Nuclear reactors

Other talk that doesn't fit elsewhere.
This is for General Discussion, not General chat.
2_Late
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by 2_Late » 07 Sep 2007, 00:52

Cooling would be a large part of the structures mass. Considering the oil, presumably burned, and and the reactor both just heat water to turn the same thing, a turbine. As for overheating? Drop the control rods, the reaction stops, and no further significant heat is released. So unless containment is already breaching what's left should quickly and safely cool. The most dangerous thing that could happen under fire is not a sudden loss of cooling, but a lucky chain of hits in the wrong places. Forget losing your base, you'd lose your theater of operations, even if it's not directly destroyed, or made uninhabitable unshielded electronics would be lost and further electronic communication would be less then useful because of the higher ambient radiation levels.

If your looking for cooling under fire, I would not suggest a radiator("cooling tower"). I would suggest Geothermal exchange heat pump, instead of using the wind to cool towers. Bury the piles 7-10+ feet underground. It's a nice cool constant 45-70 degrees Fahrenheit(depending on the location) the world round. More over should you wish to produce more power just expand the underground, not-visible, network of pipes and crank the reactor up a notch.

For that matter if the world is radioactive forget all of that, just bury some antennas in the ground. "Radiation" is EM radiation, the same stuff you pull out of your wall socket, just higher frequency then what is generally considered safe. You can technically do that now, with a long enough antennas you can pull enough power out of the air(Radio waves) to run small things, of course Earth is not a hot zone right now so we'd pull less power then in Warzone2100.

User avatar
lav_coyote25
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3434
Joined: 08 Aug 2006, 23:18

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by lav_coyote25 » 07 Sep 2007, 01:40

you have a doctorate in this subject??  you speak as one with a huge knowledge base. 
‎"to prepare for disaster is to invite it, to not prepare for disaster is a fools choice" -me (kim-lav_coyote25-metcalfe) - it used to be attributed to unknown - but adding the last bit , it now makes sense.

2_Late
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by 2_Late » 07 Sep 2007, 10:14

No, just four years of electronics(Lots-O-Theory), watching too much Modern Marvels , Now off the air Discovery channel programs(Beyond 2000 for example), and lot of observations. I couldn't tell you great deal about the physics, but I can make mistakes... :p I mean tell you a fair deal about electro magnetism, it's affects, ,how it's used, and somethings that affect it.

Giel
Regular
Regular
Posts: 725
Joined: 26 Dec 2006, 19:18
Contact:

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by Giel » 08 Sep 2007, 02:25

2_Late wrote: No, just four years of electronics(Lots-O-Theory)
Let me guess. They teach you a lot of physics there? I'm having the same at my computer engineering education (that's a mix between software development: IT, and electronics).
"First make sure it works good, only then make it look good." -- Giel
Want to tip/donate? bitcoin:1EaqP4ZPMvUffazTxm7stoduhprzeabeFh

Kayiaxo
Trained
Trained
Posts: 209
Joined: 27 Aug 2007, 11:35

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by Kayiaxo » 08 Sep 2007, 18:27

I really like this nuclear reactor ideas a lot.
If possible I would like to see them in the game as well in the future.
Image
Credits to Kacen for making the image.

User avatar
NucNut
Trained
Trained
Posts: 92
Joined: 04 Sep 2007, 12:58
Location: Western Australia, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by NucNut » 09 Sep 2007, 10:49

The old AiBoost add-on had nuclear reactors...
REDAC Aerospace: Proving that aircraft and terrain don't mix since 2005 :D
XFire Profile: dogzeroonefox

Commander_Keyes
Trained
Trained
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 00:40

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by Commander_Keyes » 15 Sep 2007, 18:28

3drts wrote: Nuclear Fusion instead of Fission reactors so we can ignore radioactive effects.
Well, instead of nuclear gamma rays you get a heat wave multiple 1'000'000°C hot, so theoretically thw whole terrain would melt. Anti-Matter isnt an option either, as there will be a flash of gamma rays that'l instantly kill organic material, however everything else is untouched (besides form the damage of the building explosing etc).

2_Late
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by 2_Late » 15 Sep 2007, 20:20

Hmm gamma rays...

...Does this mean we wouldn't get mutated super-heroes to fight for us?  :'(

Commander_Keyes
Trained
Trained
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 00:40

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by Commander_Keyes » 16 Sep 2007, 06:25

Gamma Rays = Nuclear Radiation.
Mutation is a matter of multiple generations, so the chance of getting super heroes is small, we would more likely get a generation of crippled beings.
But when we are really lucky, it could mutate DNA in a positive way, so that maybe our brain or muscle size or even both increases. But only in theory.

2_Late
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by 2_Late » 16 Sep 2007, 21:51

[Off-Topic]
Commander_Keyes wrote: Gamma Rays = Nuclear Radiation.
Mutation is a matter of multiple generations, so the chance of getting super heroes is small, we would more likely get a generation of crippled beings.
But when we are really lucky, it could mutate DNA in a positive way, so that maybe our brain or muscle size or even both increases. But only in theory.
HULK SMASH QUOTE! :P

I know, the world in a general is a state of decay, I'm just being silly. The odds of any change being ordered in any coherent way, much less being a improvement, go well beyond small. Only slightly better then the classic argument:

The odds of even a component of life being correctly assembled are about the same as a tornado blowing though a junk yard and correctly assembling a Boeing 747. That is to say that not only did all the parts happen to be there, but they where constructed correctly down to the last bolt, without so much as a squeaky wheel, and the only thing lacking for tack off was a pilot.

[/Off-Topic]

Commander_Keyes
Trained
Trained
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 00:40

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by Commander_Keyes » 17 Sep 2007, 00:14

Hmm... Good example two  ;D!
Ok, well beyond small, well say, disturbingly microscopic. About as likely as an ant able to pilot the B-747 mentioned above.

Kacen
Trained
Trained
Posts: 294
Joined: 19 Feb 2007, 19:28

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by Kacen » 18 Sep 2007, 05:20

The problem is, it is already apparent that the form of power inherently available to you is well very advanced. Its not something we have now, obviously. Game takes place in 2100, and while it is true old technology was lost, the generator tech was found in the advanced military base, so that would be well at least ahead of OUR time. (present day real life).

So I'd think something way more advanced than a nuclear reactor would be needed.

Commander_Keyes
Trained
Trained
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 00:40

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by Commander_Keyes » 18 Sep 2007, 16:07

Microwave Reactor? SimCity rocks :P

Kacen
Trained
Trained
Posts: 294
Joined: 19 Feb 2007, 19:28

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by Kacen » 19 Sep 2007, 07:07

Well first it'd be nice if we could ascertain the standard type of reactor used in the game...

Well, the best we can know is from upgrades. If I recall one is the vapor turbine? I don't remember the others.

User avatar
NucNut
Trained
Trained
Posts: 92
Joined: 04 Sep 2007, 12:58
Location: Western Australia, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Re: Nuclear reactors

Post by NucNut » 19 Sep 2007, 10:06

Nuclear Lightbulb Engine, converted to generate power rather than thrust.
Multiple Quartz tubes (hence the name lightbulb) containing U-235, when coolant cycles through these, it acts as a neutron reflector, allowing a chain reaction to occur, control rods are used to rapidly stop the reactor.

Also, the U-235 used in the quartz tubes gets that hot it actually transforms into a gas, and only high temperature resistant Quartz can contain it. However Quartz is basically a fancy type of glass, so it is superbly resistant to thermal loads, but any brute force on one of the 'lightbulbs' would cause it to shatter.

Also keep in mind normal PWR or BWR reactors in use today use a fuel consisting of 2% U-235 and 98% U-238 (The U-235 is the fissile material), and as such cannot explode, but the fuel assembly can melt throught the pressure vessel and containment structure if it gets hot enough (Nuclear Meltdown).

Submarine powerplants use a fuel consisting of around 50% U-235 because they're are so small; they need a reaction to occur hotter in a smaller space for the same output power. And under the absolute worst cast scenario, can go nuclear, mushroom cloud and all.

As explained above, i'm envisioning a Nuclear Lightbulb Reactor for WZ2100. Small problem though. This would use 100% U-235 or Plutonium 239 as a fuel, and would easily go nuclear if uncontrrolled. That is, if someone smashed open all the tubes, put all the fuel in a big lump and turned on the coolant. This would give the neutrons enough surface area and a slow enough speed to split the adjacent atoms.

The Lightbulb reactor would actually be quite easy to code for WZ, Just assume the reactor uses a silicone based coolant (OIL), and if it doesn't have at least 3 derricks connected to it, it explodes, either contaminating an area (slow constant damage?), blowing the crap out of an x by y (Large) area, or both.

This would be quite good, as it would explain why oil is still so important in WZ2100, plus, derrick protection would become even more important than it is in the current game.

Finally, the above mentioned install-antenna-to-power-base-due-to-EMF-generated-by-gamma-rays wouldn't work, because you would need such a large antenna area, solar power would be more efficent, not to mention what a well placed VTOL strike would do to it. And you have the tactical value of "Look at me! I have a godly huge target, please don't hit it!"

*whew* ok, thats my rant for the day, back into my homework...

(PS: Sorry about the long Post!  ::))
REDAC Aerospace: Proving that aircraft and terrain don't mix since 2005 :D
XFire Profile: dogzeroonefox

Post Reply