Planetbase

Planetbase

View Stats:
Planetbase > General Discussions > Topic Details
Power sources
Is there any particular reason why your power sources are constrained to wind or solar? Both are BS undependable power sources at the best of times. Any colony designers worth their salt would at least include nuclear as an option. It’s not nearly as undependable and dangerous as some would lead us to believe, as evidenced by the hundreds of reactors active around the globe right now.
Last edited by BulletMagnetEd; Jul 3 @ 1:10pm
< >
Showing 1-10 of 10 comments
What exactly are you getting at? Solar is about as dependable as you can get for a source of power as long as there is light there will be power with solar. The same goes for wind power since both are fairly inexhaustable sources of fuel their potential is limited by manly cost and efficiency. Both are trending in very postive directions in recent years.

Nuclear on the other hand is not inexhaustable, it has only so much potential since you have to dig up minerals that not very abundant in quantity on earth or the universe as a whole. if you ever run out of the minerals required for nuclear its not easy to find substitues. The main danger of nuclear is not actually during the reaction process as most might believe, it comes from the waste that is left behind after the fuel rods are spent that is of the highest concern. That waste has to be contained in special caskets and those placed somewhere where they won't be harmful to human activity.
Last edited by Callipso; Jul 3 @ 3:52pm
Every one of those nuclear reactors requires a working crew of 100 people or rmore. I think the smallest crew of any reactor is 120 for the new reactors in the USA, which includes technicians and building maintenance staff but not office-workers and big bosses. Even if you scaled it down to, say, 10 colonists for the game, you would need to feed 10 people, build four more beds, and build more spares.

You can't turn a nuclear generator off. It would contaminate itself. So for consistency with the rest of the game, if you run out of spares the best outcome would be that the generator has to be dumped and becomes completely useless for a hundred (game) days. You would have to have a lot of spare metal and building space, to be able to replace it before your colony ran out of air and water.

Itmight pay off. It depends how many solar panels or turbines the nuclear power station replaced. But it introduces a high risk of colony failure.
The Russians developed space nuclear reactors, but we never pursued it, probably because of the hysteria over nuclear reactors. One could argue their dependability and resistance to damage wasn't that great, but the tech also wasn't researched for all that long, and the issues were just engineering ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor

But getting back to my original point, solar only works in daylight. Wind only works when it's windy. Nuclear keeps working until the fuel rods are spent. There's a reason solar and wind haven't taken off in usage even though it is essentially free energy - dependability. The only way to get past this limitation is to build obscene numbers of power collectors that'll hold you over when it's night time and the stupid wind stops blowing (as happened to me constantly in the last game I just played.) Why can we not at least have the option to build some type of nuclear reactor in this game? Even the Civ series allows it with the added risk of a reactor meltdown.
NASA is actually testing a program called KRUSTY, which they hope can eventually provide reliable nuclear power for a Mars mission. You're right, it hasn't been on the table since the '60s, and altough some spacecraft use nuclear decay to generate power this project is for an actual tiny fusion reactor.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-kilopower-nuclear-reactor-test/

As far as the game goes, I think it's more of a design decision, making the player choose between reliable power that's only available half the time (solar) versus unreliable varying power that's available around the clock (wind) and having the necessary battery storage.
It's just bloody irritating. When you're on the nitrogen atmo planet and you start, you of course set up turbines because the game tells you that solar panels aren't as effective in the thick atmosphere. Lesson learned - like Siri, the game lies. They seem to work fine, and the turbines aren't all that great anyway.
Solar doesn't have to be ground based either, in a mission like this in the future one could expect to have the light simply reflected off a large mirror to the solar collectors on the ground, and an even better approach would simply be to collect that power from orbing satellites that don't have to deal with a day/night cycle. The fact that this game doesn't specify when the colonies are being established opens the door to many future possiblites we might not be aware of that could make Solar imensely more effeicient and dependable (as you put it) over the long run than Nuclear Fission, which only lasts as long as the fuel rods are available.
Last edited by Callipso; Jul 4 @ 4:01pm
Bortius Jul 5 @ 4:09am 
1: Solar and wind are easy to set up in remote locations with basic materials. The only real world problems with them revolve around storage. The game solves that for you with magical, glowing cylinders. They use a futuristic solution in order to make the game viable without making it too easy, which leads to...
2: The game is about managing all of those resources. If you dropped in a nuclear reactor and never dealt with power for the rest of the game, what would be the point of playing? Just make all of the resources infinite and be done with it.
You do need a ton of power storage. It makes managing the available land require more creativity. Land management adds to the challenge and makes the game more interesting. Play it, man! Other games that give you those magical, drop-in, self-contained nuclear reactors make no sense to me.
I am curious. If you had nuclear, what challenges do you think would be needed to make it interesting? Not meltdowns, I hope. Maybe water availability? How would a small group of colonists make rods?
Originally posted by Bortius:
1: Solar and wind are easy to set up in remote locations with basic materials. The only real world problems with them revolve around storage. The game solves that for you with magical, glowing cylinders. They use a futuristic solution in order to make the game viable without making it too easy, which leads to...
2: The game is about managing all of those resources. If you dropped in a nuclear reactor and never dealt with power for the rest of the game, what would be the point of playing? Just make all of the resources infinite and be done with it.
You do need a ton of power storage. It makes managing the available land require more creativity. Land management adds to the challenge and makes the game more interesting. Play it, man! Other games that give you those magical, drop-in, self-contained nuclear reactors make no sense to me.
I am curious. If you had nuclear, what challenges do you think would be needed to make it interesting? Not meltdowns, I hope. Maybe water availability? How would a small group of colonists make rods?

My point is it doesn't even give you the option. Having a small startup reactor would definitely get you through that rough patch in the beginning when you're getting your colony started.
Bortius Jul 5 @ 5:06pm 
So, given the context of the game, what you want is for the landing pod to drop its power source that you can tap into after you recycle the pod, that will help get you started..., but after that runs out then you can use what the game has now.
That's actually not a half bad idea! :thumbsup:
< >
Showing 1-10 of 10 comments
Per page: 15 30 50

Planetbase > General Discussions > Topic Details