Are hydro and solar plants the same?

[jteef]

What i mean is, if you build the hoover dam, is there any reason to build a solar plant at all?

Both descriptions in civilopedia are very similar except for the need for rivers w/ hydro plants(not nec with hoover dam)

also do nuclear plants actually reduce total pollution vs a hydro or solar plant? I put them in every city in my last game and they absolutely ruled for shield production. I did have 3 meltdowns when i wasn't paying attention :/ Easy to overlook with 60 cities and 2 wars going on...

Luckily i had about 50 spare workers so they were cleaned up fast.

The civilopedia says "Reduces pollution caused by shield production by 50%"

To me that sounds like there will be less pollution with nuclear plant than with hydro or solar but i'm not sure.

jt

 

[Pragmatic]

Going on Civ 2, solar is better. It's a cleaner source of energy than even hydro. Of course, with Hoover Dam in Civ 2, you couldn't have both Hoover Dam and Solar Plants.

Sounds like it's possible in Civ 3. Of course, Hoover Dam gives you _free_ hydro plants, while you'd have to pay for every solar plant....

 

[DaEezT]

Basically Hydro and Solar plant are the same. The Hydro is available earlier in the game than the Solar but requres a river. Basically the Solar plant is an Hydro-for-non-river-cities

 

[Albert Einstain]

It WAS possible to build the solar plant having Hoover Dam in CIV2. I don't know about civ3

 

[jaguara]

You can build a coal plant in a city with a Hydro from Hoover Dam...but it does not seem to increase production. I assume that building a nuclear plant would supercede the Hydro plant...but is there any point in keeping the solar or coal plant if you have a hydro from Hoover (other than if you are afraid that you might loose Hoover to conquest)

In other words does having more than one of the +50% prod plants give any extra benefit?

Jaguara

 

[Yeti]

Jteef - you had 3 meltdowns when you weren't paying attention? You mean you just didn't notice the meltdowns when they occurred, or that there's something you didn't do that you should have done to prevent them? I thought meltdowns were totally random but your wording suggests that they were at least partially your fault.

 

[cph]

I don't think you can have multiple plants. Each plant says that it replaces any previous plants.

 

[celeron450]

Yeti - I think that nuclear meltdowns only occur when your city goes into civil disorder. I'm pretty sure I read that in the manual.

celeron450

 

[jteef]

Yeah, I was in a pretty long war under a democracy and cities were going in and out of disorder all over the place as i secured and lost luxuries etc. One of them I didn't even have time to correct the problem. City just went into disorder then meltdown in the same turn.

I was more anxious to attack with my army across the way and just forgot about a lot of the disorder notices.

If you've got a lot of nuclear plants it might be a good idea to use the gov to regulate happiness.

I've also figured out in my current game that nuclear plants do reduce pollution more than solar or hydro plants (as long as they don't meltdown)

jt

 

[BigDog]

Originally posted by cph
I don't think you can have multiple plants. Each plant says that it replaces any previous plants.

Not sure about that - I built the Hoover Dam which stuck a hydro plant in every city, but it didn't replace the coal plants I had in some of them. I had to search though each city to sell them...

 

[tx_civ]

I know I checked on the coal w/hydro issue....

After I built Hoover I checked a cities production (where I had already built a coal plant) .. Then checked it after seling the coal plant and production was the same.

 

[OneInTen]

You can have mutliple plants, but only one will be effective at any one time.