foamy wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:19 am
By the time you're needing any of these kinds of assemblies the cost of turbines over engines is pretty minor all told. Turbine costs 170 plates vs. 2x steam engine's 62. By comparison, one L3 module is 3080 plates, plus a not-insignificant amount of plastic.
As for putting tanks on a reactor array, it's doable, yes. I've considered just adding some tanks and turbines to the end of a turbine row, and then toggling the power connection out to the main grid on and off (no need for additional pumps) based on accumulator behaviour. The drawback is that nuclear plants, especially of the tileable variety, are already very large across -- nearly 300 tiles for a 2xN tileable! -- and that they share a single common point of failure in fuel production. Which generally shouldn't be a problem, but a completely separate plant avoids that and can be used to ensure you have power to the uranium chain.
Also, I already have the dang thing anyway from when it's the primary plant. :p
My biggest game has two separate nuclear plants because I don't copy blueprints and didn't want to mess things up while I added more reactors and stuff. After 2x3 the average return per additional reactors is poor and gets poorer, so I only imagine by culture or by "must be infinitely tileable", people don't usually make square-ish reactors. Two 2x3s vs a 2x6 is a difference of 160 megawatts. A 10% increase (1600 vs 1760 MW) from 2x3 for the significant increase in complexity and design limitations. An unchainable 2x4 or 2x5 would have even less of a difference.
Only one game could I have kept my boilers around after I switched to nukes (340 steam engines+tank accumulators). My limitation wasn't resources, just the sheer amount of peak power and quickness I needed for killing dudes (was switching from flame turrets to laser in a .16 game with completely maxed-out enemies). Every game I've stopped building my previous power system, and quite rapidly it's usefulness as a back-up is dwarfed by the capacity of my newer system and secondary savings (pollution, space, ease of construction, fuel). The biggest solar game I had at least 10k solar panels, which sounds like a lot... but it's an average of 420 MW, when I could just slap down a 2x3 reactor and have 800 MW 24/7, and even a 2x2 is 480 MW continuous. Don't have to build/put down accumulators either.
As for modules, you don't need modules anywhere in the uranium chain. The up-front cost of kovarex is through the roof (1500 science, phew, but it costs much less than it used to).
Contrasting, a single reactor provides the energy of 22 boilers (and no pollution...). Two reactors is worth 88. A fuel cell is worth at least 2000 coal. Two fuel cells in a box is 67% more energy than a steel chest filled with coal, without neighbor bonuses (6 cells for fuel blocks). Four tanks can hold more than a single unbonused fuel cell worth of energy and is "instantly" deliverable. That's not accounting for the energy cost of producing thousands of coal/fuel blocks. In the flamethrower->laser game I fed nuclear steam to steam engines for a little while because yeah, I could afford the energy loss in exchange for additional power and nuke testing at that moment (you don't need to mine/logistic fuel to a heat exchanger - saves a lot of time and is impossible if you don't have enough coal/fuel block production/space).
Space/laziness is the only reason I can imagine replacing steam engines with turbines, as it's super inefficient across the board. I WILL NITPICK UNTIL THE END.
Edit: Also learned a burner arm inserting wood is not fast enough for a boiler. Neither is a basic inserter. Two burner arms work, but chug power.