Factorio Forums

TL;DR

Let us dump fluids into corresponding oceans

What?

Let molten copper and iron being dumped into lava.
Let ammonia (and ice) being dumped into ammonia ocean.
With an offshore pump maybe.
Maybe other fluids (like water and ice in water oceans, heavy oil on Fulgora) for consistency.
Also dump fluids into the void of cosmos.

Why?

I understand destroying surplus is one of the new challenge in 2.0. But it was supposed to be on Fulgora. On Vulcanus devs implemented lava to destroy surplus, eliminating this challenge intentionally.
It's not a problem to cast a plate from molten iron to dump it into lava, but absurdity of said action pains me. Especially when I had to set up a bunch of foundries with beacons to do that on a large scale.
The same logic would apply to Aquilo. For me if you separate ammonia ocean into ammonia and ice you must be able to easily dump back both without affecting an ocean. Also I searched up that players may even have problems dealing with ammonia build up. 123862. It's not as easy as casting a plate before dumping it.
There is also existing method to dump fluids into void via changing recipes in plants. But it's just an abuse, doesn't feel right to exploit it.

The "proper" way to do this is by Crafting an item which utilizes the surplus fluid, and then Recycling (or space/lava-dumping) the item. The Flare Stack mod provides liquid-dumping capabilities (even for Molten Iron!).

Previously:

• Dump Valve/Open pipe
• Liquid voider
• Oil (overflow) burner
• Another suggestion for the expansion.
• And probably others...

eugenekay wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 10:49 pm The "proper" way to do this is by Crafting an item which utilizes the surplus fluid, and then Recycling (or space/lava-dumping) the item. The Flare Stack mod provides liquid-dumping capabilities (even for Molten Iron!).

I'm aware of how to solve the problem in a current version of the game. Even described how I did this with plates. Don't know why you repeated that. Other than calling it 'proper' method. Implying it's how it should be? Then why quotation marks? Maybe because you too realize that's the current solution is not how it should be.

I also have seen those suggestions, most of them. Old, before SA. Asking the ways to destroy items or "just dump oil in nature" (c). It's obvious devs didn't want this back then. But then they add recyclers in SA.
I would not have suggested adding 'open pipes' to 'dump oil in nature'. I suggested dumping specific items in specific places. Not to remove some gameplay challenges, but to remove steps that are absurd by common sense. Like casting a plate from molten copper only to dump it in lava, when you can just dump a molten copper itself. I didn't suggest to burn crude oil (it's reasonable to first make a fuel) or dump plastic, steel or oil into water or 'incinerate' some superconductors in an 'incinerator'. I suggested to dump ammonia in ammonia ocean.
So I think your 'previously' is misplaced. I suggested a different thing.

kitters wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 11:43 pmI'm aware of how to solve the problem in a current version of the game. Even described how I did this with plates. Don't know why you repeated that. Other than calling it 'proper' method. Implying it's how it should be? Then why quotation marks? Maybe because you too realize that's the current solution is not how it should be.

It is a statement of facts to provide a complete picture of the current situation. Not everything is a conspiracy. The desire to void liquids and items is a very old one here on the Forums.... I am thankful that the Recycler was added with 2.0 / Space Age, as it is much simpler than the old entity-destruction mechanisms (eg, running a Locomotive into a Wagon repeatedly).

I personally do not use Flare Stacks since I find that it cheapens the resource-overage-challenge particularly when used with Bob's Mods. I actually avoid Furnace-based entities altogether - they are slower than Crafter based mechanisms at an engine level.

Observations about this suggestion, which I boil down to ammonia at end...

In space age you get at least 4 new ways to destroy excess stuff so that couldn't be counted against the suggestion.

Dumping water back in the oceans or lakes, ok
Dumping lava back into the lava, ok
Dumping ammoniacal solution back into the ammonia ocean, ok
Dumping heavy oil or even light oil into the oil ocean, ok
Ice wouldn't sink on aquilo ...

A bigger issue is that destroying water, lava, ammoniacal solution, heavy oil (or light oil on fulgora) never solves a problem caused by the recipes at hand, because they're never side products of a multi-product recipe. Ice can already be destroyed various ways if it needs to be.

Destroying molten metal to get stone seems quite niche, but it's not that hard to make metal plates and destroy those anyway.

Which leaves us considering just dumping ammonia back into the ammonia ocean. Makes things too trivial on aquilo?

evanrinehart wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:51 am
Destroying molten metal to get stone seems quite niche, but it's not that hard to make metal plates and destroy those anyway.

It's the very thing that pushed me to make a suggestion, not Aquilo. It's not that it's hard (ffs! ), it's absurd.

evanrinehart wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 7:51 am
Ice wouldn't sink on aquilo ...

The mixture of water and ammonia is eutectic. That means water is liquid when it is part of the solution, and freezes into ice when separated. If you throw ice into an ocean of solution, the ice will dissolve.
And by the way, water ice would drown in pure liquid ammonia. For a solution it depends on concentrations, obviously.

That means water is liquid when it is part of the solution, and freezes into ice when separated. If you throw ice into an ocean of solution, the ice will dissolve.

This is fascinating thanks. I retract the bit about throwing ice back. Which moves ice into the same category as throwing ammonia back

kitters wrote: Sat Jan 24, 2026 10:56 am The mixture of water and ammonia is eutectic. That means water is liquid when it is part of the solution, and freezes into ice when separated. If you throw ice into an ocean of solution, the ice will dissolve.
And by the way, water ice would drown in pure liquid ammonia. For a solution it depends on concentrations, obviously.

This makes ice platforms quite interesting...

Also suggesting this. Especially for getting rid of extra ice on Aquilo. The current best way to get rid of extra ice is to build a bunch of recyclers to repeatedly recycle ice into less ice. Where does the extra ice go? Is it vaporized or turned into dust? I'm pretty sure Aquilo is too cold for significant amounts of water vapor, so it must turn into dusts. Where does the dust go then? Shouldn't it build up, or does it eventually find its way back into the ocean? In which case, why can't we just send ice directly there? Or maybe have a dedicated smasher building? Having recyclers do this job just seems inefficient.

Factorio clearly does not adhere to the laws of thermodynamics.
If you want to feel more responsibility when dealing with excess materials, I suggest playing the Nullius mod.
There is something called the "rule of cool". In a game, you can do things realistically, but at the end of the day it still has to be fun.
If there were no excess items, you would never have to worry about production ratios, so that is not an option.
If there was a no-headache way to get rid of every excess item, you would never have to worry about production ratios again, so that is also not an option.

Is the current way of getting rid of excess items coherent in relation to the real world? No.
Does it have to be? I would argue for the rule of cool here. Don't think too much about it, as long as the actual gameplay is fun.

And may none of you never learn of villager iron farms in minecraft...

TV4Fun wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2026 2:29 pm Also suggesting this. Especially for getting rid of extra ice on Aquilo. The current best way to get rid of extra ice is to build a bunch of recyclers to repeatedly recycle ice into less ice. Where does the extra ice go? Is it vaporized or turned into dust? I'm pretty sure Aquilo is too cold for significant amounts of water vapor, so it must turn into dusts. Where does the dust go then? Shouldn't it build up, or does it eventually find its way back into the ocean? In which case, why can't we just send ice directly there? Or maybe have a dedicated smasher building? Having recyclers do this job just seems inefficient.

Factorio tends to not add superfluous buildings. That is, it tries to use the minimum number of buildings it can get away with, even in Space Age.

Recyclers are able to dispose of solids. Indeed, on the very planet you get them from, they are a vital tool for disposing of excess stuff so that scrap recycling can continue. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that disposing of unwanted items is one of the main things recyclers exist to do.

So having Aquilo depend on recyclers to be able to dispose of unwanted ice is hardly unreasonable. Indeed, it fits into a theme of Aquilo's design. Namely... it depends on Fulgora.

Lithium manufacturing relies on holmium, which can only be found on Fulgora. You cannot automate Aquilo at all unless you have a constant resource stream from Fulgora. Aquilo's primary building requires an intermediate that comes from Fulgora.

But also, Fulgora is reliant on Aquilo more than most other planets. Foundation is useful on Vulcanus yes, but it is a game changer on Fulgora. It allows you to connect islands by power, as well as making train stations easier to build, overall making expanding on Fulgora way less painful. The small size of Fusion power, coupled with not needing water, matters more on Fulgora than it does on other planets.

The point being this: having a Fulgora building be a required tool on Aquilo is in line with Space Age's general design for these two planets. Requiring the recycler to get rid of ice is a perfectly valid design choice.

Being able to flush certain fluids into their origin lake is a different question. But there's no need to allow ice to be part of that.