Choosing the Right Kind of Power Plant

[Crighton]

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]

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]

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...

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...

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...

 

[DaviddesJ]

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]

OTOH Civ takes ideas from real life; it does not attempt to be an exact replica of real life.

 

[Zombie69]

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]

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

 

[markofmayhem]

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]

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

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.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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]

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.

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

 

[DaviddesJ]

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]

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]

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]

oh #!@", speak of the devil, i just had a nuclear meltdown on my best base and all my workers are on another island

 

[Nightmare99]

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]

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]

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]

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 article as it's more applicable to his Chapter 2 on health giving buildings .

 

[ModernKnight]

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?