.17 coal power ratios

[vanatteveldt]

.17 made a number of changes that affect power ratios, and I didn't see a post on the effects on power plants (miners/boiler etc) so I figured it would be good to summarize what I think are the correct ratios in .17. Of course, feel free to correct if there are mistakes

Basic values:
Steam engines per boiler: 2 [unchanged]
Power per coal: 4 MJ
Power consumption per boiler: 1.8MJ/s [=1.8MW]
Water consumption per boiler: 60/s [=2x30/s]
Water production per offshore pump: 1200/s
Coal production per miner: 0.5 coal/s
Yellow belt throughput: 15 coal/s [using both lanes]

So, we get:
Coal per boiler per second: 1.8/4=.45
Miners per boiler: .5 / .45 = 1.111
Boilers per belt: 15 / .45 = 33.33
Miners per belt: 15 / .5 = 30
Boilers per pump: 1200/60=20

IOW, a very easy setup is 30 miners feeding a yellow belt going to two rows of 16 or 17 boilers each fed by one pump.

To consume a red belt of coal requires more water than a single pump can handle, so you're probably best off braiding undergrounds between the coal inserters and starting a second row of boilers after the first fed by its own pump. [but I admit fluid throughput is black magic for me, so I just try to keep things simple ]

[astroshak]

Despite your math, I don’t generally have problems feeding 40 boilers with 2 pumps and 1 yellow belt supplying the coal.

If I need to upgrade to red belts I’ll use a red splitter and split it to two yellow belts for the 40/80 boiler/generator arrays (20/40 on each side of the yellow belt).

[leadraven]

I'm investigating ratios at which coal and oil are distributed between production (science packs, weaponry, building components) and burning (boilers, furnaces). For now I'm inclined to suggest to nerf energy capacity of all fuel types ~4 times... And nerf nuclear much more, but that's another story.

[Hannu]

Despite your math, I don’t generally have problems feeding 40 boilers with 2 pumps and 1 yellow belt supplying the coal.

If I need to upgrade to red belts I’ll use a red splitter and split it to two yellow belts for the 40/80 boiler/generator arrays (20/40 on each side of the yellow belt).

If you try full load, last boilers are left without fuel. I noticed it couple of days ago. Problem is easily solved by replacing belt to red. You should have plenty of red belts when you need the power of 40 boilers.

[Serenity]

There is no need to make the coal belt ratio perfect. I like to run 20 boilers on each side of a red belt. The belt could support more, but so what?

[Hannu]

There is no need to make the coal belt ratio perfect. I like to run 20 boilers on each side of a red belt. The belt could support more, but so what?

I agree. It makes things boring and feel artificial if everything fits with simple integer ratios. Factorio should give something from engineering world and unfortunately simple ratios are extremely rare in real world. Complex numbers need decisions and compromises which is real engineering.

[Koub]

There is no added value to keep voluntarily an irrational ratio just to prevent people from achieving the perfect ratio build.
The game would just force people to add one additional machine for the rounding error.

Example : 21:25 (0.84) perfect ratio for solar can be rounded to 5:6 (0.833...) close enough ratio, and even 1:1 not-so-close-but-I-don-t-care-the-waste ratio.
If the ratio had been π/3.75 (approx. 0.837), would the game be more interesting ? I don't think so.

At least, with perfect ratios, you provide sense of beauty and satisfaction to people who have OCD.

[BlakeMW]

I'm also not a fan of perfect ratios. In fact I tend to use an excess of power generation relative to fuel anyway. Why: demand spike accommodation. Factory power demand tends to fluctuate, the fuel and water entering the poweplant has to meet the average demand, but the generation wattage has to meet the peak demand unless you want the factory to stutter. In practice I find it fine to "overdraw" the fuel/water supply by 10-20% or even more if using laser turrets.

[Hannu]

There is no added value to keep voluntarily an irrational ratio just to prevent people from achieving the perfect ratio build.
The game would just force people to add one additional machine for the rounding error.

Example : 21:25 (0.84) perfect ratio for solar can be rounded to 5:6 (0.833...) close enough ratio, and even 1:1 not-so-close-but-I-don-t-care-the-waste ratio.
If the ratio had been π/3.75 (approx. 0.837), would the game be more interesting ? I don't think so.

No, but 21:25 is more interesting than 1:1 would be. Or even worse ratio in which you could build straight parallel rows of panels and accumulators and put substation at optimal distances.

Interest comes from decisions. If everything is trivial, player do note have to decide anything. Just build 2 steam generators for every boilers. Non-trivial ratio forces player to decide what kind of compromise he does. Is it better to build one more boiler or steam generator. Practically it is not hard decision in Factorio, because entities does not cost significantly, but in real life such decisions may affect much to company's profits and solving them are for what they pay for engineers.

At least, with perfect ratios, you provide sense of beauty and satisfaction to people who have OCD.

In my opinion we should not make this kind of jokes from mental problems, like ODC, which may deteriorate patient's life quality very radically. And video game should not try to be cheap self care method for those who have real problems.

But I see that I am at minority with this thing. For some reason majority of Factorio players are mathematical thinkers who feel any imperfections very distressing. However, if there are difficulty options in recipes, maybe normal could be with simple ratios and difficult have more complex ratios.

[SirSmuggler]

+1 for not everything needs to have perfect ratios.

[BlueTemplar]

I'm also not a fan of perfect ratios. In fact I tend to use an excess of power generation relative to fuel anyway. Why: demand spike accommodation. Factory power demand tends to fluctuate, the fuel and water entering the poweplant has to meet the average demand, but the generation wattage has to meet the peak demand unless you want the factory to stutter. In practice I find it fine to "overdraw" the fuel/water supply by 10-20% or even more if using laser turrets.

Try "overbuilding" steam engines, with steam storage tanks - storage tanks are more expensive than boilers, but having the steam already in/near the steam engine should make for a better response time for spiky demand changes like laser turrets firing.

[leadraven]

I'm also not a fan of perfect ratios. In fact I tend to use an excess of power generation relative to fuel anyway. Why: demand spike accommodation. Factory power demand tends to fluctuate, the fuel and water entering the poweplant has to meet the average demand, but the generation wattage has to meet the peak demand unless you want the factory to stutter. In practice I find it fine to "overdraw" the fuel/water supply by 10-20% or even more if using laser turrets.

Try "overbuilding" steam engines, with steam storage tanks - storage tanks are more expensive than boilers, but having the steam already in/near the steam engine should make for a better response time for spiky demand changes like laser turrets firing.

I never understood it. You need engines to meet maximum power demand anyway. Why would you build additional engines, but not additional boilers? What is the point building steam tanks instead of extra boilers? The only theoretical reason is limited water supply, but in practice it's irrelevant.

[BlueTemplar]

I just gave you one. Also, water supply might be relevant too.

[Zavian]

I just gave you one.

I disagree. Since boilers are cheaper than tanks, you are better off building extra boilers to feed the extra engines. That is simpler and does not lead to the storage tanks masking the fact that you have too little steam generation for your power consumption. A single tank of 25000 steam means you can exceed your steam production by 2 boilers worth of electricity production for over 3 minutes without realising. This gets worse with multiple tanks. For a coal power generation system I think you are always better served by simply having excess steam + power production rather than storing steam, and using that to power extra engines. (Also note the the output fluid box of partially utilised boilers, and the input fluid box of partially utilised steam engines already stores enough steam for 1 tick response to spiky power demands, so response time is as close to instantaneous as anything steam tanks could provide anyway).

Also, water supply might be relevant too.

In that case add another offshore pump. (Even if that means starting a new row of boilers + engines, fed by a new belt of coal/solid fuel).

[BlueTemplar]

Steam Engine capacity is 100-200 L corresponding to 3.33..-6.67.. seconds at 30L/s consumption, way more than 1 tick.
So, yeah, since fluid flow is not that slow - I guess this concern is mostly academical.

AN additional offshore pump might not be enough, you might need another water pipe too.
(Then there are potential space constraints for feeding boilers with fuel...)

But don't forget that mods can change these cost ratios, for instance Bob's higher boiler tiers are quite a bit more expensive than (vanilla) storage tanks !

[mrvn]

I just gave you one.

I disagree. Since boilers are cheaper than tanks, you are better off building extra boilers to feed the extra engines. That is simpler and does not lead to the storage tanks masking the fact that you have too little steam generation for your power consumption. A single tank of 25000 steam means you can exceed your steam production by 2 boilers worth of electricity production for over 3 minutes without realising. This gets worse with multiple tanks. For a coal power generation system I think you are always better served by simply having excess steam + power production rather than storing steam, and using that to power extra engines. (Also note the the output fluid box of partially utilised boilers, and the input fluid box of partially utilised steam engines already stores enough steam for 1 tick response to spiky power demands, so response time is as close to instantaneous as anything steam tanks could provide anyway).

Also, water supply might be relevant too.

In that case add another offshore pump. (Even if that means starting a new row of boilers + engines, fed by a new belt of coal/solid fuel).

Because one belt of coal can feed 16 boilers running 100% of the time feeding 32 steam engines running 100% of the time. Or 64 steam engines running 50% on average. With tanks all of them can run for minutes at a time. With 32 boilers on the other hand they exhaust their coal reserve in seconds and then the power is limited to 32 steam engines. You would have to add buffer chests to handle peak coal consumption. And more water too.

Using steam tanks is the lazy answer. Buffering fuel and water usage for more boilers is harder and the extra inserters will cost you power.

So are boilers really cheaper? One time cost for the tanks vs. constant cost for the extra power.

[leadraven]

So are boilers really cheaper? One time cost for the tanks vs. constant cost for the extra power.

What do you mean? Boilers do not waste any energy.
And usually belts are long enough to be sufficient buffer. Moreover if you deliver fuel by train.

[BlakeMW]

Try "overbuilding" steam engines, with steam storage tanks - storage tanks are more expensive than boilers, but having the steam already in/near the steam engine should make for a better response time for spiky demand changes like laser turrets firing.

With boilers being so cheap that's pointless, the steam engines are in excess of 80% of the cost of a 1:2 setup so you don't save much at all by not building additional boilers to go with the steam engines. Furthermore unless you go with 1:3 or 1:4 it results in messed up layouts. 1:3 is sometimes acceptable (i.e. for laser turrets) because just the steam in the engines and boiler will last long enough to provide extra power during a biter attack wave, but still, I find it better to just build a larger 1:2 setup and then later I can always upgrade the fuel supply to turn it into full baseline power, or change it into an emergency power. Given that each boiler contains 5 fuel and a bunch of water and steam they make pretty decent buffers for the cost.

I did use to be a fan of night-steam (used to have a link in my sig) but the game changed: the biggest change being the greatly increased abundance of oil, making accumulators relatively cheap, actually per iron being cheaper per watt than steam engines, so in the long run you pretty much want to use accumulators for spike accommodation with extra steam being most useful before accumulators can be mass produced. For power storage accumulators still aren't that great, but they're certainly less expensive than they used to be. The other thing of course was the introduction of Nuclear Power which is ridiculously easy to fuel. As with steam engine setups, the turbines are a large chunk of the cost (though turbines are cheaper per watt than accumulators) and especially if using fuel-saving reactors, you have significant incentive to upsize the entire nuclear power plant to get the neighbor bonus. I do "overdraw" nuclear too, using a tidy 1:2 ratio of heat exchangers to steam turbines instead of the messy perfect-ish ratio, at the maximum 16.4% overdraw rate this can be overdrawn for about 20s before the steam buffer depletes, that's easily enough for accommodation of normal spikes like from laser turrets and even if you overdraw on a sustained basis, the factory just drops to 85% power when the steam buffer depletes, one problem with severely overdrawn setups using steam tanks and stuff is if you mess up and completely drain the steam the factory will drop to about 30% power which can easily cause a death spiral.

[Serenity]

the biggest change being the greatly increased abundance of oil, making accumulators relatively cheap,

That is true. When I first started playing Factorio oil ran out very fast and you needed to use speed modules very soon. So it helped greatly to not use too much petroleum. Now it still goes down of course, but very slowly. So I'm not worried about consumption

[Amarula]

So, we get:
Coal per boiler per second: 1.8/4=.45
Miners per boiler: .5 / .45 = 1.111
Boilers per belt: 15 / .45 = 33.33
Miners per belt: 15 / .5 = 30
Boilers per pump: 1200/60=20

IOW, a very easy setup is 30 miners feeding a yellow belt going to two rows of 16 or 17 boilers each fed by one pump.

I think the number for miners per boiler should be .45 / .5 = .9: one miner produces more coal than one boiler uses, so 1.111 miners per boiler is too much. This would also match your conclusion of 30 miners feeding 33 boilers (33 boilers * .9 miners/boiler = 29.7 miners).
Alternatively, you could rename the number to Boilers per miner, in which case you divide rather than multiply (33 boilers / 1.111 boilers/miner = 29.7 miners).

Is my OCD showing again?