Friday Facts #164 - Nuclear power

[AssaultRaven]

I'm seconding the line about how this just perpetuates alarmism about nuclear power and doesn't fit in with the rest of the game at all.

If nuclear power plants can explode then so should the existing steam engines and there should be a chance you trip and die every time you place a solar panel (fatalities due to falls when installing solar panels) and an even greater chance of getting caught in the gears of a miner and killed when you walk past it, considering how deadly coal power has always been.

[Schmogel]

I wish automated asteroid mining would still be on the agenda for 1.0

Radioactive space rocks

It'd close the loop so perfectly, we'd get rid of the open ended mysterious satellites that go nowhere and in turn we have an endgame energy solution. Just a few rare nuclear fuel ore deposits (meteor craters?) around the map, enough for the most simple reactor setup, then an automated way once you mass produce rockets.

Heck - I wouldn't mind if we don't see space at all, just equip the rockets with space miners and let them come back to the planet with space rocks after a while.

[Rhamphoryncus]

Heh, I just realized most bases wouldn't even see a meltdown when it happens. Power production would continue until the moment it overloads and explodes, which would destroy the buildings and create blueprints, which would immediately cause bots to replace them with fresh new buildings. The downtime would be far less than with a scram, which would leave the buildings intact but disabled until they cool (or the neutron poisons burn off.)

[sabriath]

For nuclear power, you need a heat exchange from "hot" water (heavy deuterium that interacts directly with nuclear material) to "cold" water (normal water that is boiled and used in turbines). I suggest a new 1x1 block called the "heat exchange," you place it between 2 iron pipes and all it does is average the temperature between the pipes (water cannot exceed 150). The next thing I suggest is another pipe object called the expander, expansion block, or constrictor (depending on how you look at it)....which does not allow water below 100 degrees to enter, but will produce steam if there is water above 100 degrees coming in, it is a one-way valve, one unit of hot water produces 1 unit of steam.

Lastly, the temperature of steam doesn't matter, it's pressure difference that moves the turbines in an engine; unfortunately, you never added pressure to the game mechanics. To mimic this, you'll need to change a few things with the steam engine. First it has to be directional (an input and an output). Every tick, the engine will immediately consume all of the steam that has been moved to its input, produce power based on the quantity, and create water at 95 degrees on the output (with 20% water loss due to normal wear leakage, research to reduce loss?). Connecting a wire to the engine can let you set the engine to turn on or off (so that you can wait until there is enough "pressure" in the pipes in order to get the best power). Power produced should be on an sigmoid curve; when "pressure" is too low, not a lot of power comes out, but when you reach a certain point, power increases fast...then you reach a point where the turbines just can't go that much faster no matter how much higher the pressure. The formula for this could possibly be something like:

v = x - 5;
power = 278.543 + 300 * v / sqrt(4 + v * v);

(function assumes "10" as maximum input, power maximum at 10 is 557 ish)

A cooling tower is only used when heat needs to be rejected, this only happens when power requirements in a system are below the power production rate, and therefore the "hot" side has to be sweated down so that it can conserve fuel.....which is actually done through the "cold" side through a bypass. Unless factorio team plans on adding the ability for pipe explosions and breaches, there is no fundamental reason for a cooling tower, the water exiting a steam engine is easier to heat up from 95 degrees than to do it from 15 degrees, unless you want it as a liquid void building.

So what does this all boil down to? For the basic game, player sets up pump to boilers then to a parallel setup of engines (rather than serial)....the output of the steam engines can go to a cooling tower to void out. When wires are researched, the offshore pump can be turned on only if the water loop system is low on water, and steam engines can be turned on based on steam level for efficient use of power. After heat exchange is researched, the boiler and steam engines can be separated on different water loops for easier expansion of either.....and when nuclear reactors are researched, the boilers can be replaced and the liquid can be changed. This gives a step-by-step approach to advancing the power structure of a base slowly without overcomplicating for the player.

Just my 2 cents.

[Rhamphoryncus]

Turns out my intended boiler chaining doesn't work. You can see it on the left here. I need to replace some inserters with power poles but that means I can fuel boilers there, so I replace them with pipes.. which bridge the water side to the steam side.

On the right is the only working chained setup I can think of, which is not very satisfying.

Increasing the boilers to 2x2 would avoid this problem. You could pick up coal from either side, so you could use regular or burner inserters, plus you would naturally have gaps for power poles.

[ElTorres]

maybe instead of a metal with high heat capacity, use molten salt, they used to experiment with it on real life solar farms.

[ihcn]

Politically speaking, I think a nuclear reactor exploding when it overheats sends an overdone, lazy, and above all, misleading, message about the way nuclear power works

"innocent" mistakes , repeated like this pervasively in the media, are one of the main reasons why people are so irrationally afraid of nuclear power. Just something to think about as you design. If you're against nuclear power, educate yourself. If you're not, spend some time thinking about this, because it WILL have an effect, however subtle, on how people see nuclear power

[ili]

Politically speaking, I think a nuclear reactor exploding when it overheats sends an overdone, lazy, and above all, misleading, message about the way nuclear power works

"innocent" mistakes , repeated like this pervasively in the media, are one of the main reasons why people are so irrationally afraid of nuclear power. Just something to think about as you design. If you're against nuclear power, educate yourself. If you're not, spend some time thinking about this, because it WILL have an effect, however subtle, on how people see nuclear power

Add a disclaimer in the beginning of the game:
* Nuclear power plant are the safest power production method, The exploding nuclear power plant in the game are for entertainment purpose only and are not realistic

[Grimakar]

Politically speaking, I think a nuclear reactor exploding when it overheats sends an overdone, lazy, and above all, misleading, message about the way nuclear power works

"innocent" mistakes , repeated like this pervasively in the media, are one of the main reasons why people are so irrationally afraid of nuclear power. Just something to think about as you design. If you're against nuclear power, educate yourself. If you're not, spend some time thinking about this, because it WILL have an effect, however subtle, on how people see nuclear power

Add a disclaimer in the beginning of the game:
* Nuclear power plant are the safest power production method, The exploding nuclear power plant in the game are for entertainment purpose only and are not realistic

Or something like: No nuclear power plants were harmed during the making of the game

[NInetails]

I thought it would be more fitting to put it in here than the steam post (and because they need excessing control to allow you to put it there). Note that the following is written to the origonal poster.

I have a few technical things I would like to suggest to you.

First some computer science things: If you are doing area based searches (I assume in 2d), then if you are not already using it, I would highly suggest you to use range trees with fractional cascading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_tree). They provide O(log(N)) lookup time, and only take O(N log(N) ) time to preprocess and space to store (meaning it is as efficient in all except space as if you had a 1 dimensional problem you had completly sorted, and the space complexity is optimal under the condition you want optimal search time). If it is important to keep linear space (for reduction in save game space), I would recommend kd-trees instead. The search time is at O(sqrt(N)), but you keep the O(N log N) preprossing time and return to linear space requirements. It should be noted that for both of the above mentioned space searc data structures it is possible to iterate through all the items in linear time, so the computation cost of introducing them is only equivalent to sorting your data. Note that the N above is the number of entities.

Next up some physics stuff: In the real world the most common nuclear reactor design is based on 2 seperate water systems, where the first works just like your heat pipes and deliver heat to the second system. The reason for this, is that the first system contains the water that have been in direct contact with the nuclear fuel, and it may therefor be contaminated (I think it is counted as class 2 nuclear waste, if I remember correctly), so I would suggest simply using "contaminated water" for your heat sink system.
Another point is that the energy required to take water at 100C to steam at 100C is larger than the energy it takes to bring water from 0C to 100C, (2257KJ/kg for evaporation vs roughly 400KJ/kg for 0 to 100 C), so you may consider using this, now that you have sperated them.
I would also suggest having the cooling towers take 2 inputs, one for steam and one for water, this would allow one to use the exess energy to heat the other water, which would reduce the amount of lost energy, the heat have to go somewhere anyway.
If you want a suggestion of what to store heat in, then water has some of the largest heat capacities (there are others, but water is already readily available), so all you would need to do is allow it to be bottled up (with its heat preserved), though you may also consider using pressuriced containers of steam.

[Grimakar]

To all those fellows who talk about nuclear waste and contaminated water, short the dark side of using nuclear energy. Call me nuts, but I am quite sure that Wube will not make a nuclear power plant simulator, but taking the idea of nuclear power and inserting it into their game as far as it fits and advances Factorio.
Of course it sounds like an interesting idea to make nuclear power realistic, but you may not forget how that would bring a benefit. For example although an explosion would not be the most realistic scenario, it would be enough of a penalty, the more so as you could use it to kill biters. For nuclear waste I do not see any reasonable implementation as it is just there doing nothing and makes you build a disposal zone. Same with radiated areas after an explosion. This would just be an area were the player could not go/build anymore, expect is armor could protect him from that. In this case you once build that and then it is like this radiated area wasn't there. And the argument that it could do damage to the bugs, makes me think of the idea that in case of global fallout only insects would survive.

Do not get me wrong, I am not totally against that additional effort that it would be for the devs, but is it really worth it?
Maybe you got better or more ideas how that could fit perfectly in to the game.

[Splitframe]

>February

[deadall127]

good news, but I thinks nuclear power is a little dangerous for the game (just a little)

I think that for a good implementation, this need some random spawning of uranium ore in iron mining then we need to convert that U238 into U235 (in fact 10 uranium 238 ore => 1 uranium 235 bar [+ 9 poor uranium powder that can be used with plutonium to make MOX fuel] = or not, it's just an idea), cooling tower and nuclear reactor have to be expensive too because if it's too easy, nuclear power will unbalance the game (witch is very good for now)

crafts need like 1000 congrete, 200 steel bars and 100 pipes for the cooling tower
and 500 pipes, 200 steel bars and 100 processing units for the nuclear reactor? something like that seems good for me :3

also, nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb, if the is a lack of water, then le reator heats up and melt (with a 'pop' of ~20 blocks radius) then a radioactive cloud will damage aliens, factories and players. (not a big overkilling boom of 1000 blocks radius)

one last thing, if you look at the real reactors, this is more multicore reactors than bigger or smaller reactor, so I think that the ability to auto-connect reactors between them will make the game less interesting, because we are here to make and break our brain, a factory has to be complex because complex things are beautiful

/!\ this is just MY opinion /!\

[SagaciousZed]

I would rather see a more realistic portal of an overheat over a denotation of the reactor. I'm also just echoing people who have far more knowledge on this subject.

I would rather see the power plant shutdown, get locked out for a while. If emergency venting or ,if things really got out of hand, a meltdown occurs due to extreme heat levels, spew an amount of pollution and trigger a large biter attack from beyond the pollution wave if possible.

[Andrzejef]

Politically speaking, I think a nuclear reactor exploding when it overheats sends an overdone, lazy, and above all, misleading, message about the way nuclear power works

"innocent" mistakes , repeated like this pervasively in the media, are one of the main reasons why people are so irrationally afraid of nuclear power. Just something to think about as you design. If you're against nuclear power, educate yourself. If you're not, spend some time thinking about this, because it WILL have an effect, however subtle, on how people see nuclear power

Add a disclaimer in the beginning of the game:
* Nuclear power plant are the safest power production method, The exploding nuclear power plant in the game are for entertainment purpose only and are not realistic

Or something like: No nuclear power plants were harmed during the making of the game

You made my day now

But yes, I tend to agree. As I said, I think some long-term lockdown, huge one-time pollution emission (attracting/angering - their agenda is still not well known - biters, ofc), some small fires in nearest vinicity brought together (just to damage some things), would be OK , but still - not randomly. Imo, make a slider dictating one certain object (or complex, in case of connected entities) efficiency, and past some level (say 1.0 and more) the chance of "accident" increases. This or general "exploit" policy setting (may be slider too, I am a fan of sliders ), where the lowest setting would mean lowest possible efficiency, but fail-safe, highest - huge efficiency and big "incident" chance.
Or make such an "incident" happen when the facility was destroyed (like not "deconstructed" but e.g. rammed with a tank, or a train or something)

[Zentay]

I love it. Especially the possibility of increasingly efficient but complex setups that can fail with a boom if done badly.

[Eitelkeit]

Actually it would be nice to see that "upscale" mechanic with increasing complexity applied to, say, assemblers, like adjacent assemblers connect into bigger one with increased requirements for work, like lurbricant or something. Bigger drills can require water, heatsink and so on.

[MeduSalem]

Actually it would be nice to see that "upscale" mechanic with increasing complexity applied to, say, assemblers, like adjacent assemblers connect into bigger one with increased requirements for work, like lurbricant or something. Bigger drills can require water, heatsink and so on.

This would heavily interfere with the purpose Beacons have.

[Vuk Farkas]

Cooling towers are nice idea, (basically condensers that use natural eviromental temperature to condense steam into water), however i feel there should be more types (example a smaller but artificially cooled, pretty much like the radiator in the car) alowing more customization for our needs.

So far this game seems to lack preassure, which is a shame considering there are many steam types, which are used for different engines. I shall mention just a few!

Owerheated steam, which is basically steam thats hotter than 500 C, compared to normal steam (100-500C) its less dence but expands more and faster, wery useful for fast steamers, especially turbines, and because its so hot its easyer to be re-used again, or even modified further.

Owersaturated steam, is basically a steam in which water has been injected in form of spray, making it denser, wery good for piston and slower steamers where strength is more important that speed and temperature, and after being used it can be re-heated to be used again as normal or owerheated steam.

There is also a combination of those two types of steams, which is usually used in wery powerful and wery big steamers (usually those massive nuclear powerplants)

Used steam can be re-used again, but its cooler and denser than normal steam (but not nearly as much as the owersaturated) so its either used on bigger/slower steamers or re-heated to suit other needs.

More boiler types are needed, and i shall name the 2 basic ones (since current boilers are a bit OP)
The boiler most of ya know the classical big sealed container, which holds large ammounts of water and steam. It takes long time to heat up that one due to large amount of water, but it can continue working even if heat source is removed, due to accumulated steam and heat.
The other type of boiler is flash boiler, usually as simple as coiled pipe, unlike the previous mentioned boiler, this one takes minutes instead of hours to generate steam, can crate hotter steam far more easily, however requires constant supply of water and heat, cause it holds a small ammount of water in the coiled pipe, which is vaporized almost instantly when coils are hot. Unlike the previous boiler, the flash boiler holds only small ammounts of water and steam, thus cannot accumulate enough heat and steam to work when heat source is removed.

There are ofcourse many more types of boilers, even combinations of those two. Would like to see this implemented one day, cause it would allow players to customize their steamers more, make game more challenging without forcing players to learn it all. I think heat from machines should affect enviromental temperature too, and vice versa (thus for example it would take more fuel/energy in cold weather to generate and maintain steam, while in hot weather it would be harder to condense it) Which would make people think out their layout and position better.

I'll add one last thing... Steam Reservoir... basically tanks that are specifically made to hold steam (similar like compressed air canisters),which are usually thermally isolated (to prevent steam cooling and condensing into water) or even have a small heat source just to maintain temperature.

[AlastarFrost]

Although it may look cool, I dont like the idea of exploding reactors. The penalty for not doing it right should be a power outtake. I like the idea that it takes time to ramp up the efficiency and power of the reactor, and an emergency shutdown would result in a power outtake that takes time to compensate.

An emergency shutdown could result in the release of radioactive steam (you have to rapidly cool down the reactor, and to get rid of the energy you would release the steam of the inner cooling system of the reactor). I would not tie radioactivity to biters, even if this kind of pollution spreads very far, it just promotes putting the reactors far enough away and you would not have to fear much consequences. It would be far more interesting if the radioactivity activates some dormant alien plant that begins to rapidly grow and engulf all installations (destroying them in the process). This plant could spread faster along metal, which means it would follow your power lines, belts and train network. You would have to contain this spread (flamethrowers ftw). Having the reactor in a remote location and ignoring it would just make things worse: By the time it reaches your base, it would be far too huge to be contained. You could dismantle the infrastructure to prevent it from spreading fast and directed, but that would just be an intermediate measure like a firebreak.

In the end, this leaves us with the question that came up earlier: When it is so dangerous, why bother doing it? Current power systems work just fine. There should be processes that require enough energy to make the existing power systems not viable and the power output should be much higher than the old systems. For example antimatter production (to power a spaceship that can travel home to get help) or something like that. But that would also make the old power systems obsolete once you get your hands on even a small reactor setup.