Is Nuclear Power designed to be a viable corp? (Little Upsilon)

@ white darkness: I agree with you on the "global warming" bullstuff. It's Chicken Little time, and the sky AIN'T falling.
@ plato: Yep, the people screaming about the alleged second deluge are showing with their pocketbooks (a pretty good reality check) that when it comes right down to it, even they don't believe it themselves.
@ king xenu: I agree. This is an irritating idea, as I for one don't subscribe to the whole carbon offset idea either, which is just a way to control us all and allow bleeding-hearts to feel good about themselves without doing any real good.
@ Crafty: So does soylent green.
@ berand: I'm for the hydro-electric idea. And yes, I am all for it in RL.
Okay, so now I'm out of the closet on my views of global warming and reality in general. Some of us will need to agree to disagree on some things, but we can still do bidness without rancor. Just had to get this out.

It should be more than obvious that Nuclear Power hasn't been fully implemented yet. Until then, wait and don't rush in to build Nuclear Power Plants left and right.

I'm a major buyer of Nuclear Power on GR.

I'm surprised nobody seems to have noticed the obvious method of capitalizing on Nuclear Power. You'll figure it out I suppose so I'll just keep my mouth shut for now (other than what I just said). That way I make more money.

Plenty of people have figured it out on LU.

How else do you think it was red long enough to attract people into building 300+ corps?

I'm back from a nice little hiatus.

Which Nix, I didn't even realize your status on LU, I'd sent you a couple of messages previously on various topics.

And aye, I realized the potential myself as I scheduled my first build.

I wouldn't mind seeing a diversity of sources, including coal, wind, tidal, solar, and if they're feeling really ambitious, I wouldn't mind building a global satellite array with microwave transmission to a receiving station (sorry if the beam misses the receiver and hits your capital, it was an accident.)

Of course that last one would have to be insanely expensive and would have a potential for a whole new level of competition since there'd only be so much "space" to effectively build an array.

Heh, now I've just gotten crazily creative.

Hi White Darkness. Glad to hear it was a nice little hiatus
You've got me curious to know whether it had anything to do with the patter of tiny feet?
Maybe I'm just being soft. But if I'm right, congrats Bro

(sorry if the beam misses the receiver and hits your capital, it was an accident.) LOL. Accidental regime change.

I've been a bit skint since my knee op, so I decided to put my countries into hibernation. I'll be back playing again soon though (or before, if someone declares on me).

Nah, I'm the cold-blooded bachelor. The pattering of tiny feet is something I used to dream of.

I thought you'd be amused by the Microwave broadcast power concept.

It'd be "clean" except for the "accidents".

I bought very large quantities of Nuclear power at a price much lower than electric power and then sold it in one single move to all my own corporations, supplying them with cheap power.

I will keep doing so as long as nuclear power is so much cheaper than electric power generated with oil.

I assume they will, as they said, allow corporations to choose which electric power they want to purchase.

come to think of it, you could buy nuclear power, you get it delivered as electric power and then turn around and sell it as electric power at a huge profit.

shush romeo 78^)*

Why not a Steam corp? Pure clean H20, no CO2, and environmentally friendly. Plus Babbage Engines run on steam (when they are not crashing) and there is a serious shortage of Babbage Engines in SC due to the lack of Steam Power.

Why not a flower corp? Selling Flower power.

Well, this thread enlightened me to the value of nuclear power. I'm now making regular purchases.

also buy your expensive electric power and sell back the power so your companies save money on cost

anything in the 200 quality realm you want to get rid of

I visited my neighbor's gerbil farm to determine what "quality" electricity those little critters were producing. He didn't know what I was talking about but assured me it was good, clean 60 cycle power with an RMS of 240 volts on the two-phase lines he was running from the inverter. When he asked about the "quality" of my power, I told him that whatever it was, it was working just fine.

I did ask about the waste disposal problem because it does take quite a few gerbils to generate a kWH, but he had that figured out too. He calims gerbil dung is a natural nutrient for plants even though its a waste product to us. Sort of like CO2 he insisted, and without it, plankton, the number one source of the oxygen we breathe, would not be well off. My whole view of gerbil dung changed in an instant.

I'm going into gerbil ranching and will be energy independent by the 7th generation. Those little buggers do reproduce rather quickly.

Some of the comments I'm reading here are a curious mix of game play and politics. From the liberal environmental view, an alternate reality must be implemented in the game to comport with real life misrepresentations.

The environmental nutjobs and their political allies don't want us to burn oil. They don't want us to burn coal. They don't want us to use nuclear power. They want us to use high first cost and high maintenance windmills and solar panels, provided they are not placed within view of where they live. They want us to convert our food supply to an inefficient fuel source, ethanol (drink it, don't burn it I say).

Essentially, they won't be happy until 95% of us live in the stone age burning wood to keep warm so they can enjoy modern conveniences without feeling any guilt. This game seems to reflect that alternate reality when the "rules" are to be based on a political rather than economic basis.

?

Corps always buy electricity at the market price. If one buys nuclear power and then sells electricity to the corps, the corps don't save any money.

Which is the fundamental problem with nuclear power plants in the game. Back to the top of the topic boys and girls...

CraftyConsumer

Before we do I just need to say a few words.

Trahx. I do not appreciate you calling the people who are trying to deal with the environmental mess that we are leaving our children in 'Nutjobs'. In fact I consider it to be an insult. Therefore I would like you to keep that in mind the next time you talk about people who are concerned about what state we leave the planet in for our future generations. If you wish to challenge the causes of the environmental movement please feel free to do so on one of the environmental threads.

That also goes for you as well Maclean. Calling global warming 'bullstuff' without an explanation together with Trahx comment are the kinds of things that makes me want to deploy The Forces of Nature onto your countries. You know what I mean?

Peace&Hardcore.................Nix001
MNA

How much data do the "global warming" parasites need to fake before people appreciate they have a vested interest in that fraud? How much power do you need to hand a politician before you realize that alarmism is his primary tool to get power? Behind every "mess" as you call it is a power grabbing control freak who believes he and he alone holds the key to human happiness - if only we idiots would just do what he says.

The "science" of "global warming" is bogus! It's a hoax to suck in the intellectually lazy who make no effort to actually understand the difference between valid scientific studies and pop science for the masses. The appeal is understandable; anyone can become "significant" and "caring" just by parroting what the alarmists tell them. Save the planet - be a hero! Wasn't that easy?

As for whether or not this should appear in an "environmental thread", it seems to me the environmentalists nutjobs tried to turn a game topic into an environmental thread. Should we have a CO2 tax? Should we have "nuclear meltdowns"? Should we kill everyone that disagrees with us? I think I labeled it right.

Fine. I would have quite happily debated this issue with you. But as you insist on using insults and wild speculations I will unleash The Forces of Nature on your country/slave you'll need for level 11. Mother Natures Army will not tolerate this disrespectful attitude towards those who care about Mother Natures well being and survival.

War&Hardcore.............Nix001
MNA

Seriously Trahx (think this is WD) there is an EXTREMELY small number of credible scientists who do not support the theory of global warming/climate change and that it has been caused by humans. The media does a horrible job with this kind of scientific debate. They try to keep it balanced so they put up a mainstream scientist who supports the overwhelming scientific opinions about global warming and then they typically throw up a climate change denier and give them equal time. This is similar to throwing up someone who argues that the Earth is flat, there are those out there who still believe it but they shouldn't be given any time to spew their BS. Anyway, look at the most recent claims of 'data manipulation' and then look at the ultimate result of the investigation which says that no data was manipulated although they were a little over zealous in their messaging.

I don't know what it is about this country but we have so much trouble accepting scientific facts...climate change, evolution, etc...it's really disappointing and what is more disappointing is that the view of 1% of the scientific community on subjects such as these are given equal weight in the media...

WB, so-called mainstream scientists have been silent because they believed the data, findings and models had been peer reviewed. They were not peer reviewed because the "climate scientists" rigged the peer review process by their own admission. The data was faked and the Russians proved it with data from their stations, or records showing the station was down and the data had to be made up. But before the data was pifered, several scientists in the UK had already revealed that the data was faked and the so-called hockey stick was invented out of thin air with no scientific basis. A credible scientist presents his data for others to examine, duplicate his experiment and validate the results. The fakes in East Anglia did not because it wouldn't stand up.

The investigation you reference was not done by a disnterested party but by people who have an enormous stake in promoting the man-made global warming myth. The number of scientists speaking out against the sloppiness of the methods, subversion of the peer review process and rigging of the climate models to produce a desired result rather than a theoretical prediction is growing very rapidly, and the lack of credibility of the investigation has accelerated their numbers. You and the media might call it an investigation, but most people call it a cover up. Your own statement about the media presenting a "mainstream scientist" and a "climate change denier" shows just how effective the propaganda has been to silence critics. Fear has no place in science but without it, global warming would have been revealed as a hoax long ago.

We have no trouble in this country accepting "scientific facts", if they indeed meet the criteria of what constitutes science in the form of a scientific theory. Rather than be disappointed, you should be happy that American scientists are critical of unsubstantiated claims, especially those being leveraged by politicians to increase their power or by so-called scientists feeding from the public trough.

Is the climate changing? It has been changing since the earth was formed. History records warm spells (MWP for example) and mini-ice ages (the last experienced by Washington at Valley Forge). And those were the mild changes. There is not a climate model in existence that can simulate those periods - not one! So the people that screamed ice-age in the 70s are now screaming global warming. The only thing that hasn't changed is the reason for the alarmism.

Trahx. Its a shame you didn't take my advice and go to one of the environmental threads. All your questions and theories would have been answered.
And if not, I would have loved, as I said, to have had a good debate with you.
Maybe we will after I've shown you the consequences of your attitude.

Oh yea, welcome to the war engine ;)

Nix001
Mother Natures Army

Dam, can't resist saying one thing. You said 'The investigation you reference was not done by a disnterested party but by people who have an enormous stake in promoting the man-made global warming'

Who on Gods Earth are disinterested in the survival of our environment? And again! who on Gods Earth doesn't have an enormous stake in protecting our environment for our future generations?

Ok....... First I'm gonna kick your ass, then I'll show you the errors in your thinking.

You want to play Russian roulette with our futures environment, I'm gonna load the gun.

nix001 (or whatever you are),

There was this fellow that was very interested in the environment, so much so he wanted to curb and reverse any further industrialization. He had a vision of an environmentally neutral agrarian society of happy farmers working the fields by day and returning to their environmentally friendly homes in the evening. He was going to end starvation, pollution and the societal stress of technolgy and industrialization. His name was Pol Pot.

To make sure his dream was realized, 2.2 million Cambodians were murdered because he could not tolerate dissent or anyone that did not fit into his vision. If you wore glasses, carried a ball-point pen, could read or had a university degree, you were executed immediately because he was afraid you might have enough brains to question what he was saying. If you didn't sing the praises of Pol Pot loud enough as you marched off to the fields, you were shot on the spot. In the end, he ended industrial pollution. Was he your uncle?

I'm as interested in the environment as anyone else, and maybe more so because my job has a direct impact on the well being of people and industry. To suggest otherwise because I don't agree with you is exactly what I would expect from a sniveling, insignifcant worm who can't make a case. Present your theory, your data and legitimate peer reviews and you may gain some credibility. The charlatans you worship haven't done that and in fact did everything they could to conceal their data and subvert peer review. Please explain to me how you are qualified to make any such judgments based on education or experience? Show me your regression analysis, data validation methods, boundary conditions, initial conditions and soultions to the differential equations those phony "scientist" never submitted for peer review?

As for Russian roulette, watch what lines you cross. I had four Russian programmers working for me once and they called my group the Russian mafia, I suppose because I'm an American of Sicilian ancesty. It's amazing what a clever programmer can do without anyone ever finding out.

You can make all the threats you want. I'm not impressed. It's only the final outcome that interests me, and I know what that will be. I'm not going to cut my throat to appease a bunch of politicans who would love nothing more than to run everyone's life because a nutjob like you chooses to believe them. You have your war, and I'll have mine.