How often does nuclear plant melt down in Civ4?

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Indeed, by the time nuclear reactors come around I have armies of workers all ready to clean up the mess, and it never really takes long to rebuild the city.

 

[bob rulz]

Wow, meltdowns do happen too often. I haven't gotten that far in a game yet, and yet I can tell that it already happens way too often in the game compared to real life. Nuclear plants have been around for 50 years with hundreds of reactors, with just 1 meltdown (and that was due to poor management and oversight on the part of the workers). I would be surprised if a nuclear meltdown ever happened again.

 

[Tee Kay]

Nuke plants meltdown once in, say, 10000 years of operation (please correct me if I'm wrong). And in most cases the damage done is minimal. So i would consider 3 meltdowns in one game too much. (though I never build nuke plants: it's a waste of time since dams would do just as well. In fact, the one time I build nuke plants (in civ3) was in hope of witnessing a meltdown)

 

[Stylesjl]

Note: Meltdowns in civ3 only happen when rioters destroy them during civil disorder

 

[ArmoredCavalry]

There has been more then one meltdown in real life. Chenoble, Three mile island, and maybe more (though those are the 2 famous ones)

 

[DeafDolphin]

There has been more then one meltdown in real life. Chenoble, Three mile island, and maybe more (though those are the 2 famous ones)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Meltdowns

A number of Russian nuclear submarines have experienced nuclear meltdowns. The only known large scale nuclear meltdowns at civilian nuclear power plants were in the Chernobyl accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986, and Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, USA, in 1979 although there have been several partial core meltdowns, including accidents at:

* NRX, Ontario, Canada, in 1952
* EBR-I, Idaho, USA, in 1955
* Windscale, Sellafield, England, in 1957
* Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Hills, California, in 1959
* Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA, in 1966
* Chapelcross, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, in 1967

Not all of these were caused by a loss of coolant and in several cases (the Chernobyl accident and the Windscale fire, for example) the meltdown was not the most severe problem.

The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a loss of coolant, but "despite melting of about one-third of the fuel, the reactor vessel itself maintained its integrity and contained the damaged fuel".

 

[Rex Tyrannus]

but I think the advantage is a larger increase in production than a coal plant gives

All power sources do just that, provide power to your factories. Coal, nuclear, solar, Three Gorges Dam. Same production, variable cost and polution.

 

[Jmaz]

My very first game I had a meltdown. I have not built one since. Now I highly prioritze the Gorges Dam. My 'Production Cities' are intentionally built on rivers now to 'almost' guarantee my getting the Dam. If I don't get the Dam then I can still fall back on Hydro Plants. When heading to Plastics I start saving my money so I can 'buy' the Dam.

 

[DarkFyre99]

I've never bothered to build them myself. The chances are good that if I need to build a coal plant, I'll probably need to build a recycling center eventually, so...

 

[GrandMatt]

After reading this, i built 15 nuclear plants in my current game ( St, Mon, Ep ), instead of coal plants, and yea... nothing happened after ~ aprox 150 turns! There is a chance that they will melt down, but i think you have to be very unlucky for it to happen!

Some one send in a screenie of it happening plz?!?

 

[Columbkille]

I never build nuclear power plants ever because very possibility of a meltdown

 

[PriestOfDiscord]

I hate meltdowns myself

But i find it easy to recover anyway

You can recover from the fallout quickly enough, but once global warming starts it can never be stopped. And thats far worse than any amount of fallout.

I've never had one personally, but I ususally don't use nuclear plants. I either deal with polluting coal until recycling plants, or I go hydro.

 

[Damion_Foster]

Personally, I think the meltdowns add a bit of excitement to the game...here's a scenario I recently had....and by recently I mean when I had a computer that would run Civ4...I was playing as the US..I had monty down in mexico, asoka with one cit in california, and then I had the russians moving in on alaska...monty is getting pretty unpleased with me because he keeps making demands even though I have the stronger military force, along with the upper hand in tech...so I'm building up units in washington to send to dallas (with dallas near the mexican border)...of course dallas is producing it's own set of units prepairing for a more than likely invasion...asoka is off in her own little world doing whatever to whoever...the russians settle their first city in alaska and I personally see that as a threat, seems how cathrine has been going through starting **** with everyone..so in seattle I set production on a modern armor to hopefully claim the city russia just built...well in New York and Las Vegas(I name the cities myself, leave me alone XD) other cities i'm 1 turn away from building nuclear power plants (these cities are roughly in the nevada area, and up in canada) needless to say sadly, this is where I had based most of my troops...a MAJOR tatical error with the onset of probible war...a few turns go by, I get my armor finished and on his way to the russian city....I felt hat the monty threat was just a bit of tension so I pull my units out of dallas and las vegas sent them north....major mistake #2....leaving about...3 or so mech. inf in dallas, and 1 or 2 in vegas...(mind you with no shelters of ANY kind)....4 or 5 turns later I'm in alaska, and declaired war about 1 turn ago or so, the units I brought up, sadly werent enought o take out the defenders, so I sit outside the town and wait for my units to heal...I hit enter and wait for the next turn...when my turn comes around, I get the message that a nuclear reactor had melted down....Ironically enough...in las vegas I quickly start moving troops from dallas to vegas, but they are a good turn away...stopping RIGHT outside my city...monty seizes the opprotunity and imediately charges in for vegas, capturing it that turn...I recall what little troops i have to dallas in hopes that monty will choose asoka over dallas...needless to say he charged for dallas....but I brought in reinforcements from washington and mopped the ground with monty's head piece....

Basically what I'm trying to say is nuclear meltdown may not happen very often in the real world, but face it...it's a game....there have to be some drawbacks to something thats good! just because it dosent happen that often in real life dosent mean that it can't in the game plus it makes things intresting! makes you think!

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I'll admit, I never really feel the need to have a nuclear power plant, by that stage of the game I already have my powerhouse cities. It's just a minor bonus to have one.

 

[Joseph Stalin]

I only build nuclear power plants, coal is to poluting and gorge dam isn't my priority

never had a melt down and i have had a lot of nuclear plants

 

[Black Waltz]

With Civ III you had least had a reason to build Nuclear over Hydro - namely the large production boost that Nuclear gave you (Something like 150% compared to others 100%?) In this, there is no difference between the plants other then how clean and danger. As such I avoid nuclear and just go for Hydro. Or replace my coal with Hydro. Unhealthiness isn't really too much of an issue late game so coal plants are entirely viable.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

It's been a long time since I played Civ, but I think the advantage is a larger increase in production than a coal plant gives. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I had a meltdown once, surprised me as I've never had a meltdown in any other Civ.

Not so in Civ4.

There are four sources of power. They all provide the same boost to production. A city either has power or does not.

The coal plant requires coal and has 2
The nuclear plant requires access to uranium and has no side effects (except meltdown)
The hydro plant has no side effects, but must be built in a city on a river.
The three gorges dam is a world wonder and provides power to all cities on a continent. This wonder can only be built in a city on a river.

Essentially, if there are all three plants in a city, the city will use the hydro plant first. If only a nuclear plant and coal plant is present, the nuclear will be used. Finally, the game's last choice is coal. If you capture a city that has nuclear power you're consequently forced to use it unless you sever your uranium connection.

 

[Stylesjl]

When i build a hydro plant the nuclear plant can still meltdown for some reason........

 

[_alphaBeta_]

When i build a hydro plant the nuclear plant can still meltdown for some reason........

Interesting and good to know. I guess the chance still exists even though the city isn't technically using that plant.

I had my first meltdown tonight. It happened in my first city and capital taking about half the buildings with it (including the forge & factory so rebuilding was annoying). The fallout is pretty irrelevant since I had 20 some workers standing around doing nothing. I didn't realize quite so many buildings can fall victim though.

I think I'll go with coal and wait for recyclying centers/supermarkets. A meltdown in the middle of the space race is bad.

 

[Gherald]

I never have a need to build nuclear plants. If a city is by a river I build Hydro or 3 Gorges.

Occasionally I will build coal if a city has a lot of health. Otherwise, I just don't bother at all.

IMO meltdowns should disappear after Fusion, though...

Oh yeah! If feasible fusion was discovered tomorrow, all the nuclear power plants in the world would become instantly meltdown proof!