The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
'Baja California being rifted off of the mainland'
IS this an 'escape from LA situation'?
No. A new tectonic spreading center is developing between Baja and the mainland. It began about 25 million years ago as subduction ended off the coast of California (thus setting up a right lateral transform fault system). Subduction is still occuring in the far northern part of California through the Pacific northwest until about the middle of BC and in the far south of Mexico but the center part is still in a tectonic transitionary period.
East Africa also has some continental rifting occuring.
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You're close to a bunch now, in the Geysers KGRA over in Lake and Sonoma Counties. Not sure how many are still running.
I know in the 1980's a power company tried to generate geothermal power in Sonoma and ended up killing the local geysers because they took out to much heat to quickly.
I'd rather see natural wonders like geysers then have a power plant.
I think we should hookup all the treadmills, stairmasters, stationary bikes and wutever else in fitness clubs up to electric generators. a society of hamsters.
Originally posted by yavoon
I think we should hookup all the treadmills, stairmasters, stationary bikes and wutever else in fitness clubs up to electric generators. a society of hamsters.
your jest has actually come up with quite a good idea.
eimi men anthropos pollon logon, mikras de sophias
About tidal power. There are two tidal plants in the world: one in France and one in Canada.
French tidal plant of La Rance (a place with very significant tides and a good water reservoir) has been one of the big energy projects of the De Gaulle era, and is 15 times more productive than its Canadian counterpart, making it the only tidal plant somehow useful for industrial purpose.
However, with only 240 MW produced, it only provides 3.5% of the energy in Britanny (I guess it's wholly unsignificant for whole France). It produces 600 millions kWh a year, whereas the average nuclear plant produces 8 tWh a year (can anybody tell me how many kWh is a tWh ?)
Tidal power needs some serious improvement to become economically viable. For now, it is a fancy and quite expansive way to produce electricity.
I don't know whether the upkeep costs are high or not, and I don't know if it ages well or not, but I'd assume tidal energy is good on these both accounts, given the fact that La Rance hasn't been disbanded despite the small output.
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Are you insane? A negligible foot print?! Have you ever even seen how much space one of those things takes up? During the Enron inspired power crisis here in California the media ran all sorts of stuff on the vasious alternatives to fossil & traditional energy sources and wind power came in with the second highest average costs per mega watt and it took up the most space to generate those expensive mega-watts.
An ecological footprint is not the same as space taken up. Firstly, wind farms produce no pollution, and secondly, they only 'use' a tiny fraction of the land. The rest can be used for other purposes.
Nuclear power is the way to go. The amount of pollution produced is very small and the plants take up a reasonable amount of space.
Yeah, and now all you have to do is see what distant state is willing to be a garbage can for all of your nuclear waste. Even if some study came out saying that nuke waste was only bad for 50 or 15 years, it's still a political hot potato and for those two reasons not worth it.
And you've got the increased security risks and chance of nuclear meltdown.
Since the feds own pretty much all of nevada and all of new mexico, let's put all the nuke plants there.
they're already putting nuke waste there so why not nuke plants...
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln
When discussing the cost of different sources of electricity, we almost never consider all expenses. For instance, we were late in including in the cost of the nuclear electricity the cost of recycling the uranium. I wonder if the US consider the cost of their military as part of the cost of their electricity.
By the way, with equipments in all possible mountain and river sites (including La Rance) 13,9% of our electricity has an hydro origine, and 75% is nuclear.
Under the pressure of the ecologists, Germany is on its way to suppress his nuclear electricity which still amounts to 30%. Curiously the same ecologists are happy with the coal as a primary source of more than 50% of their electricity. :
Any figure for the US?
Statistical anomaly.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I know in the 1980's a power company tried to generate geothermal power in Sonoma and ended up killing the local geysers because they took out to much heat to quickly.
I'd rather see natural wonders like geysers then have a power plant.
That'd be good ol' PG&E. They built or had plans for about 15 plants, and the NCPA (a collection of munis) built 2.
There's still a lot of hot springs type stuff up there, hadn't heard about geysers dying off.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by Sandman
An ecological footprint is not the same as space taken up. Firstly, wind farms produce no pollution, and secondly, they only 'use' a tiny fraction of the land. The rest can be used for other purposes.
CO2/kWh emissions in the different kinds of electricity production in 1998
Mode of production
Hydroelectric
Nuclear
Windmill
Photovoltaic
STEP
Combined Cycle Gas
Natural Gas
Fuel
Coal
Total emissions (in grammes)
4
6
3 to 22
60 to 150
184
430
880
890
980
Windmills and solar plants do pollute a little as of today. They pollute much, much less than oil or coal plants, but they do have some negative impact wrt CO2 production.
Besides, Windmills produce very little energy to this time. One of the biggest windmill project in the world is Kudia al Baida (same source, page 18), with a production of a mere 50 MW, that is a grand 2% of the Moroccan electricity consumption
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
You've got to remember that Hydroelectric creates huge lakes and does damage to the local (very local) wildlife. Nuclear, as we know, creates the rods that keep glowing for the thousands of years. Windmills just take up a lot of space, really. Solar power would be a good step down from coal. It produces so much less pollution and hopefully with the march of science (and DECENT funding) it'll have teh same or more production possibility as coal has sometime within a couple decades. But like I've said several times, centralised solar would not work. You'd need distributed production (solars on every house) for the system to really work.
Fusion would get a lot more funding but the oil lobby makes sure they don't. The only problem I have heard about tidal power is that it may distrupt the ecosystems of tidal flats such as in the Bay of Fundy. We should build Nuclear plants, they are much safer than they used to be. They would work best on coasts because they are a much better heat sink that the rivers, hence MUCH safer for wildlife. My area actually gets 60% of our power from dams on the Missouri River, BTW.
Even if some study came out saying that nuke waste was only bad for 50 or 15 years, it's still a political hot potato and for those two reasons not worth it.
:
They built or had plans for about 15 plants, and the NCPA (a collection of munis) built 2.
The only problem I have heard about tidal power is that it may distrupt the ecosystems of tidal flats such as in the Bay of Fundy. We should build Nuclear plants, they are much safer than they used to be. They would work best on coasts because they are a much better heat sink that the rivers, hence MUCH safer for wildlife. My area actually gets 60% of our power from dams on the Missouri River, BTW. 
Tweet
Comment