Friday Facts #164 - Nuclear power

[TeZwo]

found some pretty nice models from YuokiTani

original thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8732#p73321

designed for 3x3 tiles ingame


bigger view if later needed

[Bookman24]

Instead of having a giant explosion, if something goes wrong why not have it meltdown? Give a warning message like Reactor X is dangerously overheated, and if the player does nothing, a constant rate damage is done to the reactor, and it releases a huge amount of pollution as well as damage the player if they approach without wearing the proper armor. If the reactor burns through it's health entirely, it is destroyed and replaced by wreckage that produces a constant amount of pollution, damages the player as above, but must also be decontaminated before it can be removed. If the wreckage is still left alone, well there is now a huge fallout cloud bringing biters in.

[Enkal]

I really dislike the explosion part, it is just not realistic in any way and it does not really add to the game imho. It only reinforces all misconceptions about nuclear in the world. Be part of the solution and not the problem!

A better approach would be to have some inertia in the system, make the reactor slow to ramp up and if you need to emergency stop it for whatever reason (lack of cooling water for example) it would take some time before you can start ramping it up again.

For those who want to talk about Chernobyl and Fukushima: Chernobyl was badly designed and subject to a experiment done by personel not trained for it. Fukushima lacked safety valves for hydrogen and they never accounted for the possibility of a total destruction of surrounding infrastructure (hint: top 5 largest recorded tsunami).

Btw neither Chernobyl not Fukushima were steam explosions but rather hydrogen/oxygen explosions.

[LoSboccacc]

is that the final look for the reactor?

[AEnterprise]

i realy like the idea of a high end reactor that generates so much heat it can't be processed in the area and you need trains to move it away to a huge setup to keep the reactor cool

but as mentioned in the post: storing it in an item isn't very realistic, but what about fluids? just like water can be heated into steam maybe some kind of new liquid to heat up and store the heat. maybe even a new train wagon where we could load the liquid in for transportation

[linkedparadise]

I'm brainless, can someone sum up the nuclear process for me? And why is this picture

is said to be different from this picture

Isn't it the same way we used to do to get water into steam engine?

[Deadly-Bagel]

Instead of boiler heating up water a little and passing the (warmer) water to the next boiler, they will pass cold water to the next boiler. Some of the water is converted into steam which exits via a second output.

[rolfl]

Many early boiler setups use a mechanism of taking coal off a belt, placing it in the boiler, and then on the other side have another inserter removing the coal and placing it in a parallel boiler - a-la:



(Picture from: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=31605&start=0#p199340 )

With Steam being separated out the side it is going to significantly increase the footprint of early boiler systems.... requiring addiitonal pipe, belt, and inserter space.

I expect this is going to be a problem

[Mendel]

Two questions:

Will there be a new ore? (like uranium maybe?)

February 2017 is for the first experimental release of 0.15?

[Woodmn]

With regards to the storing of heat/energy for transport, what about make it possible to produce molten salt then barrel it in some sort of upgraded 'insulated' barrel for transport. I have no idea if it is exactly what you guys would like but I know they are experimenting with molten salt instead of water or oil in some large solar farms (the mirror ones not solar panel ones) to see if they can get power 24/7 from a solar farm.

First thing that comes to mind when I think of thermally storing energy for later use.

On another note, will we ever get electric boilers so we can convert solar power to steam for later use without the need of a nuclear reactor or pollution?

[Tev]

How will be porting of old steam setups to 0.15 solved?

[Deadly-Bagel]

Many early boiler setups use a mechanism of taking coal off a belt, placing it in the boiler, and then on the other side have another inserter removing the coal and placing it in a parallel boiler - a-la:

In that example, you've got 24 boilers outputting into a single pipe, I assume feeding 20 steam engines. This is actually far less space efficient and only saves a few iron on pipes, plus you lose a lot of heat in the pipes between the boilers and steam engines.

If you use the traditional 1-14-10 setup it should be fine. LIne the steam engines up directly next to each other and use long handled inserters to move the coal. On one side of the inserters will be the new pipe for steam, on the other side will be your power poles. Don't see a problem.

On another note, will we ever get electric boilers so we can convert solar power to steam for later use without the need of a nuclear reactor or pollution?

[Ausprit]

As I understand it, nuclear power will be an endgame way to power the factory. My question is, what is it that'll make me want to do it? Solar power is still free, coal isn't a huge problem. Basically you're asking that I change my whole setup again, near the end, for no other real reason than because it's cool? And it could explode on me?

My point is, you need a way to incentivize it. Simple suggestion would be to change the way coal is generated: a lot of coal near the center, but disappears as you go further off the map (which would explain why you tried to land there in the first place). Maybe the rocket needs nuclear of some sort, so I might as well upgrade my power setup. Then again, the simplest strategy might be to cripple/remove accumulators (although, Tesla is showing us that it's actually a viable way to go about energy...). Still, without incentive, we already have solar panel that don't pollute and are basically free to operate. Coal is a cheap resource, enough that it's very easy to stay on coal power plant for the whole game.

Make nuclear enticing, make new player want to understand circuits to get access to that power. Not required, just enticing.

[DOSorDIE]

Why Explosion? ... just make a "Blackout" and it need a warmup sequence to start it again ... and that need time.
Maybe make a Pollution cloud to wake up the biters that its time to attack ... and you have no power.
Panic!!!
Then i think twice to make a not fully save Nuclear Plant.

Just a idea

[Ausprit]

Then i think twice to make a not fully save Nuclear Plant.

You just wouldn't use nuclear power...

[Deadly-Bagel]

Ugh, have you tried setting up solar farms in a biter infested map? It's a pain and they take up a LOT of space, plus you need to defend them but keep them expandable.

Sure, they won't really be required. Speed runs of the game typically run on what, 40 boilers? Nuclear is just going to be a fun little project for endgame that keeps your footprint on the map much smaller, at least space-wise.

[Daid]

Many early boiler setups use a mechanism of taking coal off a belt, placing it in the boiler, and then on the other side have another inserter removing the coal and placing it in a parallel boiler - a-la:

[Ximg]http://i.imgur.com/rsP3wA5.jpg[/img]

(Picture from: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=31605&start=0#p199340 )

With Steam being separated out the side it is going to significantly increase the footprint of early boiler systems.... requiring addiitonal pipe, belt, and inserter space.

I expect this is going to be a problem

That hardly looks like an "early boiler system". So I would suspect you'll be using the plants by the time you reach the need for fields of the current steam engines.

[Ausprit]

Ugh, have you tried setting up solar farms in a biter infested map? It's a pain and they take up a LOT of space, plus you need to defend them but keep them expandable.

Sure, they won't really be required. Speed runs of the game typically run on what, 40 boilers? Nuclear is just going to be a fun little project for endgame that keeps your footprint on the map much smaller, at least space-wise.

Just clear the biters in you pollution circle and you won't even need towers to defend your base. Also, unless it's in their direct path, biters won't attack solar panel since they don't generate pollution.

What I'm saying, is that we need a built-in reason to go nuclear. Maybe using the last tier of science takes an incredible amount of power? Scarcity of coal? No accumulators? We can choose to slingshot the rocket into space with electricity instead of using rocket fuel?

[Deadly-Bagel]

Lol, with 0.13 biters now migrate so they'll just come back, and pollution circle in the mid game (before you can use efficiency modules) can get pretty huge. I can't be stuffed trying to clear out that many biters. I tried on my latest save and built a huge wall around everything but never finished it, lost interest.

[Eitelkeit]

pollution circle in the mid game (before you can use efficiency modules) can get pretty huge

In late game with beacons and lvl 3 modules it's actually gets even more huge. Also setting up thousands of solars is just tedious and building huge reactor with it's complex systems can be quite more interesting.