Ratjoy.com » Forums » Suggestions, Technical Support and Feedback » Power Coal/Gas balance, Nuclear power?
You need to register or login to post a reply.
Power Coal/Gas balance, Nuclear power?
|
Roald Adriaansen RJ: Wuvil CO: Wuvil Post Rating: 34 + / - Total Posts: 146 Karma: 281 Joined: Feb 4, 2012 |
Posted on Feb 8, 2012 (Last edited on Feb 8, 2012) Edit: the forum breaks the links, copy/paste and remove spaces if you want to view it. -Coal/Gas Power cost balance: Upon realizing the massive amounts of electricity I am going to need soon I did some calculations regarding costs etc where Coal power not only takes longer but costs almost 50% more than natural gas. Natural Gas electricity Cost (self produced Water & Gas): 0,0525 p/u Coal ends up at just above 0,08. The coal needed to run a plant for the same time also takes much longer to extract, making coal power rather pointless at present. If you look at: http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2 011/6/19/422282-1308 49135098597-EconMatters_origin.png you will see that the costs should be almost identical, and the only reason coal costs have gone up is due to ever increasing pollution taxes. Lowering coal production time will probably mess with to many other items, but lowering the money cost for coal extraction, from 4 to say 2, won't/shouldn't have any big impact on anything else but would make coal power much more economically viable. -Nuclear power: Nuclear power is a power plant powered by fissionable material, usually Uranium. The majority of the costs are security related, fuel cost is only about 7-16% of operation costs. Start up costs are very high. Security costs account for 70% or more of the budget. It is also very environmental friendly as long as a meltdown doesn't happen (Chernobyl), newer designs are significantly better though. Nuclear power would mean an additional mine-able material: Uranium. Nuclear power would use a LOT of water (for cooling). Semi-High money cost (security, waste disposal, etc) VERY fast power generating, say 4/5 power instead of 1. Nuclear plants produce a LOT of power after-all. Extremely low fuel consumption. If balanced correctly this would then be a means of producing electricity that has a very low fuel burn rate. Electricity is gained faster, but at a higher cost. Not sure how you would add very high installation costs so a bit higher running costs maybe to balance it. This may be useful: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/3/33/Nuke%2C_coal%2C_gas_generatin g_costs.png |
|
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012 |
Posted on Feb 8, 2012 Makes a lot of sense, so I'll make the changes to coal production.Nuclear power plant was considered originally, but I thought "clean energy" should come later in the game. So it won't be here anytime soon. |
You need to register or login to post a reply.