Future Nuclear Power / Dirty Mining Mechanics

[armagin]

I posted this over on the factorio subreddit, but I thought I would share it here as well, I have modified the text below to reflect some of the more popular and feasible ideas from the reddit discussion. Discussion can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... uested_in/

I've been thinking about this a bit and I wanted to share. This idea is very realistic for a commercial release and fits closely within the core mechanics of the game while still introducing interesting new problems for the player to solve. It also remains within the game's bounds and realism.

Mining Uranium:

I propose mining uranium uses the in situ leach method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_leach). (This is currently one of the most common method of extracting uranium. It would require pumping suphiric acid (already in the game) into a mining location and uranium would exit in a liquid form before being sent to a chemical refinery to produce yellowcake uranium. The yellowcake is now a solid that can be transported around. Other ores could also be extracted with this method and could be considered the new "dirty mining" mechanic that has been discussed. Since methods of fluid transport are already being integrated, the inclusion of sulfuric acid would no longer be an issue.

Processing Uranium:
The yellowcake urainum is then processed in an assembler or chemical plant where the urainum is combined with steel plates to create a nuclear fuel rod that can be transported to a nuclear reactor.

Conversion into energy:

I imagine a nuclear reactor essentially taking the place of multiple boilers to power steam engines. Perhaps 1 reactor can power 10 steam engines or we introduce a new type of steam engine called a steam turbine? Optionally the reactor can produce waste that can be turned into weapons or armour, or launched into space. A nuclear reactor generates steam, so this can essentially be an upgrade to your boiler systems.

Discussion

I like the idea of a high powered fuel requiring liquid inputs to extract. This process would use mechanics that are already in the game, and would require the creation of only 2 new buildings (uranium mining equipment and a reactor) and 3 new items (yellowcake, liquid uranium, and uranium fuel rods) Additionally, any stage of the process could be condensed eg. just directly produce yellowcake from the mining equipment or deposit yellowcake into the reactor. This also creates a resource sink for sulfuric acid and steel, both of which could find a bit of extra use in the current game.

Compatibility with future mechanics and dirty mining:

Feasibly the process of extraction using sulfuric acid could be integrated within the proposed "dirty mining" mechanic that is already being discussed, as the use of acid to extract materials is used in a multitude of other extraction industries. Using this method could integrate the dirty mining equipment into the uranium mechanic to make it seem even more seamless and only unlocked once you have reached the "fluid management" stage of the game.

[EvanT]

While this is an alternative energy concept which could be interesting to set up and maintain I would like to discuss whether there is any need of it.

Making energy from coal is a compact simple process. Making it with solar panels nullifies the pollution while having huge initial resource and space requirements.
So where does nuclear power fit? Is it a more complex and compact way to produce more energy with really nasty pollution? If so why is it needed? Coal is almost useless in the endgame (if energy comes from solar) so if one really needs to be space efficient steam is and should be the simple way to produce energy. But in any other case solar produces energy without any resource consumption or logistic requirements. Steam and Nuclear both need a constant fuel supply. Solar just needs space. And since base expansion is a need for mining anyway I never found it difficult to guard a peninsula full of solar panels. If nuclear power comes without pollution it feels cheaty to me.

[BlakeMW]

So where does nuclear power fit?

I feel the nucular mod does this in a good way.

In Nucular, Nuclear power is cheaper up front than solar/accu but has a lot more moving parts. Because of fast breeder reactors a nuclear setup can for the most part breed its own fuel. This makes it a lot less dependent on having a constant delivery of fuel from mines. There is a little loss of course, but you can get by with far fewer mining drills once you have a breeding setup.

The distinction is thus:

• Coal: Fairly simple, very cheap, large fuel requirements.
• Solar: Very simple, expensive, no fuel requirements.
• Nuclear: Complex, fairly cheap, low fuel requirements.

So nuclear ends up cheaper than solar with much lower fuel requirements than coal, and the downside is complexity. Of course complexity might be considered an upside for many players.

[Woodmn]

An Idea that I think could be interesting regarding mining would be that upgraded mining drills would produce dirty iron/copper ore. This ore can then be sent to a new building called a 'wash plant' and requires a constant supply of water to operate. Dirty ore can be run through to produce iron/copper ore (respectively) as well as the occasional stone and uranium rich ore (any other minerals that may be added for the reactors could be collected via wash plants).
Stone can also be run through but it will be destroyed in the process, occasionally giving the odd iron/copper ore, possibly coal as well as, but at a higher chance, uranium rich ore.
This rich ore/radioactive rock/whatever you want to call it would then be processed in whatever way is chosen to produce some form of fuel for which ever reactor setup is chosen.

So (Mining drill Mk2)-> Dirty ore + lots of water-> (Wash plant) -> Stone, ore, coal(maybe), unrefined uranium.
Stone + lots of water-> (wash plant) -> occasional ore and coal, but more likely unrefined uranium.
Unrefined uranium -> (???) -> reactor fuel -> (???) -> power + ???

Another way would be that the ore could be put into a chemical plant with acid/water to produce a slurry which you then have to process in some way to get your ores. Making it difficult but to some degree required should nuclear be on the table.

[electricmonk2k]

I like some of the suggestions for extracting uranium. As it's a new raw resource, it should require a specialised mining-apparatus.

One thing I'd suggest is to prevent the player from carrying uranium in their personal inventory. Just because they are capable of carrying fifty boilers, two full-sized trains, and thousands of iron plates in their 'backpack', this does not mean they are immune from the harmful effects of radioactive material. Or maybe they could carry uranium for short distances, but then, their health-bar would go down while they are carrying it.

[Thegrover]

I like the complex nature of uranium mining/processing, using sulphuric acid in mining (since one plant producing it makes so much, and batteries and blue circuits don't use all that much), and the idea of one dirty mining module pumping out multiple ores, requiring a sorting facility before stuffing into a nicely ordered belt/train system.

I think complexity should be no barrier to the late game, having to set up a complex network of logistics is no great feat of engineering once you've figures how to mass produce, get your oil flowing and automate robot production. Bring on the challenge I say, let me make use of my depleted ore outposts and pump out crazy pollution to justify my overkill defence network

[inteljoe]

I think that it should remain fairly simple, and leave it up to mods to make it more complex.

For example.

Mine Uranium Ore > Refined Uranium Ore > Process Uranium Ore > Insert into Reactor > Output

Mine > Furnace > Chemical Plant > Reactor building(s) > Output Storage

The reactor should be expandable. Whether it is similar how steam generators work or if it works more simply where the single reactor building has multiple input slots/stacks that consume and create electricity. Then it outputs depleted cells which are "radioactive" and release pollution. Maybe having a new chest, a lead lined chest, either removes or eliminates the radiation release.

[Starfoth]

If we get nuclear power, I think we need Thorium instead of Uranium. Thorium is better, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thorium is less of a waste hassle and is more common than uranium. Uranium is more iconic, sure, but Thorium is usually better, overall.

[inteljoe]

I think more specifically identifying what kind of reactor to model after. There are several types, outlined here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor).

Pressurized water reactors, Boiling water reactors, Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor, High Power Channel Reactor, Gas-cooled reactor (GCR) and advanced gas-cooled reactor, Liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor, Pebble-bed reactors, Molten salt reactors, Aqueous Homogeneous Reactor. I believe the first few are more common than the others.

[bobucles]

You can discuss fuel processing chains all day long, but they won't change any dynamic with nuclear power. If the chain is simple and easy then nuke power will dominate. If it is hard then nuke power will dominate a little later. If the output is not good then there is no need to use it at all.

The important questions concern where nuclear power falls in the hierarchy. Ideally you want a scenario where all energy types have their viable uses and limitations. That means the best solution is to use a little bit of everything, which gives everything a viable place in the game.