Renewable Energies for Civ 4 !

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

As a professor on that field, I would like to promote the use of
Renewable Energies in CIV3. While other technologies are discussed
quite deeply, the use of renewables in CIV 3 (esp. Solar and Wind) was
superficial. Power output of renewables is sufficient to supply all
countries with energy. Renewable energy output is depending on much
more external parameters than conventional power plants and should be
considered in the game; as:
Local ground surface, distance from coast, latitude (wind), local
climate, temperature, shadowing (solar; some basic ideas have been
realized in SMAC, nice!)
Water resource, height of mountains (hydropower)
The different properties of solar thermal (works good at high ambient
temperatures) and photovoltaic systems (works good in cold, but sunny
climates) should be applied yet.
Therefore renewables are of the biggest options of future energy
supply (beside fusion I don't know any other) some more attention
should be paid for them.
Additionally renewables should also have some impact on the politic
and social structure:
Less pollution (less angry people), less dependence from import of
fossil fuels (trade need for coal as in CIV2-3 gets satisfied
automatically), if decentralized renewables are used (solar roofs) the
whole infrastructure is less vulnerable to blackouts and attack on
power plants (e.g. less loss of population during war). Due to limits
in resources, conventional energy should get more expensive within
time, while the costs of use of renewables should get cheaper due to
technology advances.

Here are my suggestions for renewable and conventional energy sources
in CIV3.

Coal mining: costs for maintenance are increasing by time (longer and
deeper mines) from to 2 to 4 shields. After 100 years of operation
resource of coal mine is finished.
Use of energy generated by coal is generating 100% pollution (25%
after the invention of air filters). Pollution is causing some amount
of unhappiness. Earthquake kills some units of population (miners)
Building costs are 100 shields. Production is 25 per year. Lifetime of
coalmine is 100 years. Lifetime of coal power plant is 20 to 25 years.
Recover from recycling: 7.

Hydropower:
Only possible near rivers and lakes: mountains 200 % energy
production, but cost also 100 % more to build. Hills: 100% energy
production, flat land: 50 % energy production, big rivers are doubling
energy production. Due to climatic changes production of hydro power
can vary (e.g. more rainfall: small rivers get to big rivers and
double energy production, in dry periods big rivers get to small
rivers, under extreme conditions desertification can make power
production impossible, earthquakes can cause flooding within the
surrounding, lower squares (1-2 squares for hydro power plants built
in hilly regions, 2-4 squares for power plants build in mountain
regions). Maintenance costs are one shield.
Building costs are 200 shields. Production is 25. Lifetime is 40
years. Recover from recycling: 25.

Wind:
Works best in coastal areas: 200% energy generation, deserts are
generally calm (50%). Sole hills and single mountains give 200% power
production. Valleys are bad (30 %). Regions a bit away from the poles
produce 150% of power ("roaring forties"). Hills, wood, other wind
turbines and close obstacles (next square) reduce power (70 %).
Maintenance is 2, in stormy areas (e.g. mountains 3). Building costs
are 50 shields, generation is 10. Earthquakes could lead to total
destruction in 50% of the cases. Floods do not interfere. Wind
generators bulked directly near town squares may cause some
unhappiness (noise).
Lifetime is 15-20 years. Recover from recycling 7 shields.

SOLAR ENERGY: General:
Irradiated solar energy onto Earth is gradually increasing from 700
kWh/sqm per year in Polar Regions to 2200 kWh/sqm per year in regions
close to the equator – this results in a triple energy production!

Solar thermal power plants:
Work best in sunny and warm places (deserts): Energy production is 70%
from standard near the poles; near equator is 200%. Desert gives an
additional increase of 20%. Humid areas produce 20% less.
Construction of plants in woods and valleys decreases power by 25 %
due to shadowing. Building costs are 200 shields. Power generation is
25. Maintenance costs are 2 shields. Earthquake and flooding decrease
power production by 50%. Lifetime is 25 years. Recover from recycling:
100.

Photovoltaics:
Energy production in Polar Regions is 70 % from standard; near equator
is 200%. Deserts give a 10% minus (heat is decreasing the voltage of
solar cells). Hills give a 10% plus (cooler, increases voltage).
Mountains give a 20% in power production. Costs to build in mountain
areas are double.
Construction of plants in woods and valleys decreases power by 25 %
due to shadowing.
Maintenance costs are 1 shield. Building costs are 320 shields, after
the invention of Thin Film Semiconductor Technology: 180 shields.
Power generation is 25. Earthquakes and flooding do not harm (solar
cells even work in space).
Lifetime is 30 years. Recover from recycling: 200, for Thin Film
Technology: 100.

Nuclear:
Power generation is 25, works for 35 years, costs 180, maintenance is
3. Nuclear power causes unhappiness and may cause scandals, especially
when a university town is close by. Possibility of an accident.
Vulnerable to military attack and earthquakes (radiation kills in 4
squares around). Nuclear waste has to be watched by a military unit
for 12000 time units. One square is sufficient for 10 years of nuclear
waste. The reactor itself has to be treated as a nuclear waste square
after the end of its lifetime. Recover from recycling: -40 (reactor
has to be sealed).

Biomass:

Energy from biomass can be generated from three sources:

1. Agriculture

1.1 A part of agriculture waste can be transformed into energy: having
a biogas plant in a city is giving one energy unit for each two
farming products.

1.2 Also farming could be directly used to produce energy: Instead of
food, energy in the harvest: e.g. sugarcane can be distilled to
alcohol which serves as fuel for cars (1990 60% of the cars in Brazil
had been running on that) while also the waste could be used, I
suggest an efficiency of 150% compared to food production.

2. Waste
Waste and pollution production in a city with a biomass plant is
sinking by 50%,
25% of the original produced waste and pollution can be transformed
into energy.

3. Woods
Waste directly form the woods (dead trees) and indirectly in the city
(e.g. from carpenters etc.) can be transformed into energy. For each
two shields produced in a wood, one energy unit is generated.

I suggest a cost to erect a biomass plant of about 60 shields,
maintenance of 2, energy production as shown above.

I tried to model all as realistic as possible, but in order keep it
playable; we also could use infinite lifetime for the power plants.

suggestion:
Use energy completely separate from shields and from trade (similar to
SMAC).
Energy did always occur, not only in modern times. In former times
Firewood
(to be found in woods, or as a byproduct of agriculture) was
collected, but hardly traded:
If no firewood is present, survival in colder climatic zones was
impossible.
Energy requirement in different parts of the world should be
different: cities
in extreme climates (tropic, polar or alpine)require more energy.
Energy is required not only for production, but also for survival of
population and maintenance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 25 Mar 2005 14:29:03 -0800, rio5 <info@rio5.com> wrote:
> As a professor on that field, I would like to promote the use of
> Renewable Energies in CIV3. While other technologies are discussed
> quite deeply, the use of renewables in CIV 3 (esp. Solar and Wind) was
> superficial. Power output of renewables is sufficient to supply all
> countries with energy.

Yes. I wish that it was economical for me to have my own turbine,
with a reasonable payback period, though. I've got the perfect site
(30 acres and an unobstructed hill), but can justify neither solar
nor wind at this time. As soon as it's viable (or the tax incentive
is sufficient), I'm on top of it.

> Therefore renewables are of the biggest options of future energy
> supply (beside fusion I don't know any other) some more attention
> should be paid for them.

Yes, but it gets hard to model, with so many variables.

> Here are my suggestions for renewable and conventional energy sources
> in CIV3.
>
> Coal mining: costs for maintenance are increasing by time (longer and
> deeper mines) from to 2 to 4 shields. After 100 years of operation
> resource of coal mine is finished.

Well, there is the random dry-hole "...source has been exhausted"
mechanism, so while it doesn't make ongoing costs higher, it does
give you the simulation of running out of something. While cost
does go higher with a deeper mine, output improves with technology,
so I'm not sure that there's much to change there.

> Use of energy generated by coal is generating 100% pollution (25%
> after the invention of air filters).

Yes, that would be a good addition.

> Pollution is causing some amount
> of unhappiness. Earthquake kills some units of population (miners)

Tsunami?

> Nuclear:
> Power generation is 25, works for 35 years, costs 180, maintenance is
> 3. Nuclear power causes unhappiness and may cause scandals, especially
> when a university town is close by.

Would need a "uneducated people are more likely to be unhappy because
of this power plant" factor to stay realistic, or other way to reflect
the irrational misconceptions and fears that accompany it.

> I tried to model all as realistic as possible, but in order keep it
> playable; we also could use infinite lifetime for the power plants.

Probably more model-able, yes.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

hello; hello; hello; it's a freakin game. The relationship between this game
and "real life" is 0%.

Besides; can you cite one instance where the radical enviros and reality
ever coincided? I personaly can not.



<info@rio5.com> wrote in message
news:27453d82.0503251429.8e550f3@posting.google.com...
> As a professor on that field, I would like to promote the use of
> Renewable Energies in CIV3. While other technologies are discussed
> quite deeply, the use of renewables in CIV 3 (esp. Solar and Wind) was
> superficial. Power output of renewables is sufficient to supply all
> countries with energy. Renewable energy output is depending on much
> more external parameters than conventional power plants and should be
> considered in the game; as:
> Local ground surface, distance from coast, latitude (wind), local
> climate, temperature, shadowing (solar; some basic ideas have been
> realized in SMAC, nice!)
> Water resource, height of mountains (hydropower)
> The different properties of solar thermal (works good at high ambient
> temperatures) and photovoltaic systems (works good in cold, but sunny
> climates) should be applied yet.
> Therefore renewables are of the biggest options of future energy
> supply (beside fusion I don't know any other) some more attention
> should be paid for them.
> Additionally renewables should also have some impact on the politic
> and social structure:
> Less pollution (less angry people), less dependence from import of
> fossil fuels (trade need for coal as in CIV2-3 gets satisfied
> automatically), if decentralized renewables are used (solar roofs) the
> whole infrastructure is less vulnerable to blackouts and attack on
> power plants (e.g. less loss of population during war). Due to limits
> in resources, conventional energy should get more expensive within
> time, while the costs of use of renewables should get cheaper due to
> technology advances.
>
> Here are my suggestions for renewable and conventional energy sources
> in CIV3.
>
> Coal mining: costs for maintenance are increasing by time (longer and
> deeper mines) from to 2 to 4 shields. After 100 years of operation
> resource of coal mine is finished.
> Use of energy generated by coal is generating 100% pollution (25%
> after the invention of air filters). Pollution is causing some amount
> of unhappiness. Earthquake kills some units of population (miners)
> Building costs are 100 shields. Production is 25 per year. Lifetime of
> coalmine is 100 years. Lifetime of coal power plant is 20 to 25 years.
> Recover from recycling: 7.
>
> Hydropower:
> Only possible near rivers and lakes: mountains 200 % energy
> production, but cost also 100 % more to build. Hills: 100% energy
> production, flat land: 50 % energy production, big rivers are doubling
> energy production. Due to climatic changes production of hydro power
> can vary (e.g. more rainfall: small rivers get to big rivers and
> double energy production, in dry periods big rivers get to small
> rivers, under extreme conditions desertification can make power
> production impossible, earthquakes can cause flooding within the
> surrounding, lower squares (1-2 squares for hydro power plants built
> in hilly regions, 2-4 squares for power plants build in mountain
> regions). Maintenance costs are one shield.
> Building costs are 200 shields. Production is 25. Lifetime is 40
> years. Recover from recycling: 25.
>
> Wind:
> Works best in coastal areas: 200% energy generation, deserts are
> generally calm (50%). Sole hills and single mountains give 200% power
> production. Valleys are bad (30 %). Regions a bit away from the poles
> produce 150% of power ("roaring forties"). Hills, wood, other wind
> turbines and close obstacles (next square) reduce power (70 %).
> Maintenance is 2, in stormy areas (e.g. mountains 3). Building costs
> are 50 shields, generation is 10. Earthquakes could lead to total
> destruction in 50% of the cases. Floods do not interfere. Wind
> generators bulked directly near town squares may cause some
> unhappiness (noise).
> Lifetime is 15-20 years. Recover from recycling 7 shields.
>
> SOLAR ENERGY: General:
> Irradiated solar energy onto Earth is gradually increasing from 700
> kWh/sqm per year in Polar Regions to 2200 kWh/sqm per year in regions
> close to the equator - this results in a triple energy production!
>
> Solar thermal power plants:
> Work best in sunny and warm places (deserts): Energy production is 70%
> from standard near the poles; near equator is 200%. Desert gives an
> additional increase of 20%. Humid areas produce 20% less.
> Construction of plants in woods and valleys decreases power by 25 %
> due to shadowing. Building costs are 200 shields. Power generation is
> 25. Maintenance costs are 2 shields. Earthquake and flooding decrease
> power production by 50%. Lifetime is 25 years. Recover from recycling:
> 100.
>
> Photovoltaics:
> Energy production in Polar Regions is 70 % from standard; near equator
> is 200%. Deserts give a 10% minus (heat is decreasing the voltage of
> solar cells). Hills give a 10% plus (cooler, increases voltage).
> Mountains give a 20% in power production. Costs to build in mountain
> areas are double.
> Construction of plants in woods and valleys decreases power by 25 %
> due to shadowing.
> Maintenance costs are 1 shield. Building costs are 320 shields, after
> the invention of Thin Film Semiconductor Technology: 180 shields.
> Power generation is 25. Earthquakes and flooding do not harm (solar
> cells even work in space).
> Lifetime is 30 years. Recover from recycling: 200, for Thin Film
> Technology: 100.
>
> Nuclear:
> Power generation is 25, works for 35 years, costs 180, maintenance is
> 3. Nuclear power causes unhappiness and may cause scandals, especially
> when a university town is close by. Possibility of an accident.
> Vulnerable to military attack and earthquakes (radiation kills in 4
> squares around). Nuclear waste has to be watched by a military unit
> for 12000 time units. One square is sufficient for 10 years of nuclear
> waste. The reactor itself has to be treated as a nuclear waste square
> after the end of its lifetime. Recover from recycling: -40 (reactor
> has to be sealed).
>
> Biomass:
>
> Energy from biomass can be generated from three sources:
>
> 1. Agriculture
>
> 1.1 A part of agriculture waste can be transformed into energy: having
> a biogas plant in a city is giving one energy unit for each two
> farming products.
>
> 1.2 Also farming could be directly used to produce energy: Instead of
> food, energy in the harvest: e.g. sugarcane can be distilled to
> alcohol which serves as fuel for cars (1990 60% of the cars in Brazil
> had been running on that) while also the waste could be used, I
> suggest an efficiency of 150% compared to food production.
>
> 2. Waste
> Waste and pollution production in a city with a biomass plant is
> sinking by 50%,
> 25% of the original produced waste and pollution can be transformed
> into energy.
>
> 3. Woods
> Waste directly form the woods (dead trees) and indirectly in the city
> (e.g. from carpenters etc.) can be transformed into energy. For each
> two shields produced in a wood, one energy unit is generated.
>
> I suggest a cost to erect a biomass plant of about 60 shields,
> maintenance of 2, energy production as shown above.
>
> I tried to model all as realistic as possible, but in order keep it
> playable; we also could use infinite lifetime for the power plants.
>
> suggestion:
> Use energy completely separate from shields and from trade (similar to
> SMAC).
> Energy did always occur, not only in modern times. In former times
> Firewood
> (to be found in woods, or as a byproduct of agriculture) was
> collected, but hardly traded:
> If no firewood is present, survival in colder climatic zones was
> impossible.
> Energy requirement in different parts of the world should be
> different: cities
> in extreme climates (tropic, polar or alpine)require more energy.
> Energy is required not only for production, but also for survival of
> population and maintenance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:46:55 GMT, JOANNA DYBUS <depawel@verizon.net> wrote:
> hello; hello; hello; it's a freakin game. The relationship between this game
> and "real life" is 0%.

And it shouldn't have better gameplay and resource model why, exactly?
The guy spent a non-trivial amount of time on this, just because you don't
care doesn't mean it's not (a) interesting, (b) valid, and (c) above you.

> Besides; can you cite one instance where the radical enviros and reality
> ever coincided? I personaly can not.

What does "radical enviros" have to do with renewable energy, exactly?

And, by the way, when you top-post and don't bother to trim the message
you're responding to, you both waste peoples' bandwidth, and you screw up
the flow of the conversation.

Other than those problems, great post.

Dave "Of course, that leaves nothing..." Hinz