Burner Inserters: Less polluting than non-burning!?
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:45 am
I am probably seeing something wrong, here, but ... first, the obvious: no inserter seems to generate pollution directly. HOWEVER, non-burner inserters INDIRECTLY generate pollution because they consume power and, prior to getting solar panel and accumulator tech (which takes a long time, as you have to have a working chemical plant to produce the batteries for accumulators), that means you have to have more steam-generated electricity to power those inserters, and the boilers used to heat the water for the steam engines do generate pollution. Both burning and non-burning inserters need coal (burning directly, non-burning indirectly because the steam boilers to power them , and the drill (whether burning = 10 pollution, or electric = 9 pollution)
To recap this in simplified bullet points:
[*] Burner and Non-Burner Inserters both need a mining drill for coal (until Solar Power and Accumulators, the point at which this argument is moot) and thus both have a base level of pollution from this drill
[*] The direct burning of coal for Burner Inserters does NOT generate pollution
[*] The indirect burning of coal for Non-Burner Inserters DOES generate pollution (the boilers that heats the water for the steam engines)
If I understand the above correctly, then burner inserters produce less pollution and should probably be used in lieu of regular inserters, at least where inserter speed is insignificant to production (such as with science pack production, where the time it takes for an inserter to supply input or move output becomes insignificant versus production time). I do realize burner inserters are seemingly about one-third slower than regular inserters, but the lower pollution = less worry about biter attacks combined with extending early game electrical output (since burner inserters don't consume electricity from the grid, that power can be used for factories or fast inserters where those are needed). It might even be worth considering using burner inserters for smelting, given the smelting needs coal anyway, but I know using a slow inserter means getting the same output of iron or copper plates requires more smelters, which might negate the net gains of lower pollution from using burner inserters.
Did I get something completely wrong, or has someone already found this?
To recap this in simplified bullet points:
[*] Burner and Non-Burner Inserters both need a mining drill for coal (until Solar Power and Accumulators, the point at which this argument is moot) and thus both have a base level of pollution from this drill
[*] The direct burning of coal for Burner Inserters does NOT generate pollution
[*] The indirect burning of coal for Non-Burner Inserters DOES generate pollution (the boilers that heats the water for the steam engines)
If I understand the above correctly, then burner inserters produce less pollution and should probably be used in lieu of regular inserters, at least where inserter speed is insignificant to production (such as with science pack production, where the time it takes for an inserter to supply input or move output becomes insignificant versus production time). I do realize burner inserters are seemingly about one-third slower than regular inserters, but the lower pollution = less worry about biter attacks combined with extending early game electrical output (since burner inserters don't consume electricity from the grid, that power can be used for factories or fast inserters where those are needed). It might even be worth considering using burner inserters for smelting, given the smelting needs coal anyway, but I know using a slow inserter means getting the same output of iron or copper plates requires more smelters, which might negate the net gains of lower pollution from using burner inserters.
Did I get something completely wrong, or has someone already found this?