poser002 said:
Well really we have had 2 melt downs in the history. THe us had 3 mile island.
It wasn't a meltdown in the common sense of the word at all. The zirconium insulation on the uranium pellet tubes ruptured, starting a reaction which destroyed the inner core. However, the housing of the containment building was never breached. The plant itself never melted down, and no radioactivity of any kind was released into the area. Because of the accident the plant itself is toast (it'd cost more to repair than to build a new one), but other than that there was no damage, no injuries, no loss of life, and no radioactive spillage of any kind.
Compare that to a single Exxon Valdez, which practically destroyed a huge chunk of the ecology of Prince William Sound. That was a single oil spill from a single tanker, and not a very big one. Valdez, for example, spilled only 37,000 tons of oil; the Atlantic Express spilled *287,000* tons. There are several large oil spills every year (around 100,000 tons per year), and this is just the cost *from tanker spills*. The game doesn't take this into account, nor the damage caused by oil or coal plants. Coal plants, if you didn't know, release thousands of tons of highly radioactive material - uranium, plutonium, and thorium, among others - right into the atmosphere. No controls of any kind. You're breathing it in right now.
My point is this: the game models the highly unlikely event of a meltdown as an actual mechanic, but fails to model the much-more-damaging effects of accidents in the oil, coal, and natural gas industries - which kill thousands and cost billions every year. Why bother with something like putting a meltdown into the game, but just toss off a tiny -2 health for coal plants? Despite what the lunatic fringe says, nuclear power is far safer and far, far more healthy than any 'conventional' power source.
Major reason why the us has not built a new factory in the last 30 plus years i belive the last one built was in the early 70's i think not 100% on that.
The U.S. hasn't built nuclear power plants because idiots in the 'environmental' movement convinced the general public that they were all going to die in horrible accidents if we did build them. So instead of mass-producing nuclear breeder reactors and having safe, clean power for pennies on the dollar by now, we're still stuck with incredibly dirty, unsafe, dangerous coal and oil plants that kill thousands of Americans every year.
Why the gain of power out put is very very high the risk of a melt down and the loss of a city keeps citys from voting to build one in there city.
No, inane radical propaganda keeps people from building nuclear power plants. But it looks like that's about to change, and thank the gods for that.
Same thing goes for dam's now. There under attack as alot of dames have busted
The only part of the U.S. that's primarily hydropower is the Northwest, where I live. No dam has failed in the Northwest since the 1950's; no hydropower dam has failed here - ever.
and alot of them are getting to there life they were ment to last.
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but our dams are doing just fine. The only thing they're coming to the end of their operational life on is the turbine structures themselves. What do you do? You order new ones and replace them, just like the spark plugs or brake pads in your car.
Dams don't just fall apart after X number of years. They're enormous structures of stone and steel much like artificial mountains, and they're continuously maintained. There is no hydropower dam in the Northwest in danger of failing.
Like hover dame is comming up on the point it was ment to last and some time in the next 10-15 years it might give way.
The only people spouting this nonsense are environmentalists who hate dams. Usually they go on and on (and on and on...) about how every dam in the Northwest should be destroyed because somehow, it's more important to have a specific species of salmon than to provide the cleanest power possible to our states. Not that they want us to replace the dams with coal plants; they just want us to have...no power, I guess. They never provide a realistic alternative.
They don't try to tell us in the Northwest that are dams are about to fail and kill us all - we just aren't stupid enough to believe that crap, since most of us have lived downstream from a series of dams most of our lives. But Hoover Dam is a special exception which seems to be imbued with a particular aura of evil by environmentalists, I think because it's so bloody large. A testament to human ingenuity and technological achievement that these high priests of animism-gone-horribly-wrong just can't stand and *must* do their best to tear down.
Listening to the environmental fringe is just like trusting a used car salesman. No, scratch that; the used car salesman is invariably more honest.
Just saying to make a game a bit more realistic some builds should have down sides to them
Sure. Have nuclear plants cost more than coal plants. It's not realistic (just ask Sweden or France) but it balances the game. But a meltdown? That just isn't necessary. It certainly isn't necessary if you aren't going to model all the accidents, damage, and costs associated with much worse power-producing industries.
Max
). However, I certainly agree with you that the furrier (and everything associated with it 
) does seem to present a valid concern. 
Maybe extra food .... mainly due to decreased pollution? 
This could actually add a WHOLE new dimension to the so-called End-game. 
