Factorio Forums

Cool, that would combine pipe network into producing steel...

But oxygen is as far as I know produced by freezing up simple air, until the different gases are getting liquid.

On the other hand: electrolysis will put out also hydrogen, which can store much more energy than accumulators.

Yeah, there are several ways to do it. The cryogenic method is used for big industrial production; it just pulls the oxygen from the atmosphere, discarding the nitrogen and other gasses. It's only about 93% pure though. They do use electrolyzers for some hydrogen filling stations for cars (tied into municipal water systems) and for other small scale stuff.

On the other hand: electrolysis will put out also hydrogen, which can store much more energy than accumulators.

Definately! Store up hydrogen all day in big tanks and burn it in generators at night! Could totally replace accus.
Could also be an alternative (more effective?) fuel source for the car? Maybe even pipe it to... Flamethrower turrets?

Not sure if you mean hidrogen batteries or hydrogen as fuel.
I dont think it would be possible to power a factory with hydrogen batteries (low voltage, like 2V max

My guess is that he's referring to hydrogen fuel cells. Electrolyse water into oxygen and hydrogen, then store the hydrogen and use it as fuel in the fuel cells when it's needed.
Gameplay wise it might be a cool higher tech version of the accumulators, the accumulators would need to have a nerfed efficiency(the current ones are 100% efficient?), and make it a trade-off to the added complexity of building hydrogen infrastructure, which would then be higher efficiency power storage.
And Hydrogen as fuel for the car is also cool

But don't forget that hydrogen infrastructure isn't 100% efficient either.

Either! Fuel cells could be the high-efficiency solution for late game and you could just burn the hydrogen in the steam boilers we already have for a low-tech (lower efficiency?) power source. The only physical difference from a coal-burning boiler and a gas-burning one would be a burner element (a simple pipe with some holes drilled in it that you connect your hydrogen hose to). Maybe the vanilla Boiler could just handle either fuel? It should also be pollution free since burning Hydrogen only produces water (maybe a little NOx) (might be tricky to code - pollution output based on fuel type). The steam engines don't currently produce pollution do they?

the accumulators would need to have a nerfed efficiency(the current ones are 100% efficient?)

Yeah, the existing accus are (I think) based on industrial capacitors which can have pretty high leakage rates. The power stored in accus should probably bleed down over time. I don't think the current ones leak at all (which is sorta nice, we'd need zillions of them then. )

The car could also either burn it or run it through a fuel cell. BMW has a test car now that runs on a Hydrogen ICE (internal combustion engine). It's not very fuel efficient but it works just like a gasoline engine. Sure would be awesome for the car to have slots like the powered armor. Maybe research and build a couple fuel cell modules and install them for longer range/higher speed. Maybe pop one into your personal armor and carry a tank of hydrogen with you for a mid-range power source before you go full fusion.

WHAAAT, you want to simply burn that precious hydrogen in steam boilers? *shrug*

Don't make too much fun of steam boilers. The underlying tech is what almost all non-solar/wind power comes from, from usual Coal to Nuclear.

Hydrogen would actually be a poor fuel; unlike most fossil fuels it doesn't keep well in storage (some hydrogen always ends up escaping, while most fossil fuels just stay put) and it has a per volume lower energy density than pretty much every fossil fuel. Stockpiling coal or oil products would be a far better choice for fuel materials, especially since you'd lose energy converting hydrocarbons to hydrogen.

Hazard wrote:Hydrogen would actually be a poor fuel; unlike most fossil fuels it doesn't keep well in storage (some hydrogen always ends up escaping, while most fossil fuels just stay put) and it has a per volume lower energy density than pretty much every fossil fuel. Stockpiling coal or oil products would be a far better choice for fuel materials, especially since you'd lose energy converting hydrocarbons to hydrogen.

Very true. Coal already provides plenty of energy but a lot of folks like to power their base with renewable energy for logistical/environmental/tactical reasons (biters hate pollution).
Hydrogen can be produced cleanly with energy from solar whereas fossil fuels like coal/oil can be depleted over time; forcing expansion into increasingly hostile territory, all the while drawing in enemies from further and further away from all the pollution. The benefits of "clean" can be big when you consider the biters. Some folks already go pure solar/accumulator setups as a rule. Hydrogen as energy storage would give them more (better?) options.

BurnHard wrote:WHAAAT, you want to simply burn that precious hydrogen in steam boilers? *shrug*

Only when we're poor, just starting out, and can't afford fancy fuel cells and stuff yet. It would make the transition to higher tech a lot smoother.

Gammro wrote: Gameplay wise it might be a cool higher tech version of the accumulators, the accumulators would need to have a nerfed efficiency(the current ones are 100% efficient?), and make it a trade-off to the added complexity of building

Hm. Hydrogen power cells have currently the problem to react on fast changes in the load. I mean this could be a good idea, if anytime added, that the hydrogen cells need about a minute or so to change their load.

Then you will also need accumulators to react on the fast changes. And the accus should have in my opinion a loading curve, for example if 80% full they load only with 50% speed and also for the unloading.

ssilk wrote: And the accus should have in my opinion a loading curve, for example if 80% full they load only with 50% speed and also for the unloading.

I am thinking of the aktual implemented accus as "supercaps", thus it is ok to have a nearly linear loading "curve" and these currently high currents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor

Actually, even supercapacitors have the problem that you need progressively higher voltage to fill them up, and they won't charge any higher than the voltage you give them, while charge speed is determined by amperage (and super-high amperage can potentially burn out supercaps with their tiny internal structures that have low electrical bandwidth, reducing the total storage amount exponentially). Imagine needing a 1 MegaWatt electric input to fill your accumulator to 1 KiloJoule charge (difference exaggerated for effect), and still taking 30 seconds to fill the darn thing.

That makes no sense at all. A mega Watt is 1 000 000 Joules per second, so it'd take all of 1/1000 of a second to charge a 1 kilo Joule capacitor, discarding the potential side effects of such high voltages and/or amperages.

If it took 30 seconds to charge a 1 kJ capacitor it simply takes 33 1/3rd Watt per second, with the game abstracting amperages and voltages away, even though it could be 33 1/3rd Volts and 1 Ampere, 33 1/3rd Ampere and 1 Volt or any other relation between the two that would result in VxA=33 1/3rd W. If any more energy is required it's simply because of loss in the wire and the storage medium.

As someone in electrical engineering, and since we're assuming the accumulators are capacitors: y'all need to read this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... peng2.html


(And please stop using the word amperage, rather use the word current. Yes, I am aware this word is now official english. A little bit inside me died when I found out.)

Gammro wrote:A little bit inside me died when I found out

Same here when people completely mix up kWh (work or energy) and kW (power), or are talking of kW/h when they mean kW*h and so on

Gammro wrote:As someone in electrical engineering, and since we're assuming the accumulators are capacitors: y'all need to read this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... peng2.html

The accumulators are highly idealised and stylised in the game, with E(in) equal to E(stored), so while that is very enlightening, it's not relevant to this discussion.

Gammro wrote:(And please stop using the word amperage, rather use the word current. Yes, I am aware this word is now official english. A little bit inside me died when I found out.)

My apologies.

Hazard wrote:

Gammro wrote:As someone in electrical engineering, and since we're assuming the accumulators are capacitors: y'all need to read this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... peng2.html

The accumulators are highly idealised and stylised in the game, with E(in) equal to E(stored), so while that is very enlightening, it's not important to this discussion.

Gammro wrote:(And please stop using the word amperage, rather use the word current. Yes, I am aware this word is now official english. A little bit inside me died when I found out.)

My apologies.

I know the current(hehe) situation is that E(in)=E(stored). But I wouldn't mind having that changed for a model where the energy put in only loads the accumulator for half that amount, or maybe more to preserve some game balance. It would at least make storing energy somewhat harder than it is right now, as it's just too easy to become independent of coal for energy needs. So you'd be faced with the option: build a lot more clean energy or build some coal(/oil) plants to get through the night.

And you don't have to apologize, but keep it in mind next time. A lot of people don't really like the word

Hazard wrote:That makes no sense at all.

I say again, difference exaggerated for effect.