Factorio Forums

Electric boiler have pollution 22.2? Really? Do you have trouble breathing from all the pollution

The electric boiler may generate a little too much pollution for what it does. The mk1 boiler generates 0.46 pollution per water and the electric 0.66 (plus it consumes power) but it's not exactly a problem. Since the power loss is minor, having a pollution 'tax' for the convenience of not hauling fuel to the petro area seems pretty fair to me.

Since everything that uses power in-game generates pollution and using electricity in the real world doesn't, comparing the two is rather ridiculous.




PS - Since I got curious and had trouble finding out how the boiler calcs work, I thought I'd share.

Arch666Angel wrote:

Cannon turret and laser turret right? Looks so hi-tech and some stylish, so mighty

Zombiee wrote:Since everything that uses power in-game generates pollution and using electricity in the real world doesn't, comparing the two is rather ridiculous.

The power is not the source of the pollution. For example, if you burn coal, the smoke have also sulfur in it. There was a time very long ago (when the factories didn't used filters), when so much coal was burned, that the rain absorbed that sulfur in the air and become 'weak sulfuric acid' (dont know the right translation. it was H2SO3 and not H2SO4 or so on). It rained literally acid! So, burning coal makes a lot of pollution.

Also drilling is not so good for the environmental. It unleashes many polluntants.

And, it is a game, it do not have to be realistic

PS: But I think too, the pollution of the boiler is a bit high, but i see it as a compensation that the steam doesn't cool down .

Agreed, burning things generates pollution. I think you misunderstood me though.

What I was saying was basically:
Real life - something consuming electricity doesn't make pollution as a direct result of consuming the electricity ( the generation of power someplace else might ).
In-game - things generate pollution based on electricity usage as a game mechanic (many items, not all)

So my point was you have to compare in-game things to other in-game things with an eye to game balance. Pointing out that real world electric boilers are different is pointless.

aklesey1 wrote:

Arch666Angel wrote:

Cannon turret and laser turret right? Looks so hi-tech and some stylish, so mighty

Cannon and Rocket.

I have to say, i agree that boilers creating pollution doesn't make sense. "Pollution" is a catchall term/mechanic used for any kind of industrial waste, from CO2 to machining waste to physical enviromental damage from digging up ores. Most pollution pretty much makes sense, assembly machines building things probably create leftover scraps, oil refineries probably have chemical wastes of some sort or at the very least leak a little, etc. Some things like electrolysis logically wouldn't have waste beyond the power it uses but it would be a PITA to set pollution values per-recipe so that can be forgiven.

But the electric boiler shouldn't have any pollution itself. It's just boiling water. The machine doesn't break down or degrade, so no waste from that, steam isn't considered a pollutant (steam engines vent steam but don't produce pollution), water isn't a pollutant (lakes.), and heat isn't a pollutant (otherwise nuclear reactors and heat pipes would pollute like crazy).

From a balance standpoint I really don't see the need for it either. You aren't going to use a ton of electric boilers, and they also already produce pollution in that they require electricity which usually produces pollution. And a machine producing pollution isn't really a consistent balance mechanic anyway; it's extremely situational, ranging from very important in a deathworld to meaningless in a peaceful world.

If you want to balance them out, I'd recommend just decreasing their efficiency instead. Or, if you don't want to make it too unrealistic (since real boilers are quite efficient), a clever solution would be to increase the temperature of the steam they produce. The steam consumption of cracking is independent of temperature, so higher temperature steam means you waste more energy.

Edit: After thinking about it, I... suppose you could consider the leftovers from boiling the water the pollutants. After all, you're boiling normal water, not purified water. But in practice that is rarely a issue and the contaminants probably wouldn't be considered a pollutant in most cases.

Arch666Angel wrote:

iamwyza wrote:

cpy wrote:Electric boiler have pollution 22.2? Really? Do you have trouble breathing from all the pollution when your electric water boiler makes hot water for your coffee or tea?

So much this. Electric boilers are 100% clean and also should have an efficiency of >90%. (boilers can be as high as 100% efficient for indoor units, 95% for outdoor)

For arguments sake, why do electric mining drills and electric assembly machines produce pollution then?

What kind of pollution mining creates? You were born yesterday son? Drills create so much dust, waste and damage landscape a lot.

buggy123 wrote:From a balance standpoint I really don't see the need for it either. You aren't going to use a ton of electric boilers, and they also already produce pollution in that they require electricity which usually produces pollution. And a machine producing pollution isn't really a consistent balance mechanic anyway; it's extremely situational, ranging from very important in a deathworld to meaningless in a peaceful world.

If you want to balance them out, I'd recommend just decreasing their efficiency instead. Or, if you don't want to make it too unrealistic (since real boilers are quite efficient), a clever solution would be to increase the temperature of the steam they produce. The steam consumption of cracking is independent of temperature, so higher temperature steam means you waste more energy.

You must consider that raising the temperature of the steam allows you to use electric boilers for powering stronger steam engines, which would in turn help negate its power requirement a lot easier than it does now. This wouldn't mean it wastes more energy since it is actually capable of producing more energy.

It is already pretty simple to use electric boilers to produce emergency power by creating steam when there's more power produced than what you're using. It will create steam to be stored in some tanks which are connected to a few lines of steam engines, so if your accumulators ever run dry it will pump those steam engines with a ton of reserve steam. It's true that the boilers won't ever keep up with consumption, but if the steam became hotter then it would have more joules to work with and negate that weakness to a degree. (Pun not intended)

This backup system has always existed when people started switching to clean power such as solar, nuclear, etc. You may also be surprised just how many electric boilers a person may utilize in large scale designs or unique situations that you've not considered as well.

Light wrote:

buggy123 wrote:From a balance standpoint I really don't see the need for it either. You aren't going to use a ton of electric boilers, and they also already produce pollution in that they require electricity which usually produces pollution. And a machine producing pollution isn't really a consistent balance mechanic anyway; it's extremely situational, ranging from very important in a deathworld to meaningless in a peaceful world.

If you want to balance them out, I'd recommend just decreasing their efficiency instead. Or, if you don't want to make it too unrealistic (since real boilers are quite efficient), a clever solution would be to increase the temperature of the steam they produce. The steam consumption of cracking is independent of temperature, so higher temperature steam means you waste more energy.

You must consider that raising the temperature of the steam allows you to use electric boilers for powering stronger steam engines, which would in turn help negate its power requirement a lot easier than it does now. This wouldn't mean it wastes more energy since it is actually capable of producing more energy.

It is already pretty simple to use electric boilers to produce emergency power by creating steam when there's more power produced than what you're using. It will create steam to be stored in some tanks which are connected to a few lines of steam engines, so if your accumulators ever run dry it will pump those steam engines with a ton of reserve steam. It's true that the boilers won't ever keep up with consumption, but if the steam became hotter then it would have more joules to work with and negate that weakness to a degree. (Pun not intended)

This backup system has always existed when people started switching to clean power such as solar, nuclear, etc. You may also be surprised just how many electric boilers a person may utilize in large scale designs or unique situations that you've not considered as well.

Increasing the temperature would only increase the power generation rate and the power density of storage tanks. Steam engines always consume steam efficiently, if it's under-temp they produce less or consume more, if its over-temp they consume less. Paragraph from the factorio wiki:

It's obvious a steam engine or turbine taking in steam that's colder than it's maximum temperature will not be able to produce full power. When this happens, power generation is limited by the maximum fluid consumption rate of the machine. When a steam engine is fed steam hotter than it's maximum temperature, the power generation is limited to the maximum (900 kW) output of the machine and merely consumes less steam for the same energy output. This does not mean higher generation efficiencies are attained. Steam engines are perfectly usable on a 500°C nuclear power plant, they merely use more space than a turbines for the same amount power. Vice-versa, turbines are usable in 165°C boiler circuits as well.

Mobius1 wrote: Cannon and Rocket.

I just was mistaken, u right - this is cannon and rocket turrets, and yeah dat angel style

I agree with those who think that the pollution of the electric boiler is too high. I think that for balance, a decrease in efficiency of up to 80% is enough. As a compromise option, I suggest adding the possibility of changing the value of the pollution (and possibly the efficiency?) of the electric boiler in the mod configuration.

buggy123 wrote:Increasing the temperature would only increase the power generation rate and the power density of storage tanks. Steam engines always consume steam efficiently, if it's under-temp they produce less or consume more, if its over-temp they consume less. Paragraph from the factorio wiki

Seems you didn't read my second paragraph, which states exactly what you're saying here. But it's good to know you read the wiki's single paragraph, so I'll make a single paragraph for you. Additional joules of energy from the increased heat will only make it easier to keep engines fueled with fewer boilers running, thus reducing their power consumption due to a lower ratio of boilers to steam engines. This will negate the power requirement since they will create more power than they use combined, which is not the case as it is right now.

Light wrote:

buggy123 wrote:Increasing the temperature would only increase the power generation rate and the power density of storage tanks. Steam engines always consume steam efficiently, if it's under-temp they produce less or consume more, if its over-temp they consume less. Paragraph from the factorio wiki

Seems you didn't read my second paragraph, which states exactly what you're saying here. But it's good to know you read the wiki's single paragraph, so I'll make a single paragraph for you. Additional joules of energy from the increased heat will only make it easier to keep engines fueled with fewer boilers running, thus reducing their power consumption due to a lower ratio of boilers to steam engines. This will negate the power requirement since they will create more power than they use combined, which is not the case as it is right now.

No, the power consumption will not change unless the efficiency is changed. It could produce 5000c steam, but so long as efficiency is held constant it wouldn't have lower power consumption compared to boilers producing a equivalent amount of lower-temperature steam. The only thing that changes with increasing steam temperature is that the power density increases overall. Storage tanks store more power, less boilers are required for the same rate of power accumulation, and fewer steam engines are required( assuming they can handle the temperature). In other words, the only benefit is that you need less space and initial material investment, and space, tanks, boilers, and steam engines are all cheap.

On the other hand, if you do increase the temperature electric boilers put out, you increase the effective power requirements (and thus effective pollution) of any steam-cracking recipe, because those recipes don't care about the temperature of steam. For example, a steam cracker converting methane to methanol requires 50 steam and 200 KW, and the process takes 4 seconds on a tier-1 cracker. Steam contains 200 joules per unit per degree, starting at the base temperature of 15 °C. By default, electric boilers produce 165 °C steam, which holds 30 KJ per unit, and requires 30 KJ/0.8=37.5 KJ to produce because of the 80% efficiency. Thus each steam cracking operation effectively requires 4*200+37.5*50=800+1875=2675 KJ. The steam is over 2/3rds of the energy required, and as you use higher-tier crackers the effective electrical power consumption only decreases.

A tier-1 boiler produces approximately 27.7 pollution units per 1.8 MW of power, thus you get ~15.4 pollution per MW. If it was powering a electric boiler producing steam for the tier-1 cracker from earlier, you would get about 2.675*15.4=~41 pollution units per operation, ignoring the pollution of the cracker itself. A electric boiler consumes 1.2 MW, and thus at 37.5 KJ/unit it produces 32 units of steam per second. As it produces 22.2 pollution per second, you get about 0.7 pollution per unit of steam. Thus a steam cracking operation produces 41+0.7*50=76 pollution units per operation.

If we increase the temperature of the electric boiler to 315 °C, the energy it holds doubles, and thus the energy required to produce it is 75 KJ. The energy per cracking operation is thus 4*200+75*50=4550 KJ. The pollution produced, ignoring the irrelevant pollution from the cracker itself, is thus 4.55*15.4=~70 pollution units. If we simultaneously remove the pollution from the electric boiler, then the pollution has only changed by about -10%.

So clearly, removing the pollution use of the boiler and increasing the temperature would work. The exact numbers vary depending on what tier of machines and boilers you use, but it would still be a functional alternative. If we increased the temperature of steam to 315, it would double the energy density of storage tanks, and allow steam engines of various tiers to either produce more power or use less steam per second (without increasing efficiency). I still fail to see this as a issue, especially if we use Factorissimo and Angel's Pressure Tanks (both of which are very commonly used with Angels).

For instance, a tier-3 Factorissimo building is 60x60 tiles internally. Pressure tanks are 5x5 and hold 350k. Thus it could hold a 12x12 square of them. If we reduce that to 11x11 to ensure we can pipe steam in/out, that is (11*11)*(350,000 units)*(30 KJ per unit)=1270.5 GJ of storage. Enough to power a 1GW factory for 20 minutes, for a cost of 6050 iron plates and 2420 steel and stone brick for the tanks. You would need a second building to charge it with electric boilers, and a third to hold the steam engines, but for comparison here's my 7-building power generation system:
And here's that collection of buildings, and the rest of my factory, compared to the space i have available:
Suffice it to say, with this very common mod configuration, I consider power-storage a complete non-issue.

Hi!

Quick question. Am I crazy, or did the tier 1 ore smelting change to be *less* efficient than their basic alternatives?

So like, take lead (and forgetting about the oxygen requirements for a moment). 24 lead ore -> 24 ingots -> 240 molten lead -> 24 plates is how it used to be. So, basically, 1 ore -> 1 plate. This is just like basic, taking Lead Ore and chucking it in a Steel Furnace and getting a Lead Plate.

But now, it's different; it's 24 lead ore -> 24 ingots -> 240 molten lead -> (about) 18 plates.

It seems nice that there's an incentive to try and tackle the cooling chain, as it seems really interesting. And certainly, this stops being as much of a problem when you get all the way up through tier 3 smelting chains. But, starting a new game, I feel like I'm strongly discouraged from using the buildings.

I guess that there's something to be said for having a reason to tear down stuff you've built -- or perhaps abandon it entirely -- and start anew, but perhaps there's a different way to encourage utilizing the buildings early game.

Then again, maybe my math / memory is bad. That's also a thing. Thoughts?

Are you, by any chance, playing using expensive recipes? Using normal recipes it's still 40 molten lead -> 4 lead plates for me, while on expensive it's 50 -> 4 (note that expensive now also has 5 lead -> 3 plates in a furnace and 5 crushed rubyte -> 2 plates, while on normal it's 4->3 and 3->2 respectively).

Whoops! Yep, you are quite right. Okay, I'll hush now. Thanks!

Arch666angel, whether you wanted to make any changes to electronics? Already existing bob's electronics looks good and obviously
I'm playing with your Petrochem and Smelting and Refining mods and that's amazing

Is there any reason why resin now costs 5 wood as opposed to 1?

This completely shut down my factory since I don't have a lot of forestry to cut through, nor do I use Bob's greenhouse mod (or want to). Combined with other wood requirements for materials, I'm fresh out of lumber producing phenolic boards and solder due to this increase.

I could understand reducing its efficiency to favor other methods, but 5 is unreasonably high for those in desert areas and/or not far along in the tech tree to utilize those other methods. Even when it was at 1 wood it wasn't necessarily as efficient as making solder through smelting, but resin is used for more than just solder.

Light wrote:Is there any reason why resin now costs 5 wood as opposed to 1?

This completely shut down my factory since I don't have a lot of forestry to cut through, nor do I use Bob's greenhouse mod (or want to). Combined with other wood requirements for materials, I'm fresh out of lumber producing phenolic boards and solder due to this increase.

I could understand reducing its efficiency to favor other methods, but 5 is unreasonably high for those in desert areas and/or not far along in the tech tree to utilize those other methods. Even when it was at 1 wood it wasn't necessarily as efficient as making solder through smelting, but resin is used for more than just solder.

Well mainly for giving an incentive to use the resin recipes that petrochem provides, I'm open to suggestions how to balance it more, but I think there are several ways to produce wood at the early game, greenhouses as well as algae farms, chopping wood

Arch666Angel wrote:

Light wrote:Is there any reason why resin now costs 5 wood as opposed to 1?

This completely shut down my factory since I don't have a lot of forestry to cut through, nor do I use Bob's greenhouse mod (or want to). Combined with other wood requirements for materials, I'm fresh out of lumber producing phenolic boards and solder due to this increase.

I could understand reducing its efficiency to favor other methods, but 5 is unreasonably high for those in desert areas and/or not far along in the tech tree to utilize those other methods. Even when it was at 1 wood it wasn't necessarily as efficient as making solder through smelting, but resin is used for more than just solder.

Well mainly for giving an incentive to use the resin recipes that petrochem provides, I'm open to suggestions how to balance it more, but I think there are several ways to produce wood at the early game, greenhouses as well as algae farms, chopping wood

Those situations you describe was my entire point, it assumes that:

A: You use a greenhouse mod which until now hasn't been mandatory.
B: You understand how algae farms function and have built a sizable setup for it. (Assuming again you even use bio processing)
C: That you started in a well forested area and not a desert.
D: You're not in the early game whatsoever, as aluminium, silver, and titanium are not early game ores and they're required for the petrochem resin recipes.

Truth be told is that I never found the petrochemical resin worth building because it's way too expensive to create the gasses and the yield is just so low that it's a waste of time, power, and resources. It's also not remotely close to being early game due to the metal catalysts needing further refined ores than that stage of the game.

So my suggestion is to improve upon and provide some new methods of creating resin for earlier game use as it's out of reach right now. Liquid plastic is one you can create somewhat early on, as yields improve while you progress with your technology which makes it all the more rewarding, but the simple propane recipe is still there and easily accessible if needed.

Even with a new method to create liquid resin, I still feel the original resin recipe should be left in tact. Nerfing one recipe to make yours look better is a sign that it's poorly designed and needs revision, it should look appealing regardless of what's available if done right.