Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

[QuintupleDude]

Making a sandbox mode train base for fun and idk which one :C

[FactorioParadox]

Nuclear fuel lasts longer.

[Krazykrl]

Nuclear fuel lasts longer.

Wrong.

Rocket fuel stacks to 10. Rocket fuel also has 225MJ of energy. This makes Rocket fuel 2.25GJ/stack.
Nuclear fuel stacks to 1. Nuclear fuel has 1.21GJ/stack.
The burner locomotives are 600,000 watts.
A Full loading of Rocket fuel (3 stacks * 10/stack) has a burn time of 3 1/8 hours (187.5 minutes).
A Full loading of Nuclear fuel (3 stacks * 1/stack) has a burn time of 99 Minutes.
Nuclear fuel only lasts 53.78% of the duration that a stack of rocket fuel would last.

The fact is though, the acceleration (but not top speed values) for Nuclear Fuel are much higher than Rocket Fuel. So the inefficiency of Nuclear fuel is marginally reduced... But hey, at least upgrading rocket fuel gives you something to use your stockpiles of U235!

[PunkSkeleton]

99 minutes of running is surely more than enough even for the biggest bases out there. And after certain point you are more concerned about your rail network capacity than cost of fuel so nuclear fuel is the way to go.

[BlakeMW]

The fact is though, the acceleration (but not top speed values) for Nuclear Fuel are much higher than Rocket Fuel. So the inefficiency of Nuclear fuel is marginally reduced... But hey, at least upgrading rocket fuel gives you something to use your stockpiles of U235!

Recently I was doing behemoth-busting tests, finding the minimum trains heavy enough to crush a behemoth biter without slowing down. One such model was 1 Loco + 9 Wagons - another was 2 Loco + 7 Wagons. Now here's the relevant part: The 1-9 model could easily get up to top speed but only on nuclear fuel.

So if you're making trains are long enough that you "need" 2 locos when using rocket fuel, you might be able to get away with 1 loco using nuclear fuel and thus halve the fuel usage and make the nuclear fuel more "efficient" in a certain sense (you still only get half the endurance).

[Egdod]

Nuclear fuel lasts longer.

Wrong.

Rocket fuel stacks to 10. Rocket fuel also has 225MJ of energy. This makes Rocket fuel 2.25GJ/stack.
Nuclear fuel stacks to 1. Nuclear fuel has 1.21GJ/stack.
The burner locomotives are 600,000 watts.
A Full loading of Rocket fuel (3 stacks * 10/stack) has a burn time of 3 1/8 hours (187.5 minutes).
A Full loading of Nuclear fuel (3 stacks * 1/stack) has a burn time of 99 Minutes.
Nuclear fuel only lasts 53.78% of the duration that a stack of rocket fuel would last.

The fact is though, the acceleration (but not top speed values) for Nuclear Fuel are much higher than Rocket Fuel. So the inefficiency of Nuclear fuel is marginally reduced... But hey, at least upgrading rocket fuel gives you something to use your stockpiles of U235!

It’s a bit better than that. People overlook the fact that in addition to the three stacks of fuel (30 rocket, 3 nuke) a train also holds a single unit in its engine being used. This is usually negligible, as in the case of rocket fuel its 1/10 of a stack, coal is one 1/50 etc. With nuclear fuel it’s an entire stack. So a true full load of rocket fuel is 6.975 GJ and nuclear is 4.840 GJ. Though rocket fuel still runs longer, when you take into account acceleration and the very long burn times involved, I think nuclear is a better option

[evopwr]

By the time I have Rocket Fuel (launching rockets), I always have far too much U235, so I figure I may as well do nuclear fuel.
I prefer the extra acceleration, even if it doesn't last as long.

[herkalurk]

By the time I have Rocket Fuel (launching rockets), I always have far too much U235, so I figure I may as well do nuclear fuel.
I prefer the extra acceleration, even if it doesn't last as long.

Same with nuclear, I have thousands of U-235 at my kovarex facility, and nuclear power uses very little of that. I've converted all of my trains to nuclear fuel at this point, even use it for some steam power backup just because I can. Also a single nuclear fuel will run a burner inserter for what seems like the length of it's life.

[mrt144]

I think ill stick to rocket fuel just so light oil actually goes somewhere in the big picture. I might as well use what I have a larger, less energy intensive resource of.

[herkalurk]

I think ill stick to rocket fuel just so light oil actually goes somewhere in the big picture. I might as well use what I have a larger, less energy intensive resource of.

Your light oil would still be used, nuclear fuel requires rocket fuel plus u-235

[Egdod]

I think ill stick to rocket fuel just so light oil actually goes somewhere in the big picture. I might as well use what I have a larger, less energy intensive resource of.

Your light oil would still be used, nuclear fuel requires rocket fuel plus u-235

Plus you’d be making the rocket fuel (using your light oil) anyway, and in vastly larger amounts for your rocket. The nuclear fuel takes just a bit of the rocket fuel. Your trains run faster, and in addition to using light oil, you can use some U-235 as well. There is really no good reason not to use nuclear fuel. Regardless, whether you use rocket or nuclear fuel for trains, your light oil is going somewhere in the big picture. What you don’t use for rocket fuel gets cracked into PG.

[Aeternus]

Greater accelleration = less time spent on the tracks, especially at low speed = greater capacity on the rail grid. This is why I prefer nuclear fuel, even when it has less endurance. But honestly, 30 rocket fuel vs 3 nuclear fuel - which trains run routes that consume even one full nuclear fuel, let alone 3.

[Edit] That and the stack size of one makes using a logistics network to deliver them very efficient.

[roothorick]

Use nuclear fuel except in extreme situations where 4.84GJ isn't enough for the train to make it to the next refueling station. Much more oil-efficient and with Kovarex enrichment you'll have U-235 coming out of your ears. Remember, you can always crack light oil to petrogas, and you never have enough petrogas.

[barbary]

With 0.17 there is now no debate Nuclear fuel all the way because now it does have more energy then a stack of rocket fuel.

[bobucles]

With 0.17 there is now no debate Nuclear fuel all the way because now it does have more energy then a stack of rocket fuel.

Indeed! All the ordinary fuel values cut cut in half in exchange for the boiler giving 100% instead of 50%. Nuclear fuel keeps its 1.21JW because memes.

So now coal stacks up to
4x50 = 200,
12x50 = 600, solid fuel
100x10 = 1000, rocket fuel
1210 nuclear fuel

[barbary]

Nuclear fuel keeps its 1.21JW because memes.

Best reason I have seen yet

[Ranakastrasz]

Doesn't nuclear fuel kinda stack to 2 and rocket fuel to 11, because of the fact it consumes one when you add it?
And if so, how badly does that throw calculations off?

[Krazykrl]

Doesn't nuclear fuel kinda stack to 2 and rocket fuel to 11, because of the fact it consumes one when you add it?
And if so, how badly does that throw calculations off?

Not by much... You get an extra slot of fuel, making rocket fuel have 31 pieces... but nuclear fuel gets 4 instead of 3.

[Ranakastrasz]

Doesn't nuclear fuel kinda stack to 2 and rocket fuel to 11, because of the fact it consumes one when you add it?
And if so, how badly does that throw calculations off?

Not by much... You get an extra slot of fuel, making rocket fuel have 31 pieces... but nuclear fuel gets 4 instead of 3.

Oh. They changed the stack size? Oh, 3 fuel slots. Yea.
Still, thats a whole 33% extra power from nuclear fuel, no?