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.

[Aturchomicz]

Costarring původně napsal:

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.

Say that to Czar in 2013 LMAO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgrgsiKGrk&list=PLNT2M6ZWNd2feyCSsfiLSE3sYoBmMiEYv

[Aturchomicz]

vthemighty původně napsal:

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.

But Greta is Pro Nuclear? Ok Troll

[Enterprofilenamehere]

ovehaithabu původně napsal:

hakhelev původně napsal:

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.

Where I live in Ontario, Canada they are currently working on developing small modular reactors which would be able to be somewhat mass-produced at one site and then transported to where they need to be installed. If they can figure it out being able to manufacture many reactors in one location would reduce costs considerably.

[poke_ravi]

ovehaithabu původně napsal:

hakhelev původně napsal:

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.

Well yes US seems to be phasing out nuclear in many areas but it's also investing heavily in solar and wind farms. And many areas are transitioning to natural gas which is much less polluting than coal at least. Europe doesn't seem to want to do that and is instead transitioning from nuclear to coal which seems asinine to me. Hopefully fusion power becomes a reality within the next few decades.

[Costarring]

Geist původně napsal:

poke_ravi původně napsal:

Well yes US seems to be phasing out nuclear in many areas but it's also investing heavily in solar and wind farms. And many areas are transitioning to natural gas which is much less polluting than coal at least. Europe doesn't seem to want to do that and is instead transitioning from nuclear to coal which seems asinine to me. Hopefully fusion power becomes a reality within the next few decades.

Europe tried the same. Remove Coal, and Oil and Nuklear and instead build up Solar and Wind + Gas to support the transition phase until enough renewables are build- Well you know how it turned out with the gas... Thats why we now sadly start to use some of the coal again. Liquid gas transported over the ocean in oil powered tank ships is not better than coal :-/
I personaly would prefer that we build up nuclear and use it until renewables are save to use as primary power source which will not be very soon, because the whole infrastructure for it is not there yet, especialy if we talk about energy needed for heating and not only about power itself

The climate is already hurt so bad, that many nuclear powerplants wouldn't be able to get enough cooling water to safely operate.
(The Rine river was lacking so much water last year (2022) that cargo ships couldn't run properly/profitably...)
Now imagine a country relying on Nuclear power and not getting cooling water.
It's asking for trouble....

Creating energy = heat
Using energy = heat
Heat is something we don't need...

Also, designing/ planning/ building a nuclear powerplant takes 10-15 years

Shortly, we are all scr%*ed...

[Professor H. Farnsworth]

Geist původně napsal:

poke_ravi původně napsal:

Well yes US seems to be phasing out nuclear in many areas but it's also investing heavily in solar and wind farms. And many areas are transitioning to natural gas which is much less polluting than coal at least. Europe doesn't seem to want to do that and is instead transitioning from nuclear to coal which seems asinine to me. Hopefully fusion power becomes a reality within the next few decades.

Europe tried the same. Remove Coal, and Oil and Nuklear and instead build up Solar and Wind + Gas to support the transition phase until enough renewables are build- Well you know how it turned out with the gas... Thats why we now sadly start to use some of the coal again. Liquid gas transported over the ocean in oil powered tank ships is not better than coal :-/
I personaly would prefer that we build up nuclear and use it until renewables are save to use as primary power source which will not be very soon, because the whole infrastructure for it is not there yet, especialy if we talk about energy needed for heating and not only about power itself

Denmark just approved enough offshore wind farms to power 10 million homes to be finished construction in 2040 no later and at half capacity in 2033 - enough to supply all of Denmark.
It’s not a matter of the infrastructure not being available, it’s a matter of politicians wanting the quick and cheap option.

This includes heating, power and transport.
We already have one biomass energy plant converting trash into energy that only puts out 0.1% CO2, the rest is water vapor.
It powers a tenth of Copenhagen.

[MikGaming/DJ Mike]

What could be added its with natural disaster if a meteor strike a nuclear station they make radiations hazzard

[Hedning]

Enterprofilenamehere původně napsal:

that many nuclear powerplants wouldn't be able to get enough cooling water to safely operate.

Lol what? Have you seen the iconic cooling tower that many nuclear plants have? If you can't build it on the coast you can cool your water in such towers. There's no shortage of cooling water, it's an infinite resource.

[DuX1112]

ovehaithabu původně napsal:

hakhelev původně napsal:

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.

But this is bad and wrong and impractical. We need more nuclear reactors (new, safe ones), not less. Solar collector stations are huge and turn the area into a desert without creating 1/1000 of the power a nuclear reactor can. Same problem with windmills etc.

[DuX1112]

Professor H. Farnsworth původně napsal:

Geist původně napsal:

Europe tried the same. Remove Coal, and Oil and Nuklear and instead build up Solar and Wind + Gas to support the transition phase until enough renewables are build- Well you know how it turned out with the gas... Thats why we now sadly start to use some of the coal again. Liquid gas transported over the ocean in oil powered tank ships is not better than coal :-/
I personaly would prefer that we build up nuclear and use it until renewables are save to use as primary power source which will not be very soon, because the whole infrastructure for it is not there yet, especialy if we talk about energy needed for heating and not only about power itself

Denmark just approved enough offshore wind farms to power 10 million homes to be finished construction in 2040 no later and at half capacity in 2033 - enough to supply all of Denmark.
It’s not a matter of the infrastructure not being available, it’s a matter of politicians wanting the quick and cheap option.

This includes heating, power and transport.
We already have one biomass energy plant converting trash into energy that only puts out 0.1% CO2, the rest is water vapor.
It powers a tenth of Copenhagen.

Weak. And what if you want to power a huge space laser for example?

[hakhelev]

I am a big fan of the theoretical thorium plant. :) But no one has managed to make a running reactor out of yet. The US had A plant that was almost back in the 60s and early 70s, but Carter killed it because it also produced quantities of plutonium and he didn't want that to get out.
The thorium reactor theoretically can't melt down. Most of its products (Except plutonium ) are relatively short half lives. And the plutonium can be used to keep it going.
But it is to complicated to put all that effort into it. The uranium reactors are cheaper to deal with, But I still like it as a theory

[[AUT-HUN]Távcsöves]

I feel like we've deviated from the main topic, and past and recent events have influenced the discourse. However, I believe everyone can agree that nuclear energy could be beneficial if societies use it correctly and safely, eventually transitioning to fusion energy.

If we revert back to coal-based energy production due to fear of nuclear energy, we will be undermining our conservation efforts, while climate change will continue to worsen.

Until there is a significant breakthrough and a huge net positive energy balance in fusion technology, looking at energy efficiency indicators, nuclear energy will remain the "cleanest" yet unfortunately most dangerous energy source.

Regarding the game, Cities Skylines II, if it truly aims for authenticity and detailed simulation of reality, then a reactor meltdown and the accompanying radiation should be included in the game. Of course, there should also be a post-event option to help neutralize the radiation, such as soil replacement and storing contaminated soil in underground repositories.

The risk of a reactor meltdown could depend on the number of unskilled and skilled personnel working in the nuclear power plant.

Additionally, there could be specific developments to prevent reactor meltdowns in case of earthquakes, fires, floods/tsunamis, or meteor strikes. Without these developments, a reactor meltdown should occur!

In the first Cities Skylines game, anything could happen to the nuclear power plant without consequences. The simulation's credibility could be enhanced by including deep underground storage of spent fuel rods.

[Tsubame ⭐]

As long as it is optional or otherwise not appear randomly out of nowhere I am good with it.

Professor H. Farnsworth původně napsal:

President Jyrgunkarrd původně napsal:

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.

Safety is relative, air pollution caused by fossil fuel plants is a major contributor in causing premature deaths worldwide.

Even clean energy is not exactly exempt, hydro is far and large the largest renewable clean energy yet it destroys vast swaths of ecosystems plus the occasional deaths caused by dam failure.

[Slim]

Man, the beginning of this post was written well. Then I felt like I was having a stroke. On topic; I do like the idea that nuclear power plants should have a removal service for spent fuel. It would tie into the new traffic issues, such as crashes, and give new challenges or at least something to be mindful of.

[Slim]

Tsubame ⭐ původně napsal:

Safety is relative, air pollution caused by fossil fuel plants is a major contributor in causing premature deaths worldwide.

Even clean energy is not exactly exempt, hydro is far and large the largest renewable clean energy yet it destroys vast swaths of ecosystems plus the occasional deaths caused by dam failure.

Also consider the ageing infrastructure of our current dams across the world. There are many places expecting failures and as typical of these issues that they won't be addressed until houses are underwater/without power. Coupled with the fact that water sources aren't unlimited.

While wind turbines don't create enough bulk electricity to power the green initiative. Especially when a double highrise complex with 10 stories of parkade all fitted with EV panels that require 50a connections(electrician here) and all get plugged in at 3pm when EVERYONE gets home from work. That's just 1 property with 10 levels of nearly 1000ft of 4 sets of parking every floor. Now do that again for every high rise in your city.