Destruction of Nuclear Power Plants

[Gojira75]

I was thinking the following, in regards to a Nuclear Power Plant destruction due to lack of maintenance or war:

If the plant gets destroyed in a battle, the effect would be the same. If it was destroyed by a nuclear bomb, the effect is a double-nuke. This could daisy chain if each nuke effect destroys another plant, but that would be very bad luck indeed.  

I also live near a plant that was closed because it had been leaking small amounts of radiation for years, so I do think having a small chance of some pollution works, too, but what I would really like to see is the above. Nuclear energy is not always 100% clean and safe, and the game should reflect that. Having this game mechanic in effect would make people think twice about getting Nuclear Power Plants, as (realistically so) there is some risk involved with them. Right now, they are overpowered.

•  

Edited August 15, 2020 by Gojira75

[Roger]

What do you mean by lack of maintenance 

you only need a little bit of money for that?

[Gojira75]

37 minutes ago, Roger said:

What do you mean by lack of maintenance 

you only need a little bit of money for that?

Right, but if your nation went broke for whatever reason and you couldn't pay it. Small chance, but I am sure it happens.

[Roger]

Just now, Gojira75 said:

Right, but if your nation went broke for whatever reason and you couldn't pay it. Small chance, but I am sure it happens.

The only time I’ve seen it happen was when Alex created a bug that got rid of everyone’s money 

anyways

we could try introducing natural hazards and other stuff in the game first then go for this

cause no actual player will be dumb enough to leave his nation without money 

[Gojira75]

1 minute ago, Roger said:

The only time I’ve seen it happen was when Alex created a bug that got rid of everyone’s money 

anyways

we could try introducing natural hazards and other stuff in the game first then go for this

cause no actual player will be dumb enough to leave his nation without money 

Probably no active player, no. Unless they were brand new. But part 2 of my OP is the real meat of what I want to see.

[Roger]

1 minute ago, Gojira75 said:

Probably no active player, no. Unless they were brand new. But part 2 of my OP is the real meat of what I want to see.

That can be implemented 

(even though I’m against it I love my beautiful infra)

[Gojira75]

1 minute ago, Roger said:

That can be implemented 

(even though I’m against it I love my beautiful infra)

It just means you'll either need to accept the risk, avoid war as much as possible, or go with less efficient power plants. But I love the extra challenge that brings.

 

[Roger]

1 minute ago, Gojira75 said:

It just means you'll either need to accept the risk, avoid war as much as possible, or go with less efficient power plants. But I love the extra challenge that brings.

 

Arrgh might end up crying if this happens 

(I’m not arrgh)

[Arawra]

On board with number 2, everything else, not really.

Problem with number 1 is, when you run out of maintenance for 1 nuclear power plant, you likely ran out of maintenance for all your nuclear power plants. Further, you typically only run out of maintenance during alliance wars, and during this time, some people run 2 nuclear plants per city as an anti-nuke measure. What this means is, each and every city in your nation will have 1, or even 2, meltdowns, and that's pretty absurd. Ignoring that it's not really realistic either, the nuclear plant wouldn't meltdown due to a lack of funding, it would shutdown.

In any case, nuclear plants aren't "overpowered," they're just the most efficient. I think many people would love some useful alternatives and some interesting, renewable options have already been suggested.

I do like the premise of disastrous events, though.

[lightside]

This adds nothing good to the game and is very unrealistic. So not a good idea.

[Gojira75]

#2 is really the meat of what I was hoping to see. It actually is realistic, if you look at my reasoning and the history of Nuclear power plants. It doesn't make any sense at all to have a coal plant meltdown. so I really don't understand that reasoning. I guess an oil processing plant could have the effect of a missile strike?

For #1, there is only a chance of meltdown if funds run out. As others have pointed out, funds should never run out anyway, making it a small chance. Such a small chance that I would be fine if #1 was deemed not worth the coding effort.

For #2, it would only occur if the plant was destroyed in an act of war, and since we cannot specify an improvement to target, that chance is small. You could make it smaller by adding protection of those plants by 50% or so when you build the Vital Defense System Project (or something along those lines). It adds quite a bit of hard decisions to the game, I think.

[Arawra]

39 minutes ago, Gojira75 said:

#2 is really the meat of what I was hoping to see. It actually is realistic, if you look at my reasoning and the history of Nuclear power plants. It doesn't make any sense at all to have a coal plant meltdown. so I really don't understand that reasoning. I guess an oil processing plant could have the effect of a missile strike?

For #1, there is only a chance of meltdown if funds run out. As others have pointed out, funds should never run out anyway, making it a small chance. Such a small chance that I would be fine if #1 was deemed not worth the coding effort.

For #2, it would only occur if the plant was destroyed in an act of war, and since we cannot specify an improvement to target, that chance is small. You could make it smaller by adding protection of those plants by 50% or so when you build the Vital Defense System Project (or something along those lines). It adds quite a bit of hard decisions to the game, I think.

I don't think #2 needs any revision to be honest with you.

Re #1: During peace time, you are correct that running out of funds is a rare occurrence, but during war time it becomes a lot more likely, due to heightened military costs (from increases military + war time costs), less infrastructure (less money from commerce), and increased likelihood of blockade and people raiding your money in ground battles. It just seems like an unnecessary addition to this change, ignoring the realism of it; I also don't think the chance makes a difference, because it would always remain an irritatingly busted event if it does occur.

[Gojira75]

12 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

I don't think #2 needs any revision to be honest with you.

Re #1: During peace time, you are correct that running out of funds is a rare occurrence, but during war time it becomes a lot more likely, due to heightened military costs (from increases military + war time costs), less infrastructure (less money from commerce), and increased likelihood of blockade and people raiding your money in ground battles. It just seems like an unnecessary addition to this change, ignoring the realism of it; I also don't think the chance makes a difference, because it would always remain an irritatingly busted event if it does occur.

I could see that. Maybe, as someone else suggested, running out of funds simply turns the power plants (all) off until funds come back. That would still cripple the nation, but only until funds come back, and would force active players to budget differently.

[Gojira75]

Since everyone seems to be focused on what was #1, and not the main thing I posted this for, #2, I edited the OP to only have what was #2. The idea of melting down due to lack of funds was more of a side note, it is the destruction of a nuclear plant in war, and what it's effects could be that I wanted to be the focus here.

[James II]

It makes sense. Nuke plants play such an integral part of this game, they should have more that go along with them. It's not like you can have a city with no infrastructure and a powerplant continue to run safely. There should be a cost for such a maintenance cost for such huge benefit and a penalty for mis management. 

 

Typically other plant failures aren't catastrophic. They just stop working but a lot more goes into maintaining a powerplant and the consequences are much greater. Might as well put the nuclear in nuclear power plant and make these bad boys more fun!

18 hours ago, Kratos said:

Hi, i read your suggestion & have some questions,

• Can you explain Why only Nuclear Power Plants , why not other power plants?
• What indicators or numbers you have for Meltdowns to occur other than Maintenance cost ,that actually makes any sense?
• Isn't this suggestion too much over-punishing for people who are using Nuclear Power Plants?

         Some friendly advice, if you might wanna listen,

• I sincerely request you to read the game wiki , Guides & fix your nation build before someone starts nuke rainfall on you.
• For the love of god get your alliance Econ to audit your build , i am kinda confused what exactly you are doing with your nation.

https://politicsandwar.com/index.php?id=62&n=Monster+Island

             

Thanks 😀

 

 

Are you just saying all this because you were countered by him after you raided? For someone from arrfh you are pretty salty about launching a raid and losing. You shouldn't let that get in the way of improving game mechanics and discouraging people from posting their ideas. This kind of toxicity isn't needed here.

15 hours ago, lightside said:

This adds nothing good to the game and is very unrealistic. So not a good idea.

How is it unrealistic? A nuclear poweplant failing, particularly after it's been struck with a catastrophic failure(bomb) is very much real and is the main reason they are far away from cities irl. This is one of the most realistic proposals we've seen.

Edited August 15, 2020 by James II

[Gojira75]

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Look these things up.

[James II]

2 minutes ago, Gojira75 said:

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Look these things up.

There's more than that but yes. Very much a real thing.

Nuking people on a daily basis seems more unrealistic than this concept.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

1 hour ago, James II said:

It makes sense. Nuke plants play such an integral part of this game, they should have more that go along with them. It's not like you can have a city with no infrastructure and a powerplant continue to run safely. There should be a cost for such a maintenance cost for such huge benefit and a penalty for mis management. 

 

Typically other plant failures aren't catastrophic. They just stop working but a lot more goes into maintaining a powerplant and the consequences are much greater. Might as well put the nuclear in nuclear power plant and make these bad boys more fun!

Are you just saying all this because you were countered by him after you raided? For someone from arrfh you are pretty salty about launching a raid and losing. You shouldn't let that get in the way of improving game mechanics and discouraging people from posting their ideas. This kind of toxicity isn't needed here.

How is it unrealistic? A nuclear poweplant failing, particularly after it's been struck with a catastrophic failure(bomb) is very much real and is the main reason they are far away from cities irl. This is one of the most realistic proposals we've seen.

It's also one of the most realistic instances of why realism is not always a good thing in games.

Realistically, the uranium used a nuclear plant wouldn't explode like this anyway. Next time you're gonna quote realism spend 30 seconds googling. There's a HUGE difference between weapons grade and fuel grade uranium. There's different isotopes of different elements and for a nuclear explosive you want a radioactive and unstable isotope. Just stable enough it won't rip itself apart before you tell it too.

With uranium, this is U-235. Most uranium in the world is actually not U-235, and powerplant grade uranium is less than 10% U-235. This is because the more actively decaying 235 releases more energy and heats the water faster, faster than it can be cooled. That is to say, a higher percentage would literally cause the plant to meltdown, and the meltdown would be far more dangerous.

Nuclear power realistically is so safe because it's actually, straight up impossible it to explode as outlined here. In part again, because the uranium used is not weapons grade and will not easily chain reaction fission, required for such an explosion. It's further impossible because if you've ever looked at a nuclear reactor, it's actually not very densely packed, is it? That's intentional not aesthetic, in theory fuel grade Uranium could still explode in a fissile reaction, but just like in a nuclear bomb it's have to be... Tightly compacted to facilitate the chain reaction splitting the atoms...

Which, yanno, it literally isn't. You could drop a nuke right on the reactor, and it still wouldn't blow. No, not even if it breached the reactor. Which no commissioned weapons on earth, as far as we know, are even capable of, as to do it with a direct hit requires a yield in excess of 1MT and there's no guarantees there. Even if PW nukes are that big, you need to understand the conditions made in a nuclear weapon to cause this are extreme conditions. A nuclear reactor does not have the conditions to facilitate such a reaction, is a controlled environment for a slow, gentle decay, whole a nuke is controlled for an extreme chaotic hellstorm.

 

Now, what would happen if you actually nuked a real life powerplant is that you'd make Chernobyl look like a goddamn tea party. One nobody wants to attend.

Note: this is all assuming a direct physical hit. Pretty much all nukes are designed to airburst for maximum effect, which would likely not do much of anything to the reactor. These things are the definition of Tonka Tough. The EMP an airbust nuke causes would also be ineffective because shocker, nuclear power plants on top of being built to stop the bloody apocalypse from getting in, are built to stop any idiots from EMPing it and causing a meltdown, including if they literally go the extra mile to use a full on ICBM.

 

Tl;Dr if you actually spent any time knowing or researching this before asserting this realism you'd realize this suggestion is wholly unrealistic. If we wanted it realistic, hitting an NPP would cause like 4,000+ pollution and last until the end of time, or 30-60 days since we don't do that even with normal nukes here. This is where the "realism isn't always good in games" comes in because at that point your city is basically KOd for 1-2 months and I might as well be c24.

Also, Kratos is in KT has been for a while, not arrgh. This entire post was one big factual error. 😛

Edited August 15, 2020 by Akuryo

[Roger]

19 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

It's also one of the most realistic instances of why realism is not always a good thing in games.

Realistically, the uranium used a nuclear plant wouldn't explode like this anyway. Next time you're gonna quote realism spend 30 seconds googling. There's a HUGE difference between weapons grade and fuel grade uranium. There's different isotopes of different elements and for a nuclear explosive you want a radioactive and unstable isotope. Just stable enough it won't rip itself apart before you tell it too.

With uranium, this is U-235. Most uranium in the world is actually not U-235, and powerplant grade uranium is less than 10% U-235. This is because the more actively decaying 235 releases more energy and heats the water faster, faster than it can be cooled. That is to say, a higher percentage would literally cause the plant to meltdown, and the meltdown would be far more dangerous.

Nuclear power realistically is so safe because it's actually, straight up impossible it to explode as outlined here. In part again, because the uranium used is not weapons grade and will not easily chain reaction fission, required for such an explosion. It's further impossible because if you've ever looked at a nuclear reactor, it's actually not very densely packed, is it? That's intentional not aesthetic, in theory fuel grade Uranium could still explode in a fissile reaction, but just like in a nuclear bomb it's have to be... Tightly compacted to facilitate the chain reaction splitting the atoms...

Which, yanno, it literally isn't. You could drop a nuke right on the reactor, and it still wouldn't blow. No, not even if it breached the reactor. Which no commissioned weapons on earth, as far as we know, are even capable of, as to do it with a direct hit requires a yield in excess of 1MT and there's no guarantees there. Even if PW nukes are that big, you need to understand the conditions made in a nuclear weapon to cause this are extreme conditions. A nuclear reactor does not have the conditions to facilitate such a reaction, is a controlled environment for a slow, gentle decay, whole a nuke is controlled for an extreme chaotic hellstorm.

 

Now, what would happen if you actually nuked a real life powerplant is that you'd make Chernobyl look like a goddamn tea party. One nobody wants to attend.

Note: this is all assuming a direct physical hit. Pretty much all nukes are designed to airburst for maximum effect, which would likely not do much of anything to the reactor. These things are the definition of Tonka Tough. The EMP an airbust nuke causes would also be ineffective because shocker, nuclear power plants on top of being built to stop the bloody apocalypse from getting in, are built to stop any idiots from EMPing it and causing a meltdown, including if they literally go the extra mile to use a full on ICBM.

 

Tl;Dr if you actually spent any time knowing or researching this before asserting this realism you'd realize this suggestion is wholly unrealistic. If we wanted it realistic, hitting an NPP would cause like 4,000+ pollution and last until the end of time, or 30-60 days since we don't do that even with normal nukes here. This is where the "realism isn't always good in games" comes in because at that point your city is basically KOd for 1-2 months and I might as well be c24.

Also, Kratos is in KT has been for a while, not arrgh. This entire post was one big factual error. 😛

How did you write this?

[James II]

1 hour ago, Akuryo said:

It's also one of the most realistic instances of why realism is not always a good thing in games.

Realistically, the uranium used a nuclear plant wouldn't explode like this anyway. Next time you're gonna quote realism spend 30 seconds googling. There's a HUGE difference between weapons grade and fuel grade uranium. There's different isotopes of different elements and for a nuclear explosive you want a radioactive and unstable isotope. Just stable enough it won't rip itself apart before you tell it too.

With uranium, this is U-235. Most uranium in the world is actually not U-235, and powerplant grade uranium is less than 10% U-235. This is because the more actively decaying 235 releases more energy and heats the water faster, faster than it can be cooled. That is to say, a higher percentage would literally cause the plant to meltdown, and the meltdown would be far more dangerous.

Nuclear power realistically is so safe because it's actually, straight up impossible it to explode as outlined here. In part again, because the uranium used is not weapons grade and will not easily chain reaction fission, required for such an explosion. It's further impossible because if you've ever looked at a nuclear reactor, it's actually not very densely packed, is it? That's intentional not aesthetic, in theory fuel grade Uranium could still explode in a fissile reaction, but just like in a nuclear bomb it's have to be... Tightly compacted to facilitate the chain reaction splitting the atoms...

Which, yanno, it literally isn't. You could drop a nuke right on the reactor, and it still wouldn't blow. No, not even if it breached the reactor. Which no commissioned weapons on earth, as far as we know, are even capable of, as to do it with a direct hit requires a yield in excess of 1MT and there's no guarantees there. Even if PW nukes are that big, you need to understand the conditions made in a nuclear weapon to cause this are extreme conditions. A nuclear reactor does not have the conditions to facilitate such a reaction, is a controlled environment for a slow, gentle decay, whole a nuke is controlled for an extreme chaotic hellstorm.

 

Now, what would happen if you actually nuked a real life powerplant is that you'd make Chernobyl look like a goddamn tea party. One nobody wants to attend.

Note: this is all assuming a direct physical hit. Pretty much all nukes are designed to airburst for maximum effect, which would likely not do much of anything to the reactor. These things are the definition of Tonka Tough. The EMP an airbust nuke causes would also be ineffective because shocker, nuclear power plants on top of being built to stop the bloody apocalypse from getting in, are built to stop any idiots from EMPing it and causing a meltdown, including if they literally go the extra mile to use a full on ICBM.

 

Tl;Dr if you actually spent any time knowing or researching this before asserting this realism you'd realize this suggestion is wholly unrealistic. If we wanted it realistic, hitting an NPP would cause like 4,000+ pollution and last until the end of time, or 30-60 days since we don't do that even with normal nukes here. This is where the "realism isn't always good in games" comes in because at that point your city is basically KOd for 1-2 months and I might as well be c24.

Also, Kratos is in KT has been for a while, not arrgh. This entire post was one big factual error. 😛

Generally when there is a meltdown you get what's called a hydrogen explosion. It's a build up of hydrogen. Nuclear reactors/plants aren't designed to take hit's from missiles, bombs, and nukes. If they get hit by one irl they likely would fail. While the reactor initially, might stay intact, the cooling systems and ventilation systems would surely fail like any plumbing system would. I'm well aware of how a fission reactor works. How you concluded I did a 30 second google search I don't know. Google searches are for confirmation bias, not useful information. I'm glad you have at least some idea of the differences with degree of nuclear reactions e.g. critical and super critical, but that does not discount that a reactor would fail, a hydrogen explosion or some other could occur, and radioactive material would certainly be strewn across a city and nearby areas. It most certainly would be devastating to a region.

EDIT: To be clear, it shouldn't cause another 'nuclear explosion' but it should certainly do more damage to the city via enviornment/radiation and ifnra damage if an instance of a hydrogen explosion occurs.

Edited August 15, 2020 by James II

[Sam Cooper]

Delete it, Alex has already been getting enough game-ruining ideas lately, 37 days is a bit early to give an opinion on something that affects you and someone who's been playing for years alike.

And after having a look at your cities, I think this should be the last thing you should be sharing your opinion about. 😕

[James II]

1 minute ago, Sam Cooper said:

Delete it, Alex has already been getting enough game-ruining ideas lately, 37 days is a bit early to give an opinion on something that affects you and someone who's been playing for years alike.

And after having a look at your cities, I think this should be the last thing you should be sharing your opinion about. 😕

What do either of these have to do with the validity of his proposition? Younger nations are capable of introducing new ideas, and probably more so considering they have a fresh perspective. I'll hazard a guess that since you're from arrgh you're upset that when you raided, he beat your friend here and now you're throwing a tantrum.

[Sam Cooper]

1 minute ago, James II said:

I'll hazard a guess that since you're from arrgh you're upset that when you raided, he beat your friend here and now you're throwing a tantrum.

That wasn't from a pirate, I've spent more time as a landlubber. (and I don't know him for that matter)
As for why he shouldn't be sharing this thing, that's not because I reject opinions coming from new players, but because I'm afraid Alex might actually get ideas and implement those things without taking the thoughts of rest of the community into account, as he did when he removed beige.

I'd rather not have any updates at all than have updates that ruin my experience.

[Roger]

8 minutes ago, Sam Cooper said:

I'd rather not have any updates at all than have updates that ruin my experience.

“YOUR” experience isn’t the only thing that matters

Edited August 15, 2020 by Roger

[Sam Cooper]

4 minutes ago, Roger said:

“YOUR” experience isn’t the only thing that matters

For you, it may not, not my concern.

But for me, yes that's all that matters, isn't it obvious though? 🤷 The game can be 'good' and popular but whether I play it or not, that solely depends on how I consider my experience to be here.