Factorio Forums

I've been doing some reading & experimenting with modules in endgame furnace designs. What follows is a whole lot of thinking out loud. Inevitably I've overlooked something or don't have a complete understanding or perspective - please feel free to discuss - I'm by no means an expert.

I've managed to figure out a layout where most furnaces can be affected by as many as 8 beacons. Naturally, I've been placing productivity L3 modules in the Furnaces and Speed L3 modules in the beacons.

The wiki has some neat information on this kind of setup, and if you scroll halfway down the page there is a really cool table: https://wiki.factorio.com/index.php?title=Module

I've replicated this table for my Electric Furnace setup rather than the table in the Wiki for the Assembling Machine 3. It's pretty easy to sort out the maths and since the table is based on percentages, it extends very nicely. With my setup, the max rates are:

Electric Furnace + 2 Productivity L3 with 8 Beacons + 2 Speed L3 (each):
Production: 120%
Electricity: 820%
Speed: 470%
Energy/Unit: 145%
Units/Time: 564%

So, for about 50% more energy in the furnaces, I can more than quintuple my effective production speed (and remember 20% of it is bonus products from the production modules). This sounds fantastic (I actually need 2 fast inserters pulling plates out of the Furnaces to keep from backing up), but I also have to consider the cost to power the beacons, which is 3.84 MW for 8 beacons. In larger designs, each beacon can affect up to 8 Furnaces and each Furnaces would be best served by 8 beacons - a 1:1 ratio - but we'll generally fall far short of that (I can't figure a setup with better than 1.5 beacons for every 1 furnace, but I haven't tried too much). At a 1.5:1 (B:F ratio), this would bring the Energy/Unit to 215%, overall.

It's interesting to look at the table on the wiki and see that the Energy/Unit of the build actually decreases as we add more Beacons, but given the non-negligible energy cost of Beacons, I wanted to see if that's actually true in practice, after accounting for that cost. In fact, it does, albeit at a slower rate, and it seems difficult to get lower than 200%. The theoretical minimum - using a 1:1 Beacon-to-Furnace Ratio, would be 191%.

Those are the numbers, at least. Myself, I feel like this starts to seem a bit costly. Sure it's a huge space saver, but considering the solar needed to run it, I'm not certain it's a net gain - at least in terms of space (and, of course, discounting the materials needed to build out the solar).

On the flip side, production & speed modules seem like an all-or-nothing type of deal. Either you save the energy costs and stick with stock / Efficiency, or you really have to hit your Furnaces that use Productivity modules with as many Speed Beacons as possible to get the energy / unit cost down.

My next natural question, is - well, is this layout more compact than a Stock / Efficiency Furnace? In large designs, I can only fit about half as many actual Furnaces into a given area, because I have to make room for the Beacons. Given that I'm producing at 5.64 times the normal rate, even at double the area taken, we're still doing better than 2.5x the production rate for a given area. But that's not including the power. An optimal 1:1 F-B setup would require 33 solar panels per Furnace/Beacon combo (just during the day) to power it. A vanilla Furnace would require just 3. An Efficiency Furnace would require 0.6 solar panels.

So here's where we are now: An optimal Production/Speed Furnace produces at 5.64x the normal rate for ~double the energy cost per unit with a 20% bonus to yield. The energy requirement requires (33/3)/5.64 = ~double the amount of space, overall, of a stock Furnace with the same production output per second when powering with solar, and about (33/0.6)/ 5.64 ten times the amount of space, overall of a max efficiency Furnace.

We can see that the space requirements at best will be greater with a Productivity/Speed Furnace. Relaxing the Efficiency Furnace to using only Level 1 Modules, we use double the energy of a Max Efficiency setup. This requires ~1/5th the overall space of a P/S Furnace. Why are we talking about space when space is infinite? Well, solar doesn't just cost space, it costs materials.

I've more questions, but I feel like I've thought out loud for a bit too long here. Ultimately, I feel like P/S Furnace design is situational. Most Furnace layouts scale fairly well. We can't say "Space in Factorio is infinite" as a defense of Solar, and then conveniently forget that same fact when it comes to the idea of simply expanding the furnace setup. The logistics will vary by player, but with good design (indeed, scalable smelting setups are something of a bedrock for proper play), it feels like Efficiency Furnaces come out ahead.

The modules are cheaper, the solar cost is less, and scaling to L2 modules happens much more naturally than L3 modules and beacons, freeing up resources for other aspects of the base (L1 & L2 modules have a place in the mid/endgame, while L3 feels mostly like an endgame / post-endgame item). I don't want to discount P/S setups entirely - while furnaces can be expanded, later production chains can be much more painful to scale and expand. The compounding effect of an P/S setup is also very interesting for long production chains, and is worth its own discussion - especially when compared to efficiency modules (which also compound).

Ultimately, I feel like Efficiency modules are compelling (an Efficiency 1 chip seems to cost less than a solar panel) and P/S optimal designs are strictly situational, given the scarcity of resources, with a high cost.

There's a limit to how much you expand furnace lines - when you hit blue belt compression, it's time to start a new belt next to it, which can then expand to the same length.
WIthout modules, it's like 72 furnaces (Fe and Cu, not steel, of course) - 36 on each side. If this is really pumping out 6x faster, then you compress a blue belt with ... 6 on each side? Seriously?
So if your goal is 4 belts of iron, instead of 4 lines 36-furnaces long, you have 4 lines 6-furnaces long... Then maybe you think "perhaps I want 8 lines of iron instead" or it becomes more feasible to have multiple furnaces ("this one is for green circuits, this one is for steel" etc). There's the mystery savings you were wondering about though: because belts have a maximum capacity, you can't just extend furnaces forever, so there's a huge savings to get the same original throughput.

Another important savings to productivity is the fact that it 'stretches' your available resources increasing how many products you get out of it. For instance, an Electric Mining Drill with 3 Productivity Module 3s will yield 130% ore (so you get 30% more ore from the 5x5 it's mining from than is actually there). Then if you plug that ore into a Furnace with 2 Productivity Module 3s in it, you will get 120% plates from your ore, so you've again stretched your resources (the cumulative increase in yield is 1.3*1.2=1.56=156%=>+56% so far). The yield increases can continue for many more layers depending on what you are ultimately turning your resources into.

For example: for Processing Unit production, you can stretch copper Plates by 40% by making your copper cables in an assem3 with 4 prod3 mods in it, and then strength iron plates and copper cable by 40% making green circuits. You can then stretch copper cable, green circuits and plastic bars each by 40% in the adv circuit factories (the plastic bars can be stretched 20% from coal and petrol used to make them by having the chem plants have 3 prod3 mods in them, and the petrol can be further stretched in cracking plants and refineries it is sourced from). And then stretch adv. circuits, green circuits and sulfuric acid again by 40% in making the actual Processing Unit itself. If you math out the total stretch for copper ore that's going into processing units, it's pretty astoundingly good:

Copper used in Processing unit production comes from the circuits (green and red) used to make it. It takes 20 Electronic Circuits and 2 Advanced Circuits to make a Processing Unit. The 2 Advanced Circuits in turn take 2 Electronic Circuits, 2 Plastic Bars, and 4 Copper Cable. We can ignore the plastic Bars since we are interested only in copper usage. Electronic Circuits each use 3 Copper Cable which are produced 2 from 1 Copper Plate. In total, our Processing Unit requires a total of 80 Copper Cables, which are sourced from 40 Copper Plates, which are sourced from 40 Copper Ore. Of the 80 Copper Cables, 8 are used directly in Advanced Circuits, with the rest being used in Electronic Circuits. Of the Electronic Circuits, 4 are used on Advanced Circuits, the remaining 20 are used directly on Processing Unit production.
Putting all of that together, we can split the incoming copper by what path it takes to end up in the Processing Unit (which will affect how much it is stretched by productivity modules). Since all of the Copper is turned into Copper Cables, all it will be stretched by 1.3*1.2*1.4 by that point, so we will account for that at the end.
-10% of copper cables go directly into Advanced Circuits (the Advanced Circuits are then turned into Processing Units, so *1.4*1.4 here)
-remaining 90% go into Electronic Circuits (*1.4)
-Of that 90%, 4/24=1/6 of it goes into Advanced Circuits (*1.4*1.4), and the remaining 20/24=5/6 goes directly to Processing Unit production (*1.4).
In all, only 3/20ths (0.15) of it is subject to (*1.4*1.4*1.4), with the remaining 17/20ths (0.85) subject to (*1.4*1.4) (either cable->Adv->Pro or cable->green->pro).
So the stretch is:
0.15*1.3*1.2*1.4*1.4*1.4*1.4+0.85*1.3*1.2*1.4*1.4*1.4=0.15*5.992896+0.85*4.28064=0.8989344+3.638544=4.5374784
That means for Copper Ore to Processing Units, you can stretch your copper ore supply by an astonishing +353.74784% (get just over 4.5 times as many processing units provided you have enough of the other resources).

Of course, that comes at a significant price in throughput per factory (so you need more of them, which is expensive since you also need to make the modules for the additional factories) as well as Energy costs and Pollution production.

Stede wrote:Those are the numbers, at least. Myself, I feel like this starts to seem a bit costly. Sure it's a huge space saver, but considering the solar needed to run it, I'm not certain it's a net gain - at least in terms of space (and, of course, discounting the materials needed to build out the solar).

Sure it is costly. That is because using Furnaces with PM3s and Beacons with SM3s together with Solar Power is a contradiction from their underlying ideologies.

Basically the two possible ideologies are:

1. Messy, Compact Solution:
   
   Furnaces with PM3s/Beacons with SM3s + Boiler/Steam Engines
   
   • High build density
   • High Energy consumption
   • High Pollution
2. Ecological, Expanded Solution:
   
   Furnaces with EM2s + Solar Panels/Accumulator
   
   • Low build density
   • Low energy consumption
   • Low pollution

A hybrid of any sort (like Solar Power with PM3/SM3s OR Steam with EM3) will pretty much defy logic because they are not really meant to work together, because the benefits cancel each other out.

Stede wrote:On the flip side, production & speed modules seem like an all-or-nothing type of deal. Either you save the energy costs and stick with stock / Efficiency, or you really have to hit your Furnaces that use Productivity modules with as many Speed Beacons as possible to get the energy / unit cost down.

They are a all-or-nothing deal.

To begin with EM3s... they don't really make any sense with Beacons, so they are left out. (Altough I might show off something once 0.13 is out that might actually make it a debatable topic)

SM3 in both Furnaces+Beacons makes also no sense because the additional Speed gained from the Beacons is bought with too much space and additional energy required, so it would be better to build more Furnaces instead.

Since PM3s can only be put into Furnaces/Assemblers and since machines using PM3s are utterly slow, which would end up in increased space requirement almost equaling an EM2-only solution that is much cleaner it makes no sense using PM3's in Furnaces without using SM3's in Beacons in combination to speed up the process again and to reduce the space requirement, which automatically results in the PM3+SM3 solution.

I have done very detailed calculations on pretty much all possible variants for comparison... Either you go with No Modules, or you go with EM2s or you go with a PM3/SM3 solution, all of which excel at something specific.

• No Modules: No additional resource time/investment (altough some speed runners may see that differently)
• PM3/SM3: increased production+speed, compact
• EM3: decreased power demand, low pollution

Can't have all of that at once (at least for now, might change with 0.13, which is what I want to show off then).

Stede wrote:My next natural question, is - well, is this layout more compact than a Stock / Efficiency Furnace? In large designs, I can only fit about half as many actual Furnaces into a given area, because I have to make room for the Beacons. Given that I'm producing at 5.64 times the normal rate, even at double the area taken, we're still doing better than 2.5x the production rate for a given area. But that's not including the power. An optimal 1:1 F-B setup would require 33 solar panels per Furnace/Beacon combo (just during the day) to power it. A vanilla Furnace would require just 3. An Efficiency Furnace would require 0.6 solar panels.

If you keep to the "messy stays messy" and "clean stays clean" ideologies from above, then yes, it is more compact, even with the Beacons. The overall space required by a messy PM3/SM3 solution is requiring a lot less space than a comparable EM2 setup having the same item throughput. Even a lot less space than a Stock Setup without Modules.

But if you are trying to accomplish PM3/SM3 with Solar Power you are basically working against the underlying ideology like I mentioned earlier. All the space you saved at the furnace arrays will come back multiple times at the Solar Power plant because of the increased energy demand. So it is not worth trying in my opinion. Leave PM3/SM3 to Steam and EM2 to Solar.

Stede wrote:We can see that the space requirements at best will be greater with a Productivity/Speed Furnace. Relaxing the Efficiency Furnace to using only Level 1 Modules, we use double the energy of a Max Efficiency setup. This requires ~1/5th the overall space of a P/S Furnace. Why are we talking about space when space is infinite? Well, solar doesn't just cost space, it costs materials.

I've more questions, but I feel like I've thought out loud for a bit too long here. Ultimately, I feel like P/S Furnace design is situational. Most Furnace layouts scale fairly well. We can't say "Space in Factorio is infinite" as a defense of Solar, and then conveniently forget that same fact when it comes to the idea of simply expanding the furnace setup. The logistics will vary by player, but with good design (indeed, scalable smelting setups are something of a bedrock for proper play), it feels like Efficiency Furnaces come out ahead.

Like I wrote above, it will depend on your very fundamental ideology.

If you don't have any problems polluting the map as far as the eye can see and if you don't have any problems with the bazillions of biters hating you for that then going fully-messy is the best option, because every contraption built ontop of that will outperform an ecological solution from a throughput per space perspective.

And in my opinion a middleground between fully-messy and fully-ecological has no observable benefits worth going for in Factorio because the available solutions aren't balanced around that kind of gameplay. It's either one way or the other.

Also on a side note: Space may be infinite in Factorio, but people forget that it takes more and more time to get around the map the further one expands. So space may be infinite, but time is not infinite. The overhead of traveling from one part of your factory to another is facing a quadratic increase. So eventually you spend more time going from one place to another than actually doing what you originally wanted to do.

Stede wrote:The modules are cheaper, the solar cost is less, and scaling to L2 modules happens much more naturally than L3 modules and beacons, freeing up resources for other aspects of the base (L1 & L2 modules have a place in the mid/endgame, while L3 feels mostly like an endgame / post-endgame item). I don't want to discount P/S setups entirely - while furnaces can be expanded, later production chains can be much more painful to scale and expand. The compounding effect of an P/S setup is also very interesting for long production chains, and is worth its own discussion - especially when compared to efficiency modules (which also compound).

Ultimately, I feel like Efficiency modules are compelling (an Efficiency 1 chip seems to cost less than a solar panel) and P/S optimal designs are strictly situational, given the scarcity of resources, with a high cost.

Well on that one I have to say that if there really is something that doesn't matter in Factorio... then it is the resources themselves and how much you waste of them.

It doesn't matter how much resources anything requires because there is so much of it on the map that you barely touch anything before having researched absolutely everything there is to research. After which you are basically only continuing to play for the sake of it with self-set goals.

Playing with the resource settings doesn't change much about it because you only make it harder to get to that point by virtually delaying the inevitable.

It would matter more if there would only be a limited amount of resources on the map after which there are no more resources to be mined... or if there would be further goals thrown in your way by the game that actually make every drop of resource count.

The only other part that might come into play is the above mentioned increase of distance between base and resource patches. But I have been told once that it is highly unlikely that one is able to play that far that it would take more resources to get to the next resource patch than the next resource patch would give in return, after which you couldn't expand any further because of the lack of resources.

MeduSalem wrote: Basically the two possible ideologies are:

A hybrid of any sort (like Solar Power with PM3/SM3s OR Steam with EM3) will pretty much defy logic because they are not really meant to work together, because the benefits cancel each other out.

I'm pretty sure you're presenting a false dichotomy. I'm not into solar for the ecology - I'm into solar to not have to pump resources into energy production. I'd be fine with a polluting power generator that had the same footprint as solar, as long as it also didn't cost fuel. Similarly, when considering putting PM3s into furnaces, I'm not in that game in order to generate pollution, I'm in that game to maximize resources. When, in a different factory, I put pairs of EM2s into every machine to bring them down to minimum power usage, I didn't do so for the ecology, I did so to prevent nightly brown outs.

I could present a different false dichotomy:

Basically the two possible ideologies are:

• Resource Conservative: - minimizes resource collection at any cost to space or pollution - will use modules and solar to prevent collecting extra ore and coal
• Resource Profilgate: - spends resources with wild abandon - pumps coal into steam engines, does nothing to conserve ore in furnaces

Any *other* play style than one of the two I have presented here *defies logic*. Because I am the master of how you play, and only I can tell you the only two proper play styles. Also, I have somehow psychically determined the intent of the developers and how they *meant* us to play, and I know that what may seem like two unrelated systems (energy and smelting) are, in fact tied together in the developers' minds as philosophical decisions that have to be made in unison.

"But resources are infinite..." but they take time to collect. The Resource Conservative player values their time and doesn't want to spend it all making mining outposts. The Resource Profilgate player enjoys expanding and doesn't care about the time spent fighting biters to expand rails to get to the next outpost. Spending coal on steam engines while also using PM3/SM3 units in assemblers doesn't make any sense because the benefits of conserving ore are cancelled out by the need to expand to more coal outposts.

Space is not a scarce resource. Who cares if you cover a square mile with solar?
It's only a matter of investment.
I like to offset PM energy hit with EM module when practical. As for speed, it usually makes more sense to me to just make more production, save the module slots for PM or EM. I don't use beacons much, makes energy and pollution go through the roof. And the range blows, it's so much energy for what you get.

Level 3 modules are very costly though, so there is a case to be made for maximizing what happens with them.

I, for one, am a resource conservative. I care not about the space sprawl of my solar fields, they are an initial investment with infinite payoff, in time, space, and resources. Modules are the same way. They cost a lot, but in less than 10 hours, they pay for themselves. I usually go for the as-close-as-possible to 1:1 machine:beacon build. About the only thing that prevents me from an infinite sprawl is that I need a LOT of roboports for everything to run.

In short, your math is spot on. Average coverage of 8 beacons per machine and as much overlap as possible is optimal, in every way that I've bothered to check. When I get to the point where I'm investing into those kinds of beacon builds, I systematically remove all the belts. They just take up too much space, and more importantly, eat too much UPS. Active entity reduction and processor efficiency is something I've learned to optimize for, due to playing the game on a potato for so long. A rocket launched every 3 minutes real time is an impressive feat for a 5 year old netbook.

MeduSalem wrote: Basically the two possible ideologies are:

You forgot about another good combo: 3xEM3 + 1 SM3. -80% (minimum) and +50% speed. Requires less space and energy and increases production/minute. Speed modules are basically an energy discount also since faster crafting speed means less time spend crafting and thus less energy/unit. It's strictly superior to SM3 only in all aspects except the one time cost of producing more modules of a higer level (which isn't insignificant, but if we are talking about past the end game then initial cost isn't the most important thing). And as silverkitty23 said, there are other reasons for mixing.

Another factor to mention about the general cheapness of power, is that not only is solar unlimited, but steam is even cheaper for bootstrapping purposes. That is, along the way to making your first productivity-boosted solar panels and accumulators (that is boosting the intermediates like green circuits and batteries, which will cut the cost of solar/accu by about 40%) you can easily get away with steam power. I routinely build 80-100MW steam power plants, once you have a good pattern it doesn't take long (I mean hell, 100MW of steam is totally handcraftable from simple intermediates like plates, pipes and gears), and is a lot cheaper than the equivalent in solar/accu. This makes electricity even less of a factor and because of comparative advantage can speed development.

Something else is that if you don't care about pollution the lower levels of speed and productivity modules are quite worthwhile using in high yield recipes. Here the main question is simply pollution. Do you want to gain +16% productivity per stage in assembler 3, at the cost of a huge amount of pollution? Or skip the productivity and use eff1 modules for minimal pollution. Electricity isn't enough of a factor to care about - if you don't care about pollution, you don't care about throwing up 100MW of steam to tide you over until you can go large scale and efficient solar/accu production.

But productivity of all levels does massively increase pollution, and if you're doing it on the cheap you get even more pollution from the steam. By using eff1 modules you can pretty much knock the biters back then forget about them. Using P/S w/ steam means the biters are never going to forget about you. Of course if you're using steam instead of solar/accu you'll have no trouble affording lots of laser turrets (it so happens lasers are made of almost exactly the same components as solar/accu) and steam power is fantastic for lasering biters all day.

But getting back to productivity/speed 1 and 2, you get a much quicker payoff on the initial investment and it's great for getting a big discount on the next tier of productivity modules, taking the basic maths from frightening, removing the miner drill (because that's nuts) and plugging in prod1 numbers, you get:
0.15*1.08*1.16*1.16*1.16*1.16+0.85*1.08*1.16*1.16*1.16 = 1.726
prod2:
0.15*1.12*1.24*1.24*1.24*1.24+0.85*1.12*1.24*1.24*1.24 = 2.212

In other words, full prod1 (except miners) stretches copper 72% further when making productivity modules, while prod2 stretches copper by 121%, and best of all you can recycle these modules into the next tier of modules so it's like getting some free work out of them.

Also when you don't care about electricity, it makes sense to use speed1/2 beacons extensively. Eventually you want speed3 beacons to maximize the yield from prod3 modules, but you should use speed1/2 beacons liberally while getting to that point. It's an easy way to offset the speed penalty and probably still ends up cheaper in terms of electricity than not having the beacons.

I wouldn't put prod1 into miners because the speed penalty is pretty nasty when you are genuinely limited in the number of tiles you can place miners in and it's not that easy to offset with beacons when they also block some ore. Also the pollution is crazy, I know we're basically ignoring pollution, but furnances and assembly 3 are actually fairly low polluting, while the electric miner drill is extremely polluting. And the yield in the mining recipes is extremely low, it takes many hours for the module to pay off in such a low-yielding recipe and machine, and the mines are quite possibly quite far away and harder to defend. All these factors means I tend to stick eff1 in miners even if I use P/S everywhere else.

My thought on the miners is that the ones near my base i want the ore cleared ASAP. The outposts can go very slow, they are just 1 more stop for the train!

Some really great information here - some of you guys really inspired the OP with your previous postings related to modules - really happy to read your current thoughts.

MeduSalem wrote:Well on that one I have to say that if there really is something that doesn't matter in Factorio... then it is the resources themselves and how much you waste of them.

Technically, I agree you're right. In the end, we can always find more. That's the global nature of resources in Factorio over time. Locally in time, though, the progression can be much different. Typically, resources will remain constrained until nearly the endgame. And then Post-endgame is where players can really afford to waste resources on various experiments

But if you're working towards launching a rocket in a timely matter (which, I'll admit is a bit arbitrary except for it's the stated goal of freeplay), then resources are generally a bottleneck for much of that journey. That said, I appreciate many of your points - gives me a lot to think about. I feel like my perspective on Solar was a bit skewed.

@AutoMcD - I saw you mentioned infinite space. Regarding that,I tend to play with biter attacks on, and I try to avoid flagpoling. As a result, all space must first be cleared, then secured. The initial cost of that is something I definitely feel, in addition to the recurring costs (ammo, energy, robos, repair packs, lasers, etc). Initial deployment is straightforward with blueprint and some personal roboports, but I end up cannibalizing a fair portion of the solar deployment's energy to properly secure its location.

I'm starting to realize how much of the game really depends on the settings and playstyle, though, thanks to the discussion.

@MadZuri I hadn't even thought of going beltless for that reason - that's pretty neat. Do you use bots for everything? Does that really end up as a net gain in terms of compute efficiency?

@BlakeMW - I guess I never fully realized the difference in power costs and how that fits into a typical gameplay arc. Thinking about it, I probably push for solar too early. It puts MeduSalem's points on Solar + P/S setups in perspective for me.

[quote="Stede"
@AutoMcD - I saw you mentioned infinite space. Regarding that,I tend to play with biter attacks on, and I try to avoid flagpoling. As a result, all space must first be cleared, then secured. The initial cost of that is something I definitely feel, in addition to the recurring costs (ammo, energy, robos, repair packs, lasers, etc). Initial deployment is straightforward with blueprint and some personal roboports, but I end up cannibalizing a fair portion of the solar deployment's energy to properly secure its location.[/quote]

True, there is some real estate related cost. And the panels aren't free either, part of why I tend to keep it in check with efficiency modules and just building more base production instead of using speed. Usually I keep the entire pollution cloud cleared out, being proactive about it keeps the biter attacks down. And less pollution makes this easier as well. But even just the starting area has enough surface area to make gigawatts of solar energy, and it goes on forever.

@Stede Yes, bots for everything. I even avoid piping fluids around if I can help it. You could do what I do and have multiple, focused oil builds and have the bots carry in barrels, or you could use the barrel mod and move them that way, if you really want to avoid using pipes. My bots also carry ore from the mines to the loading stations, and from unloading stations in the main base to the smelters. And yes, it makes a very large difference in UPS improvement.

Back to efficiency,
the way I approach the game is by building myself a good build-code-factory, set big valued requests and go AFK. Thats less than 5 MW for constant blue science, processing units etc. Obviously I dont care about any modules except efficiency module.

This play style avoids biters, pollution and constant upgrades on the factory and defense completely but takes time you spend elsewhere.
I have to admit, this is definitely not the way most people would want to play the game

With pollution, on the Reddit June Community Map you start in a pretty dense forest. I've gone with a fast prod1/speed1 beacon setup with pure steam power and it's just crazy how the forest and grass eats all the pollution. Granted I do use eff1 as well mainly in electric miner drills, oil refining (the map has an absurd amount of oil) and low-yield assemblers, but really the increase in pollution is remarkably negligible and on a forested map causes no problems whatsoever (note: I normally play on deserts).