Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post all other topics which do not belong to any other category.
Post Reply
QuintupleDude
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:20 pm

Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by QuintupleDude » Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:33 pm

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

FactorioParadox
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:58 pm

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by FactorioParadox » Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:20 am

Nuclear fuel lasts longer.

User avatar
Krazykrl
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 11:08 pm

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by Krazykrl » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:39 am

FactorioParadox wrote: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
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by PunkSkeleton » Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:27 am

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
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 891
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:29 am

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by BlakeMW » Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:07 am

Krazykrl wrote: 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).

User avatar
Egdod
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by Egdod » Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:35 am

Krazykrl wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:39 am
FactorioParadox wrote: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
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:45 am

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by evopwr » Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:45 pm

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
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:55 pm

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by herkalurk » Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:06 pm

evopwr wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:45 pm
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
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:30 pm

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by mrt144 » Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:21 pm

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
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:55 pm

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by herkalurk » Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:24 pm

mrt144 wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:21 pm
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

User avatar
Egdod
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by Egdod » Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:47 am

herkalurk wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:24 pm
mrt144 wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:21 pm
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
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by Aeternus » Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:49 pm

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
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:22 am

Re: Rocket Fuel or Nuclear Fuel for trains?

Post by roothorick » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:07 pm

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.

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”