Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
OutofSight
May 4, 2017

Alkydere posted:

It does avoid the "horrible toxic waste" issue.

Of course the "horrible toxic waste" issue would be less of a deal if:
A) We'd researched thorium reactors early on instead of uranium. They're supposed to be a lot safer and don't create nearly as hazardous waste, but thorium doesn't make bombs so any country that wanted to make bombs went full in on uranium research
B) if there was research into reprocessing that spent fuel into more advanced/reusable fuel instead of screaming in horror and shoving it in a bunker. If we could extract the plutonium, californium, americium from spent fuel it would be far safer AND we'd have fresh sources of fuel for more power.

But yeah, as said there's a massive amount of political will aligned against using nuclear power. Especially from the oil industries in America and coal industries in Germany.

Nah. I don't believe that "but advancing technology will save us and improve lives for the better!" dogma.

So long as most the private sector memes "BUT THE PROFITS!", i don't want to see nuclear power in private sector. Rather build a million coal plants/ wind turbines/ solar panels. Those don't go nuclear meltdown or someone tries to sink nuclear waste in the nearest ocean to cut costs. Now those idiots can't even stop their electric car batteries from blowing up.

Blame that history taught us that the individuals involved are just not responsible when nuclear fission is involved.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

OutofSight
May 4, 2017

Cythereal posted:

Nuclear power... is good in theory. Big output, low price tag, runs on a rare resource but consumes it slowly and like coal it's trivial to replenish an island's supply. However, nuclear plants are ludicrously accident prone and have no less than three different kinds of accidents they can suffer, ranging from 'everyone on the island is now mad at you and paying less money' to 'mushroom cloud just vaporized half the island and irradiated the rest.' Your own citizens, Eco or Tycoon, may threaten revolt just for building one of these things, and are guaranteed to if you build more than two or three. Research and upgrades can lower the risk of accidents, but your citizens don't give a hoot about how safe you've made it, and many NPCs you may share a map with will hate you for building just one, and will declare war on you if you keep building them.

Nuclear plants in the older Sim Cities had some similar issues.

While not more accident prone like your typical super-dirty coal plant, the unique long-term environmental hazard when one of those things go kaboom, was risky. (Yes, i played with catastrophes on.) The Sims complained, too, and you had special laws to forbid nuclear fission for a mood booster.

Here every fission plant seems like a potential Chernobyl 2.0.


Kind of wonder how your battleships are powered. Diesel?

OutofSight
May 4, 2017

Alkydere posted:

..Why did you make the giant AI core the size of a building mobile!?"

AI hubs for rapid deployment of CDN networks in your IoT production chains. It is the future. :pseudo:

I rather ask why didn't they strap a bunch of railguns on it. For self defense in case of critical firewall breach.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply