How to burn petroleum

[Jiffypop]

I have a big ass oil factory, the bottle neck is the tanks filling up with petroleum. Is there anything I can do other than flushing?

[Solark]

Solid fuel is a great way to turn petrol into a product that can be stored and used later. First though, I'd make sure you aren't anywhere near bottlenecking in anything that requires it, like plastic. It's always nice to have a little bit of storage for fluids too, so maybe consider adding (more) tanks.

[AlexMBrennan]

The best way to destroy petroleum is to build more rockets.

[Jiffypop]

Originally posted by Ronwright:

Solid fuel is a great way to turn petrol into a product that can be stored and used later. First though, I'd make sure you aren't anywhere near bottlenecking in anything that requires it, like plastic. It's always nice to have a little bit of storage for fluids too, so maybe consider adding (more) tanks.

Does solid fuel stack higher than rocket fuel? That's what I did at my main base with light oil but its also full, but its close enoug h Ican flush it

[Warlord]

Rocket Fuel stacks more than solid fuel. Solid Fuel can stack up to 50, and Rocket Fuel stacks up to 10. Since it takes 10 Solid Fuel to make 1 Rocket Fuel, that means you turn 100 Solid Fuel (2 stacks) to make 10 Rocket Fuel (1 stack).

Interestingly, Rocket Fuel is less efficient than Solid Fuel when it comes to burning it. 120 MJ of Solid Fuel (10x12 MJ) goes into a single Rocket Fuel (100 MJ). And this doesn't even count the 10 light oil that also is needed (another 12 MJ if turned into one more Solid Fuel), and the electricity used in the assembler to turn it into Rocket Fuel.

Rocket Fuel makes up for it though, in being used in rockets of course. But also in it being more dense than Solid Fuel (3x10 stacks of Rocket Fuel in a train is 3000 MJ, vs 50x3 stacks of Solid Fuel being 1800 MJ) and providing more acceleration in vehicles, so less fuel spent getting up to speed.

[CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate]

Originally posted by Warlord:

Rocket Fuel stacks more than solid fuel. Solid Fuel can stack up to 50, and Rocket Fuel stacks up to 10. Since it takes 10 Solid Fuel to make 1 Rocket Fuel, that means you turn 100 Solid Fuel (2 stacks) to make 10 Rocket Fuel (1 stack).

Interestingly, Rocket Fuel is less efficient than Solid Fuel when it comes to burning it. 120 MJ of Solid Fuel (10x12 MJ) goes into a single Rocket Fuel (100 MJ). And this doesn't even count the 10 light oil that also is needed (another 12 MJ if turned into one more Solid Fuel), and the electricity used in the assembler to turn it into Rocket Fuel.

Rocket Fuel makes up for it though, in being used in rockets of course. But also in it being more dense than Solid Fuel (3x10 stacks of Rocket Fuel in a train is 3000 MJ, vs 50x3 stacks of Solid Fuel being 1800 MJ) and providing more acceleration in vehicles, so less fuel spent getting up to speed.

You're forgetting modules for the efficiency. Efficiency modules tilt the equation in favor of rocket fuel.

[Warlord]

Efficiency modules won't do anything for my numbers other than to reduce the power usage of the additional assemblers to make the Rocket Fuel.

If you mean productivity, then yes, it would make rocket fuel come a bit closer (or surpass) the MJ cost of Rocket Fuel vs Solid Fuel.

[Lunacy]

double up your plastic production and turn the spare petro into solid fuel
maybe wire up the solid fuel so it only works if you're above both 12k petro and have more petro than light oil

[PunCrathod]

Originally posted by Warlord:

Efficiency modules won't do anything for my numbers other than to reduce the power usage of the additional assemblers to make the Rocket Fuel.

If you mean productivity, then yes, it would make rocket fuel come a bit closer (or surpass) the MJ cost of Rocket Fuel vs Solid Fuel.

An unbeaconed unmoduled assembler takes almost 10MJ of power to make one rocket fuel.
If you use 4 productivity modules then for every 132MJ(120MJ from solid+12MJ fromlightoil) you get 140MJ worth of rocket fuel. So +8MJ but the assembler now takes about 70MJ to produce the rocket fuel. So no gains to be had there.

You can use beacons to bring the energy cost of the assembler down but then you just lose the energy on the beacons instead. You could possibly use the exploit on beacons where they are unpowered most of the time and only receive power during the tick where their effects are updated but I couldn't be bothered to do the math on that one.

[CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate]

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

Originally posted by Warlord:

Efficiency modules won't do anything for my numbers other than to reduce the power usage of the additional assemblers to make the Rocket Fuel.

If you mean productivity, then yes, it would make rocket fuel come a bit closer (or surpass) the MJ cost of Rocket Fuel vs Solid Fuel.

An unbeaconed unmoduled assembler takes almost 10MJ of power to make one rocket fuel.
If you use 4 productivity modules then for every 132MJ(120MJ from solid+12MJ fromlightoil) you get 140MJ worth of rocket fuel. So +8MJ but the assembler now takes about 70MJ to produce the rocket fuel. So no gains to be had there.

You can use beacons to bring the energy cost of the assembler down but then you just lose the energy on the beacons instead. You could possibly use the exploit on beacons where they are unpowered most of the time and only receive power during the tick where their effects are updated but I couldn't be bothered to do the math on that one.

If you put the Mk III efficiency modules in the beacon they affect not only the assemblers, but the beacon itself does benefit from the efficiency module. So it will give off -50% energy cost to nearby assemblers while itself will have a -80% energy cost. This brings it's cost to 96 kW.

If it's affecting multiple assembers making rocket fuel, lets say 6 assemblers is reasonable per beacon, but I'm sure you can manage more if you're creative, this means that you can divide that 96 kW cost between 6 machines making it in effect a 16 kW cost.

Rocket fuel with 4 productivity modules (any rank) in assembling machine 3 runs at half speed, so it takes 60 seconds to make. It's base energy consumption is 375 kW, so every beacon affecting it would reduce that consumption by 187.5 kW at a 16 kW cost.

You say it's a wash, but it's literally a 1029 kW net per beacon. If you tile them you can bring down a whole row of their cost to a reasonable level.

This is why I said to include efficiency modules, because productivity is a given.

[PunCrathod]

Originally posted by CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate:

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

An unbeaconed unmoduled assembler takes almost 10MJ of power to make one rocket fuel.
If you use 4 productivity modules then for every 132MJ(120MJ from solid+12MJ fromlightoil) you get 140MJ worth of rocket fuel. So +8MJ but the assembler now takes about 70MJ to produce the rocket fuel. So no gains to be had there.

You can use beacons to bring the energy cost of the assembler down but then you just lose the energy on the beacons instead. You could possibly use the exploit on beacons where they are unpowered most of the time and only receive power during the tick where their effects are updated but I couldn't be bothered to do the math on that one.

If you put the Mk III efficiency modules in the beacon they affect not only the assemblers, but the beacon itself does benefit from the efficiency module. So it will give off -50% energy cost to nearby assemblers while itself will have a -80% energy cost. This brings it's cost to 96 kW.

If it's affecting multiple assembers making rocket fuel, lets say 6 assemblers is reasonable per beacon, but I'm sure you can manage more if you're creative, this means that you can divide that 96 kW cost between 6 machines making it in effect a 16 kW cost.

Rocket fuel with 4 productivity modules (any rank) in assembling machine 3 runs at half speed, so it takes 60 seconds to make. It's base energy consumption is 375 kW, so every beacon affecting it would reduce that consumption by 187.5 kW at a 16 kW cost.

You say it's a wash, but it's literally a 1029 kW net per beacon. If you tile them you can bring down a whole row of their cost to a reasonable level.

This is why I said to include efficiency modules, because productivity is a given.

Except beacons are not affected by modules at all. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2245363867

[CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate]

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

Originally posted by CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate:

If you put the Mk III efficiency modules in the beacon they affect not only the assemblers, but the beacon itself does benefit from the efficiency module. So it will give off -50% energy cost to nearby assemblers while itself will have a -80% energy cost. This brings it's cost to 96 kW.

If it's affecting multiple assembers making rocket fuel, lets say 6 assemblers is reasonable per beacon, but I'm sure you can manage more if you're creative, this means that you can divide that 96 kW cost between 6 machines making it in effect a 16 kW cost.

Rocket fuel with 4 productivity modules (any rank) in assembling machine 3 runs at half speed, so it takes 60 seconds to make. It's base energy consumption is 375 kW, so every beacon affecting it would reduce that consumption by 187.5 kW at a 16 kW cost.

You say it's a wash, but it's literally a 1029 kW net per beacon. If you tile them you can bring down a whole row of their cost to a reasonable level.

This is why I said to include efficiency modules, because productivity is a given.

Except beacons are not affected by modules at all. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2245363867

Even still, you come out with a net per beacon, or did you ignore that part. 480 kW < 1029 kW

[PunCrathod]

Originally posted by CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate:

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

Except beacons are not affected by modules at all. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2245363867

Even still, you come out with a net per beacon, or did you ignore that part. 480 kW < 1029 kW

480 KW*(30/0,55)/1,4=18,7MJ
So even one beacon uses 18,7MJ per rocket fuel. Last I checked 18,7 is bigger than 8.

[CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate]

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

Originally posted by CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate:

Even still, you come out with a net per beacon, or did you ignore that part. 480 kW < 1029 kW

480 KW*(30/0,55)/1,4=18,7MJ
So even one beacon uses 18,7MJ per rocket fuel. Last I checked 18,7 is bigger than 8.

Correction, so even one beacon saves 549 kW * (30/0.55)/1.4=21.3 MJ per set of 6 rocket fuel refineries. Remember, you aren't going 1 beacon per refinery or you're doing it wrong.

[PunCrathod]

Originally posted by CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate:

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

480 KW*(30/0,55)/1,4=18,7MJ
So even one beacon uses 18,7MJ per rocket fuel. Last I checked 18,7 is bigger than 8.

Correction, so even one beacon saves 549 kW * (30/0.55)/1.4=21.3 MJ per set of 6 rocket fuel refineries. Remember, you aren't going 1 beacon per refinery or you're doing it wrong.

You need atleast 80*4/50=6,4 beacons for each assembling machine to offset the productivity modules in the assembler. and to make the assembler cheap enough to gain energy on rocket fuel you need 8 beacons for each assembler. Good luck finding a setup where each beacon has 19 assemblers in its area.

[CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate]

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

Originally posted by CPT Chthonbeard the Pirate:

Correction, so even one beacon saves 549 kW * (30/0.55)/1.4=21.3 MJ per set of 6 rocket fuel refineries. Remember, you aren't going 1 beacon per refinery or you're doing it wrong.

You need atleast 80*4/50=6,4 beacons for each assembling machine to offset the productivity modules in the assembler. and to make the assembler cheap enough to gain energy on rocket fuel you need 8 beacons for each assembler. Good luck finding a setup where each beacon has 19 assemblers in its area.

Who ever said you had to get 19 assemblers in the area of one beacon? 6 is enough to come out ahead. You can with a little creativity actually get 8 easily in a row, and still have them in rows. With that setup, you do in fact have 4 beacons for each assembling machine completely offsetting the cost.

You don't seem to be very good at this. As long as the beacon comes out positive on power, it's worth it.