Are steam turbines more efficient?

[Nanako]

I know steam turbines are intended for use with nuclear power and heat exchangers, which i've not got running yet. But they seem functionally similar to steam engines, using steam to produce power. The main difference i see is a higher temperature limit and max output.

But what about running steam turbines off normal boilers? Obviously they're not running at perfect efficiency with only 165 C steam, but do they work any better than steam engines at that temperature? Get more bang for your buck?

[juliejayne]

Or running steam engines off nuclear?

[Nanako]

they certainly do work, im testing them right now

[Kinder Lijk]

The only reason turbines are able to output more power is because they're able to take in more heat than a boiler can produce.

[Teh Freek]

Since steam turbines can consume 60 steam per second as opposed to a steam engine's 30 per second, they can generate twice as much power per building, i.e. 1.8MW instead of 900kW. The math backs this up:

(165−15)⋅60/s⋅0.2kJ = 1.8 MW

[Killcreek2]

You can send 165 deg steam into turbines, but the power they will produce will be only 33%, as they expect 500deg steam.


Putting 500 deg steam into steam engines is also very inefficient, as you will get the same power output as if you used 165 deg steam, but it still consumes the same amount. The extra energy in the higher-temp steam is simply wasted.

[Nanako]

so if i understand correctly, steam efficiency is identical, the only gain is in space. i can use half as many turbines to generate the same amount of power from the same amount of steam?

[Killcreek2]

Yes, for low-temperature steam.
But 1x steam turbine costs a lot more resources to manufacture, than 2x steam engines do.
[31 iron plates per steam engine, vs 120 iron plates + 50 copper plates per turbine.]