... byproducts for crafting new items like better cannon shells and bullets maybe? High tier energy might be more useful on the space layer, where hull capacity at a premiunuclear ...

... energy just isn't worth it. Renewable has a higher up front cost but so many more steps can be accomplished by the average joe without a security clearance. It's the way to go. Fusion is the golden dream because it avoids many of the political hazards that nuclear has(it JUST makes energy go away g-man) and failure ISN'T a national tragedy. But back to topic... Is there an actual NEED for a higher tier of energy generation? Even the most absurd factories can be powered with existing meannuclear ...

... clean energies, and all that IRL. But gameplay wise, Nuclear in itself could be clean, BUT should produce wastes that would not be destructible, and would continuously and endlessly produce pollution. I'm talking nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion would not have these drawbacks. It produces energy out of hydrogen and helium, with no radioactive byproducts. But it needs a shitload of energy to kick in. A nuclear fusion power plant could need a few 10s MW to start, and produce the double or triple as long as it's fueled with helium an deuteriunuclear, ...

... power can be made much cleaner, but with risk I mean here not the risk for individuals (which have of course fears etc.), but the risk of surviving for the mankind the next 100-200 years. So, if you define fear as the chance, that something ultimately bad happens (I call this now bad accident), I'm with you. If you define it as feeling not. I have no feeling about it. You fear everyone having it because of what they could do; likewise you fear everyone having a gun because they might shoot someone. Well, in my eyes it is a simple calculation: The chance that a bad accident happens multiplied by the damage. Let's assume some simple numbers: Guns: Chance, that an accident happens: 1/10000000 (*) Maximum damage: 6 persons (or better: one magazine) Nuclear power: Chance, that an accident happens: 1/10000000000000 (*) Maximum damage: All mankind (No surviver) (*) this is just a number, for my thought you can replace it with any other number. So, if you try to calculate the risk of something you find out: The maximum risk of using guns is calculable , the risk of nuclear power generation is not claculable . I know some action films, where the hero says something like "I know the risk". That are clever heroes. Not so cleaver heroes say "I don't know the risk, but I do it anyway." This works well in a film, where it is about feelings, doing good, saving the world for the childs by taking the bullets. But it won't work for the mankind. We are not stupid heroes. If we cannot calculate the risk, it is not just very risky, it is just wrong. And this is what I mean: If you cannot calculate the maximum risk, then this is something, which should not be used. Because even if the chance, that a bad accident happens with nuclear energy is very, very, very small, the results have the chance to be the absolute end for the mankind. Guns are not able to do this ... except if you give everybody a gun and all shoot at the same time. :) I know, I know: why can a nuclear power plant destroy all mankind? I think to all kind of nuclear power, and mean here especially atom bombs. Nuclear power plants are needed to create them. Because you mentioned the gun thing, I'll point out that it is true! You see, if everyone has a gun, then anyone inclined to get a gun and rob someone is a LOT less likely to do so because they KNOW the person they might rob will have one too and they, therefore will get shot if they try. That's the theory. The practice shows, that it is just not true, because many accidents happen then just because of handling around with it. See Chernobyl. The people loose the respect. Another good example for that is car driving: everybody knows, that driving car has a much bigger chance of being killed, than being killed by nuclear waste or by a gun. But people do it. ;) People tend to think in their own system. They think: how much danger is it and how useful is it? "Oh, it is dangerous? But I'm a careful driver! And driving car is soooo useful and cheap." But they forget, that the drunken drivers belong to this system. The accident can happen to them, too. Even without any fault. The same is it with nuclear energy. They think "Oh, nuclear energy is much cleaner, not so much waste and it is soooo useful and cheap." But they forget, that atom bombs are made out of this "waste". They belong to the system. Nuclear power generation is a tool, not a symbol. If using the tool means rising the chance to having a catastrophic end for the mankind then don't use this tool. ;) There is no 100% clean nuclear power ever. Well as the articles explain, there is. If you search on the internet, there are even more options. When you follow all that ideas, you will find out, that this comes from a big lobby of different organizations, like the oil-industry and some more, that are all interested to tell the people, how harmless and "clean" nuclear power is. And it is sooooo useful. But that is not my point here. See above. For more information watch the documentary "Pandora's Promise". That film assumes, that the risk of nuclear power is calculable. But it isn't. For coal driven power plants the risk is calculable. Which doesn't mean, that I like them more. But we had here in Germany a big debate around that, and the result is to go into direction of clean energy, which seems to be a much harder way, than thought, but it looks promising, because it avoids all that. More to a Factorio related point: In the future it shouldn't be a problem to clean up (or even use) nuclear waste. All that technology is so big, so expensive, so potentially dangerous, so monopolistic, concentrated to some single points of failure, that I'm quite sure, that the future of energy production will be a clean way. And from a game-play perspective (to make the turn back to on-topic :) ) would it be really stupid, boring, to make nuclear power "clean" in a way, that it has no side-effects. Of course it makes pollution, and I would like to have the danger of implementing some difficulties, to control the reactor. You need some clever circuits or so to keep the stuff from exploding (which is then of course NOT a total loss in the game, you need just to repair inuclear ...

... power ever. Well as the articles explain, there is. If you search on the internet, there are even more options. For more information watch the documentary "Pandora's Promise". More to a Factorio related point: In the future it shouldn't be a problem to clean up (or even use) nuclear wastnuclear ...

... is bad is because of the waste & risk of explosion for badly designed ones. If the generator plants & waste can be used safely and processed to be harmless, then it should be used. Sorry, this has nothing to do with fears, it is just a logical deduction: That is the same argument, as if I give everybody a weapon and proclaim, that then the world is more safe. It is obvious, that this is not true. :) The truth is of course then, that it is better to give people not so much might. Nuclear energy is pure might/power. Logical deduction: Don't give nuclear power into the hands of people. And: Don't use it. Even if you (technically) can. That's not logic! That's a incorrect deduction based on fear. You fear everyone having it because of what they could do; likewise you fear everyone having a gun because they might shoot someone. Because you mentioned the gun thing, I'll point out that it is true! You see, if everyone has a gun, then anyone inclined to get a gun and rob someone is a LOT less likely to do so because they KNOW the person they might rob will have one too and they, therefore will get shot if they try. Nuclear power generation is a tool, not a symbol. I also want the fusion generator to have a big world counterpart.... my accumulators are up to almost 10MW in storage now. :nuclear ...

... Power i agree, it's way to dangerous, we all know what can be done with it's byproducts and what would happen if one of those things blew up. But Fusion, i'm not so certain. Fusion is much cleaner, depending on the used element the byproducts would be stable Helium and/or Lithium isotopes. Nothing much to build a bomb out of. On the other Hand the fusion itself: It would need a high Magnetic field for containment, regardless of scale. The heat is way higher then that we could contain it without. And it's not an easy on of switch to start it either, you'll have to overcome the strong positiv charges of the nucleus to archive fusion. And thats no easy task. And nothing practical for warefare either, well besides the power that comes from those things, which is in relation higher then energy from nuclear decay. As for factorio, we have a fusi in our backpocket, it screams downright for a big one for the factory. Those things don't explode like a Nuclear Reactor. Worst case would be that the magnetic field would fail, the fusion stops and after melting of the hull you'd have a Hydrogenexplosion, or a massiv Heliumcloud escaping into the atmosphere, latter would be fun if factorio would have a voice output ;). But i think it could more or less result in a great raising of the pollution. Well Fusion isn't 100% safe, as said if the magnetic field fails, there'd be consequences but in relation to Nuclear Power, it's much safeNuclear ...

... is bad is because of the waste & risk of explosion for badly designed ones. If the generator plants & waste can be used safely and processed to be harmless, then it should be used. Sorry, this has nothing to do with fears, it is just a logical deduction: That is the same argument, as if I give everybody a weapon and proclaim, that then the world is more safe. It is obvious, that this is not true. :) The truth is of course then, that it is better to give people not so much might. Nuclear energy is pure might/power. Logical deduction: Don't give nuclear power into the hands of people. And: Don't use it. Even if you (technically) can. Likewise, in Factorio, there should be ways to process it to harmless; there should also be ways to clean the air of the pollution the coal engines, etc make! Factorio is a game. I really would like to use nuclear technology there... and as I know the developers also: it will have a twist. :twistenuclear ...

... power is too powerful, to give it into the hands of someone, or even a group of people. The same is logically valid for fusion energy. That's generally my opinion about everything, which gives too much power (technical and political) into the hands of someone. The problem is not technical (I'm sure, that could be solved), it's political/ethical: What will the mankind do, if a second Hitler comes and uses this power without scruples? Not possible in your Country? Come on! Look around, what's going on in the world! It is possible! And don't compare this to other dangers, we are talking here about nuclear power. :) That's awfully off-topic of you. Fears do not justify abandoning at technology; the reason nuclear is bad is because of the waste & risk of explosion for badly designed ones. If the generator plants & waste can be used safely and processed to be harmless, then it should be used. Likewise, in Factorio, there should be ways to process it to harmless; there should also be ways to clean the air of the pollution the coal engines, etc makNuclear ...

... power is too powerful, to give it into the hands of someone, or even a group of people. The same is logically valid for fusion energy. That's generally my opinion about everything, which gives too much power (technical and political) into the hands of someone. The problem is not technical (I'm sure, that could be solved), it's political/ethical: What will the mankind do, if a second Hitler comes and uses this power without scruples? Not possible in your Country? Come on! Look around, what's going on in the world! It is possible! And don't compare this to other dangers, we are talking here about nuclear power. Nuclear ...

... power ever. Yeah, so? Coal power makes more nuclear waste than nuclear power, and that stuff doesn't even have to be contained. Trace elements in bulk add up. That's not the point he was making. We were talking about nuclear power, not on how much radiation from space arrives at earth all the time. Nuclear waste is a problem in this world, and that was what we were talking about. By the way, your point isnt valid. The problem with nuclear waste is that it has a lot of radiation in a small package. That's not what's happening to the CO2 that's produced by burning the coal. You are right that everything has radiation, but I think it is over exaggerated to say that it creates more nuclear waste. ~nuclear ...

... power ever. Yeah, so? Coal power makes more nuclear waste than nuclear power, and that stuff doesn't even have to be contained. Trace elements in bulk add unuclear ...

... power ever. Not now. But we must remember game is set up in cosmos era. There may be processes to get rid of nuclear waste in the future. (radiation "eating" fungi: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070422222547data_trunc_sys.shtmnuclear ...

... power ever. +1 Nuclear fusion tho.....nuclear ...

... power evenuclear ...

... Waste-Eating Reactor". The end product is less radio active then a lot of cities are at the moment (radio activity is all around us). 100% clean poweNuclear ...

... is a good idea (heh IC2); however I don't want any radioactive waste crap poluting the game world. If there is waste, there's gotta be methods to recycle or destroy it safely! Is there a way to recycle or destroy nuclear waste in the real world? No, at least not a good one. Since Factorio should be as realistic as possible, there should be no real way to get rid of the nuclear waste... ~nuclear ...

... is a good idea (heh IC2); however I don't want any radioactive waste crap poluting the game world. If there is waste, there's gotta be methods to recycle or destroy it safelnuclear ...

... reactor = v high temp boiler. Steam Turbine = high speed steam engine A possible risk could be that you can't starve the reactor of water, it'd suffer temperature damage until you fixed it, losing health until it hits 0 then "boom" :D It may be better for the reactor to behave like a modified assembler or chem plant, generating a "superheated steam" liquid output from input water, 2 steam from 1 water ? you run this through the steam turbine, that could either reduce the temp of the steam OR generate a low energy steam as an output, You could add evaporative cooling towers to change the low energy steam back to water to feed back into the reactor, generating pollution clouds, those could need cold water to work. nukelar reactors do accutally just get extreamly hot and start (casing melts) leaking when melting down. expolsions are caused by high pressures (of water/steam or such). in the game: ================== an overheated reactor would slowly get damged. when damage reaches 50% the reactor would constantly produce enormus amounts of pollution ,damage nearby entites (poison dmg) and make nearby objects do the same (but weaker, no infinite progenration pleasnuclear ...

... ICBM's then what would be the point in having enemies. You would literally wipe out all the aliens in one shot which would make fighting them way to easnuclear ...