![]() I would have to look that up first myself. I got word on newer generation 4 reactors being able to use even nuclear waste as fuel to disposal could get better in the future, but alas - this is not my field of expertise. My conclusion: unless several thing go bad simultaneously they are safe and do not create carbon dioxide. Worst case is we have a molten radioactive blob sizzling in the ground that is to be entombed to contain it. If I remember my physics lessons correctly, the radiation decays with radius to the 4th power so if the fuel is distributed enough the fission reaction will stop and the isotopes will return to their natural radiation they simply have as a result of nucleus size or not-so-optimal neutron to proton ratio. I'd rather expect it to melt and form a superhot blob of liquid metal eating its way into the earth unless the material is smeared enough to cool or vaporizes and by doing so distributes itself in the nearer surrounding. I do not believe that nuclear fuel in a reactor is suitable to reach critical mass and explode in a fission explosion. Some conventional explosion hurls up radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere and the weather will distribute them. What happened seems to be something comparable to a dirty bomb. During the meltdown the reactor water is vaporized and in case of the chernobyl reactor graphite was used in the moderators and we had very hot metal/metal oxide surfaces so it might have been possible that carbon monoxide and hydrogen were created by chemical reaction, ruptured the reactor building either before of after mixing with surrounding air and combustion. The greatest danger of what I know - with scientific background but no nuclear expert - is the useage of water as cooling agent. I am talking Little Man and Fat Boy here. I guess most of that perceptions of nuclear power hail from the fact that the it can be abused and this proves catastrophic. You forgot the Three Mile Island incident, but yes, you are correct. I'm not sure if reactors already generate waste, which has to be transported away by trucks, but I'm very fine with them not melting down at all. ![]() Dam failures, gas explosions, and bridge collapses are far more likely. Nuclear power is by far the safest method of power generation we have, which is why I feel it's so silly to even have nuclear accidents in games at all, and I suppose that in most cases it's included as a kind of gamey balance mechanism, where nuclear power is by far the most powerful power source, but runs the risk of meltdown as a tradeoff. Even cooling water failing to reach the reactor won't cause the most modern ones to melt down as the fission itself is dependent on said water and will just fizzle out harmlessly without it. There have really only been two serious nuclear accidents in history: Chernobyl, which was an ancient, clunky design which melted down due to sheer Soviet incompetence, and Fukushima, where one of the reactors hit by a record tsunami ended up in meltdown (there was a newer reactor at the same site that survived even that tsunami without going into meltdown). There has to be some challenge at it." I think this is a very good idea and should be added to the game. Using nuclear power (at least the LWR this game probably has) should not be a get-out-of-jail card for your energy needs, neither should it be a declaration of certain death to your city. Low funding means a high risk of accidents, and vice-versa. Other than that, the probability of one happening should depend on funding. They should mainly happen if water runs out. (unrealistic but seems good gameplay-wise) The waste should slowly decay in the facility, until it becomes safe to handle like regular trash and to be incinerated. This material should also require the same facility which stores radioactive waste. Shutting one down should require it to consume water for a prolonged period of time to cool it down, then disassembling it should take quite some time because of the materials involved. Then, make them produce small amounts of radioactive waste, which has to be transported to a storing facility.Īlso make it so that you can't just shut down and bulldoze a nuclear power plant. This makes it so you don't just spam them right inside your city. To make them realistic, have them require a body of water as water reserve to cool the reactor. Reactor grade fuel cannot explode as it is not weapons grade, which has to be highly enriched. ![]() No nuclear reactor has ever exploded due to a runaway fusion making the reactor a nuclear bomb. If you include this feature, please, for the love of all that's holy, no mushroom cloud and no random melting down every three minutes, because that would be extremely unrealistic. ![]() I heard something about nuclear reactors not being able to melt down yet. The one guy posted very good example of this: " It would be nice if you add new type of disaster like radiation and nuclear reactor meltdown. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |