Aging power plants

[nic49548 16]

For those who have played SC2K and/or SC3K, utilities have a finite lifespan. In SC3K, power plants started losing max potential output after about 80% of their lifespan. (48yrs, if it is of 60yrs., for example) In SC4, plants lose output immediately. (Oil Plant produces 7000, one month later, it is 6999, 6998, etc...) You would NEVER see the full potential of a power plant for long (Except by raising funding above 100%, of course).

My question, is it realistic that plants lose output immediately, or after a LONG, LONG time, or if at all?

[Crissa 1]

Power plants become more and more difficult to maintain after a set lifetime - core parts and buildings wear out. Technology moves on past... There's only so much you can simulate.

SC4 avoided the time simulation... And plants that degraded over time weren't very realistic, either: The game didn't give the option of maintaining or retrofitting or just paying for a new one once the old one runs out.

A solar cell slowly degrades... But a windmill will just stop working. Any plant that uses a turbine will come to a screeching halt when an important part fails.

This is how ENRON jacked up prices and forced rolling blackouts in California: They scheduled their maintainence (when the plant wouldn't be producing power) for when they'd also scheduled peak loads. (They made billions gaming the market this way, and others). So it is 'realistic' that plants stop producing power abruptly - however, you normally schedule around the load so that it isn't a big deal.

The fact is, there is always a neighbor to buy more electricity from, so cities being self-sufficient in power is what isn't realistic. Only a minority of towns have their own grids anymore, and even fewer operate their own power plants.

I've never even lived in a town that had a power plant, and I've lived in dozens of towns of many sizes.

-Crissa

[nic49548 16]

I'm confused, you said that plants that degrade over time weren't realistic, was that when they lose output immediately or after a long time? Based on SC3K or SC4, which rate of aging is more realistic? (SC3K is a long time, SC4 is immediately after construction)

[Crissa 1]

Ite depends on what you want to simulate!

Like I said, one type ages out of the box, another doesn't really degrade but quits at once. No one model will be appropriate for all.

Turbine power stops abruptly (like SC2K). Chemical or solid state power degrsdes slowly (like SC4). And it's never realistic for a nuclear plant to create radiation - only two commercial plants in the world out of thousands have ever released radiation. One so bad the region is unlivable and everyone in the world has extra strontium 90 in them, and the other so lightly that it was less radiation than is released by a hospital xray machine. (to make an example)

Most annoyingly, the game doesn't take into account that you could spend money to replace it bit by bit or time the replacements to come at non-peak times. The game doesn't display that data as a collective.

What would be 'most realistic' would be to have aging (like SC4) but add method in the building query to allow 'upgrading' the unit to new status to start the countdown all over again instead of rebuilding - as most of a building will not need replacing, only the solar cells or a turbine or whatever.

-Crissa

[movemysofa 0]

I believe that the power plant aging is a leftover from SimCity 2000, when there was no maintenance fees on power plants - so instead of X per year, the cost works out to 50X per fifty years.

Beyond this, I completely agree with what Crissa said.

Hey, maybe they'll fix this in Sim City 5! ...wait... :-\

[Mr. Random 3]

well some1 could mod the powerplants or ask maxis about it