Accumulator / Solar panel ratio

[netmand]

The Accumulator / Solar panel ratio theoretically changes during factory development. But for me, it doesn't really change at all:

- When accumulator (and solar) tech is first obtained, I establish the ratio on a blueprint. For me it is 1:1 mainly because of the spatial design, easily tile-able and low-supply for the slow conbots out of the mk1 personal roboport, not because of any other reason. The role of the accumulator is to supply enough power along with steam engines when solar isn't powered on.

- As the factory grows and I no longer add steam engines, the role of the accumulator is more important overnight when the solar panels are dark. Here I could have been into nuclear already but other techs take precedence (I haven't started skimming off the kovarex process yet). The ratio at this point could be considered the most accumulator heavy, but frankly I just keep using my one solar blueprint which provides the 1:1 ratio.

- Once I get nuclear power going, this is when the ratio starts not being important. The role of the accumulators changes to indicate when I need to feed the reactors. The Solar panels, like the steam engines, are no longer relied upon to power the factory. The accumulators are used to absorb spikes in power requirements such as large-scale attacks like when the outposts get a boost to artillery range. Or when I build a large-scale production facility to increase SPM.

[astroshak]

No, the ratio does not change during factory development (unless you refer to the period where you can make solar panels without having the ability to make accumulators).

What changes throughout factory development is how many of each you need to plop down, to meet the power demand of your factory. As your factory grows, especially as you switch to laser defenses, your power needs go up. As you start switching to modules and beacons, power needs go way up. But, either way, the ratio needed stays the same.

The thing is though - you need to plop down enough to not meet “normal” demand, but “peak” demand. Demand rising and peaking, up from normal, does not change the ratio of panels to accumulators; it merely changes the number of each that are needed to power the factory.

[mrvn]

Meh, ratios in the honor they deserve but on the solar panel/accumulator ratio I've kinda given up.
Space optimization is kind of whatever, since if you need high power per space, you simply don't use solar.
I'm also fairly certain that solar is not the way to go for a good resource to power ratio.

Solar is the ultimate in resource to power ratio: In the "perfect" ratio it gives you 42kW per solar cell for 0 resources (amortized over time).

You see with solar there is some initial investment but after that power is simply free. Every other power source requires a constant influx of resources to produce power. Steam power needs coal, nuclear needs uranium (which also means sulfur and iron and maybe more I can't think of). The overall cost in resources for solar is N. Everything else it's M + X * time.

And I would even argue solar needs less space as well since solar needs only a fixed amount of space initially while steam and nuclear need an unlimited area because you constantly have to find new coal or uranium to mine.

The other aspect is that solar costs no CPU. Which is usually the killer argument for mega factories.

[mudcrabempire]

Solar is the ultimate in resource to power ratio: In the "perfect" ratio it gives you 42kW per solar cell for 0 resources (amortized over time).

You see with solar there is some initial investment but after that power is simply free. Every other power source requires a constant influx of resources to produce power. Steam power needs coal, nuclear needs uranium (which also means sulfur and iron and maybe more I can't think of). The overall cost in resources for solar is N. Everything else it's M + X * time.

And I would even argue solar needs less space as well since solar needs only a fixed amount of space initially while steam and nuclear need an unlimited area because you constantly have to find new coal or uranium to mine.

The other aspect is that solar costs no CPU. Which is usually the killer argument for mega factories.

In the long run, for Mega (capital M) factories, that is true. I cannot really contribute if we're talking about Mega factories since that's outside my experience.

For resources, solar panels are Very expensive, even compared to steam. Accumulators less so but they still make a dent. Now calculate InitialCost(solar), InitialCost(steam,nuclear) and RunningCost(steam,nuclear) and you can see how long it takes for solar to pay off. My bet is it takes a while. Even just intuitively, most people don't instantly replace their steam setup with all-solar once available, since fuel is not that hard to get while all that iron and copper kind of is.

For space, the space requirement for steam,nuclear is simply ActualPowerSetup(constant) + PreparationOfResources(constant) + MiningSpace(constant but needs to be relocated every now and then) + traffic(technically infinite but shouldn't be a limiting factor and you need a good traffic network anyways).
So apart from updating your mining posts every now and then (rarely, since consumption is really not that high) space consumption is constant for all power sources and I bet it is by far the highest for solar. The main reason why space is rarely a concern is simply because there is plenty of it to use once you reach a certain tech stage (for clearing biters, mostly).

[Hannu]

In the long run, for Mega (capital M) factories, that is true. I cannot really contribute if we're talking about Mega factories since that's outside my experience.

Many calculations are made for megabase or other very long game. If you think to just achieve a winning condition the situation is much more complicated because you have to take both initial investment and running costs into account. Such things depend strongly on settings and personal playstyle. Estimates are hard to calculate and they are true only with used assumptions. Averages over infinite time are easy and errors will fade out during hundreds of hours stable running.

For resources, solar panels are Very expensive, even compared to steam. Accumulators less so but they still make a dent. Now calculate InitialCost(solar), InitialCost(steam,nuclear) and RunningCost(steam,nuclear) and you can see how long it takes for solar to pay off. My bet is it takes a while. Even just intuitively, most people don't instantly replace their steam setup with all-solar once available, since fuel is not that hard to get while all that iron and copper kind of is.

I think there is no good reason to build solar farms, at least massive ones with exact ratios, if objective is just to launch one rocket at default settings. Similarly like tier 3 modules have no time to pay investment (except 4 productivity in rocket silo). Speedrunners try to optimize such ratios and they do not even build robots. Many techs are reasonable only in longer games or with somehow modified settings.

[disentius]

Speedrunners do build robots, nowadays. the current wr (1:44:56 in any%) is a fine example.
https://www.speedrun.com/factorio#Any

[MasterW3]

wow that is some mumbo jumbo i'll never understand.
just go for 50/50...
you'll be good to go.
keep any eye on the power at night, if gets low by morning, slap a bunch more batteries on it.

i use a power station as size reference.
it's entire affected area is my size (all within blue)
that way i can stack them on top and side, etc. it will all be conected.

first pole has a row of batteries/acumulators around it, surrounded by solar panels.
the next has a pole surrounded by acumulators/betteries around it, the whole thing!
and last has 50/50 solar panels and accumulators.

i also added a roboport version, with some logistic chest filling the center spots, just as filler. complete with solar panels and batteries.
and then i did a 4 cannon version, supplied by a requester chest. again, solar panels and batteries.
finally i did one with a double row of turrets on one side, belt down the middle, with arms to fill the turrets when they run out, with a requester chest.
and a row of walls to protect the turrets from one side.. just string them all together.

that pretty much did it. feel free to throw in a radar every so often.

[mrvn]

For space, the space requirement for steam,nuclear is simply ActualPowerSetup(constant) + PreparationOfResources(constant) + MiningSpace(constant but needs to be relocated every now and then) + traffic(technically infinite but shouldn't be a limiting factor and you need a good traffic network anyways).
So apart from updating your mining posts every now and then (rarely, since consumption is really not that high) space consumption is constant for all power sources and I bet it is by far the highest for solar. The main reason why space is rarely a concern is simply because there is plenty of it to use once you reach a certain tech stage (for clearing biters, mostly).

Non solar power needs constant relocation of the miners. Which means exploring, expanding and clearing up alien nests. That quickly means more cleared space than a little solar farm. That the land becomes free after you stripped the resources doesn't mean you get the time back to clear it. And in the end, time is the ultimate resource.

[astroshak]

For space, the space requirement for steam,nuclear is simply ActualPowerSetup(constant) + PreparationOfResources(constant) + MiningSpace(constant but needs to be relocated every now and then) + traffic(technically infinite but shouldn't be a limiting factor and you need a good traffic network anyways).
So apart from updating your mining posts every now and then (rarely, since consumption is really not that high) space consumption is constant for all power sources and I bet it is by far the highest for solar. The main reason why space is rarely a concern is simply because there is plenty of it to use once you reach a certain tech stage (for clearing biters, mostly).

Non solar power needs constant relocation of the miners. Which means exploring, expanding and clearing up alien nests. That quickly means more cleared space than a little solar farm. That the land becomes free after you stripped the resources doesn't mean you get the time back to clear it. And in the end, time is the ultimate resource.

You underestimate the power density of nuclear, compared to solar. More accurately, you overestimate the power density of solar vs the other two vanilla power sources (burned fuel and nuclear).

A pair of side by side 1/20/40 arrays, each fed by their own Offshore Pump, with a belt running between providing the fuel, takes up a chunk of space 25 tiles wide, 71 or so tiles long, not counting the actual offshore pumps or the means of routing either water or fuel to the array. Assuming you’re not subsisting on Coal, this can put out 72 MW of power. A full yellow belt of Solid Fuel can feed 100 boilers, or five 1/20/40 arrays. We’re only looking at two such 1/20/40 arrays.

To get 72 MW of consistent power (meaning solar panels are only providing 42 kW at any one moment throughout the course of the day) you need 1715 solar panels, and 1441 Accumulators. Solar panels being 3x3 and Accumulators being 2x2, Substations are also 2x2 (and have a 18x18 coverage area, though technically that is -4 because of their own footprint).

That boiler array is 1775 tiles, roughly, depending on what you are doing exactly with the power poles. That solar field is 21199 tiles, not counting the Substations. If you account for those, you need 67 Substations (18x18=324, or 320 actual spots for solar panels and accumulators; 21199 / 320 = 66.25) which adds another268 tiles for a grand total of 21467.

21467 / 1775 = 12.094 .. or a footprint more than TWELVE TIMES the boiler array.

There are many ways of doing nuclear. But, nuclear is even more power dense than boilers. Which means it would take much more space to get the same power from solar as you get from nuclear.

Now, you might argue that the space needed to produce such fuel should be counted. And that’s not an unreasonable position to take, though how much space it takes will vary depending upon fuel and how many machines are needed to produce it, and to provide to those machines. Even so, you are still looking at a much larger footprint for solar than you are for boilers, or for nuclear power.

[Hannu]

Now, you might argue that the space needed to produce such fuel should be counted. And that’s not an unreasonable position to take, though how much space it takes will vary depending upon fuel and how many machines are needed to produce it, and to provide to those machines. Even so, you are still looking at a much larger footprint for solar than you are for boilers, or for nuclear power.

It depends what you take into account. If you have to expand your base to next coal patch few hundreds of meters away you must clear and defense not only tiles on patch but also for railway to new outpost and some safety areas around them. At some point you will use more space and disassemble and build more entities than with solar, which is no brainer. And you have useless space in your walls.

I would like to see some example with what settings, phase of the game and playstyle space demand of solar panels is so severe problem that pollution free production and other benefits of solar would not compensate it. I have not tried deathworld settings but according to some videos it is very good strategy to build solar panels and accumulators as soon as possible to avoid pollution. Is there some other setting in which price of space is even higher? It may be possible in modded games, like Seablock, but is it really a situation in vanilla game?

[blahfasel2000]

Solar is the ultimate in resource to power ratio: In the "perfect" ratio it gives you 42kW per solar cell for 0 resources (amortized over time).

While that is technically true, the cost for setting up solar is so high that it takes ages (more than 100 hours) for it to actually break even with nuclear power, not taking into account that the resources consumed for solar panels are much more valuable than the uranium ore consumed by nuclear power.

It of course fares much better against coal power, but it still takes more than 2 hours to break even on resource consumption. However in this case the break even for pollution is much earlier because of the high pollution output of boilers.

[astroshak]

Now, you might argue that the space needed to produce such fuel should be counted. And that’s not an unreasonable position to take, though how much space it takes will vary depending upon fuel and how many machines are needed to produce it, and to provide to those machines. Even so, you are still looking at a much larger footprint for solar than you are for boilers, or for nuclear power.

It depends what you take into account. If you have to expand your base to next coal patch few hundreds of meters away you must clear and defense not only tiles on patch but also for railway to new outpost and some safety areas around them. At some point you will use more space and disassemble and build more entities than with solar, which is no brainer. And you have useless space in your walls.

I would like to see some example with what settings, phase of the game and playstyle space demand of solar panels is so severe problem that pollution free production and other benefits of solar would not compensate it. I have not tried deathworld settings but according to some videos it is very good strategy to build solar panels and accumulators as soon as possible to avoid pollution. Is there some other setting in which price of space is even higher? It may be possible in modded games, like Seablock, but is it really a situation in vanilla game?

I’ve never had to defend rails. Outposts, yes; rails, no.

As far as having to assemble and disassemble more entities, it takes a LONG time for <2k entities to catch up to >21k entities. And if you’re using Solid Fuel (which you should switch to sooner rather than later, even if its just a backup power plant) there really won’t be much if any disassembly and reassembly because oil well outputs decline but never stop producing. Alternatively, you should be liquefying the coal and making solid fuel from it, as that actually has a far higher energy output than simply burning the coal.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that solar is ineffective or useless. I’m merely saying that it is a lot less energy-dense than nuclear, or boilers, that it takes a lot more space to equal the same power output. Whether said space is a concern is entirely up to the player.

For that matter, whether the difference in materials cost associated with those >21k entities, <2k entities, and however many entities it is for nuclear, is a concern is equally up to the player. It would be interesting though, if someone could come up with an equalizing point where a specific 2xN reactor produces the same power as Y 1/20/40 boiler arrays and Z solar panels/accumulators, to see the footprint difference as well as the non-fuel cost of manufacturing the actual power production hardware itself.

[Koub]

[Koub] this is drifting to off topic. The thread is about solar to accumulator ratio, not the power to ressource ratio of solar vs other power generation.
You might be looking for this thread, where such things have already been discussed.

[mudcrabempire]

[Koub] this is drifting to off topic. The thread is about solar to accumulator ratio, not the power to ressource ratio of solar vs other power generation.
You might be looking for this thread, where sugn things have already been discussed.

Sorry. On the topic:
Step1: Define "perfect" in such a way that it is clear, can be written down and can be treated as a mathematical problem.
Step2: Gather all information you need to solve said mathematical problem and solve it.
Step2(alternative): See if someone already solved it.

Defining "perfect" as: "Full power of solar panels is used and just enough accumulators to smooth out the power of the solar panels over the night." is as far as I know the "standart" definition when people talk about this problem. It could surely be better defined than the sentence above but I hope it's clear which definition I mean. It has been solved including some pretty good (space-efficient) blueprints and unless someone wants to do the calculation for the sake of doing it themselves or out of suspicion that the solutions out there contain errors I suggest simply looking it up.
If this thread was meant to discuss just that (how to do the calculation and checking if it's right) I got the wrong impression. Sorry.

Other definitions of "perfect", I'm not aware of, at least none that are sufficiently well defined that one can do maths with it. And if your definition of perfect is too spongy to do maths with it, might as well solve it with your gut. If this thread was supposed to explore possible other definitions I suggest focusing on working out the definitions until they are clear enough to do maths with them. Then you should also be able to see which definition of "perfect" applies to the situation you are interested in and look up/calculate the corresponding solution.

[Qon]

Other definitions of "perfect", I'm not aware of, at least none that are sufficiently well defined that one can do maths with it. And if your definition of perfect is too spongy to do maths with it, might as well solve it with your gut. If this thread was supposed to explore possible other definitions I suggest focusing on working out the definitions until they are clear enough to do maths with them. Then you should also be able to see which definition of "perfect" applies to the situation you are interested in and look up/calculate the corresponding solution.

constant power/resource cost is a clear definition if you define relative costs of resources.

If you use more solar cells then they will provide more power earlier in the day and last longer in the evening. That means less power will be drawn from the accumulators over night and you can use less of them. They will also be recharged faster during the day and then there will be excess power that will simply go to waste (assuming our constant consumption of power). But to some accumulators are expensive and solar cells are cheap. Space is also often not a problem or you probably wouldn't be using solar. So wouldn't a 30:18 (or whatever ratio makes it work again) be better if you assign accumulators a higher price than solar cells?

So what we really should have is a table with solar cells at one axis and accumulators at the other axis and the garanteed constant power as values in each cell. There would be a region in the table with sensible combinations of solar cells and accumulators. But also regions that don't make sense. Any cell that doesn't improve on the one with one less accumulator is out too. That's just wasted. On the other side though, asides from having 0 accumulators there is nothing to obviously exclude. Every added solar cell will increase the power even one accumulator will alow as constant draw. But it quickly becomes near 0.

There would be a line starting at 1,1 and go through 25:21 that reflects the "optimal" 0.84 ratio. The line of maximum accumulators. How many additional W/solar cell does that line give? I think it's something around 40W/cell.

The question I would want answered is: Given a cost ration X:Y for solar cells to accumulators what ratio gives you the most W per cost and how much is it?

[astroshak]

How do you quantify the resource cost of Iron? Copper? Stone? Water? Crude Oil? Uranium? Coal? How do they relate to one another?

Iron Copper Stone are found all over the place, as is Coal. Uranium, being a lot less common, should be classified as a higher resource cost? Lower, due to its general lack of other use (nuclear fuel cell, nuclear rocket fuel, nuclear ammo being about it)?

You have to define those values. Then you have to find a common point - how many reactors in a 2xN setup produce the same MW as a given number of Boilers+2 Steam Engines, and how many Solar Panels/Accumulators provide that much power? And one other resource that has not really been mentioned at all here, time? How long are these power plants expected to be running? Note - it must be finite, because A) the game itself is not going to be run infinitely long, and B) you cannot really assign a cost to infinity.

Also, the machinery required to produce the fuel should also be taken into account. Though this could put the boilers+steam engines in the same realm as solar power, in that the energy is free (because oil never runs out).

Just looking to compare solar to boilers, 42 steam engines (21 boilers) compared to 900 solar panels and 756 accumulators (since they both produce the same amount of power over time) looks like 1302 iron plate for the boilers, 84 iron plate and 105 stone for the boilers, for a grand total of 1386 iron plate, 105 stone. Compared to 24750 copper, 36000 iron for the solar panels, and the accumulators are a whole other math problem. 1502 iron and 3780 batteries, which means 3780 iron + 3780 copper + 75600 sulfur acid, which is 1512 iron, 151200 water, and 7560 sulfur, which itself is 113400 water and petroleum gas, for a grand total of 1502+3780+1512=6794 iron, 3780 copper, 264600 water, 113400 petroleum gas.

So, you are looking at 1386 iron and 105 stone vs 42794 iron, 28530 copper, and a whole lot of water and petroleum. The choice is yours, for a mere 37.8 MW.

While yes, the infrastructure to get the power out (power poles, substations) and to get fuel in (belts, inserters, machines mining and/or producing the fuel) do add a lot to the cost, the point of this particular excercise is to show that solar, while free of fuel costs, is not free. It is very expensive compared to boilers.

And I’m sure that this particular comparison has been done before.

Oh, to answer that one last question, about the ratio of solar cells to accumulators, the cost per kW is fixed. It is fixed because you are using solar. It is the cost of the requisite number of solar panels and accumulators to achieve the desired power increase. Because the 42 kW/solar panel is a constant (the actual number changes throughout the game day, but the 42 does not) the cost per kW is a constant, and no amount of ratio tinkering will change that.

[Qon]

How do you quantify the resource cost of Iron? Copper? Stone? Water? Crude Oil? Uranium? Coal? How do they relate to one another?

You just set it by what you value, just like how a market sets the price of goods. But all resources are equal (excluding uranium), except oil which is worth 0.1 about mined resources. A good starting point. Adjust according to your needs.

Oh, to answer that one last question, about the ratio of solar cells to accumulators, the cost per kW is fixed. It is fixed because you are using solar. It is the cost of the requisite number of solar panels and accumulators to achieve the desired power increase. Because the 42 kW/solar panel is a constant (the actual number changes throughout the game day, but the 42 does not) the cost per kW is a constant, and no amount of ratio tinkering will change that.

No. You can increase solar panel count to get more energy at dawn and dusk, and by that decreasing the amount of accumulators needed. You don't get more kW out of this, you get to use less accumulators. This makes sense to do if accumulators are much more expensive than solar panels. Which means it depends on how much you value oil compared to other resources etc.

[astroshak]

No. You can increase solar panel count to get more energy at dawn and dusk, and by that decreasing the amount of accumulators needed. You don't get more kW out of this, you get to use less accumulators. This makes sense to do if accumulators are much more expensive than solar panels. Which means it depends on how much you value oil compared to other resources etc.

Unfortunately, things don’t work that way...

If you cut the number of accumulators you have compared to your solar panels, then that means you are not going to have enough to power you through the night. Or it means that you have overproduced the things to begin with (relative to your power demand).

You aren’t shortening the night, you are shortening the stored power to get through it, and trying to compensate for it by getting more power in two short windows of dawn and dusk.

Remember, that ratio is to provide *just enough* accumulators to get through the night. If you short change yourself on those, then you aren’t going to get through the night.

That said, this is pretty much a pointless discussion, because of one of the presuppositions here : that you are producing just enough power during the day, and have just enough accumulators to get through the night. Ideally, you would overproduce like a mofo, in order to have enough spare power capacity to expand your factory, fire a few laser turrets, charge a few extra bots, etc.

[mrvn]

For space, the space requirement for steam,nuclear is simply ActualPowerSetup(constant) + PreparationOfResources(constant) + MiningSpace(constant but needs to be relocated every now and then) + traffic(technically infinite but shouldn't be a limiting factor and you need a good traffic network anyways).
So apart from updating your mining posts every now and then (rarely, since consumption is really not that high) space consumption is constant for all power sources and I bet it is by far the highest for solar. The main reason why space is rarely a concern is simply because there is plenty of it to use once you reach a certain tech stage (for clearing biters, mostly).

Non solar power needs constant relocation of the miners. Which means exploring, expanding and clearing up alien nests. That quickly means more cleared space than a little solar farm. That the land becomes free after you stripped the resources doesn't mean you get the time back to clear it. And in the end, time is the ultimate resource.

You underestimate the power density of nuclear, compared to solar. More accurately, you overestimate the power density of solar vs the other two vanilla power sources (burned fuel and nuclear).

A pair of side by side 1/20/40 arrays, each fed by their own Offshore Pump, with a belt running between providing the fuel, takes up a chunk of space 25 tiles wide, 71 or so tiles long, not counting the actual offshore pumps or the means of routing either water or fuel to the array. Assuming you’re not subsisting on Coal, this can put out 72 MW of power. A full yellow belt of Solid Fuel can feed 100 boilers, or five 1/20/40 arrays. We’re only looking at two such 1/20/40 arrays.

To get 72 MW of consistent power (meaning solar panels are only providing 42 kW at any one moment throughout the course of the day) you need 1715 solar panels, and 1441 Accumulators. Solar panels being 3x3 and Accumulators being 2x2, Substations are also 2x2 (and have a 18x18 coverage area, though technically that is -4 because of their own footprint).

That boiler array is 1775 tiles, roughly, depending on what you are doing exactly with the power poles. That solar field is 21199 tiles, not counting the Substations. If you account for those, you need 67 Substations (18x18=324, or 320 actual spots for solar panels and accumulators; 21199 / 320 = 66.25) which adds another268 tiles for a grand total of 21467.

21467 / 1775 = 12.094 .. or a footprint more than TWELVE TIMES the boiler array.

There are many ways of doing nuclear. But, nuclear is even more power dense than boilers. Which means it would take much more space to get the same power from solar as you get from nuclear.

Now, you might argue that the space needed to produce such fuel should be counted. And that’s not an unreasonable position to take, though how much space it takes will vary depending upon fuel and how many machines are needed to produce it, and to provide to those machines. Even so, you are still looking at a much larger footprint for solar than you are for boilers, or for nuclear power.

Seriously? My whole post was only about the "the space needed to produce such fuel" and you argue a nuclear reactor is smaller?

[Qon]

Unfortunately, things don’t work that way...

If you cut the number of accumulators you have compared to your solar panels, then that means you are not going to have enough to power you through the night. Or it means that you have overproduced the things to begin with (relative to your power demand).

You aren’t shortening the night, you are shortening the stored power to get through it, and trying to compensate for it by getting more power in two short windows of dawn and dusk.

Remember, that ratio is to provide *just enough* accumulators to get through the night. If you short change yourself on those, then you aren’t going to get through the night.

That said, this is pretty much a pointless discussion, because of one of the presuppositions here : that you are producing just enough power during the day, and have just enough accumulators to get through the night. Ideally, you would overproduce like a mofo, in order to have enough spare power capacity to expand your factory, fire a few laser turrets, charge a few extra bots, etc.

Wrong.
This is your fundamental misunderstanding:

Remember, that ratio is to provide *just enough* accumulators to get through the night. If you short change yourself on those, then you aren’t going to get through the night.

The accumulators are not just for the night. They are also for the part of dusk and dawn where solar panels produce some non-zero power which is also less than what the factory needs.
If you increase the amount of solar panels to infinity, then you can have accumulators just for the night.
If you double your solar panel count then the time in dusk and dawn where accumulators are discharging to power your factory halves. This period is quite short so the benefit isn't huge. But if solar panels are very cheap and accumulators are very expensive, then the optimal ratio for power/resource changes slightly.

You CAN replace some accumulators with solar panels. If accumulators are discharging but you have some sunlight then "those" accumulators can be replaced. Only in the night when solar panels give 0 W do you actually need accumulators since an infinite number of solar panels still produce 0 W then.