Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Power Plants, Energy Storage and Reliable Energy Supply. All about efficient energy production. Turning parts of your factory off. Reliable and self-repairing energy.
gGeorg
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Post by gGeorg »

SoShootMe wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 7:12 am
1k SPM "load",

Electric energy interface: 1916
Solar panels/Accumulators (19x 8000 panels and 6720 accumulators): 1938
Nuclear (3x blueprint below, stacked): 979

nuclear power resulted in a 50% reduction in UPS.
Translated your result to other point of view :

1k SPM powered by Nuclear or 2K SPM powered by solar ~ the same UPS

SoShootMe
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Post by SoShootMe »

gGeorg wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:12 pm
Translated your result to other point of view :
1k SPM powered by Nuclear or 2K SPM powered by solar with the same UPS.
No need for translation - I wrote a direct equivalent already. But being "worst case" leads to an important caveat you have glossed over (emphasis added):
SoShootMe wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 7:12 am
That is, solar could let you build up to twice as big before UPS starts to drop, but most likely significantly less than that.
For example:
coppercoil wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 9:58 am
I took my real 430 SPM factory and replaced 3.8 GW nuclear power to electric energy interface.
Nuclear: 320 UPS.
Electric interface: 380 UPS.
This is ~19% higher SPM for the same UPS, rather than ~98% higher.

quyxkh
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Post by quyxkh »

Try this one?

gGeorg
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Post by gGeorg »

SoShootMe wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 5:10 pm
gGeorg wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 3:12 pm
Translated your result to other point of view :
1k SPM powered by Nuclear or 2K SPM powered by solar with the same UPS.
No need for translation - I wrote a direct equivalent already. But being "worst case" leads to an important caveat you have glossed over (emphasis added):
SoShootMe wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 7:12 am
That is, solar could let you build up to twice as big before UPS starts to drop, but most likely significantly less than that.
For example:
coppercoil wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 9:58 am
I took my real 430 SPM factory and replaced 3.8 GW nuclear power to electric energy interface.
Nuclear: 320 UPS.
Electric interface: 380 UPS.
This is ~19% higher SPM for the same UPS, rather than ~98% higher.
Your post is perfect answear of the OP.
The Nuclear cost has range, from ~19% to ~98% SPM compared to solar on the same UPS.

Would you add to compare my Cloverleaf plant powering 1k SPM optimised base ?
viewtopic.php?f=208&t=96233
I have worked on optimised design for a year, so I would like to know the rate.
Thank you

SoShootMe
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Post by SoShootMe »

gGeorg wrote:
Thu Feb 03, 2022 2:54 am
Your post is perfect answear of the OP.
The Nuclear cost has range, from ~19% to ~98% SPM compared to solar on the same UPS.
What I've written is far from perfect :). There's a range, but it depends on how UPS-optimised both production and power are. For the former, I think it's pretty unlikely any "real" game (...today) will be better than Stevetrov's 1k SPM cell supplied by infinity chests/pipes (I expect belting/piping in from surrounding sources would be similar, but not terribly practical) - that's why I chose it to get a "worst case" figure. But I write "worst case" in quotes because it's obvious nuclear power can be less UPS-optimised than the relatively simple 2N design I used. I chose that design because I had it to hand, it is appropriate for large scale nuclear power, and I figured that scale requirement points towards similar designs that won't have a huge range of UPS at a given output (that may be a bad assumption).
Would you add to compare my Cloverleaf plant powering 1k SPM optimised base ?
viewtopic.php?f=208&t=96233
I tried, but output oscillated until I added an EEI to consume excess power - yielding a result with 14x 480MW of 745 UPS. However, UPS comparison between nuclear designs is probably best done in isolation, like the save from the original post.

User avatar
ptx0
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 7:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Post by ptx0 »

SoShootMe wrote:
Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:41 am
I think it's pretty unlikely any "real" game (...today) will be better than Stevetrov's 1k SPM cell supplied by infinity chests/pipes
you'd be surprised how much UPS those infinity items consume.

SoShootMe
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Post by SoShootMe »

ptx0 wrote:
Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:26 pm
SoShootMe wrote:
Thu Feb 03, 2022 7:41 am
I think it's pretty unlikely any "real" game (...today) will be better than Stevetrov's 1k SPM cell supplied by infinity chests/pipes
you'd be surprised how much UPS those infinity items consume.
That is well known, has always surprised me, and is a valid point, but doesn't change what I wrote. Do you think there are "real" games with better SPM per UPS?

causa-sui
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:23 am
Contact:

Re: Is nuclear power really bad for megabases?

Post by causa-sui »

Alt-F4 blog has an interesting post on this topic that rekindled my interest.

I'm interested in this reddit post linked off this alt-f4 blog as well.

Post Reply

Return to “Energy Production”