Nuclear reactor meltdown

[[AUT-HUN]Távcsöves]

In previous city building games, (SimCity , SimCity3000/2000) there was always nuclear reactor meltdown and subsequent radiation. Cities Skylines (1) hadn't it! It would be more better, if the new version can have. And it would be much more realistic if even spent nuclear heating elements had to be stored in special collectors.

[Enterprofilenamehere]

I could see it adding something, although it should be exceedingly rare and only happen if you neglect maintenance.

Having to deal with a Fukishima or Chernobyl would certainly be interesting, perhaps even as part of a scenario where the disaster happens at the start and you have to help the city recover.

[Derg Zaks]

Thats not realistic, thats science fiction
Modern reactors physically cant melt down and even if the damage would be pretty much nothing, a few week repair and clean up and back to normal work

Chernobyl was the only reactor in history ever built that ever had any capability to cause external damage

[Enterprofilenamehere]

Originally posted by Zaks:

Thats not realistic, thats science fiction
Modern reactors physically cant melt down and even if the damage would be pretty much nothing, a few week repair and clean up and back to normal work

Chernobyl was the only reactor in history ever built that ever had any capability to cause external damage

Who's to say the reactors in the game are modern reactors? The Fukishima disaster certainly caused external damage (though it was also an older design).

Modern reactors are extremely safe because they are well designed and maintained by people who know what they're doing. But this is a game that should give us control over these things. I don't know what I'm doing, so I should be able to cause a meltdown.

[ovehaithabu]

Originally posted by AUT-HUNTávcsöves:

In previous city building games, (SimCity , SimCity3000/2000) there was always nuclear reactor meltdown and subsequent radiation. Cities Skylines (1) hadn't it! It would be more better, if the new version can have. And it would be much more realistic if even spent nuclear heating elements had to be stored in special collectors.

It would be a different kind of game. Rather than building a city you just maintain a polluted area. Bit boring, especially if noone would like to move to your town.

I don't think there is sufficient demand for such a feature. Most who would get a meltdown would probably just load an old save game rather than having to cope with a radioactive polluted city.

It won't be possible to get this done in a realistic way. In reality after a meltdown an area much larger than the entire map would be locked off and all people would have been evacuated.

[ovehaithabu]

Originally posted by Zaks:

Thats not realistic, thats science fiction
Modern reactors physically cant melt down and even if the damage would be pretty much nothing, a few week repair and clean up and back to normal work

Chernobyl was the only reactor in history ever built that ever had any capability to cause external damage

There is very few modern reactors in the world. Most countries just have old reactors that get phased out. New ones are not build because, unlike in city-building computer games, you don't just look at the price and plop them into the landscape. In reality people will protest, building time will take years and costs will skyrocket. In the meantime energy wouldn't be produced and you would have to find a different way to get your energy.

Nuclear Power Plants don't really suit a city-building game. Either it's being built and you just have horrendous costs plus no energy being produced or it is built and you have much more energy that your city needs.

[hakhelev]

Originally posted by ovehaithabu:

Originally posted by Zaks:

Thats not realistic, thats science fiction
Modern reactors physically cant melt down and even if the damage would be pretty much nothing, a few week repair and clean up and back to normal work

Chernobyl was the only reactor in history ever built that ever had any capability to cause external damage

There is very few modern reactors in the world. Most countries just have old reactors that get phased out. New ones are not build because, unlike in city-building computer games, you don't just look at the price and plop them into the landscape. In reality people will protest, building time will take years and costs will skyrocket. In the meantime energy wouldn't be produced and you would have to find a different way to get your energy.

Nuclear Power Plants don't really suit a city-building game. Either it's being built and you just have horrendous costs plus no energy being produced or it is built and you have much more energy that your city needs.

Cultural differences make for the differences in real life. Most of France's power supply is nuke, Germany just got rid of its last reactor. The German greens said we don't want fresh air! We like, we prefer coal power plants!
Chernobyl and most soviet nuke plants use graphite moderated power plants. They wanted to use them for weapon production as a side benefit. (The one graphite moderated plant is at Hanford, which is where we got our weapons from)
Fukashima I think resulted in a no go area larger than our simulated city.

[ovehaithabu]

Originally posted by hakhelev:

Originally posted by ovehaithabu:

There is very few modern reactors in the world. Most countries just have old reactors that get phased out. New ones are not build because, unlike in city-building computer games, you don't just look at the price and plop them into the landscape. In reality people will protest, building time will take years and costs will skyrocket. In the meantime energy wouldn't be produced and you would have to find a different way to get your energy.

Nuclear Power Plants don't really suit a city-building game. Either it's being built and you just have horrendous costs plus no energy being produced or it is built and you have much more energy that your city needs.

Cultural differences make for the differences in real life. Most of France's power supply is nuke, Germany just got rid of its last reactor. The German greens said we don't want fresh air! We like, we prefer coal power plants!
Chernobyl and most soviet nuke plants use graphite moderated power plants. They wanted to use them for weapon production as a side benefit. (The one graphite moderated plant is at Hanford, which is where we got our weapons from)
Fukashima I think resulted in a no go area larger than our simulated city.

France's power supply is going to be phased out. They currently have 56 active reactors which provide about two thirds of their energy. One reactor is being built, none are planned because the French wouldn't know where they build them (as soon they would announce anew site people would protest and stop it) nor can they agree on who is going to pay for it. The costs of the one currently being built is the reason that noone wants to build another.
In the next 16 years 54 of the 56 reactors are due to be decommissioned so as it stands now in 16 years France will have 3 reactors compared to 56 now. Let's see if they still laugh a the German Greens then.
Other countries mostly follow the same pattern. The US for example has one under construction and one being commissioned. Compared to what's due to come off the grid in the next 20 years or so you can consider nuclear power in the US also being phased out. Plus noone would want one in the neighbourhood. You can build a new nuclear plant in China as there the opinion of the population matters as much as in Cities:Skylines.

[Professor H. Farnsworth]

Originally posted by Zaks:

Thats not realistic, thats science fiction
Modern reactors physically cant melt down and even if the damage would be pretty much nothing, a few week repair and clean up and back to normal work

Chernobyl was the only reactor in history ever built that ever had any capability to cause external damage

Say that to Fukushima I dare you.

[vthemighty]

There should be a green party in your city that attempts to cause power outages, while angry 12 year olds like Greta on Twitter lambaste your attempts at chasing the cleanest most efficient source of energy because you didn't invest 100% in pure-manufactured cow farts.

[ovehaithabu]

Originally posted by vthemighty:

There should be a green party in your city that attempts to cause power outages, while angry 12 year olds like Greta on Twitter lambaste your attempts at chasing the cleanest most efficient source of energy because you didn't invest 100% in pure-manufactured cow farts.

I think in general parties are not a bad idea for a city building game. Let the people go to the polls and decide what they want and expect from you as a mayor. Not just in regards to environment but also in regards to corporate taxes, immigration, gambling, crime, heathcare funding etc.
It's not right that you could simply build a landfill right in the middle of your city just because you want it there. Here in Dublin the council can't even upgrade certain roads with a bus lane because the roads have trees that would need to be cut then.

[BatWingSix]

Originally posted by Professor H. Farnsworth:

Originally posted by Zaks:

Thats not realistic, thats science fiction
Modern reactors physically cant melt down and even if the damage would be pretty much nothing, a few week repair and clean up and back to normal work

Chernobyl was the only reactor in history ever built that ever had any capability to cause external damage

Say that to Fukushima I dare you.

SL-1 and Three Mile Island has entered the chat....

[President Jyrgunkarrd]

Originally posted by Professor H. Farnsworth:

Originally posted by Zaks:

Thats not realistic, thats science fiction
Modern reactors physically cant melt down and even if the damage would be pretty much nothing, a few week repair and clean up and back to normal work

Chernobyl was the only reactor in history ever built that ever had any capability to cause external damage

Say that to Fukushima I dare you.

You can count the number of people killed or seriously harmed by the Fukushima meltdown on one hand even if that hand has no fingers.

Yes, some older designs do melt down. But, unlike Chernobyl, they have containment buildings and safety features that prevent any meltdown from becoming a disaster.


Modern designs literally cannot melt down. They have plugs in the bottom of the reactor chamber that melt faster than the fuel does in the event of a runaway reaction, dumping the fuel into a containment tank where it can cool off and instantly killing the reaction.

Nuclear power is the safest power source that exists, period. Safer even than solar and wind when you account for the full lifecycle of the power source.

[Costarring]

Nuclear meltdown = the end of your city. As in "game over"...
Which is not a very fun game mechanic (like that...) in a citybuilder game.

[Professor H. Farnsworth]

Originally posted by President Jyrgunkarrd:

Originally posted by Professor H. Farnsworth:

Say that to Fukushima I dare you.

You can count the number of people killed or seriously harmed by the Fukushima meltdown on one hand even if that hand has no fingers.

Yes, some older designs do melt down. But, unlike Chernobyl, they have containment buildings and safety features that prevent any meltdown from becoming a disaster.


Modern designs literally cannot melt down. They have plugs in the bottom of the reactor chamber that melt faster than the fuel does in the event of a runaway reaction, dumping the fuel into a containment tank where it can cool off and instantly killing the reaction.

Nuclear power is the safest power source that exists, period. Safer even than solar and wind when you account for the full lifecycle of the power source.

Say that to Fukushima.

It was literally going to blow if it hadn’t been for some exceptionally brave Firefighters that fought day and night to contain it.

And do you want to know how many of those firefighters are still alive today? 1.

Fukushima had “all” the safety measures that was recommended. It was hailed as one of the most safe reactors ever. It only took a single wee Tsunami to flood the area for it all to collapse and radiation to leak into the environment to such a scale that still today it is a no-go zone and you have to wear a radioactive counter.

Man, you people don’t really get out a lot do you?

Yes, there are “safer” methods today - mainly liquid salt reactors. They can still meltdown.
They are still experimental, there is absolutely none of them that are commercially viable - yet and certainly not on a scale that even remotely satisfy the needs of any society.

Nuclear will never be safe. Repeat after me. Never. Safe. It is, however, our only alternative while we transition into green energy. Doesn’t make it safe tho.

[Professor H. Farnsworth]

Originally posted by President Jyrgunkarrd:

Originally posted by Professor H. Farnsworth:

Say that to Fukushima I dare you.

You can count the number of people killed or seriously harmed by the Fukushima meltdown on one hand even if that hand has no fingers.

Yes, some older designs do melt down. But, unlike Chernobyl, they have containment buildings and safety features that prevent any meltdown from becoming a disaster.


Modern designs literally cannot melt down. They have plugs in the bottom of the reactor chamber that melt faster than the fuel does in the event of a runaway reaction, dumping the fuel into a containment tank where it can cool off and instantly killing the reaction.

Nuclear power is the safest power source that exists, period. Safer even than solar and wind when you account for the full lifecycle of the power source.

Eh lol. Yes, you can instantly stop the reaction. The rods continue to require cooling for several decades before they are safe and without said cooling they may well start a meltdown - ‘Cos you see. They become highly radioactive and that creates tremendous heat which would literally melt you.
There’s a reason why they are submerged in thousands of liters of water.