Nuclear plants need to produce way more power to be worthwhile

[tjoppen]

Hi

I've been typing up an input-output table in a spreadsheet for what goods are required in each sector in the game. This table can then be used to optimize resource flows, using something called a Leontief matrix (after Wassily Leontief). Yes, I am a huge nerd. But the game is useful as a toy economy to try out planning ideas that are useful in the real world.

So the first thing that pops out is that nuclear power plants require about as many workdays per MWh of output as coal plants do, just for running the plant. Add to this the overhead of having a nuclear industry, compared to the much simpler coal industry, and the total amount of workers needed is just over twice that for coal. So to be worthwhile the power output of nuclear plants would need to be buffed by something like 200% or more to offset the capital that has to be invested in setting up a nuclear industry.

For reference, these are the values I came up with:

Coal power, resources needed per GWh:
30 t coal ore
17 t coal
2.4 MWh power (on top of the 1000 MWh we want)
26 workdays

Nuclear power:
0.2 t stone
0.15 t gravel
0.15 t wood
0.3 t oil
0.15 t chemicals
0.15 t crops
1.6 t uranium ore
76 kg uranium oxide
36 kg UF6
8.7 kg nuclear fuel
11.8 MWh power
55 workdays

This is in version 0.8.2.29

[CutseyBrooksey]

I think the biggest issue is we need heavy duty power cables so we can actually get even half the capacity of the power generation out into the grid

[joeball123]

Given that nuclear power in the real world tends to be about as if not more expensive than power from most other sources, I do not foresee this changing.

Also, the primary advantage to nuclear power in the game is that it generates much more energy per ton of environmental pollution, even after factoring in all the supporting industries - it's something like 130 MWh/workday per ton of pollution/year for either of the nuclear plants as compared to about 33 MWh/workday per ton of pollution/year for coal.

I think the biggest issue is we need heavy duty power cables so we can actually get even half the capacity of the power generation out into the grid

Remember that the game for some reason uses a 60-hour workday for converting between power in MW and power in MWh/workday. Both of the nuclear plants have enough HV connections to transmit their full output to the grid - the single-reactor plant has a maximum output of 4,680 MWh/workday (78 MW for a 60-hour workday) and has seven HV connections while the twin-reactor plant has a maximum output of 9,360 MWh/workday (156 MW for a 60-hour workday) and has nine HV connections, and each HV connection can carry up to 18 MW.

[tjoppen]

Originally posted by joeball123:

Also, the primary advantage to nuclear power in the game is that it generates much more energy per ton of environmental pollution, even after factoring in all the supporting industries - it's something like 130 MWh/workday per ton of pollution/year for either of the nuclear plants as compared to about 33 MWh/workday per ton of pollution/year for coal.

Doesn't this get nullified by pollution having a limited range? So long as I put all my coal industry far away from everything else, pollution becomes a non-issue. Or do workers get sick from pollution also during work? If not then I can just have workers come in by rail from outside the reach of the pollution.

I imagine the nuclear industry may get a bigger role once global events are in the game.

[KJ]

This smells like capitalist exploitation techniques...

fuel logistics is way simpler with nuclear powerplant than coal, you just need a single truck ferrying n-fuel containers over long distances to the plant. With coal you need storages and trains or a buttload of trucks (for the same energy output).

1.6t uranium to mine and process, vs. 30t coal to mine and process. It can be all done by very few trucks, with minimal conveyor usage. You have factored in train/ truck transport and conveyor usage in your calculations, right? I dont think so...

Also, whats the problem having one solution be not the same as the other? The game is easy, once you get past the initial hurdles in the beginning. Exponential growth. So what does it matter?

[joeball123]

Originally posted by KJ:

fuel logistics is way simpler with nuclear powerplant than coal, you just need a single truck ferrying n-fuel containers over long distances to the plant. With coal you need storages and trains or a buttload of trucks (for the same energy output).

1.6t uranium to mine and process, vs. 30t coal to mine and process. It can be all done by very few trucks, with minimal conveyor usage. You have factored in train/ truck transport and conveyor usage in your calculations, right? I dont think so...

There isn't an easy way to factor fuel logistics into power production costs in these sorts of theoretical posts because logistical costs are very heavily dependent upon setup. It's also worth mentioning that nuclear isn't necessarily as much of a winner on transportation costs as it might appear, because a single coal processing plant can in theory feed up to five coal power plants and so if you're going to put in any significant transportation infrastructure to feed a coal power plant then you may as well use that same infrastructure to feed two or three more coal power plants or some other coal-consuming industries at the same time. On top of that, if you're going to include fuel transportation costs then it would also make sense to include worker transportation costs, and nuclear is the clear loser there, producing a bit less than half as much power per worker as coal does.

Beyond that, as far as I am aware there are no ongoing costs for using conveyors unless you also use a conveyor engine, so in the 'ideal' case where you have direct conveyor connections between your coal power plants, coal storages, coal processing plants, and coal mines you don't actually have any transportation costs beyond the setup cost for the infrastructure.

[tjoppen]

Originally posted by KJ:

fuel logistics is way simpler with nuclear powerplant than coal, you just need a single truck ferrying n-fuel containers over long distances to the plant. With coal you need storages and trains or a buttload of trucks (for the same energy output).

Trucks are very cheap though, and don't depreciate.

Originally posted by KJ:

1.6t uranium to mine and process, vs. 30t coal to mine and process. It can be all done by very few trucks, with minimal conveyor usage. You have factored in train/ truck transport and conveyor usage in your calculations, right? I dont think so...

Actually, figuring out what to invest in and when is a thing I want to play with. That brings tensor calculus into the equations.

Originally posted by KJ:

Also, whats the problem having one solution be not the same as the other? The game is easy, once you get past the initial hurdles in the beginning. Exponential growth. So what does it matter?

Sure. It also strikes me that I didn't look at how profitable exporting nuclear fuel is. I know manufacturing chemicals is quite lucrative, at least if my chemical import costs are anything to go by (:

Originally posted by joeball123:

It's also worth mentioning that nuclear isn't necessarily as much of a winner on transportation costs as it might appear, because a single coal processing plant can in theory feed up to five coal power plants and so if you're going to put in any significant transportation infrastructure to feed a coal power plant then you may as well use that same infrastructure to feed two or three more coal power plants or some other coal-consuming industries at the same time.

This is giving me an idea which I'm going to call Project Ugolgrad..

[forzion]

For now the use of nuclear power plant is that it can provide way more power than the coal power plant. You may pay extra for that. And you can sell all surplus nucĺear fuel.

I have one single reactor power plant and one uranium mine with all processing facilities. I do not export any power but the most profit I get is from selling nuclear fuel and I mean hundreds of miliions from 2 nuclear fabrications.

I would suggest you to build a power plant complex which has similar output to one single reactor and then a complex which is similar to double reactor and then tell what is better manageable from logistics perspective.

[MG83]

i agree with author.
The power output of the nuclear powerplant is way to low when compared to realistic fuel consumption .

For example by real numbers of RBMK reactor.
Chernobyl reactor which was RBMK-1000 was able to produce 1000MWe power .
In max capacity its designed to use 2 fuel assemby perday.
Each fuel assembly was consist of 18 fuel and 1 control rod.
Each rod contained 3.5 kg Uranium (nuclear fuel
3.5*18*2 = 126 kg uranium spend for max capacity.

So to round up we can say : it produced 1000MW with spending 0.13 ton Nuclear fuel per day.

so yea buff the power output of the plant and add far more connection points a huge switchyard.

[forzion]

I would say that there is lower than realistic output for playability reasons. Just compare it to coal power plant. That has unrealistically low output too.

From playability viewpoint there is no issue with having lower outputs because it encourages you to build more than one power plant.

Then another viewpoint may be as was already mentioned, the capacity of wire connections. Higher output requires Exrra High Voltage Wires and the current High Voltage is not sufficient to supply the output.

It is quite easy to make nuclear fuel and it is way too profitable. Even with one nuclear fuel fabrications you can supply several double reactor nuclear power plants.

[Dolbadarn]

Just putting it out there - I have previously worked at a 70's built Magnox Nuclear Power plant in the UK and the way a nuclear reactor is normally operated is either at full power or complete shutdown. So for the sake of realism in game a nuclear power plant should always be producing 100% of its output (regardless of demand / usage) and be consuming the corresponding quantity of fuel at full rate - provided a certain quantity of workers are present (say 50% of total). Failure to supply a consistent quantity of nuclear fuel and workers should result in the reactor shutting down and no output. The challange for the player would then be consistency of supply of both fuel and workers.

Just like in real life.

[KJ]

Originally posted by Dolbadarn:

Just putting it out there - I have previously worked at a 70's built Magnox Nuclear Power plant in the UK and the way a nuclear reactor is normally operated is either at full power or complete shutdown. So for the sake of realism in game a nuclear power plant should always be producing 100% of its output (regardless of demand / usage) and be consuming the corresponding quantity of fuel at full rate - provided a certain quantity of workers are present (say 50% of total). Failure to supply a consistent quantity of nuclear fuel and workers should result in the reactor shutting down and no output. The challange for the player would then be consistency of supply of both fuel and workers.

Just like in real life.

While that may be interesting gameplay wise, the reactor outputs way too much power (even the tiny amount ingame compare to IRL is still huge) to utilize everything to 100% all the time / the amount of power users isnt so dense in even larger republics that you could do this reliably.

[forzion]

Originally posted by Wikipedia:

The fastest method for adjusting levels of fission-inducing neutrons in a reactor is via movement of the control rods. Control rods are made of neutron poisons and therefore absorb neutrons. When a control rod is inserted deeper into the reactor, it absorbs more neutrons than the material it displaces—often the moderator. This action results in fewer neutrons available to cause fission and reduces the reactor's power output. Conversely, extracting the control rod will result in an increase in the rate of fission events and an increase in power.

So people can regulate power outpust in uclear reactors.

[MG83]

Originally posted by forzion:

I would say that there is lower than realistic output for playability reasons. Just compare it to coal power plant. That has unrealistically low output too.

Actually No coal power plants at those times were scale able . Yeah power plants such as Tutikorinn in india are 1000MWe but they are sized like city :D

[MG83]

Originally posted by forzion:

Then another viewpoint may be as was already mentioned, the capacity of wire connections. Higher output requires Exrra High Voltage Wires and the current High Voltage is not sufficient to supply the output.

As electrical engineer i say : there is no such thing as "Extra high voltage"

Electricity is divided to :
High voltage ie 765kV 500kv 135 kV
Medium Voltage ie 35Kv
low voltage : ie 400V 380V 220V 110V
low current: 4-20mA (12 v 5v etc)

after the electronic improvement and semi conductor technologies ,now is implemented
HVDC lines which is High Voltage Direct Current however there were no such industrial sized applications before 2000s as far as i know.

Also there is maximum power transfer capacity of voltage lines. even you increase diameter of wires you cant transfer the power due to impedance etc for that you need to check and learn maximum power transfer theorem which is sort of complicated part of transmission lines.also feasibility issues.

[MG83]

Originally posted by forzion:

It is quite easy to make nuclear fuel and it is way too profitable. Even with one nuclear fuel fabrications you can supply several double reactor nuclear power plants.

its not about being profitable . nuclear power plant power production ratio to its fuel is abit unrealistic. Selling Nuclear fuel is the key to make profit to be honest ,not the power.