Factorio Forums

I vote replacing the portable fusion reactor with a fission micropile

roman566 wrote:It is present in the form of the Portable Fusion Reactor

I always assumed that was one of these.

MalcolmCooks wrote:Small yeild nuclear artillery shells would be awesome.

Devs are actually working on an artillery turret

MalcolmCooks wrote:The option to use thorium fuel would be a good idea, but adding two new resource deposits just for nuclear power could be a bit much - perhaps they could both potentially be extracted from a single resource? There are minerals on earth that contain useful amounts of both thorium and uranium, so I don't think it's too far-fetched of an idea. Perhaps some quirk of geology on the factorio planet means that those ores are the richest or most abundant.

Thorium is just largely dug up along with other shit since it's dirt common, you don't really have dedicated thorium mines.

roman566 wrote:I wonder why everyone are fixated on fission power when there is better (and already available in the game) alternative? Namely, fusion power. It is present in the form of the Portable Fusion Reactor - expensive, generating no pollution and requiring no fuel. Just add another research topic to upscale it and you get your super reactor. No need to add new resources or anything. Sure, it would be expensive like hell but hey, nuclear power plants are like that. It would be a nice addition for those late game factories that have nothing to waste their resources on.

One isn't really better than the other. They're different kind of nuclear reactions. Fusion generates more power, but also costs more power.

MalcolmCooks wrote:

MalcolmCooks wrote:Small yeild nuclear artillery shells would be awesome.

Devs are actually working on an artillery turret

https://youtu.be/zYt0WbDjJ4E

XartaX wrote:One isn't really better than the other. They're different kind of nuclear reactions. Fusion generates more power, but also costs more power.

You are talking about real life. Factorio isn't real life. You can put up to 4 small fusion reactors into the armor and run around in it. Sure, they provide less power than a single boiler but they are small enough to be put inside armor. One big enough would be able to give significant amount of power. It would be expensive and pretty much game breaking once you make it, but as devs are planing space age, we need something to power stuff in space. Boilers are out as are solar panels (not cost-effective), that leaves a new source of energy - fusion. Fission is out simply because a civilization that has access to efficient fusion energy would not downgrade to fission.
Of course, a large fusion reactor should use some resource, like Heavy Water, which could be produced in a factory from normal water and some fancy filters that could also be made in a normal factory. No need to add a new resource on the map, like Uranium, that fission power would require. Two icons for resources, one new building and we have fusion power.

roman566 wrote:

XartaX wrote:One isn't really better than the other. They're different kind of nuclear reactions. Fusion generates more power, but also costs more power.

You are talking about real life. Factorio isn't real life. You can put up to 4 small fusion reactors into the armor and run around in it. Sure, they provide less power than a single boiler but they are small enough to be put inside armor. One big enough would be able to give significant amount of power. It would be expensive and pretty much game breaking once you make it, but as devs are planing space age, we need something to power stuff in space. Boilers are out as are solar panels (not cost-effective), that leaves a new source of energy - fusion. Fission is out simply because a civilization that has access to efficient fusion energy would not downgrade to fission.
Of course, a large fusion reactor should use some resource, like Heavy Water, which could be produced in a factory from normal water and some fancy filters that could also be made in a normal factory. No need to add a new resource on the map, like Uranium, that fission power would require. Two icons for resources, one new building and we have fusion power.

My 2c: 1) Hopefully power armor.. power supply will be improved in the future. 2) Solar panels are ridiculously cost effective in space. 3) "Fission is out simply because a civilization that has access to efficient fusion energy would not downgrade to fission." as mentioned, it's not really a downgrade.

Given that there were natural fission reactors on Earth and an efficient fusion reactor requires degree of sophistication we still did not achieve I fail to see how they could be considered the same tech level.

As for solar panels in space... their biggest issue is... space. If platforms to build at will be cheap and large then sure, solar panels rock, if they will be small and expensive? Nope.

roman566 wrote:Given that there were natural fission reactors on Earth and an efficient fusion reactor requires degree of sophistication we still did not achieve I fail to see how they could be considered the same tech level.

As for solar panels in space... their biggest issue is... space. If platforms to build at will be cheap and large then sure, solar panels rock, if they will be small and expensive? Nope.

Real life isn't so simple that the less useful (or even necessarily the less advanced) stuff gets "unlocked" first. Technically MSR's could have been developed and used without solid fuel reactors ever becoming a thing. It was at a time when the US needed nukes, though, so it didn't. Greek fire is a prime example of something you'd think is way ahead for it's tech levels (and some ancient civilizations managed to make batteries). That said, yeah it's a bigger technical problem to make fusion work. Not because we don't understand it, or it's hard to do, but because we still don't know how to make it commercially viable. In short, per todays information, fission is superior to fusion. We don't know what future research into fusion will tell us, but there are intrinsic problems to the technology. Maybe we can overcome them, maybe not. This is why I say you can't really compare them.

Putting solar panels on a platform is kinda dumb. Just stick them on the vessel.

roman566 wrote:Given that there were natural fission reactors on Earth and an efficient fusion reactor requires degree of sophistication we still did not achieve I fail to see how they could be considered the same tech level.

There are also natural fusion reactors - stars.
It is also worth noting that fusion power may never be a viable energy source. It may actually be impossible to produce efficient nuclear fusion on a small scale, i.e, not relying on the enormous gravity of stars to produce fusion. The temperature in the core of the sun is 15 million degrees C - in man-made reactors, we need to reach temperatures of close to 100 degrees to produce low levels of fusion, because we can't produce the same pressure levels that exist in the heart of stars. It just takes too much energy to heat and confine plasma up to fusion temperatures than fusion actually produces. Perhaps in the future with improved scientific theories and more advanced technology, we will be able to make viable fusion reactors, but currently it is a speculative energy source.

MalcolmCooks wrote:

roman566 wrote:Given that there were natural fission reactors on Earth and an efficient fusion reactor requires degree of sophistication we still did not achieve I fail to see how they could be considered the same tech level.

There are also natural fusion reactors - stars.
It is also worth noting that fusion power may never be a viable energy source. It may actually be impossible to produce efficient nuclear fusion on a small scale, i.e, not relying on the enormous gravity of stars to produce fusion. The temperature in the core of the sun is 15 million degrees C - in man-made reactors, we need to reach temperatures of close to 100 degrees to produce low levels of fusion, because we can't produce the same pressure levels that exist in the heart of stars. It just takes too much energy to heat and confine plasma up to fusion temperatures than fusion actually produces. Perhaps in the future with improved scientific theories and more advanced technology, we will be able to make viable fusion reactors, but currently it is a speculative energy source.

Which means that fusion is way more advanced than fission. Factorio HAS fusion reactors, why would player want to downgrade to fission?

roman566 wrote:Which means that fusion is way more advanced than fission. Factorio HAS fusion reactors, why would player want to downgrade to fission?

Why do you think it's a downgrade?

roman566 wrote:

MalcolmCooks wrote:

roman566 wrote:Given that there were natural fission reactors on Earth and an efficient fusion reactor requires degree of sophistication we still did not achieve I fail to see how they could be considered the same tech level.

There are also natural fusion reactors - stars.
It is also worth noting that fusion power may never be a viable energy source. It may actually be impossible to produce efficient nuclear fusion on a small scale, i.e, not relying on the enormous gravity of stars to produce fusion. The temperature in the core of the sun is 15 million degrees C - in man-made reactors, we need to reach temperatures of close to 100 degrees to produce low levels of fusion, because we can't produce the same pressure levels that exist in the heart of stars. It just takes too much energy to heat and confine plasma up to fusion temperatures than fusion actually produces. Perhaps in the future with improved scientific theories and more advanced technology, we will be able to make viable fusion reactors, but currently it is a speculative energy source.

Which means that fusion is way more advanced than fission. Factorio HAS fusion reactors, why would player want to downgrade to fission?

Did you read what I said? Fusion isn't more advanced than fission. That's like saying an apple is more advanced than an orange. Fusion just isn't suited for an earth-like environment, so fission has been prioritized when it comes to research. The two technologies have completely different pros and cons.

XartaX wrote:

roman566 wrote:

MalcolmCooks wrote:

roman566 wrote:Did you read what I said? Fusion isn't more advanced than fission. That's like saying an apple is more advanced than an orange. Fusion just isn't suited for an earth-like environment, so fission has been prioritized when it comes to research. The two technologies have completely different pros and cons.

We have fission.
We do not have fusion (well, not cost-efficient one). Ergo - fusion is more advanced technology in a tech tree.

Have a metaphor. Bow vs assault rifle. They both have same purpose - kill stuff. They are different technologies with advantages and drawbacks, yet we do not see assault rifles in medieval times... ergo - one is more advanced than the other. And despite advantages bows provide, we also do not see many bowmen on a modern battlefield. That's because bows are a step back in killing stuff. Just like fission would be a step back in Factorio, especially when game DOES have working fusion.

Oh, and we DO research fusion. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more money was spent on making fusion a viable energy generation tool than on improving fission beyond what we already have.

roman566 wrote:
We have fission.
We do not have fusion (well, not cost-efficient one). Ergo - fusion is more advanced technology in a tech tree.

Have a metaphor. Bow vs assault rifle. They both have same purpose - kill stuff. They are different technologies with advantages and drawbacks, yet we do not see assault rifles in medieval times... ergo - one is more advanced than the other. And despite advantages bows provide, we also do not see many bowmen on a modern battlefield. That's because bows are a step back in killing stuff. Just like fission would be a step back in Factorio, especially when game DOES have working fusion.

Oh, and we DO research fusion. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more money was spent on making fusion a viable energy generation tool than on improving fission beyond what we already have.

Christ, it's like talking to a wall. According to that logic greek fire is more advanced than napalm just because we don't know how it's made today. And I didn't say there's no research being done on fusion, I said it's not prioritized over fission (ITER is basically the only big fusion project as far as I know, and it still has zilch to show for its efforts). It's hard to take you seriously when you aren't actually reading my sentences, but rather interpreting them as you want.

Christ, it's like talking to a wall. According to that logic greek fire is more advanced than napalm just because we don't know how it's made today.

Look up the definition of "advanced" some time.

MalcolmCooks wrote:

safan wrote:Giving a new fuel doesn't add much in playability: its again: find a resource, eventualy process it, then bring it to the steam engine. The only difference is you would need less of it. And Factorio is exactly about needing moar.

Steam engines and boilers are quite easy to set up into a working power plant. Nuclear should be complicated, and a challenge to set up an manage. Like, having a building called "nuclear power plant" which you insert fuel and get energy would be boring and not add anything much to the game, but if you had the different components: reactor building, heat exchanges, spent fuel pools and cooling towers, and you had to connect it all together to make a working power plant, then I think it would add a lot.

Especially if it was more complicated, people would just use cookie cutter builds from the internet without trying and testing yourself. Take for example the yuoki mod. Only a few people play around with the different pieces, most just use one of the examples posted.

To make this new power source useful in gameplay:

There should be more then one efficient sollution.
There should be some factor that makes different things necessary for different maps
And this without being too complicated.
This to make everyone seek their own setup instead of just looking for it on the internet.

otherwise it's like i said just more of the same.

with any game people are going to look up and copy other people's setups. People do this virtually all the time in Factorio anyway. But some people will prefer not to do that, and make their own setup. It just depends on how they want to play, and what level of challenge they want to have. I fail to see why that's a problem.

MalcolmCooks wrote:with any game people are going to look up and copy other people's setups. People do this virtually all the time in Factorio anyway. But some people will prefer not to do that, and make their own setup. It just depends on how they want to play, and what level of challenge they want to have. I fail to see why that's a problem.

Agreed. There will always be an optimal way to do most things at a given time. Factorio is a game, though, and you can afford to do suboptimal things if that's what you want to do. But to expect there to be many completely equally valid ways of doing things is kinda unreasonable. Of course, if the system has real depth, what is known as the most optimal solution may change over time without any changes to the system (i.e. patching) as people discover new things.

That said, he just said that there should be more *efficient* ways of doing things, and that different solutions have different applications according to the world you're in (I assume stuff like solar maybe being more efficient in a desert world, for instance), which is completely reasonable. That said, nuclear doesn't give a shit where you're at as long as you got the raw materials for it :-p

Interesting article on the current state of fusion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel ... ar-fusion/

Boogieman14 wrote:Interesting article on the current state of fusion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel ... ar-fusion/

I'm surprised that article makes no mention of Lockheed's compact fusion reactor program. It's magnetic confinement, but not a Tokamak. It's a cylinder rather than a torus, and they're mixing a couple of different containment approaches. They claim they're going to be much, much more energy efficient in the confinement than a Tokamak design, which pushes the break-even point much lower.