam for most of them unless I'm on an archipelago or something. I definitely be sure to have power in the city that's building the three gorges dam. It's a cost benefit analysis. Will this plant pay for itself before the three gorges dam is built? If so, is it worth not spending these hammers on something else?