Suggestion: Get rid of accidental nuclear meltdowns and resource removals from certian buildings.

[Tajo]

Meltdowns don't exist anymorein game.
They are simply too destructive.

So they are completely removed? I think there should be a risk of meltdown in the game because it is so in real life too. Those who want to avoid it, should not build nuclear plants.

 

[Faustmouse]

Then there must be the risk of pandemics that whipe out 60% of a continents population and the risk of asteroids that end the game and the risk of fertilizer / coal plant explosions that can destroy a city; the risk of vulcanos that destroy a city near them or kill most of the worlds population (as happened at least once during human history); the risk of a grey goo scenario, of AI accidently killing of humans etc etc...

 

[Tajo]

Then there must be the risk of pandemics that whipe out 60% of a continents population and the risk of asteroids that end the game and the risk of fertilizer / coal plant explosions that can destroy a city; the risk of vulcanos that destroy a city near them or kill most of the worlds population (as happened at least once during human history); the risk of a grey goo scenario, of AI accidently killing of humans etc etc...

Sure why not. Volcanos currently do havoc if city or suburbs are near it. All those could be in the game imo and they should be optional so players could choose to take them or leave them.

 

[Faustmouse]

Excactly what I said earlier. Meltdowns are ok, but they should be in the bad stuff happens modmod, so they can be turned on and off.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Meltdowns, exactly as they are, should very well be a threat to the earliest nuclear power plants. Really to ANY nuclear powerplant. I do NOT believe any powerplant is immune to this possibility no matter what anyone says about that because human systems are always subject to potential error and maintenance oversight and natural disaster bringing about worst case scenarios out of the blue. Assigning the effect as a generic system of disaster to other buildings may be a step too far but removing them from nuclear plants is foolish and negates the warning to the world that this game effect is really meant to be, imo.

If they are not applying to nuclear power sources, can we please get them back on those?

 

[Faustmouse]

Keep in mind that all incidents were in quite old plants. I know your opinion of Nuclear Plants, but don't compare those old plants to new ones, or Gen IV that isn't even operational right know. I'd be ok with the first plants have a chance to meltdown, but not the later.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Keep in mind that all incidents were in quite old plants. I know your opinion of Nuclear Plants, but don't compare those old plants to new ones, or Gen IV that isn't even operational right know. I'd be ok with the first plants have a chance to meltdown, but not the later.

No. I don't care what anybody says they are never going to be 100% safe. Period. It is a fundamental law of nature that nothing can be perfected. And the arrogance to think we can will be our downfall.

 

[Faustmouse]

They don't have to be 100% safe (though I think they could be ), but if there is only 1 incident ever 100.000.000 years or so, it is well worth the risk. Think about it; you are driving most certainly a car. This isn't 100% either and you are much much much more likely to die because of a car accident than a nuclear accident, yet you still do it. If you die in a car accident this for sure isn't a city wide desaster (well... except for the million c2c players that would cry for you), but for YOU, it is the worst possible outcome - you die.

 

[Thunderbrd]

They don't have to be 100% safe (though I think they could be ), but if there is only 1 incident ever 100.000.000 years or so, it is well worth the risk. Think about it; you are driving most certainly a car. This isn't 100% either and you are much much much more likely to die because of a car accident than a nuclear accident, yet you still do it. If you die in a car accident this for sure isn't a city wide desaster (well... except for the million c2c players that would cry for you), but for YOU, it is the worst possible outcome - you die.

You are right that it's all about the worst possible outcome. The worst possible outcome of a massive failure at a nuclear plant is that a significant portion of the population of all living things on earth perish and that a wide swath of the planet becomes completely incapable of supporting life and slowly kills anything that intrudes upon it and spreads that poison out in a gradual ripple effect as it diffuses into nature over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. There is no acceptable measure of risk for this.

 

[Faustmouse]

Uhm... no? You HIGHLY overestimate nuclear desasters. They are bad, no question, but they are quite local (yeah, you can find radioactives from the Fukushima desaster in US milk, but these make the milk only 0.00 somewhat percent more radioactive than normal and pose no additional harm to anyone that drinks it) and the non-local effects go away quite quickly. Even Tschernobyl is recovering quite well. The animal populations are more numberous than anywhere else, as there are no humans to harm them. Also, if you look at deaths per KWh produced, nuclear energy is much safer than coal or gas...

 

[Thunderbrd]

Uhm... no? You HIGHLY overestimate nuclear desasters. They are bad, no question, but they are quite local (yeah, you can find radioactives from the Fukushima desaster in US milk, but these make the milk only 0.00 somewhat percent more radioactive than normal and pose no additional harm to anyone that drinks it) and the non-local effects go away quite quickly. Even Tschernobyl is recovering quite well. The animal populations are more numberous than anywhere else, as there are no humans to harm them. Also, if you look at deaths per KWh produced, nuclear energy is much safer than coal or gas...

Keep eating up the propaganda bro. Fukushima has probably killed a lot of the Earth already and continues to. We haven't begun to see how many lives this thing will cost. You realize it's still melting down right? Radioactive material continues to melt into the earth and seep into the ocean. Fish are showing up with open welts and puss on beaches and the last thing the media wants is for you to know about it. We're being fed misinformation that paints a cozy little picture over the hell we've unleashed and it works because we don't directly see it and it's spreading its doom oh so slowly. Some believe Fukushima will already prove to be a globe killer eventually. I think that might be a bit over the top to say so. But what you say about Chernobyl recovering is also incorrect according to some sources, though I know there are many sources saying it's all rosy there.

 

[raxo2222]

You are right that it's all about the worst possible outcome. The worst possible outcome of a massive failure at a nuclear plant is that a significant portion of the population of all living things on earth perish and that a wide swath of the planet becomes completely incapable of supporting life and slowly kills anything that intrudes upon it and spreads that poison out in a gradual ripple effect as it diffuses into nature over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. There is no acceptable measure of risk for this.

If we had Terrawatt or Petawatt scale nuclear powerplant, then this stuff could happen.
We will have much more dangerous techs in far future.
I bet in late Cosmic era one Earthlike planet gets accidentally trashed on average every year
What about asteroid mining in Nanotech/Transhuman era?
There is risk of sending "dinokiller" on Earth.
Anyway meltdowns are removed, you can add it to all but most advanced nuclear powerplants if you want to.

------------------------------------------------------
What about tea/coffee/tobacco removals by Mormon buildings (custom religions module) and coal removal by vanilla National Wonder - National Park?
For Mormon buildings it can be commented out, as for now its very out of place and for vanilla National Park it can be outright removed.

 

[tmv]

I know there are many sources saying it's all rosy there.

False dilemma. And there are many countries in the world where the media are not so keen to provide pro-nuclear propaganda - quite the contrary. And there is natural radioactivity - as long as the artificial radioactivity isn't much higher than that level, it's not going to do anything. And you can have high-intensity radiation or long-lasting radiation, but not both (it's not possible for more atoms to decay than there are present in the first place).

Then there are the downsides of the other energy sources: Coal, oil and gas produce CO² in large quantities, wind turbines shredder birds and can disturb people a lot by reflecting light, dams can be a security nightmare worse than nuclear power plants and solar cells on the roof means if your house is ever on fire you are out of luck - no extinguishing possible.

You realize it's still melting down right?

Could you please give a source when you make a statement like that?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Then there are the downsides of the other energy sources: Coal, oil and gas produce CO² in large quantities, wind turbines shredder birds and can disturb people a lot by reflecting light, dams can be a security nightmare worse than nuclear power plants and solar cells on the roof means if your house is ever on fire you are out of luck - no extinguishing possible.

All sources may have their own problems but birds will adapt to wind turbines and numerous solar sources are in further development. There's no excuse any more to be continuing to rely on coal, natural gas, and nuclear. All are far more damaging. Nuclear is probably NOT as bad as the first two so don't think I'm advocating their use. But the risk is really so intolerable that we should be shifting away from them to more renewable technologies as fast as possible. Honestly, energy is not so hard to generate as the people who run the show and profit from the investments they've already made want you to believe because it costs them a lot to change and they really would prefer to get a better ROI than to make sacrifices for the benefit of global health. They are far too self-absorbed for that. And why wouldn't they be? It's every man for himself in our national worldview.

Could you please give a source when you make a statement like that?

I can. I've got a number of them favorited on my twitter page which is public access - you might have to scroll a while because I haven't looked at that stuff much lately. But I'm not taking the time to post them here because I've got more important things to go about today and I know how this kind of argumentation goes. It becomes a huge change of topic by converting over to arguing over the validity of the reporting based on its source. I have multiple sources but I'm well aware that people these days, myself included, can only hold on to those news sources that tend to validate their opinions and won't believe anything outside their own bubble. So with the reporting I've read, all I really do is 'feel' through it. It's in my gut that I believe what is being stated and that Fukushima is being largely ignored while it continues to be an ongoing disaster. Personally, I'm of the belief that the lines in revelation speaking about the opening of the bottomless pit and so on are completely aimed directly at what happened and continues to happen there. I've read numerous reports from numerous sources that estimate that it may have already or is at least on track to have inflicted a cost of about 1/3d of the life in the ocean. Rather confirming, IMO. But we'll all believe what we want to believe I guess. No source can be shown to be provably accurate or not... that's the world of swirling propaganda that we are in right now. There is NO 100% reliable source of information.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

What about tea/coffee/tobacco removals by Mormon buildings (custom religions module) and coal removal by vanilla National Wonder - National Park?
For Mormon buildings it can be commented out, as for now its very out of place and for vanilla National Park it can be outright removed.

There is a new version of Mormon in the unloaded mods folder. It needs a lot more work as the person I was working on it with lost interest before I could understand what he wanted. Being a Moron he had a better understanding of how it should go together. He also designed the current version.

Then there are the downsides of the other energy sources: Coal, oil and gas produce CO² in large quantities, wind turbines shredder birds and can disturb people a lot by reflecting light, dams can be a security nightmare worse than nuclear power plants and solar cells on the roof means if your house is ever on fire you are out of luck - no extinguishing possible.

Coal also produces radioactive fall out.

My brother, the firefighter, says that solar panels on the roof don't make much difference in fighting a house fire.

On Natural Gas there are two types. The one you mine and the one produced as a by product of the sewage treatment. Many sewage plants here in Australia are using that gas to produce the electricity needed to run the plant. Since the gas is a bigger greenhouse gas than the resultant CO2 it is seen as a win-win.

 

[Faustmouse]

I'm completely with you that Renewables >> Nuclear. But I highly doubt that it killed 1/3 of life in the ocean. Water is an extremely good radiation shield; in fact you could even swim in a nuclear waste heat decaying pool without being exposed to above normal doses of radiation. In fact, if you dive in it, you get less radiation than you get walking around in the forest or sitting in your office. And why would the media try to cover that? We all know how much they like to inflate desasters even more.
But you are right; we had this discussion before and we ain't gonna change or minds, because we both spend quite some time gathering sources that conviniently support our own view. Horray to the internet

Could we settle on reducing Meltdonws to "old" I and II and maybe III Gen Powerplants but not on Gen IV? Also reduce the likelyhood of it. Otherwise you have another unusable building in the list, which isn't really good for a game. Imagine an anti-vaccine person would be a modder here (not saying your anti-nuclear = anti-vaccine) and nerving vaccine labs to the ground...

 

[Thunderbrd]

Could we settle on reducing Meltdonws to "old" I and II and maybe III Gen Powerplants but not on Gen IV? Also reduce the likelyhood of it. Otherwise you have another unusable building in the list, which isn't really good for a game. Imagine an anti-vaccine person would be a modder here (not saying your anti-nuclear = anti-vaccine) and nerving vaccine labs to the ground...

Yeah... I really hate discussing vaccine issues because I understand both sides completely.

I would be happiest if we include the possibility on them all and make the possibility decrease significantly as it goes forward. I'm not sure if that's possible. If it isn't, and it has to have the generally too frequent likelihood the game tends to deliver, than I would be happy to limit the effect to earlier versions. I agree that we've taken dramatic steps to improve on the potential for this kind of thing to happen.

On the flip side, while the chance of experiencing a meltdown seems far higher than reality, the in-game effect is also not nearly dramatic enough as it stands because in the real world you cannot 'scrub fallout'. But maybe eventually a Radiation property could be suitable. Also the immediate loss of population as if the place was nuked seems a bit overly dramatic. When I do eventually get around to working with diversifying the nuclear blast effect I should be able to give us some more control to make for a more realistic form of 'meltdown' event, along with perhaps some enabling of other disastrous random effects.

 

[tmv]

in the real world you cannot 'scrub fallout'

Fungus apparently can: http://www.cracked.com/article_19133_6-ways-nature-cleans-up-our-messes-better-than-we-do.html

my twitter page which is public access

What was the URL again?

 

[pepper2000]

Without any comment on the merits of nuclear power in real life, the meltdown mechanism in Civ4/C2C is a big pain in the ass. It was designed for a game where you would only lose a handful of buildings, but now a meltdown can be highly disruptive to the complex building tree. Furthermore, the radioactive fallout continues to respawn around the world for all time. It doesn't make the game harder, really, it's just plain obnoxious. I don't believe we should use the meltdown XML for any buildings until these problems are addressed.

Regarding the resource removal, I'm not sure I see the problem here. It is a strange mechanism (there are Starbucks in Salt Lake City, after all), but I wouldn't object to using the system in principle, so long as no resource is removed that is critical for the building tree.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Fungus apparently can: http://www.cracked.com/article_19133_6-ways-nature-cleans-up-our-messes-better-than-we-do.html

Pigs then eat the fungus, crap it out farther from where it once was and the ripple effect continues to disperse the poison further and further albeit spreading it thinner and thinner as it goes.

What was the URL again?

www.twitter.com @thunderbrd1 Have fun learning more about my inner thinking than I could ever directly share