Coal and Hydro Plants

[Aceman101]

Or you could wait till you research recycling, then you could sell your coal plants for gold and shields.

 

[gmaharriet]

Or you could wait till you research recycling, then you could sell your coal plants for gold and shields.

You could do that, but you'd be paying gpt maintenance in the meanwhile.

 

[TimBentley]

And cleaning up pollution. (Besides, recycling is almost never worth researching; you should have won already.)

 

[Desertsnow]

I've never built a nuclear plant, mainly because, erm, I'm scared of meltdown.

 

[gmaharriet]

I've never built a nuclear plant, mainly because, erm, I'm scared of meltdown.

Neither have I, and for exactly the same reason. I keep telling myself the risk is very low unless I'm in Democracy (which I NEVER am), but I still haven't built one.

Maybe one of the experts here could give us a realistic assessment of the risks?

 

[Turner]

I build the Nuclear plant a lot, usually in my high production cities or those that aren't on the same continent as my HD, and I've never had a meltdown. If you're really that concerned about a meltdown in a city with a nuke plant, turn the govenor on to regulate happiness. Problem solved.

Also, using a moodbadge graphics mod, and/or CivAssist2/Mapstat, you can stay ahead of unhappiness and make sure those cities don't riot.

You do have to be careful on losing luxuries to trade/war, but careful management can negate that small possibility.

 

[Sweetchuck]

I've built a lot of nuke plants also, and never had a meltdown.

But honestly, I was hoping at some point to have one just to see what happens.

I'm guessing that you lose the plant and get a lot of pollution around the city.

 

[Aceman101]

You could do that, but you'd be paying gpt maintenance in the meanwhile.

But if you are only a tech from recycling when you discover you can sell coal plants, then you could wait a few turns. But I wouldn't wait that long.

 

[Aceman101]

I've built a lot of nuke plants also, and never had a meltdown.

But honestly, I was hoping at some point to have one just to see what happens.

I'm guessing that you lose the plant and get a lot of pollution around the city.

You don't lose the plant (Or at least I don't think you do). But yes you do get a lot of pollution around the city. But it's nowere near as bad as a nuclear missile. All the improvements are left intact.

Neither have I, and for exactly the same reason. I keep telling myself the risk is very low unless I'm in Democracy (which I NEVER am), but I still haven't built one.

I also never build one because I'm scard it's gonna blow. But if you manage to keep your citizens happy. It wont blow.

Maybe one of the experts here could give us a realistic assessment of the risks?

Not that I'm an expert but,

You can't have a meltdown if the city is not rioting.
If the city is rioting I don't know but I think it's like 20% chance or something.
As I said above even if it has a meltdown it's no were near as bad as an ICBM or tactical nuke.

 

[Turner]

I'm not seeing any hard numbers in the editor or civilopedia. There is a 20% chance of rioting if the city is in disorder, perhaps that's it.

By that late in the game, I don't let my cities go into disorder. So I don't have much experience with that.

 

[Aceman101]

I don't know why I am to scared to build a nuclear plant. I know it wont melt down if the citizens are happy but if theres suddenly a riot it might explode.

 

[MAS]

not the first turn it goes into a disorder, so you can always fix it.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

The biggest risk is if you are at war with a strong enemy and you are losing, because you might get hit with rioting two turns in a row from increasing war weariness. I tend to build them in core cities, and those cities are usually pretty happy by the time that I get to Nuclear Power, so weariness is usually the only thing that gets my cities rioting by that time.

 

[Aceman101]

The biggest risk is if you are at war with a strong enemy and you are losing, because you might get hit with rioting two turns in a row from increasing war weariness. I tend to build them in core cities, and those cities are usually pretty happy by the time that I get to Nuclear Power, so weariness is usually the only thing that gets my cities rioting by that time.

Even if you are winning a war. War weariness can start if the war has been going on for too long.

not the first turn it goes into a disorder, so you can always fix it.

Ah so it takes two turns of rioting to cause a chance for a meltdown.

 

[MAS]

Even if you are winning a war. War weariness can start if the war has been going on for too long.

Ah so it takes two turns of rioting to cause a chance for a meltdown.

a city in disorder has a chance to riot. But they don't riot the first turn of disorder.

There are 2 concepts here, disorder, and riot.

 

[Aceman101]

So disorder is the first turn of civil unrest and riot is the second turn of civil unrest?

 

[MAS]

a riot means the citizens start destroying city improvements at random.

This is a random event that only happens when a city is in disorder. But it doesn't always happen.

 

[Aceman101]

I've cetainly had citizens destroy improvements before. But now I know it takes 2 turns. Thanks .

 

[Desertsnow]

Yeah, I have a habit of ignoring revolutionary anarchy when playing a religious civ, figuring it would be quick and easy. Well, it's quick, but not always easy considering that I tend toward builder-style play and so losing cultural improvements is especially irksome to me.
On the other hand I think I'd be fairly riled if the rioters attacked a nuke plant. It would be monumentally stupid of them, really.

 

[Aceman101]

On the other hand I think I'd be fairly riled if the rioters attacked a nuke plant. It would be monumentally stupid of them, really.

Citizens destroying nuke plants . How dumb can it get. If they destroyed a nuke plant it would almost sound like the citizens wanted the town destroyed in the first place.