Make nuclear power an educational statement against nuclear Power

[Rainbowdesign]

Nuclear power in Oni would be cool, in real life its not so cool.

In real life it is really dangerous like what happened in fukushima.

Till today the japanese cannot clean up the ruin, it spills radioactivity into the see and the fishes start growing more eyes every year - if they are lucky and survive.

The japanese might not be able to get children anymore and the government just ignores the danger and invites everyone to the Olympic games.

 

Nuclear Power in an unsafe Reactor is REALLY REALLY dangerous. And i would love that to be reflected in oxygen not included.

 

Here are some ideas for this:

Radioactivity leaks and if the reactor is not properly shielded it will seep into water.

Spend power rods will spill radioactivity and need to be safely stored forever (would be cool in combo with earthquakes too)

If the core melts it will stay liquid on its own because of the immense heat generated it will get so hot it melts everything and it generates so much radiation that it shortcuts any electronics that come close (you cannot use robots in the fukushima nuclear reactor for that reasons) and kill within seconds (even in protective suits)

Heating rods give off hydrogen which can easily explode and blow away the walls spilling the content of the reactor into the environment.

 

Why would you do this?

Because its realistic, a statement for the safe use of technology and of course that dlc will make HEADLINES.

Also nuclear power has to be balanced to make sure its not simply abused.

[caffeinated21]

Let’s keep (misguided) politics out of the oni forums. 
 

PS more people people die from pollution from fossil fuels every single day then have died from all nuclear incidents combined. Nuclear accidents are news because they are so rare. It’s like plane vs car crashes. 

[Sasza22]

Nuclear power isn`t altogether more dangerous than most alternatives when handled correctly. The problem is the nuclear waste we don`t have a way to dipose yet. People want to bury it underground or something. But there are rumored new generation molten salt reactors that can process what`s essentially waste from other reactors into power. It`s technically possible to build them but it requires a lot of money and yu can`t use those reactors to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs so most goverments aren`t interested. Here it becomes politics so i`m not going to continue.

How do we handle this in ONI? In the game (almost) everything has inputs, outputs and waste.
The input would essentially need to be some sort of nuclear fuel probably uranium, maybe refined somehow but usually we use raw stuff most of the time, maybe enriched through the molecular forge.
The output is power (obviously) and heat. Nuclear reactors are basically heat sources and the power comes from steam turbines. Here we could make it intake water and output superhot steam. It should produce power on it`s own to simplify the design but the steam could be processed further by a steam turbine above it.
Now finally the waste. Once a while (every 20-30) cycles the reactor would require dupes to remove depleted fuel rods. The rods need to be dangerous somehow. Either using the germs system or an entirely new radiation system the dupes would be exposed to radiation caused by those things. We already have lead to shield from that so we can create safe containers. Similarly the steam from the reactor would produce radiation. And even simple granite for that matter should be producing a small amount. Oh an obviously space.

Now how do we portect our dupes? First we need protective suits. A simple atmo suit might suffice. IRL filtering the air blocks a large amount of radiation already. Lead walls might be a new type of tile or just ordinary metal tiles. Any metal does a good job blocking radiation but lead is the best.
When a dupe gets radiaion sickness (the symptoms should include the dupe going bald js) we probably should be able to fix them. Radiation damages DNA making the body unable to repair itself or function properly. It can`t be cured normally but we are talking 3D printed dupes here so it`s entirely possible we could regenerate those guys bu reprinting the DNA. This would also mean we get to use some of the tech Gravitas used to create the dupes in the first place.
And finally what do we do with the nuclear waste? Unless we get a waste processing reactor we will be stuck with useless depleted fuel spreading radiation all around. I can see people just leaving it in the reactor room that`s shielded anyway or droping it into magma (melting it or even vaporizing shouldn`t remove the radiation). Maybe there should be some sort of use for it. Like encasing it inside lead that creats a material that pasively heats itself up, then building stuff out of it. Alternatively we could get a space catapult to get rid of unwanted resources or a disintegrator laser mentioned somewhere in the Gravits files that can essentially remove any material out of existence (originally used to dipose neutronium).

Wow this post ended up way longer than i expected.

[NurdRage]

I like the idea, but gotta be careful as it's still a game.

Currently, it's not too hard to have more power than you'll ever need, especially if you can access space and bring back space materials. You can build advanced power systems that generate +200kW. To even use that power requires so many machines that you'll likely lag your computer to death.

So nuclear power must have some sort of advantage for it to played. An advantage so big that it's worth considering and dealing with the downsides. Because otherwise, there would be no point. Kinda like how a lot of the recreation pack in ONI was eventually dismissed by the community. Those recreation structures didn't really have much upside compared to downside. So no one bothered.

So what's the super upside of nuclear?

In real life, that's just raw power. A nuclear power plant beats the living snot out of most other power plants. We deal with the downsides because the upsides are just too alluring.

In ONI... we don't need that power. If a highly advanced sour gas boiler and NGG power system can give me 200kw, more than almost any base will ever need, AND do it with no downside or hazards... why do we want nuclear?

As it is right now, we simply don't need new power systems. At all.

Perhaps if ONI continues to be developed we get massive power consumers... like i don't know, a meteor defense laser...  then new power systems could be needed and we could set nuclear to maybe something 100kw. If the new consumers needed similar amounts of power then nuclear would desired despite having a downside.

As it is, putting in structures with more downside than upside will just lead to those structures being abandoned. 

 

[Rainbowdesign]

Actually i only know one power source that can be scaled really big in any environment that is an ethanol generator setup.

The nuclear reactor would provide easy energy and relatively early.

Also i think you are thinking of normal maps when you say you can easy get big power. I think of a freezing map with a frozen core or the rock. And there you really have issues to get power other than ethanol - which i think is overpowered.

[NurdRage]

3 hours ago, Rainbowdesign said:

Actually i only know one power source that can be scaled really big in any environment that is an ethanol generator setup.

If you convert crude oil into sour gas and then into natural gas, you make 17kW per oil well. Most maps have at least 3 or so oil wells so that's 51kW of power right there.

there are a couple of volcano maps with 51 wells, so that's 867kW. 

My own Terra map has 6 wells. so i potentially can make +100kW.

Also ethanol generator systems need arbor trees, if you don't have those you'll soon run out of ethanol.

3 hours ago, Rainbowdesign said:

The nuclear reactor would provide easy energy and relatively early.

 

I thought the whole point of your suggestion was to make nuclear hard. 

[Rainbowdesign]

2 hours ago, NurdRage said:

If you convert crude oil into sour gas and then into natural gas, you make 17kW per oil well. Most maps have at least 3 or so oil wells so that's 51kW of power right there.

The rock has no oil and no oil wells.

2 hours ago, NurdRage said:

I thought the whole point of your suggestion was to make nuclear hard. 

My idea is to make it A little hard not too much - BUT VERY dangerous if build unsafe.

[NurdRage]

2 minutes ago, Rainbowdesign said:

The rock has no oil and no oil wells.

I said most maps have oil. I did NOT say all maps have oil. 

My point still stands.

7 minutes ago, Rainbowdesign said:

My idea is to make it A little hard not too much - BUT VERY dangerous if build unsafe.

The way you wrote it with multitudes of problems and draw backs make it sound very hard. That's why i wrote my response that it can't be too hard.

So you agree with my original response? It shouldn't be too hard and we simply don't need large amounts of power in the current game.

[Rainbowdesign]

Nuclear Power should be not too hard to get but very hard to do properly. 

For the easy power stuff well if its so easy to get power that should be nerfed, they nerfed the oil cooking once already if its still so easy maybe its time for once more.

Well my automatic refinerys need a load of power and also some other toys in my mods, and i think there should be more things that require high power.

[meepmoop]

FYI nuclear is far safer method of producing power then coal, oil and other forms of fossil fuels.

[Sasza22]

38 minutes ago, meepmoop said:

FYI nuclear is far safer method of producing power then coal, oil and other forms of fossil fuels.

Burning fossil fuels creates power the same way nuclear power plants do. It`s just a steam turbine. The only difference is the source of heat. Fossil fuels are more dangerous if they ignite uncontrollably. A lot of combustibles in a small area can cause a lot of trouble. Nuclear fuels don`t burn like that and you never need that high amounts so it won`t explode as much if something goes terribly wrong. But cleaning after a fossil fuel disaster is realtively easy. Cleaning radioactive contamination is much ahrder or borderline impossible. While the perfect disaster is less likely and less volatile the consequences are long term.

[meepmoop]

2 hours ago, Sasza22 said:

Burning fossil fuels creates power the same way nuclear power plants do. It`s just a steam turbine. The only difference is the source of heat. Fossil fuels are more dangerous if they ignite uncontrollably. A lot of combustibles in a small area can cause a lot of trouble. Nuclear fuels don`t burn like that and you never need that high amounts so it won`t explode as much if something goes terribly wrong. But cleaning after a fossil fuel disaster is realtively easy. Cleaning radioactive contamination is much ahrder or borderline impossible. While the perfect disaster is less likely and less volatile the consequences are long term.

Very true. I want to add that there are more factors then just the power plant itself though (and I thought you were going there when you said "The only difference is the source of heat") - and its getting the resource itself.

There are more deaths in oil wells and coal mines 'per Watt' then in the whole process of getting and refining uranium.

To add to this, there is the whole perspective of pollution. If we count the death of people from the pollution fossil plants create and the damages made by climate change, it becomes clear why nuclear considered safer and less harmful.

 

Radioactive waste is a problem, you are absolutely right. No way to get rid of it as you cant just burn it like trash.

Currently we just bury it underground to let future generation handle with that

[Rainbowdesign]

There is a load done to hush up informations about nuclear dangers. But i get the impression you are talking about an accident free nuclear power chain right?

I am talking about accidents. I said i want the nuclear power in oni to be especially dangerous in false build reactors which means in first case accident prone reactors and in second radioactive material leaking reactors. If you are talking about accidents i can challenge you here:

If you want to say that there cannot be extreme nuclear accidents with whole landscapes radioactively contaminated well bring it up and show evidence. Also I wonder a little does anyone really doubt that a faulty unsafe build nuclear reactor can kill a load of people? How about this: Are small dosages of radioactivity and radioactive material maybe healthy?

If you want You can take a look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Soil_2

That part is VERY short it says this: A study published by the PNAS found that caesium 137 had "strongly contaminated the soils in large areas of eastern and northeastern Japan."[233]

So if Radioactive Caesium 137 is healthy i would really wonder about this:

The total price tag in compensation now stands at roughly 35 billion dollars. Roughly 160,000 people were evacuated from the area.

From this:

https://www.erneuerbareenergien.de/archiv/french-governmental-agency-puts-price-tag-on-nuclear-disaster-150-482-60424.html

If it is Healthy why evacuate and compensate anyone? Why not tell them to go out and enjoy the fresh air after the accident?

 

@meepmoop You wrote this: 

"FYI nuclear is far safer method of producing power then coal, oil and other forms of fossil fuels."

This is my answer to you:

FYI if you want to challenge me you really need to have deep knowledge of that topic and not repeat what the TV tells you.

Do you have deep knowledge?

How about some links then stating that no harm was done in the past by nuclear accidents?

[Sasza22]

2 hours ago, Rainbowdesign said:

If you want to say that there cannot be extreme nuclear accidents with whole landscapes radioactively contaminated well bring it up and show evidence. Also I wonder a little does anyone really doubt that a faulty unsafe build nuclear reactor can kill a load of people? How about this: Are small dosages of radioactivity and radioactive material maybe healthy?

Nobody is saying a nuclear reactor is fully safe. Disasters can happen and do happen. But despite nuclear power being used for a long time there was only a handful of large disasters that lead to contamination. The issue is that cleaning up after a nuclear disaster is a borderline impossible task and long term effects can affect the entire population.

The consequences of using fossil fuel are less obvious and large disasters are relatively easier to clean up. Even oil spills that cover large areas of ocean take less time to lean after. On the other hand stuff like this happens more often.

But back to the game:

2 hours ago, Rainbowdesign said:

I am talking about accidents. I said i want the nuclear power in oni to be especially dangerous in false build reactors which means in first case accident prone reactors and in second radioactive material leaking reactors. If you are talking about accidents i can challenge you here:

Lets remember it`s a game. In the game world everything should work perfectly unless you make a mistake, connect pipes wrong or let stuff overheat. Adding a mechanic that punishes the player randomly (to teach him something) is not a good way of designing games. We should rather make it a powerful tool for power generation but implement the issues normal nuclear generators have.

In game fossil fuel generators mostly create the same problems that happen irl. They create CO2 and heat requiring you to handle both to maintain livable conditions. Nuclear generators create heat and nuclear waste. They don`t emit radiation themselves but the waste does. They also have a closed cooling loop that has contaminated coolant that should never leave the plant.

So in game nuclear reactor should require a coolant that gets contaminated and has to be stored somewhere away from dupes, critters and plants and also shielded with lead. The coolant coould work similarly to how the smelter works. The plant should drop hot depleted fuel that would need to be moved away (there should be some reason to remove it from the room with the reactor maybe it being hot so that it doesn`t cause it to overheat). Contaminated stuff cannot be cleaned in any way and will continue to be a problem and exposed dupes will be hard to heal (maybe permanent stat reduction or smh) and require high tech stuff t fix up.

In the end we could make the nuclear power like the Dark Side. Easy path that gives you power right away but over time causes more and more trouble.

[meepmoop]

4 hours ago, Rainbowdesign said:

1. FYI if you want to challenge me you really need to have deep knowledge of that topic and not repeat what the TV tells you.

2. Do you have deep knowledge?

3. How about some links then stating that no harm was done in the past by nuclear accidents?

1. I dont want to challenge you. I'll be happy to hear what you have to say and learn from that, if it sounds reasonable ofc.

And since im not related to the accademia of electric engineering / nuclear physics, I can not do anything beyond repeating what others (people who I see as trust worthy and smart) tell me.

2. Deep knowledge in what sense? Im not working in a field that relates to any of this, and I did not have any formal education in the matter (I am working on a bachelors at CS rn). I was never REALLY into nuclear science (compare to someone like, lets say, the radioactive boy scout), but in points in my life I did read a bit and watched some videos (like this one). However, I haven't read or being interested in that in the recent time. This is my background.

3. I never said there are no accidents or deaths related to nuclear energy. Please do not put words into my mouth and make a strew argument for me. I am not condescending over you, and im not looking down at you like a stupid. please dont do the same to me.

Ill clear myself again and present how I see things: there are fewer deaths per Watt from nuclear energy, then from fossil fuels.

And as to the links you asked for. here is one result I found after googling 'deaths from energy sources statistics'.

[Rainbowdesign]

8 minutes ago, meepmoop said:

Ill clear myself again and present how I see things: there are fewer deaths per Watt from nuclear energy, then from fossil fuels.

Great for you and if you send me a link that remotely supports your way to see things and includes accidents i would look at that instead of just dismiss it

[meepmoop]

7 minutes ago, Rainbowdesign said:

Great for you and if you send me a link that remotely supports your way to see things and includes accidents i would look at that instead of just dismiss it

As I said, I haven't read or being interested in that in the recent time. So all I can do is google and give you the results I find.

What do you think about the link to statista.com I gave in the end of my comment (last sentence)?

here is another article that claims that nuclear has fewer deaths then coal or oil.

[Tytan]

On 30/12/2019 at 8:24 PM, Rainbowdesign said:

In real life it is really dangerous like what happened in fukushima.

Till today the japanese cannot clean up the ruin, it spills radioactivity into the see and the fishes start growing more eyes every year - if they are lucky and survive.

The japanese might not be able to get children anymore and the government just ignores the danger and invites everyone to the Olympic games.

WTF

[caffeinated21]

8 hours ago, Tytan said:

WTF

Typical hysterics. He should get off the oni forums and back to r/alexjones and naturalnews.net

[Rainbowdesign]

On 1/2/2020 at 6:19 PM, meepmoop said:

(people who I see as trust worthy and smart)

Bill clinton trustworthy? Really?

You care to Watch a video in which little hearts come out of the chimney of a nuclear plant in the introduction picture? Well i say i dont!

The first statistic makes some sense but there is little explaination of how this deads are measured.

And the second statistic is from 2011 and counts 1 dead from fukushima which is more ridiculous than outdated.

 

I found an article which may be relevant to some in the topic:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/10/30/three-ways-radiation-has-changed-the-monkeys-of-fukushima-a-warning-for-humans/#432074eb65ea

three-ways-radiation-has-changed-the-monkeys-of-fukushima

Smaller Bodies — Japanese monkeys born in the path of fallout from the Fukushima meltdown weigh less for their height than monkeys born in the same area before the March, 2011 disaster, Hayama said.

"We can see that the monkeys born from mothers who were exposed are showing low body weight in relation to their height, so they are smaller," he said.

Red circles represent the body weight and height (CRL=crown-to-rump length) of monkeys born... [+]

NATURE: SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Smaller Heads And Brains — The exposed monkeys have smaller bodies overall, and their heads and brains are smaller still.

"We know from the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that embryos and fetuses exposed in utero resulted in low birth weight and also in microcephaly, where the brain failed to develop adequately and head size was small, so we are trying to confirm whether this also is happening with the monkeys in Fukushima," Hayama said.

And it appears that it is:

Blue triangles represent the head size of pre-disaster monkey fetuses relative to their height... [+]

 NATURE: SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Anemia — The monkeys show a reduction in all blood components: red blood cells, white blood cells, hemoglobin, and the cells in bone marrow that produce blood components.

"There's clearly a depression of blood components in the Fukushima monkeys," said Hayama. "We can see that in these monkeys, that there is a correlation between white blood cell counts and the radio-cesium concentrations in their muscles. This actually is comparable to what’s been reported with children of Chernobyl."

 

Now i really dont care to discuss the dangers of radiation in real life because those who trust Bill Clinton will certainly stay with what he said and its a waste of time in which i maybe might have my own nuclear power mod and the way i want it.

I will not answer anyone who wants to discuss the real life nuclear power anymore.

I made the topic about oni nuclear power and NOT about nuclear Power in real life! 

[yoakenashi]

1 hour ago, Rainbowdesign said:

I made the topic about oni nuclear power and NOT about nuclear Power in real life! 

This is not true; you specifically made comments in the original post about nuclear power in real life:

On 12/30/2019 at 6:24 PM, Rainbowdesign said:

Nuclear power in Oni would be cool, in real life its not so cool.

In real life it is really dangerous like what happened in fukushima.

I work in the Nuclear Industry; and have had classes/training about the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. We then received weekly briefings about what was happening at Fukushima following the tsunami. I think you and @meepmoop are talking past each other to an extent. I will agree that nuclear accidents, when they happen, are terrible and have huge impacts on the surrounding area; but nuclear power is still, generally speaking, the safest form of energy generation.

Nuclear power plants do have more risks to mitigate than fossil plants, that is true. You identified some of these truths, but some of your comments are just common myths. It is because nuclear is special and unique that the plants are designed with extra safeguards and their operation is very restricted and regulated. Because nuclear plants are designed and operated in such a way, they are inherently safer and have an overall less harmful impact on people and the environment.

[meepmoop]

4 hours ago, Rainbowdesign said:

 

1. You misread Bill Gates to Bill Clinton. The one who I value his idea is Gates.

2. well... if we take Wikipedia as any indication, it seems like the 1 death still stands. It written that more deaths were associated with the evacuation then with the radiation itself.

As I understand - you say that there are more, 'covered', deaths from the accident? Its reasonable statement. maybe there are deaths from cancer in the area which where counted as 'netural'. But even so, its not a big enough change to be statistically significant (otherwise, analysts would have caught that up).

3. I read the article you provided. Thank you for sharing. It seems there is this scholar, Dr. Hayama, who studied the monkeys in the area since 2008, and found out their offsprings had smaller heads, bodies and were more prone to anemia.

This is an interesting find, however it does not add a lot of new information (or connects to the point I was trying to cross), as humans know for a long time that radiation can have negative effects on living creatures. This is why the people were evacuated from the area.

Like @yoakenashi said, it seems that we are talking about different things. I am not saying nuclear doesn't have its drawbacks. I agree with all your points, radiation is dangerous and harmful.

[Rainbowdesign]

9 hours ago, yoakenashi said:

 

13 hours ago, Rainbowdesign said:

I made the topic about oni nuclear power and NOT about nuclear Power in real life! 

This is not true; you specifically made comments in the original post about nuclear power in real life:

 

 

You are right i made comments about nuclear power in real life but 

1. I dont care much about real life connected to oni and did not care at the start i have a specific idea how nuclear power should work in oni.

2. The more we discuss the more i find i really dont care about real life there if the drawback of nuclear power would be that its dangerous that just would be cool because all other power sources are soooooo safe.

So consider the comment no longer relevant for the thread and even back then it was a sidenote.

[Sasza22]

28 minutes ago, Rainbowdesign said:

1. I dont care much about real life connected to oni and did not care at the start i have a specific idea how nuclear power should work in oni.

The problem is that you want nuclear power to be shown in a bad way in ONI to make a political statement. It`s even in the title. We could call it educational but with widly different opinions on the topic it`s clearly political. We can`t discuss your view on the implementation in ONI without the real life surrowndings. We would have to agree that nuclear power is objectively the worst form of power generation existiing with which some of us don`t agree.

Now to the game implementation. It obviously needs drawbacks. Managing radiation sounds reasonable. It being high tech and requiring safety mechanisms too. But not a large scale disaster if you do something wrong. We can manage contaminated water. We can manage radiated areas. But the reactor shouldn`t randomly melt if you don`t do everything perfectly. Lets keep it a game where you can do some mistakes but if it doesn`t work right you can just turn it off and try to fix it.

[Rainbowdesign]

52 minutes ago, Sasza22 said:

We would have to agree that nuclear power is objectively the worst form of power generation existiing with which some of us don`t agree.

Why? I would appreciate if coal has more drawbacks too. How about some poisonous mercury gets spilled into the environment and make dupes sick to make that more realistic or some critter that are attracted by pollution like in factorio.

No need to agree that it is the worst form, just that it can cause terrible accidents which i think most people do not doubt.

No need to only take on nuclear power but give all power generation forms an edge.

Solar power as example has an edge ingame: The amount of steel and work it needs.