Caveman 2 Cosmos

[Maxima7]

Mark my words... these things will destroy us someday. It's kinda like Jurassic Park... Murphy's law is simply too strong for this to be a good idea.

Why nuclear plants over nuclear weapons? Though, the singularity is more of a wild card.

The risk is too severe no matter how unlikely we can make it. Just my opinion. Won't matter what anyone's opinion is on the subject eventually.

Your opinion isn't based on fact. All new nuclear plant designs are literally orders of magnitude less likely to result in a "meltdown" due to their passive safety that don't require operators.

Certainly doesn't for those who were living in Chernobyl and anyone who would've lived there since then. Certainly has done plenty of damage to the Pacific. But wait... this isn't supposed to be possible because we learned after the Titanic and the Challenger that human endeavors can be made absolutely flawless. So I suppose its safe to eat Pacific cod anyhow.

Chernobyl didn't have a containment core. It used a graphite moderator (though, technically not bad with a good design), and poor training and standards for the workers. Your comparison is like comparing the "science" in the 13th century to the much more professional scientific community of today.

The Japanese disaster wasn't thought to be impossible. It wasn't designed for a 9.0 quake, though more importantly, the tsunami knocked out the backup generators.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

True - over the past millenia, the Moon has had various religious, occult, symbolic and mystical meanings. However I think that by the time people actually start living on the moon, they'd just consider it a big boring lump of rock that happens to be in orbit around the Earth.

We cannot quote such a sentiment since we are not there yet.

We can quote ideas people have about living on the moon now, or quote ideas people have had about living on the moon (or living elsewhere, or about the geographic nature of the moon), or quote ideas characters have fictively had about the moon in people's speculation.

Or any idea that comes to mind when one is supposedly living on the moon; not just ideas about that itself. Einstein's quote about driving safely only tenuously has to do with cars which only a little bit has to do with Combustion. It was, however, a poetic concept, an artistic statement, an elaboration of culture, which could only have occurred once there were cars.

Again, though, antecedent the future we can't refer to any sentiments about the technology since they don't exist. So we have to pick something else.

 

[Harrier]

We cannot quote such a sentiment since we are not there yet.

But we have been to the moon and lived there for a few days, albiet in lunar capsules.

As Noriad2 says - it is a boring lump of rock, regardless of any resources it may eventually yield.

 

[Reisk@]

But we have been to the moon and lived there for a few days

Dream on sheeple.

Now you can run under the skirts of mods again.

Moderator Action: Please stop your trolling, this is unacceptable. Contribute in a positive way or simply move on.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Thunderbrd]

The Japanese disaster wasn't thought to be impossible. It wasn't designed for a 9.0 quake, though more importantly, the tsunami knocked out the backup generators.

This is my point... we're setting up ticking time bombs and saying we KNOW they are safe when we likely have yet to be hit by earth shattering disaster scenarios that we can't imagine as possible yet because they haven't happened yet. What's going to happen to all of the Nuc plants on the North American continent, for example, when Yellowstone goes off? Or when a random meteor strikes that perhaps mostly could've been survived but now we've dotted the landscape with regions that can't be lived in for the rest of all time in addition to the woes caused by the initial disaster? Our imagination of disaster scenarios is likely not beginning to fathom the big picture - these generators, when they go wrong, leave a scar that cannot be healed, no matter how many workers you put out to 'scrub' the fallout. Regardless of the amount of immediate pollution a coal plant can generate, and how damaging it might be right now, in half a million years nobody would ever know it existed... the fact that the same can be completely untrue of a nuclear generator that went wrong says everything imo.

We have 2 (well... really 3) examples of nuclear accidents already. Is it not simply common sense that we must at some point admit that no matter how much humanity may think itself capable of perfection, it is impossible to obtain? And with that in mind, is it ever prudent to play with fire of this magnitude, no matter how under control you may think it to be?

 

[JosEPh_II]

Dream on sheeple.

Now you can run under the skirts of mods again.

Please Reisk can't you just post on the subject and leave the taunts and ridiculing others out of the conversation? Is that possible for you to do?

JosEPh

Moderator Action: Please report posts and continue your conversation. Answering and addressing trolls only encourages them.

 

[Faustmouse]

This is my point... we're setting up ticking time bombs and saying we KNOW they are safe when we likely have yet to be hit by earth shattering disaster scenarios that we can't imagine as possible yet because they haven't happened yet. What's going to happen to all of the Nuc plants on the North American continent, for example, when Yellowstone goes off? Or when a random meteor strikes that perhaps mostly could've been survived but now we've dotted the landscape with regions that can't be lived in for the rest of all time in addition to the woes caused by the initial disaster? Our imagination of disaster scenarios is likely not beginning to fathom the big picture - these generators, when they go wrong, leave a scar that cannot be healed, no matter how many workers you put out to 'scrub' the fallout. Regardless of the amount of immediate pollution a coal plant can generate, and how damaging it might be right now, in half a million years nobody would ever know it existed... the fact that the same can be completely untrue of a nuclear generator that went wrong says everything imo.

We have 2 (well... really 3) examples of nuclear accidents already. Is it not simply common sense that we must at some point admit that no matter how much humanity may think itself capable of perfection, it is impossible to obtain? And with that in mind, is it ever prudent to play with fire of this magnitude, no matter how under control you may think it to be?

When Yellowstone goes of or a meteor at the right size strikes the earth we have other things to worry about. You are thinking to much long-term here. Also, nuclear fallout is not THAT bad. Does Chernobyl look like a barren desert? There are plants living there and lots of animals. The radiation is still elevated and it's considered "unsafe" to live there and you'd probably get cancer pretty fast, but it's not impossible. At the current rate, we'll reach a point were we could cure all mutations instantly in about 40-50 years at most.

Maxima is right, new nuclear power plants are so much more advanced than "old" once that in a few decades they WILL be fool proof. I'm more concerned about nuclear bombs... The only thing I'm happy about there is that no matter how hard we try, in a million years after a nuclear war there will still be a healthy enviroment on earth...

 

[Yudishtira]

At the current rate, we'll reach a point were we could cure all mutations instantly in about 40-50 years at most.

If that happens, then will be the time to start thinking about using nuclear power and claiming it's safe. This kind of reminds me of the "radiation is good for you" subtext in those superhero backstories.

Renewables are already ahead of nuclear. If all of the billions spent on selling, lobbying for and subsidizing (not to mention cleaning up after) nuclear went into truly sustainable (and not dead-end) technologies like solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/etc. etc., it would make more sense by a couple of orders of magnitude.

 

[Faustmouse]

I'd favor renewables over nuclear as well. In fact I spend the last year on researching algal biofuels. But for me it's the most urgent problem to get away from coal and oil based power. And renewables just can't handle that at the moment - the main problem is the infrastructure. If we had wider power grids or better energy storage capabilities (both making great progress over the last years) then they will be ready. But before that we need more "predictable" energy. Also Winfarms, Solar Panels etc also have their downsides. They kill rare birds of prey, leave toxic waste or require major changes in river or coastal regions... It would be the best if we'd stop telling people that you need a brand new cellphone or car every couple of months...

 

[Jozef]

Thank you all for the great job with the mod.
As I see on SVN, 36 version is on a pretty advanced stage.

Is it known when approximately it will be ready?

 

[Sparth]

Is it known when approximately it will be ready?

Hard to say. We have some bugs to fixe before we start testing v36 and modders which can fix these errors are now busy in real life

 

[ThomasCro]

deleted

 

[Sparth]

Which civic should be activated to obtain milita unit after each farm build?

 

[strategyonly]

Which civic should be activated to obtain milita unit after each farm build?

Here is the python line: giCivicForMilitia = gc.getInfoTypeForString( "CIVIC_CONSCRIPTION1" )

 

[Little Abigail]

I know this is kinda old but I feel the need to respond to this.

This is my point... we're setting up ticking time bombs and saying we KNOW they are safe when we likely have yet to be hit by earth shattering disaster scenarios that we can't imagine as possible yet because they haven't happened yet. What's going to happen to all of the Nuc plants on the North American continent, for example, when Yellowstone goes off?

When Yellowstone goes off the vast majority of people on North America will be dead within days. Some Nuclear plants melting down won't even be tertiary concerns.

Or when a random meteor strikes that perhaps mostly could've been survived but now we've dotted the landscape with regions that can't be lived in for the rest of all time in addition to the woes caused by the initial disaster?

If a meteor hits that is survivable nuke plants melting down won't change that fact. You seems to be vastly overestimating just how big the contamination area of a nuclear plant melting down is. Nuclear plants don't go off like nuclear bombs when they fail, you get smallish steam explosions at the worst. Reactor fuel is 3-4% enriched, weapons grade material is 90+% enriched. Also, you are extremely overestimating how long the fallout and radiation lasts. Nuclear bombs purposely built to cause as much fallout as possible only last a century or two, not forever.

Our imagination of disaster scenarios is likely not beginning to fathom the big picture - these generators, when they go wrong, leave a scar that cannot be healed, no matter how many workers you put out to 'scrub' the fallout.

Yes they can, radiation decays away naturally. It's not a forever thing.

Regardless of the amount of immediate pollution a coal plant can generate, and how damaging it might be right now, in half a million years nobody would ever know it existed... the fact that the same can be completely untrue of a nuclear generator that went wrong says everything imo.

Again, fallout lasts a century or two at the maximum, not millions of years. Also, fossil fuels are affecting the climate of the entire world, nuclear meltdowns only effect the immediate area around said plant.

We have 2 (well... really 3) examples of nuclear accidents already. Is it not simply common sense that we must at some point admit that no matter how much humanity may think itself capable of perfection, it is impossible to obtain? And with that in mind, is it ever prudent to play with fire of this magnitude, no matter how under control you may think it to be?

Three accidents out of the over 430 in the world that have been working perfectly for decades. Chernobyl melted-down due to really shoddy building and gross negligence, Three Mile Island melted-down due to poor training and poor labeling of the new computer systems in it, and Fukushima took two natural disasters in one day to meltdown.

Honestly, the fact that two natural disasters only caused it to slightly melt down speaks to how safe it is. There's not very many things on this world built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami back to back. Also the fact that it was the only one in Japan that happened to out of their over twenty plants.

 

[Arakhor]

That said, Abigail, the Chernobyl exclusion zone is going to be contaminated for some twenty millennia.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Nuclear bombs purposely built to cause as much fallout as possible only last a century or two, not forever.

How much fallout a detonation causes is mostly determined by how and where the bomb is detonated, not how it is built.

To cause significant fallout, the bomb needs to explode relatively high above the ground, I think it could be several kilometers for the megaton hydrogen bombs in use today, but most bombs in warfare would be detonated only a few hundred meters above the ground.

Contrary to popular belief, the main purpose of nuclear bombs in warfare is not to cause radioactivity. They are developed and used to destroy entire cities or hardened military installations. To create explosions more powerful than anything that could be achieved with conventional explosives. The radioactivity is just an unfortunate side effect. Most nuclear weapons of today are actually designed to cause as little radioactivity and fallout as possible.


But I agree with your point. People are too afraid of everything nuclear and overestimate the dangers. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those were completely wiped out by nuclear weapons and today, just 70 years later, they are sprawling cities with millions of inhabitants.
We have detonated several thousand nuclear bombs all over the globe in the past 60 years or so and we're all still here.

 

[Toffer90]

That said, Abigail, the Chernobyl exclusion zone is going to be contaminated for some twenty millennia.

Today, most animals in chernobyl thrive there without any noticable health problems.

Nat. Geo. link

BBC Link

 

[Arakhor]

That's pretty cool.

 

[Faustmouse]

The way a bomb is built also affects fallout. If "properly" setup, you will fission most of the uranium and leave isotopes that are radiating pretty heavy, but only last quite a short time until they decay. Uranium on the other hand takes many millions of years to decay. So if more uranium survives the detonation, you have a longer lasting yet weaker (still hazardous) radiation.

Also, the fact that uranium has such a long life span doesn't mean that it willstay around the melted down powerplant forever. It will get washed away and deluted all over the place. Yes, also in the ground water, but keep in mind that uranium isn't something artificially created, it's there all the time. Somewhere deep down under africa is also a natural nuclear "power plant"; there is a fission reaction taking place for millions of years.

People should be much more worried about radiation from space - especially UV radiation - than radioactive radiation. This affects our every days life much more than every nuclear powerplant. A day on the beach in Cairns is probably much worse than a day at chernobyl.