Nuclear Reactor?


#1

IDEA:
What if we had NUCLEAR REACTORS in the game?

They would be large structures, that took a lot of space but made lots of power quickly.
However, there’s a catch:
Not taking proper care of the reactors, or keeping them on for too long will lead to an explosion.
Explosions caused by nuclear reactors would be huge (big enough to destroy entire settlements) and would leave the air around the explosion toxic. This means that nobody can go near the explosion site for a while. However, over time the air will become clean again, allowing people to go in it.
So, reactors would be huge dangerous structures, that if not taken proper care of, could destroy entire settlements. However, they could be used by the settlement leaders, to generate enough power for the entire settlement.
If the leaders are responsible and manage how long they keep the reactor working, then it would really benefit the settlement!

Its location could also be strategic. The leaders, for example, could make it very far away from the city as to avoid an incident, however, this would make it difficult to plan out a path for the pipes to transport the power, and it would make it difficult to move between the reactor and the settlement. This can also make the reactor a vulnerable target.

Another option would be to place the reactor close to a settlement, which although it could lead to the destruction of the settlement, make transporting the power easier, accessing the reactor faster, and protects the reactor more than simply making it far away.

So, a reactor would have many advantages, while also having many disadvantages to keep it balanced.

To me, nuclear reactors would only be the first step. After that could come many nuclear machines, such as nuclear weapons? I might create a new post talking about nuclear weapons, but I would love to see the server enter a nuclear era!


#2

nuclear fission or fusion?


#3

I do like the idea of fully harnessing the power of the atom. I think it’s very ironic that the server has only very rudimentary fission reactors and a complete absence of fusion reactors despite having technology to fully master space travel. It seems like technology just made a jump between two points without traveling in between levels, which doesn’t make sense.

However, honestly we shouldn’t add proper fission reactors because they’d be out of place. Instead, we should add fusion reactors, and preferably as just a completely normal power source and not any of this settlement stuff you propose. We should be able to make fusion reactors and then take them places - like space! You could build a gas collector platform to get hydrogen, running it through elaborate pipe/filter systems to get rid of and use other gasses, then haul the hydrogen into space to get yourself fuel for your reactor.

The purpose of a fusion reactor would be to produce a lot of energy with moderate amounts of hydrogen, but we need something to balance this out. Sure, in real life there is no balancing as if it were a game and people would simply make fusion reactors to get on their opponent’s level, but this is SL and not real life. Ideas for balancing fusion reactors?


#4

There should be a risk of meltdown and subsequent explosion. That way players will be more hesitant to build the multi-block or will build it farther away in their territory from the main settlement. Also it should be more expensive than just hydrogen. Uranium blocks should be part of the multi-block structure which will add a economic boost to this idea as players will be more apt to trading for uranium and hydrogen gas. If the reactor goes critical then the multi block explodes destroying a radius of blocks around it (permanently) in a radius. Also a much larger radius say 100 blocks will become radioactive requiring players to wear space suits to enter. An even larger radius will be effected by an EMP which will drain all power from a 200 block radius. The radioactive radius will shrink over time as the radioactive half-life of the material shrinks. Just my thoughts.


#5

a few scientiffic updates:
fusion reactors dont have a meltdown
fusion reactors dont use uranium
they dont use normal hydrogen, they use the isotopes deuterium and tritium, 0.1% of the hydrogen is deuterium, tritium needs to be made


#7

But I feel like a risk of a meltdown is necessary, yes fusion has like zero downsides in real life but again this is a game and it needs balancing. Perhaps if a meltdown is the only risk it could be a much larger radius? (and the risk is dynamic, if you have a clean state of the art facility the risk would be obviously lower than in some abandoned warehouse)


#8

Fusion has risks. Radiation is a big issue.


#9

netherman, rqdiation isnt a risk, just put dense materials and hydrocarbons around it, and about posible downsides of the machine:

  1. it uses purified hydrogen as fuel, hard to get as you need 10-50 hydrogen cells to get enough deuterium to run the reactor for a short amount of timem

  2. it uses a lot of energy to start the reaction in a short amount of time, so to start it correctly, you need a lot of power cells to output enough energy/sec, this makes it hard to build.

  3. it could use around 10million energy to start up at the begining, so you dont want to loose energy by starting it up.

  4. there could be a chance on a machine shutdown thanks to instable plasma.

if fusion reactors are added, you should be able to design your own magnetic field layout, so that development is needed, this also makes a scientific way on how stable the magnetic field is, and more use for copper.