What is power?

[Xerxes712]

Originally posted by Brendruis
The nuclear power industry has attempted to mask the environmental effects of atomic energy. While the steam energy that is produced by the heat of the reaction doesn't produce CO2, the refinement process for enriched uranium/plutonium certainly does. There is currently no way to refine nuclear fuels without releasing the same greenhouse gasses as combustion engines.

No, it does not take the same amount of CO2 release. Not even close. Gee, NUCLEAR energy is millions of time more powerful than CHEMICAL energy.

Nuclear energy is just as bad as fossil fuel? That is propaganda. A college professor perhaps?

I know how they refine nuclear material. It does take energy of course. But you are saying it takes equal amount of X to make equal amount of Y which is not correct.

X amount of power used to refine 1000000 of Y power.

Nuclear energy makes a million times the energy that in does to produce it.

I was an engineer in electronics and physics. I DO know very well what it takes to make it.

Plus the energy to produce nulcear material could very well come from 'another' nuclear plant. And you can fast breed Plutonium 239 from U-238 for a pratically infinite supply, but it is not done because the waste from fast breeder reactors stays hot for half a million years.

Normal U-235 enrichment waste is on a much lower order. There are treaties between countries to stop the use of the other fission process.

[Brendruis]

I never said the proportional amount of CO2 released is the same (perhaps I could have been more clear about this), just that it is not the completely "clean" power source that (some) lobbyists and proponents of the industry claim.

After reading your post through again I see the statement "Nuclear Power normal usage [alone] would never cause Global Warming in reality, so I removed it." I see that this is probably true. I digress... the debate over whether Global Warming exists is foolhardy and irrelevant to these forums; it's impossible to avoid the facts about these matters nowadays.

Btw I do have a Bachelor of Science degree, but it's not in engineering or mathematics.

[Odin]

The risk of meltdown is overblown. I read somewhere that a meltdown is almost impossible in the newest generation of nuclear plants, yet the eco-luddites are still using the "Nuclear is dangerous" meme to scare people (and this a tree-hugger, talking). The risk of meltdown should be very, very low, a better negative to balance the production berifits would be a small decrease in city growth-rate from the NIMBY factor, people don't want to live close to nuclear plants.

Nuclear Energy:

Fossil Fuels:

Meltdowns in Civ4:

[Brendruis]

Originally posted by Odin
The risk of meltdown is overblown. I read somewhere that a meltdown is almost impossible in the newest generation of nuclear plants, yet the eco-luddites are still using the "Nuclear is dangerous" meme to scare people (and this a tree-hugger, talking). The risk of meltdown should be very, very low, a better negative to balance the production berifits would be a small decrease in city growth-rate from the NIMBY factor, people don't want to live close to nuclear plants.

Nuclear Energy:

Fossil Fuels:

Meltdowns in Civ4:

Spot on. I think the risk of meltdowns in the game is exagerrated also. I know it's in there for the sake of game balancing, but it often makes me desire to built purely hydroelectric plants instead. Obviously, this isn't a realistic or practical situation... You know everybody doesn't live near a river... but as it's a game (and a FUN one at that!) I'll forigve Sid you're still my hero

I have a question that you more experienced players might be able to answer. I haven't played that much since CIV III and I wonder about how resources are distributed throughout the empire. In two scenarios I've played, coal wasn't a resource that was available on the main continent, so I had to set up little island colonies to get some. Even when I did manage to procure them, I wasn't able to build the power plant improvements in my largest production cities. Does this sort of resource not carry over ocean tiles or something of this sort? THX

[MattPilot]

Originally posted by Xerxes712


No, it does not take the same amount of CO2 release. Not even close. Gee, NUCLEAR energy is millions of time more powerful than CHEMICAL energy.

Why does every Leftist equivacate? Nuclear energy is just as bad as fossil fuel? Do you have a science degree? Who is feeding you that propaganda? A college professor perhaps?

I know how they refine nuclear material. It does take energy of course. But you are saying it takes equal amount of X to make equal amount of Y which is not correct.

X amount of power used to refine 1000000 of Y power.

Nuclear energy makes a million times the energy that in does to produce it.

I was an engineer in electronics and physics. I DO know very well what it takes to make it.

Plus the energy to produce nulcear material could very well come from 'another' nuclear plant. And you can fast breed Plutonium 239 from U-238 for a pratically infinite supply, but it is not done because the waste from fast breeder reactors stays hot for half a million years.

Normal U-235 enrichment waste is on a much lower order. There are treaties between countries to stop the use of the other fission process.

Question ... i've been looking for an answer for this quite a while.

I'm not certain of the name this process is called, but it allows for used nuclear fuel to be reprossed again which produces even more energy than it did the first time and only has a half life of a few hundred years.

I believe the french are using this process at the moment. As i recall, it used to be a dangerous process a few decades ago, but has since been made safe, no? I think it requies a special kind of reactor. So why don't they start reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for a theoretical unlimited amount of supply.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Mujadaddy
Power is the amount of work done per unit time.

smart ass.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Cordelayne
In my opinion, in Civ3 there were two MUST HAVE wonders: Bach's Cathedral followed by the Hoover Dam. In Civ4, I think there is only one: Three Gorges Dam. Because power is really, really important.

It's such an expensive wonder though. I can have all my coal plants built before I even research plastics.

[Dis]

Question ... i've been looking for an answer for this quite a while.

I'm not certain of the name this process is called, but it allows for used nuclear fuel to be reprossed again which produces even more energy than it did the first time and only has a half life of a few hundred years.

I believe the french are using this process at the moment. As i recall, it used to be a dangerous process a few decades ago, but has since been made safe, no? I think it requies a special kind of reactor. So why don't they start reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for a theoretical unlimited amount of supply.

are you referring to a breeder reactor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

[MattPilot]

Originally posted by Bill3000
To be more precise, power adds 25% more production to the factory.

Basically, it is a slightly different way of practice of the same concept of allowing only one type power plant to be built in a city.

Factory produces +25% on its own. If you add power, you get an additional +50% for a total of 75%. Add a forge and your city is at a total of +100%.

[TheHateMale]

If nuke factories did provide a higher output, that would be cool. You can have a highly productive city, but there's a reasonable chance that it'll be out of action for 20something turns + a ton of money to rush reimprovements.

[Kc7mxo]

i dont think you should get a production bonus for having a nuke plant, its still the same factory after all. you can't make the lights go on brither than they already are.

[Cordelayne]

Kc7mxo, but it's not one factory. That's an abstraction. All the factories in a region work better if they have better power sources.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
i dont think you should get a production bonus for having a nuke plant, its still the same factory after all. you can't make the lights go on brither than they already are.

sure you can. Just raise the voltage to 220.

[Enigma_Nova]

Or 240, In Australia.
... Which is why I laugh when some n00b buys a power converter from e-bay =]

[Diadem]

As if you can generate power faster or easier or cheaper with a nuclear plant. Coal is really the easiest way to generate energy. It's available in plenty and it's dirt cheap. It's just dirty.

Anyway, I don't think different powerplants should produce different working speeds. It's the factory that produces stuff, not the power plant. It just delivers power. One assumes they have enough capacity to generate whatever the factory wants.