1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Dams/Hydro power and such...

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Howard!, Apr 25, 2008.

  1. Howard!

    Howard! Remembering

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    201
    This is something that has always really annoyed me about this game, Hydro power plants don't have any of the negetive ramifications! When you build a dam all flood plains down stream should vanish and if a river system is dammed too many times it should turn Grassland to Plains and plains to desert! Also, the other bonuses for the river should slowly decrease down stream if dams and such are present as well as adding sickness if dammed too many times!

    Next, Coal power plants should remain virtually the same but there should be a building of some discription that allows cleaner burning and should halve the effect.

    Also, Global Warming in the game is rediculous and should be removed, fallout is enough.

    Fusion power should also be in the game.
     
  2. Popcornlord

    Popcornlord Steampunk Mechanic

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    787
    Yes, hydro power probably needs some negative modifiers, but what your saying sounds a little extreme. It's almost as bad as global wrming, except it's not global. If someone mods this in, (or are you telling Fraxis this?) there should be a cleaner source of power available (like solar power) available, or the buildings that need power/benefit from power should go up.
    And I thought fusion power was in the game. :hmm:
     
  3. MrCynical

    MrCynical Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,510
    Location:
    The Dreaming Spires
    Your suggestion would render hydro plants essentially unusuable, since they'd produce a localised and more extreme version of the current global warming system.

    A fusion plant would be an idea (at fusion of course), but would be irrelevant in space race games due to appearing so late. Would essentially be a nuclear plant without the meltdown chance or uranium requirement I guess.
     
  4. Howard!

    Howard! Remembering

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    201
    Fusion Power would be news to me, they have Fission, but no Fusion. Hydro power should never be seen as a clean alternative, terrible treatment of the environment, there should be some serious negatives down stream of these power plants... Solar shouldn't be in the game, it's good to have on your roof, but it just can't work as a main load power supply.

    So my list of Power plants (for whoever) would be:
    Coal Power - +2 :yuck:, possible upgrade with clean burning to only +1 :yuck:
    Hydro Power - + 1 :mad: per dam upstream in each city. No flood plains down stream, but no :yuck: from power.
    Nuclear (Fission) - No :yuck: or :mad: but risk of meltdown
    Fusion - No :yuck: or :mad:, but high build cost and high tech
    Three Gorges Dam - +3 :mad: downstream and no Floodplains downstream
     
  5. danieldaniel

    danieldaniel Unsinnschmierer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Maдpид
    Having nuclear plant next to where I live would make me much more :mad: than a hydroplant somewhere upstream.

    EDIT: An about the 3GD, What would be the point in building a expensive wonder that would essentially throw a bunch of unhappy faces across your empire and destroy all flood plains? Espcially when you can reduce coalplant pollution to +1?
     
  6. Howard!

    Howard! Remembering

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    201
    I think that the 3 gorges project was a travesty anyhow, but hey. If you are wondering I have seen what dams do to rivers, especially here in Australia. The Mighty Murray is dead, the Coorong is dead and yet people are still thinking of more dams. I would rather live in a Nuclear Power plant than what is happening now. Dams are basically kicking the ecosystem is the crotch, whilst Nuclear Power plants are essentially harmless (Unless some Ruskies let young engineers late at night in a delapodated plant do a core test!).

    I just think that Hydro power is getting too much praise when it's probably the worst solution you could think of, anyone remember what happened in Egypt! The three Gorges is going to be a nightmare and there are plenty of people who are unhappy about it, China just don't give a damn!
     
  7. danieldaniel

    danieldaniel Unsinnschmierer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Maдpид
    Now I see what's going on! You're promoting nuclear power because Australia holds the world's largest uranium reserves!

    Spoiler :
    j/k ;)
     
  8. Howard!

    Howard! Remembering

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    201
    It's there's going to be a green power in the game it should be fusion... Even Coal fire plants would be better than Hydro plants.

    And for a really green power source: Nuclear Power!
     
  9. OTAKUjbski

    OTAKUjbski TK421

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    not at my post
    I agree Hyrdo Power isn't even NEAR as 'green' as Firaxis has coded it to be, but some of your suggestions would simply make it worthless.

    I also don't agree Nuclear Power should be considered a "green power source" ... Nuclear Reactors generate a significant amount of highly radioacive wastestreams, which scientists still don't know how to remediate. (We currently just bury it and pray future scientists will figure out what to do with it!)

    (But that discussion belongs in "General Discussions", so that's the most I'll say here.)

    --------

    Concerning Solar Power, you should watch the History Channel more, lol. ;)

    Solar Power isn't yet as efficient as coal, oil or nuclear power, but it is feasible and is being done right now with many more projects on the way.

    Check out the EnviroMission project ... freakin awesome Australian project in development!

    Regardless of these projects, 'Solar Power' in Civ doesn't have to equate to a just a 'Solar Power Plant'. 'Solar Power' could also mean the city passed into law a building code requiring every structure to have X amount of solar panels or be built to 'green' standards using more efficient design and construction methods.

    --------

    My 'Power' idea for Civ is to allow Solar Plants to be built as tile improvements on Desert -- which increase :health: similar to Forests (perhaps + 0.5 :health: per or something like that).


    -- my 2 :commerce:
     
  10. Howard!

    Howard! Remembering

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    201
    Fusion is the way to go, but it is true that Nuclear power is a bit off, but there is a myth floating around that there is a lot of extremely hazardous waste... It produces significantly less than you would think and more importantly whilst the waste is dangerous if you were to bathe in it, it really is that horrble. But hey...

    Then again apart from a bit of air polution and the future depletion of resources there is nothing all that wrong with Coal, Oil and especially gas power plants, if the gases are scrubbed properly for Sulfur dioxide, soot and such.
     
  11. Supr49er

    Supr49er 2011 Thunderfall Cup

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,603
    Location:
    Bear Flag Republic
    I've had an event where you dam collapses, killing many people. It's been a while though and it's pretty rare.
     
  12. Howard!

    Howard! Remembering

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    201
    Yeah, China really shouldn't piss anyone off who has GPS guided missiles...

    Back to the point though, I think that Hydro power need to be changed, in truth Coal Power is better for the environment (with SO_2 scrubbing of course)...
     
  13. Sultan_of_ATL

    Sultan_of_ATL Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    well in the U.S. there are many successful damn projects that aren't killing the environment. Maybe Australia is the exception and not the norm?
     
  14. brades

    brades Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    There are a lot of misconceptions present in this thread, as a mechanical engineer I have taken many classes on nuclear, solar, wind, and fossil fuel energy. First off, solar energy will probably never be our only source of energy due to the intermittance of sunshine, however, there is certainly enough solar radiation impacting our earth that we could get much of our energy from that. That being said, solar radiation should probably be used for other things like space heating where it is much more effective than converting it to electricity through photovoltaics. A combination of solar and wind power will likely make up some portion of our future renewable energy as all rivers that can be dammed have been, with the backbone being a large nuclear system.

    The fact is you can't make coal 'clean', that is propaganda (The united states is the middle east of coal). Yes, you can do things like cap emmissions from the plant, pump them into the ground, add scrubbers to the exit stacks, etc. But all of this still leads to a lot of pollution. It's kindve like going to mcdonalds ordering a supersized big mac meal and then getting a diet coke, yeah your shaving a few calories but you're still going to get fat.

    The power plant with the most minimal impact on the environement is nuclear, plain and simple, the output of a nuclear plant similarily sized to that of a coal plant is tremendous. The only pollutant from a nuclear power plant is warm water. As far as radioactive material is concerned it is something like since the nuclear age began we haven't even created enough nuclear waste to fill up a football stadium, for all intensive purposes burying it deep in the mountains in the southwest deserts of the US is a fine solution. Meltdowns at this point are a non issue because the nuclear plants that are currently being built in the US, and the ones that are planned are so robust that if a meltdown did occur it would be totally self contained. These plants have 100 feet concrete foundations so that if a meltdown did occur it would basically melt onto itself, but with computer checks and all of those things a meltdown would be extremely unlikely with all the checks and balances put in place. 40 years after the chernoble meltdown wildlife has returned to the area, so the effects may not even be as disastrous as we might think.

    The best combination of energy would be solar, wind, and nuclear. Solar works best in the summer, obvious more sunshine, whereas wind power works best in the winter when the winds are at there greatest due to large temperature gradients around the planet. And you fill the remaining load with Nuclear power. This will be our future because energy demand is going up every year, while peak energy demand is going up faster, what this means is that during the peak (june and july) we have brownouts. Because our baseline power supply can not meat the peak demand. To meet this demand is where solar can shine (bad pun) The peak in energy is due to air conditioning so it is a direct relation between using solar energy at that time.

    Now the downside, pollution is a global issue, even if the US gets on board and stops all coal plants tomorrow we may still be past the tipping point because China and other developing nations are adding on average a 500 megawatt coal powerplant per week. It's awfully hard for the US to say to these developing nations that they shouldnt be burning coal when we too are adding coal power plants to our energy grid. The only way we will be able to deal with producing enough energy and helping the environment is to build more nuclear plants. The first step to this is dispelling misconceptions about them, they are not scary, no three eyed fish, and living next door to one would at worst be an eye sore because of the large cooling towers associated with them.
     
  15. AfterShafter

    AfterShafter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    World's largest lentil producer
    Don't recycling centers do pretty much what you're asking to coal plants? And isn't the negative of hydro-plants that you can only build them on a river?
     
  16. AfterShafter

    AfterShafter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    World's largest lentil producer
    Heh, most of the US's big dams were built before people really cared about wiping out natural habitat X, interrupting migratory route Y, or draining wetland Z. I'm betting if a lot of the US's supposedly environmentally friendly dams were constructed today, they wouldn't be perceived as so friendly ;)
     
  17. Joe Harker

    Joe Harker 1st in the Premiership!

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,812
    Location:
    Coventry!
    Hello again! :)

    May be what happens in some cases in real life, but for a game it's a bit of an overkill.
     
  18. Joe Harker

    Joe Harker 1st in the Premiership!

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,812
    Location:
    Coventry!
    Sure the amount of uranium is extremely small, i can't remember the figure but the problem is sealing it, it requires a good few cms of concrete to absorb enough radiation for it to be deemed safe.

    Also they are extremely expensive to set up (Britain is facing a large bill should the government go ahead with the new nuclear plants they want) and maintain.
     
  19. Ormur

    Ormur Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    332
    I'd much rather live next to a hydroelectric power plant (in fact I do and it's pretty nice) than next to a coal plant. Sure large dams can destroy natural habitats and disrupt the local environment pretty drastically but they are still much better than coal plants.

    In Civ IV terms I think it would be far more realistic to just include some event where the local population gets angry at the new dam or some improvements are destroyed or something because the dam burst than to nerf them in other ways.

    Nuclear power plants should only be in danger of meltdown when there are angry people or if there is an event. If they are properly taken care of the aren't the ticking time bombs they are in Civ IV.
     
  20. Howard!

    Howard! Remembering

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    201
    Well that's nice to know, but I don't live next to one, I live more than 1,000 kms downstream from many of them and now there's no water!

    We need to use coal for the time being and if we scrub the gasses for sulfur and sook then it isn't going to do any damage.
     

Share This Page