Koub wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 2:14 pm
[Koub] Please, keep focused on the topic, not on the people and their rhetorical quirks 
.
I think I should be allowed to take exception when said quirks serially demean other people's ideas and methods with unsupported hyperbole or double standards, BUT
back on topic, as you say, I'd like to reiterate that at no point did I argue that nuclear somehow occupies more space, or requires more time, or is more of a chore. The issue being raised here, as the title says, is the disproportionately low amount of thought that goes into setting up solar.
Koub wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 2:14 pm
Now my opinion is that once one has invested some time designing a tillable blueprint, and has automated all the required elements to build the blueprint, there is little difference between solutions.
This is generally true, since the entire purpose of blueprints is to simplify implementation of existing designs, but as I see it, the essence of this game lies in what comes before that stage, i.e. the design and modification of blueprints to fulfill different needs. That is where I think the difference lies, because in designing solar setups, the main factors to consider are just conservation of space, logistics to assist deployment of the print, and accumulator/panel ratio. On the other hand, nuclear power, which must also consider space and deployment requirements, additionally has to account for reactor layout, reactor/exchanger/turbine ratios, water sourcing/routing, fuel/waste distribution, heat distribution, and steam distribution. Even boiler-based power is more complex, having to handle both fuel and water (on top of the common 2 factors) at scale (this is assuming you accept the widely known 1:2 boiler-engine subunit by default). The complexity of the problem when these extra factors are involved is what makes for an interesting puzzle to solve, and why I see solar as lacking by comparison.
The reason I see weather or other unreliability in solar power as a potential solution is not because I think it will add more repetitive tasks, or make solar nonviable as a power source (because neither of those would involve more thinking), but because it will encourage players to find intelligent solutions to compensate for that unreliability
without just brainlessly deploying 5× or so more accumulators. For instance, currently, a lot of people keep their boiler-based power plant when they start building solar, and convert that to backup power once their solar setup is sufficient for their needs. However, as has been pointed out plenty of times, that backup power rarely sees use under normal circumstances, is rarely thought of, almost never expanded, and is often ultimately destroyed as a result. Intermittent (not extended!) unreliability in solar power could make for far more interesting and relevant backup designs that are unique to the situation (since the design requirements for what is effectively a UPS are quite different from regular power supplies), all while avoiding the need to scale solar installations excessively.
Solar boilers are a good example of a more direct alternative to make the design of solar more interesting by introducing complexity to the problem, and carry with them all sorts of exciting possibilities for the distribution of power as steam, as well as the as yet largely unused temperature mechanic. If solar power were changed to work so, I think it would even be fair to buff the power rates of solar to compensate for the increased complexity and logistical burdens. My only reservation is that implementing this would probably involve a lot of work under the hood to keep performance reasonable.
In short, I'm looking for ways to increase solar brainwork, not busywork.
