Misrepresentation of nuclear power

[GodsFavoriteAnt]

While this comes as no surprise, the Civ team has always had a thing against nuclear power, it is worth mentioning some obvious mistakes.

Nuclear power does not emit CO2. In fact, it is one of the only sources of power where the waste is completely contained and accounted for. You might argue that it takes fossil fuels to run the equipment to extract uranium. But by that logic so do all the forms of power generation. You think solar is awesome? Google Mongolian rare earth mine. That isn't even mentioning that wind and solar aren't suitable to primary power generation due to intermittency.

Equating an accident at a nuclear plant to fallout from a nuclear weapon is especially disingenuous. The two things don't even produce the same fissile products and accidents at nuclear plants are very rare.

[Prometheus]

This thread isn't going to change. It is exactly as was advertised from the start. No reason to get slaps on the wrist from a mod for participation. I'm out.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by GodsFavoriteAnt:

Oh good, a Just Because fallacy. Well, just because you say so, doesn't make it so.

As stated before, the part you attribute to creating CO2 means that all forms of power generation should as nothing is manufactured without using fossil fuels to some degree. It would have been better to model the CO2 output based on the mines themselves. Simplistic enough for gameplay and more accurate that attributing it to something that does not generate CO2 itself.

You are right, it would be more accurate to put thie uranium emissions in the mines. But it would be an exception from the rule that emissions are generated on consumption. Another point where playability beats realism. But that was not your point, was it? You said electricity generation with nucular fission does not generate emissions at all. Which is not true.

It is true, however, that e.g. the steel nedded for wind turbines has a carbon footprint (if it is produced in blast furnaces, which can be assumed for at least some timespan it can be built ingame). But civ6 is not an economic simulation. It cuts off detail; and while oyu could argue that it should also be less detailed about nucular power... wait, why would you?

Hell, I would like more detail, but the main target audience certainly would not.

Btw, calling something a fallacy does not make it one.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by GodsFavoriteAnt:

I love that Chernobyl is still the go to for anti-nuclear morons. A) That reactor design is very different from what is used in the rest of the world, and for good reason, B) The reactor was ran out of specifications to do something it was never intended for (creating more plutonium for weapons manufacture), C) A western designed reactor would have shut down on its own before catching on fire like the Chernobyl did.

Solar is fine as an auxiliary power source to offset daytime usage. But it cannot generate power 24/7 and storage solutions do not exist to deliver power during times of darkness. Wind suffers the same issue, only worse because the wind is less predictable than the day/night cycle. Both take up huge amounts of space. Wind is also a menace to avian wildlife in the area it is installed. Not even going to mention what the SOP is for when one of these things catches fire.

If extraction is the cause of the CO2, then Solar and Wind should emit too. It requires fossil fuel to extract and ship the materials to make both. In the case of wind, you're looking at a lot of steel for each 7 ton blade in a wind turbine. Even using composites for the blades you're not off the hook.

Keep on trying though.

I am totally interested in your way of thoughts, because everywhere you hear of people thinking this way but you never actually get to see one. Now, I still don't see you but I have a question under my nails: How do you imagine the world in 30 years?

Fossil fuels and nucular because renewables don't work? Do you believe they are a dead end? I am honestly interested in your view on the world.

Also, on reactor accidents: They happen more frequent than military use of nukes. And more frequent than one might think. Just think of Chernobyl and Fukushima: 2 major events (plus the others that did not go totally haywire by a razors edge) in 30 years. Mean time to happen of 15 years? Defnitely something to expect, especially IF nucular use would continue to grow.
Plus, whenever a GAU happens, we are told that this can not happen to other reactors because they are more secure. Like in Germany, where they added another fortified emergency generator (which Fukushima did not have) claiming now nothing can happen. And when this one blows up, they will add another. Madness, I say, madness.

[gimmethegepgun]

Fukushima was mostly overblown and was the result of some very poor decisions.
Meanwhile fossil fuels have major incidents FAR more regularly than that.

[leandrombraz]

Since the thread still going, I just want to add that Nuclear plants emitting CO2 also keep the way strategic resources works consistent. Everything that consume a strategic resource per turn generate CO2. Energy sources that consume resources always emit CO2.

Nobody cares but there it's, consistency is good design.

[GodsFavoriteAnt]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Fukushima was mostly overblown and was the result of some very poor decisions.
Meanwhile fossil fuels have major incidents FAR more regularly than that.

Never mind what has happened to towns downstream of a dam burst.

[GodsFavoriteAnt]

Originally posted by leandrombraz:

Since the thread still going, I just want to add that Nuclear plants emitting CO2 also keep the way strategic resources works consistent. Everything that consume a strategic resource per turn generate CO2. Energy sources that consume resources always emit CO2.

Nobody cares but there it's, consistency is good design.

Except it removes an incentive to improve technology for power generation. That is important for a relatively late game technology. Else, why change how you generate power when the game is getting close to the end anyways?

[DaBo81]

My question about the nuclear power plants is why do you have to frequently recommission them? The age on the plants before they start potentially exploding is only about a dozen turns - how is this a fun mechanic to constantly have to recommission nuclear plants? It seems that Firaxis wanted to penalise power plants overzealously - you want coal plants, melt the ice caps, you want oil plants, forget building a bunch of different military and also melt the ice caps, you want nuclear, keep building the same project every dozen turns or risk nuking yourself. The gameplay mechanics for this are so dumb and in response I choose coal plants and say b0ll0x to global warming - the consequences are minor anyway.

[Holylin]

Yeah the whole recomission mechanic is stupid since we are paying maintanance already and I do not have to recomission anything else.
Going nucular should just be a normal random disaster with a low chance of occuring.
There should also be the option to upgrade to thorium reactors in the future. Just make storing nuclear waste a difficult expensive decission that has negative consequences.

Also thermonuclear weapons should be a solution to stop global warming.
They destroy factories and transportation, thereby reducing CO2 levels and massive nuclear detonation will lead to a nuclear winter that reduces the effects of global warming.
They are in my opinion the best solution in civilsation to stop global warming!

[The Ohio Question]

Originally posted by GodsFavoriteAnt:

I love that Chernobyl is still the go to for anti-nuclear morons. A) That reactor design is very different from what is used in the rest of the world, and for good reason, B) The reactor was ran out of specifications to do something it was never intended for (creating more plutonium for weapons manufacture), C) A western designed reactor would have shut down on its own before catching on fire like the Chernobyl did.

Solar is fine as an auxiliary power source to offset daytime usage. But it cannot generate power 24/7 and storage solutions do not exist to deliver power during times of darkness. Wind suffers the same issue, only worse because the wind is less predictable than the day/night cycle. Both take up huge amounts of space. Wind is also a menace to avian wildlife in the area it is installed. Not even going to mention what the SOP is for when one of these things catches fire.

If extraction is the cause of the CO2, then Solar and Wind should emit too. It requires fossil fuel to extract and ship the materials to make both. In the case of wind, you're looking at a lot of steel for each 7 ton blade in a wind turbine. Even using composites for the blades you're not off the hook.

Keep on trying though.

OH IT WAS THE VERY NEXT ONE! BINGO, BINGO I WON THE UP CROSS!

Jesus is there a factory that mass produces these people? Its actualy possible to predict the conversation point by point.

And by the way "moron" Chernobyl is still the go to because it was 3 brave men away from making HALF OF EUROPE uninhabitable. go on and on about the cons of wind and solar, but a solar panel or wind turbine is never going to turn a continent into a no go zone.

Yes im shure that modern day plants are vastly safer, yes im shure you could go on and on about how such a thing would never happen in this day and age.......but it did, and it very well could again.
That alone is enough to give rational people pause, and if it isnt, im sorry but then your not very rational.

And the always blanket hand waving away of the disasters of chernobyl, of Three mile Island, of fukushima dosnt embolden your side, it dosnt win you support the nuclear side needs, it dos NOTHING positive for your position.

It makes you sound like stark raving loons who will gladly see reactors be plopped down with reckless abandon. Now i bet your not that, you would prob not say your not that,.....BUT YOU COME OFF LIKE IT WHEN YOU ALL DO THIS.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Fermit the Krog:

And the always blanket hand waving away of the disasters of [...] Three mile Island

Three mile island was absolute jackall. Something went wrong, and then it failed in a contained manner, just like it was supposed to. The fact that you even bring it up displays how little you know of the topic.

[GodsFavoriteAnt]

Originally posted by Fermit the Krog:

Originally posted by GodsFavoriteAnt:

I love that Chernobyl is still the go to for anti-nuclear morons. A) That reactor design is very different from what is used in the rest of the world, and for good reason, B) The reactor was ran out of specifications to do something it was never intended for (creating more plutonium for weapons manufacture), C) A western designed reactor would have shut down on its own before catching on fire like the Chernobyl did.

Solar is fine as an auxiliary power source to offset daytime usage. But it cannot generate power 24/7 and storage solutions do not exist to deliver power during times of darkness. Wind suffers the same issue, only worse because the wind is less predictable than the day/night cycle. Both take up huge amounts of space. Wind is also a menace to avian wildlife in the area it is installed. Not even going to mention what the SOP is for when one of these things catches fire.

If extraction is the cause of the CO2, then Solar and Wind should emit too. It requires fossil fuel to extract and ship the materials to make both. In the case of wind, you're looking at a lot of steel for each 7 ton blade in a wind turbine. Even using composites for the blades you're not off the hook.

Keep on trying though.

OH IT WAS THE VERY NEXT ONE! BINGO, BINGO I WON THE UP CROSS!

Jesus is there a factory that mass produces these people? Its actualy possible to predict the conversation point by point.

And by the way "moron" Chernobyl is still the go to because it was 3 brave men away from making HALF OF EUROPE uninhabitable. go on and on about the cons of wind and solar, but a solar panel or wind turbine is never going to turn a continent into a no go zone.

Yes im shure that modern day plants are vastly safer, yes im shure you could go on and on about how such a thing would never happen in this day and age.......but it did, and it very well could again.
That alone is enough to give rational people pause, and if it isnt, im sorry but then your not very rational.

And the always blanket hand waving away of the disasters of chernobyl, of Three mile Island, of fukushima dosnt embolden your side, it dosnt win you support the nuclear side needs, it dos NOTHING positive for your position.

It makes you sound like stark raving loons who will gladly see reactors be plopped down with reckless abandon. Now i bet your not that, you would prob not say your not that,.....BUT YOU COME OFF LIKE IT WHEN YOU ALL DO THIS.

So you predicted that someone who began the conversation as a supporter of nuclear power was a supporter of nuclear power. Your powers of prediction are astounding.

The reactors we built in this country 50 years ago were safer and better designed than Chernobyl. There are good reasons why we have not seen similar accidents in the US. The closest we ever got was Three Mile Island and that is actually a testament to the safety protocols that protect our designs. The reactor shut itself down and the damage was limited to the leakage of a few kilograms of radioactive material. The rest is just FUD drummed up by the hippies who want to demonize nuclear power.

Rational people who want to see real solutions to reductions in CO2 support nuclear power. With our current technology, it is the best solution.

[Bottom of the Well]

Think its even more messed up that it takes just 5 nukes to raise the sea level drasticly fast. Unless my game was just at that tipping point before i looked but geeze, dropped 5 nukes and next turn everyone is level 2 flooded.

[Astasia]

The moral of Civ6 is the world is ****ed and there's nothing you can do about it. By the time you get to nuclear power the planet is likely to be maxed out on flooding because just a handful of ironclads is going to almost instantly melt most of the ice. Talking about the CO2 released by nuclear power plants in the game is pointless.

Originally posted by GodsFavoriteAnt:

Solar is fine as an auxiliary power source to offset daytime usage. But it cannot generate power 24/7 and storage solutions do not exist to deliver power during times of darkness.

False. CSP, which is what is used in the game, provides power 24/7. The mirrors concentrate light into a single point in the tower where a pipe of molten salt is running through which then flows into a standard steam based power generation system. The molten salt retains the heat it captures during the day and continues flowing and generating power throughout the night.

[The Ohio Question]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Fermit the Krog:

And the always blanket hand waving away of the disasters of [...] Three mile Island

Three mile island was absolute jackall. Something went wrong, and then it failed in a contained manner, just like it was supposed to. The fact that you even bring it up displays how little you know of the topic.

How little i know huh? how little i know is enough to clearly see nuke is dead with this attitude. But by all means, hand wave away and talk down to, im shure it will get your sides point across and not at all keep it forever in the public dog house.

Worked wonders so far with the nuclear renaissance of.....oh wait almost all of that was canned after fukushima....huh.

Yeah have fun with that.