Factorio Forums

Common heat exchanger produces 103 steam/s Common unmoduled chemical plant produces 2000 steam/s This means it produces 20x more steam than steam turbine, very quickly you can reach its limit of 6000 units/s of fluid.
Since you can module and beacon it, there would be no problem with reducing its inputs and outputs by 10x - 20x

This means maxed out cryoplant would generate 18k/s steam instead of 360k/s It would mean that its output is exactly at limit current liquid limit.

320x320 (almost) grid of legendary exchangers can be powered with three maxed out cryoplants if it wasn't for fluid system limitations. Conclusion: Both acid sulphut consumption and steam production can be divided by 10 - 20.

As outlined in FFF-430 the Fluid Values for Water --> Steam Expansion were intentionally multiplied 10X for Balance reasons. I would guess that this is why the Steam numbers seem so large - they had to be adjusted in order to fit, and still come out Energy-Profitable.

I agree that it doesn't make too much sense that a single Chemical Plant is capable of providing Unlimited Power; but this is Factorio! Using machine guns to shoot asteroids is the least silly thing; getting cheap Electricity from Acid is not that bad.

It has been stated elsewhere that more Fluid system changes may be forthcoming with 2.1, particularly the 100 Units/tick/Fluid Output Limit. So I do expect to see some change to this situation, if not the entire Recipe itself being adjusted....

I mean its power density is high enough to compete with nuclear power, if not fusion (if fluids weren't capped).

So the machine buffer flow rate is intended, not an oversight? A single chemical plant with 3 speed module 3's can't work at full capacity because it can't empty its inventory fast enough, due it being limited at 3k/sec

Imo it’s not too fast, it simply produces too much. I say keep the same requirement of acid and calcite, but reduce the steam output by 10x.

As 10x steam expansion was added by FFF-430, maybe the acid neutralization recipe was originally balanced around acid consumption, whereas boilers were balanced around steam production?

Reducing steam production by 10x would be fine - it still would make more steam than heat exchanger, and you could use modules, beacons and quality without hitting limits almost immediately.

If you build a decent factory on Vulcanus, you need water. Steam is the only source of water, so you need enough steam. That's what acid neutralization provides. If you build a full factory, power from acid neutralization's steam is just a byproduct, the real bottleneck (or better: what makes you adding more chemical plants for acid neutralization) is water demand.

Hmm. I keep my power production and water production entirely separate.

The steam temperature produced being lower would also help reduce how ridiculously good the recipe is.

I meant, its only for Vulcanus

(It's worthless on navuis)

if you ask me, this way to generate power on vulcanus is broken and unfun.

Stargateur wrote: Sun Jun 08, 2025 6:09 pm if you ask me, this way to generate power on vulcanus is broken and unfun.

So just use solar, which is extremely cheap to build on Vulcanus. The only downside is the space requirement (but even that is still much less than on Nauvis).

Khagan wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2025 4:18 am

Stargateur wrote: Sun Jun 08, 2025 6:09 pm if you ask me, this way to generate power on vulcanus is broken and unfun.

So just use solar, which is extremely cheap to build on Vulcanus. The only downside is the space requirement (but even that is still much less than on Nauvis).

You obviously use the method that works best. That's why balance is important so that the tradeoffs lead to varied factory designs that are actually competitive.

Panzerknacker wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2025 6:33 am You obviously use the method that works best. That's why balance is important so that the tradeoffs lead to varied factory designs that are actually competitive.

Indeed. And I think that currently solar and acid neutralisation are well balanced on Vulcanus: if you have spare space, build solar, if not, use the acid. For that matter, lightning and heating towers are well balanced on Fulgora: use steam as long as you have spare water, and then lightning after that. On Nauvis OTOH, nuclear clearly dominates the alternatives.

Khagan wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:34 am

Panzerknacker wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2025 6:33 am You obviously use the method that works best. That's why balance is important so that the tradeoffs lead to varied factory designs that are actually competitive.

Indeed. And I think that currently solar and acid neutralisation are well balanced on Vulcanus: if you have spare space, build solar, if not, use the acid. For that matter, lightning and heating towers are well balanced on Fulgora: use steam as long as you have spare water, and then lightning after that. On Nauvis OTOH, nuclear clearly dominates the alternatives.

I disagree. Not even the power boost on Vulcanus can make solar a viable primary power source. Besides space platforms, there is never a situation where solar isn’t completely outclassed by another option. Since nuclear power was added to the game, solar has had only two roles: A stepping stone between boilers and nuclear, and a reliable backup generator for miscellaneous purposes.

CyberCider wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:45 am Not even the power boost on Vulcanus can make solar a viable primary power source.

It's not the power boost that's most important (though it certainly helps) but the hugely reduced materials cost. On Nauvis, even ignoring the space requirements, the capital cost is very large. Solar power requires large quantities of iron and copper, which on Nauvis are the limiting resources, and consequently valuable. But on Vulcanus they are effectively free, so the only question is 'Do I have the space for this?'. Until the answer to that question becomes 'No', solar is a viable choice.

CyberCider wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2025 10:45 am Besides space platforms, there is never a situation where solar isn’t completely outclassed by another option. Since nuclear power was added to the game, solar has had only two roles: A stepping stone between boilers and nuclear, and a reliable backup generator for miscellaneous purposes.

Solar has effectively no UpS cost compared to the alternatives. This is why it's used so extensively in mega bases. Especially before the fluid rework.

Khagan wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 7:32 am It's not the power boost that's most important (though it certainly helps) but the hugely reduced materials cost. On Nauvis, even ignoring the space requirements, the capital cost is very large. Solar power requires large quantities of iron and copper, which on Nauvis are the limiting resources, and consequently valuable. But on Vulcanus they are effectively free, so the only question is 'Do I have the space for this?'. Until the answer to that question becomes 'No', solar is a viable choice.

Actually, you’re right. I didn’t think about the possibility of two of Vulcanus’s problems interacting with each other, I was only focused on one at a time. Perhaps I should have expected it, as there are really so many.

there is a mod who nerf the temp to 165 C