Are solar panels worth building at all?

[ClearlyHopeless]

They produce so little power each and the price compared to even just a steam engine is way higher, so why use them? By the time I started running into problems with my starting steam set-up I would have had to produce hundreds of them to fix it or just work on nuclear power. So when am I meant to use solar panels? Are they ever worth the cost? New player here just trying to learn the game.

[Vyndicu]

Hedning původně napsal:

]I did read that. I always know what you are saying. I know that in a base with other production lines it would be more than 8 minutes. It was a unit for comparison, just like what you were doing.

Sure. Suppose I believe you knew what I was saying before posting.

Why post what you did? Other than to point out that the boiler 62 MW setup is sufficient for a newbie base? I will go ahead and describe the flaws behind what you posted earlier.


In my experience, more than having a yellow belt coal worth of boilers is required. Most newcomers need help understanding the perfect ratio complicated production chain concept and will likely not build what they need for an 8-minute-to-launch Rocket Silo. Never mind knowing how big of a logistic bus they need for raw materials and other countless issues they would have.

The last thing they need advice-wise is to underbuild their power source, which can trigger a situation where the power grid struggle to keep the boilers fed because of slower electric inserter swing speed.

It gets power-wise worse when your advice would leave only a few MW at most for inserters, additional machines to keep that 62 MW on, etc. Those yellow belt coal miners would have taken up a non-trivial amount of the leftover excess power. Forget the ammunition production line, as we are already in the less than 100% satisfaction territory.


When an eight-minute-to-launch Rocket Silo base struggles to launch on time without compromising to defend, it is not a real newcomer-friendly eight-minute-to-launch Rocket Silo base.

Given your posting history and knowledge, you should know that such advice is unreasonable.

[JustSmile]

Chindraba původně napsal:

Interesting idea. If the warden vehicle has bots like a spidertron does it could use bots to do the repairs, like being a mobile bot network. Or, if it's an option in that game variant, use spidertron instead of the warden. I know nothing of the AAI/SE stuff, so just an outsider looking in.

The Warden itself does not have bots, so can't build or act as a full-value supply hub. It is, however, available far FAR earlier than even bots themselves. What it can do is use repair packs in its own inventory to repair stuff in a radius.

I was actually wrong about ammo resupply, that only works other AAI vehicles, not stationary defenses.

[Hedning]

Vyndicu původně napsal:

In my experience, more than having a yellow belt coal worth of boilers is required. Most newcomers need help understanding the perfect ratio complicated production chain concept and will likely not build what they need for an 8-minute-to-launch Rocket Silo.

So they will overbuild some stuff. The consequence of that is assemblers and miners sitting idle, consuming almost no power.

I don't know how many joules it takes to complete the game, but I am fairly sure a coal belt running for 50 hours can supply that unless they screw around the first 45 doing nothing and then doing everything the final 5 like a pro.

But even if they need more power they could just upgrade the belt to red and it's no problem. Still better than going solar or nuclear. Or add solid fuel for more joule/s on the same yellow belt.

Of course my actual advice for new players wouldn't be to go straight for the rocket, but to explore all the options, however we are not giving advice to new players here. They are not here. I'm just mentioning that boilers is most efficient because it is true and a new player searching the internet for strategies should be safe in the knowledge that basic steam is all they need. They should not be tricked into worrying about pollution or any such pointless distractions. If they are looking to improve their game they should look elsewhere, not at solar power.

[SolarCaveman]

Solar panels create an alternative way to play the game. Non-nuclear steam power tends to create large amounts of pollution increasing biter spawn rate and evolution. For players that want to focus less on defence without disabling the biters, they can use solar panels and other mechanics like modules and trees to try to manage the biters by keeping pollution low rather than simply building more and more walls and guns.

Trying to do a pacifist run without disabling enemies can be very interesting.

[Vyndicu]

Hedning původně napsal:

I don't know how many joules it takes to complete the game, but I am fairly sure a coal belt running for 50 hours can supply that unless they screw around the first 45 doing nothing and then doing everything the final 5 like a pro.

You said earlier that yellow belt coal is enough to launch a rocket. Now, you do not know the precise Joules amount necessary for a successful launch.

No further comment on this point.

Hedning původně napsal:

But even if they need more power they could just upgrade the belt to red and it's no problem. Still better than going solar or nuclear. Or add solid fuel for more joule/s on the same yellow belt.

The problem is not that Factorio players, regardless of experience, can't upgrade their single yellow belt worth of coal to a higher tier belt or build more belts.

The main point is to teach people who do not know the first thing about Factorio how to obtain the necessary info, either through threads like this one or Wiki or whatever, and understand what they need regarding raw material and how many machines are required to perform a successful launch with an unspecific base (including raw resource for power).


The last thing they need to know is how to build a base that can launch a rocket in under 8 minutes on coal-based boilers producing at most 62 MW without ammunition.

Hedning původně napsal:

Of course my actual advice for new players wouldn't be to go straight for the rocket, but to explore all the options, however we are not giving advice to new players here. They are not here. I'm just mentioning that boilers is most efficient because it is true and a new player searching the internet for strategies should be safe in the knowledge that basic steam is all they need. They should not be tricked into worrying about pollution or any such pointless distractions. If they are looking to improve their game they should look elsewhere, not at solar power.

The OP posted a newcomer question. The new players are here even if they are not posting. This was the open-to-all general public Steam Factorio forum the last time I checked.


Pollution is not a pointless mechanic or distraction. It is meant to push and encourage players to build defense and prepare for it.

It has already been pointed out, not just by me but by other people too, many times in this thread that Solar Power's usefulness is not limited to the end game. Mining Outposts need power, and Solar Power can fulfill that niche. An Isolated Solar Power grid for restarting Nuclear Power after a blackout. Solar Power can reduce power network impact on UPS. Solar Power can provide the necessary energy to grow the factory.


It is a myth that Solar Power is useless.

[knighttemplar1960]

JustSmile původně napsal:

knighttemplar1960 původně napsal:

Anyone wanting the raining bullets achievement.

Allow me to introduce you to the wonders of flamethrowers, or as I call them "all you will ever need to keep your base safe".

Gun turrets + flamethrowers > flamethrowers by themselves

While you can defend your base completely with flamethrowers if a biter gets inside minimum range you have to have something as a back up (especially a new player). With all prespace researches a flamethrower's long DOT takes between 3-4.3 seconds depending on ground fire damage to kill a behemoth biter. A gun turret with all prespace researches and uranium rounds kills a behemoth biter in 1 second.

[JustSmile]

knighttemplar1960 původně napsal:

JustSmile původně napsal:

Allow me to introduce you to the wonders of flamethrowers, or as I call them "all you will ever need to keep your base safe".

Gun turrets + flamethrowers > flamethrowers by themselves

While you can defend your base completely with flamethrowers if a biter gets inside minimum range you have to have something as a back up (especially a new player). With all prespace researches a flamethrower's long DOT takes between 3-4.3 seconds depending on ground fire damage to kill a behemoth biter. A gun turret with all prespace researches and uranium rounds kills a behemoth biter in 1 second.

Why do you have flamethrowers close enough to the walls for their deadzone to be outside your perimeter?

[Vyndicu]

Khagan původně napsal:

By all means say that solar panels are good for UPS, or that they minimise long-term pollution. But to claim that they minimise raw material consumption is nonsense: they use 20 times as much as nuclear power.

Vyndicu původně napsal:

I did a quick spot check for the normalized Nuclear-to-Solar build cost ratio per MW, and the 20 number is slightly exaggerated. I may dig deeper tomorrow if I find the time

As a follow-up to both posts.

I managed to untangle and determine the equalized cost of building Nuclear vs. Solar for a pre-set number of MW per ore (liquid oil is treated as a tenth of a single ore, and water is not counted).

I went with 40 MW, 80 MW, 120 MW, and 160 MW since that usually is what a Single Nuclear Reactor can provide from minimum to maximum. Technically a 200 MW Single Reactor can exist, but all four sides are blocked in by other reactors and prevent heat transfer outside the middle reactor. It is impossible to go above 200 MW, and I have my targeted range of energy yield to normalize toward.

Special Notice: I didn't bother to calculate it by counting multiple reactor yields (2x1, 2x2, 2x3, 2x4), as that would be complicated and give anyone else a severe case of migraine. Even then, the neighbor bonus does flat out as you approach ~2x40 or more, and at that point, you have won the Factorio game at that kind of energy yield.



I found 196 solar panels, 173 accumulators, 9 substations, and 1 Roboport tileable blueprint. So that is what I used to calculate the raw resource of everything included. For every 40 MW, there are 952 solar panels, 800 accumulators, ~44 substations, and ~5 Roboports. The last two numbers are rounded up, and the first two are exact numbers.

There are too many potential blueprints for Nuclear Reactors. I find it improbable to normalize the costs of heat pipes, power poles, and other misc stuff you may need for a functional working blueprint, so I only counted the following items: Nuclear Reactor, Heat Exchanger, and Steam Turbines, which make up the lion share of the raw material to built anyway. No matter how you interpret this result, Nuclear build costs are underestimated for this calculation.


Solar energy costs approximately ~5.21 times more compared to a 40 MW Single Nuclear Reactor.

Solar energy costs approximately ~5.24 times more compared to an 80 MW Single Nuclear Reactor.

Solar Energy costs approximately ~5.24 times more compared to a 120 MW Single Nuclear Reactor.

Solar Energy costs approximately ~5.25 times more compared to a 160 MW Single Nuclear Reactor.


I expected the cost to change slightly due to Nuclear Neighbor Bonus before starting to calculate the equalized cost of the different reactor layouts. The result surprised me as the difference was insufficient to alter the ratio costs drastically.

[Khagan]

Vyndicu původně napsal:

Solar energy costs approximately ~5.21 times more compared to a 40 MW Single Nuclear Reactor.

Solar energy costs approximately ~5.24 times more compared to an 80 MW Single Nuclear Reactor.

Solar Energy costs approximately ~5.24 times more compared to a 120 MW Single Nuclear Reactor.

Solar Energy costs approximately ~5.25 times more compared to a 160 MW Single Nuclear Reactor.

I think you had better show your working. Here's mine:-

For 1 MW solar we want 24 panels @ 40 iron + 27.5 copper and 20 accumulators @ 9 iron + 5 copper + 150 gas. That's 2200 total, counting 10 gas as equivalent to one solid resource.

For nuclear we should split into heat production (which is affected by neighbour bonus) and heat consumption (which is not).

To produce 1 MW heat with no neighbours we need 0.025 reactors @ 3550 iron + 3000 copper + 500 stone + 500 coal + 10000 gas, giving a total of 214 resources. We should also add some tiny fraction of a centrifuge to provide the uranium, but that is only a small correction.

To consume the heat we can use 0.1 heat exchangers @ 60 iron + 100 copper and 1/5.82 turbines @ 120 iron + 50 copper, for a total of 45.7 resources. We should also allow at least three heat pipes @50 iron + 20 copper per exchanger, increasing the total to 67.4 resources per MW.

For a small (4-core) power plant we then have 214/3+45.7=117 resources per MW omitting the heat pipes (as you did), or 139 resources per MW including them. Using a large power plant with near-maximum neighbour bonus reduces each of those by about 18.

My previous rough estimate of a factor of 20 may be a slight exaggeration, but much closer than your figure of just over 5.

[Vyndicu]

Khagan původně napsal:

I think you had better show your working. Here's mine:-

For 1 MW solar we want 24 panels @ 40 iron + 27.5 copper and 20 accumulators @ 9 iron + 5 copper + 150 gas. That's 2200 total, counting 10 gas as equivalent to one solid resource.

For nuclear we should split into heat production (which is affected by neighbour bonus) and heat consumption (which is not).

To produce 1 MW heat with no neighbours we need 0.025 reactors @ 3550 iron + 3000 copper + 500 stone + 500 coal + 10000 gas, giving a total of 214 resources. We should also add some tiny fraction of a centrifuge to provide the uranium, but that is only a small correction.

To consume the heat we can use 0.1 heat exchangers @ 60 iron + 100 copper and 1/5.82 turbines @ 120 iron + 50 copper, for a total of 45.7 resources. We should also allow at least three heat pipes @50 iron + 20 copper per exchanger, increasing the total to 67.4 resources per MW.

For a small (4-core) power plant we then have 214/3+45.7=117 resources per MW omitting the heat pipes (as you did), or 139 resources per MW including them. Using a large power plant with near-maximum neighbour bonus reduces each of those by about 18.

My previous rough estimate of a factor of 20 may be a slight exaggeration, but much closer than your figure of just over 5.

I did not consider resources to build centrifuges to manufacture the fuel cells. I did not bother to calculate 1 MW. Instead, I went straight to 40 MW and used that as a starting point. Here are the raw numbers that I used. I am skipping over 80 MW/120 MW to shorten this post.

Solar 40 MW comes up to 111,505.89 Equalized raw materials.

Solar 160 MW comes up to 446,023.56 Equalized raw materials.

Nuclear 40 MW comes up to 21,382.3 Equalized raw materials.

Nuclear 160 MW comes up to 84,989.2 Equalized raw materials.


There are too many equations to write in this post (excel).

For the nuclear example: To calculate a single Nuclear Reactor's cost, I use Factorio Calculator to get the full breakdown (Stone/Coal->plastic/iron/copper at 7550 + Oil liquid 22,223 for a single Nuclear Reactor). I fill some fields on the side as a static number to be used elsewhere. I used Factorio Calculator extensively for all other buildings in this calculation.

For Nuclear Reactor 40 MW, I use the following equations "= 1 * ( 7550 cells value + 22,223 cells divided by 10)" to get 9,772.3. 3550 Iron + 3000 Copper + 500 Coal + 500 Stones + 22,222.222 (rounded up to 22,223).

I used basic oil processing instead of advanced oil processing as you don't need heavy or light oil to make a nuclear reactor, which increases the oil cost by ~11,967. Oil is infinite and doesn't amount to much anyway. This would decrease the cost by, at most, ~1,197 equalized ore cost due to "One Ore = 10 liquid units." I use the same basic oil processing for all other oil materials for other buildings, even for Solar Energy.

Source: https://kirkmcdonald.github.io/calc.html#data=1-1-19&p=basic&items=nuclear-reactor:r:1

Repeat for Heat Exchange and Steam Turbines, then add all three numbers up to get 20,662.3. You will notice that I used a slightly different value above. So I add a few Fluid Storage to simulate needing stuff like pipes and heat pipes, and as for the numbers. I used the optimized Fluid Storage Tanks to Nuclear Reactors ratio on the Factorio Cheat Sheet.

Four fluid storage tanks for 40 MW, seven fluid storage tanks for 80 MW, ten fluid storage tanks for 120 MW, and thirteen fluid storage tanks for 160 MW. You can replace those with heat pipes and pipes and other objects in different blueprint designs.

Source: https://factoriocheatsheet.com/#nuclear-power

Even removing the fluid storage tanks doesn't change the ratio that much. For example, the new build cost ratio would be ~5.39 for 40 MW.

For 160 MW, I just took one Nuclear Reactor and added it four times up to get 39,089.2 equalized ore cost (4 * 9,772.3 = 39,089.2). For 160 MW Nuclear Power, I get 84,989.2 equalized because of how Steam Turbines work. It gives you a small discount (4 * 21,382.3 = 85,529.2 > 84,989.2 minus a few Steam Turbines).

I add the extra Nuclear Reactor here because it is only possible to boost a single Nuclear Reactor to 160 MW by building them. The other three Nuclear Reactors would have their separate 80 MW/120 MW/160 MW set of Solar Energy which adds some more complication to handle, even being limited to a tileable Nuclear 2xN array.


Now moving to Solar 40 MW: I use the following constants that I previously mentioned 952 solar panels (952 solar panels * 42 kW = 39,984 or approximately 40 MW) and 800 accumulators that can maintain a constant 40 MW overnight. Nine substations exist for each ~22 solar panels and One Roboport for every 196 solar panels.

Solar Panels costs 67.5 ore and no liquid.
Accumulators costs 14 ore and 334 Oil.
Substation costs 95 ore and 223 Oil.
Roboport costs 675 ore and 2,000 oil.

For only solar panels, at 40 MW, it takes 64,260 equalized ore. From 952 * 67.5 = 64,260.
For only solar panels, at 160 MW, it takes 257,040 equalized ore. From 952 * 67.5 * 4 = 257,040.

For only accumulators, at 40 MW, it takes 37,920 equalized ore. From 800 * (14 + 334/10) = 37,920.
For only accumulators, at 160 MW, it takes 151,680 equalized ore. From 800 * 4 * (14 + 334/10) = 151,680.

For only Substation, at 40 MW, it takes 5,075.89 equalized ore. From 43.27 accumulators * (95 + 223/10) = 5,075.89.
For only Substations, at 160 MW, it takes 20,303.56 equalized ore. From 43.27 accumulators * 4 * (95 + 224/10) = 20,303.56.

For only Roboport, at 40 MW, it takes 4,250 equalized ore. From 4.89 Roboport * (675 + 2,000/10) = 4,250.
For only Roboport, at 1600 MW, it takes 17,000 equalized ore. From 4.89 Roboport * 4 * (675 + 2,000/10) = 17,000.

I promise we are almost there! Add the four numbers together for 40 MW: 64,260 + 37,920 + 5,075.98 + 4,250 = 111,505.89.
Add the four numbers together for 160 MW: 257,040 + 151,680 + 20,303.56 + 17,000 = 446,023.56.


Bonus extra calculation: Even taking the three different Nuclear Power plant into their own 160 MW subset in an infinite 2xN Nuclear Reactor Setup boost the Solar to Nuclear build cost ratio up to, at most, ~8.01. Nowhere close to the claimed 18 value.

446,023.56 equalized cost (no change) for 160 MW Solar Energy divided by 55672.3 for 160 MW Nuclear Energy (minus 3 * 9772.3 = -29,316.9 + 84,989.2 = 55672.3 equalized with only one Nuclear Reactor) = ~8.012.

[knighttemplar1960]

JustSmile původně napsal:

knighttemplar1960 původně napsal:

Gun turrets + flamethrowers > flamethrowers by themselves

While you can defend your base completely with flamethrowers if a biter gets inside minimum range you have to have something as a back up (especially a new player). With all prespace researches a flamethrower's long DOT takes between 3-4.3 seconds depending on ground fire damage to kill a behemoth biter. A gun turret with all prespace researches and uranium rounds kills a behemoth biter in 1 second.

Why do you have flamethrowers close enough to the walls for their deadzone to be outside your perimeter?

I don't. I'm not a new player (but the OP clearly is). A new player might and prolonged attacks at one spot can open a hole that allows a biter inside minimum range.

[Khagan]

Vyndicu původně napsal:

For Nuclear Reactor 40 MW, I use the following equations "= 1 * ( 7550 cells value + 22,223 cells divided by 10)" to get 9,772.3.
...
Repeat for Heat Exchange and Steam Turbines, then add all three numbers up to get 20,662.3.

I won't quibble with your reactor cost; it's slightly higher than mine but that's because of the way you have chosen to do oil processing. But you haven't shown your exchanger and turbine costs, and they are clearly wrong; there is no way the exchangers and turbines should add up to 11 thousand resources. If we actually build a 40MW one-core power plant, we need 4 exchangers (160 each) and 7 turbines (170 each), for a total of 1840. Add in a dozen heat pipes (70 each) and that's still only 2680.

For 160 MW, I just took one Nuclear Reactor and added it four times up to get 39,089.2 equalized ore cost (4 * 9,772.3 = 39,089.2). For 160 MW Nuclear Power, I get 84,989.2 equalized because of how Steam Turbines work. It gives you a small discount (4 * 21,382.3 = 85,529.2 > 84,989.2 minus a few Steam Turbines).

I add the extra Nuclear Reactor here because it is only possible to boost a single Nuclear Reactor to 160 MW by building them. The other three Nuclear Reactors would have their separate 80 MW/120 MW/160 MW set of Solar Energy which adds some more complication to handle, even being limited to a tileable Nuclear 2xN array.

So you include the cost of four reactors, but only actually use one of them. Sheesh.

(I've pointed out two glaring errors in your calculations. Feel free to point out any significant errors you can find in mine.)

[Hedning]

Vyndicu původně napsal:

You said earlier that yellow belt coal is enough to launch a rocket. Now, you do not know the precise Joules amount necessary for a successful launch.

No further comment on this point.

It is called an estimation. You could try to refute it but you know I am right so you attack the method instead and pretend it's invalid.

I remember in a recent discussion Kingttemplar similarly did not understand estimations and dismissed them off hand. Maybe you're from the same area and had equally poor maths curriculum.

Vyndicu původně napsal:

The last thing they need to know is how to build a base that can launch a rocket in under 8 minutes on coal-based boilers producing at most 62 MW without ammunition.

Good thing no-one is suggesting that. You're the one coming closest, demanding they need a big power facility that can launch the rocket in under 8 min.

Again what I am suggesting is that they just keep their coal power. That they don't worry about switching. I am providing the fact that what they already have and know is the most efficient way to produce power for the base, even used by the most experienced and fastest players.

Vyndicu původně napsal:

Pollution is not a pointless mechanic or distraction. It is meant to push and encourage players to build defense and prepare for it.

Pollution is not a pointless mechanic. I never said it was. Worrying and obsessing about it like you do however is not helpful for your base. Your worry should be elsewhere in your base. Trying to combat pollution everywhere it is formed the way you do, is counter to how the devs designed the game. Fighting the game trying to make it not do what it was designed to do distracts from what is actually important.

Low pollution you can deal with by just having a few turrets spattered about. Most pollution will get eaten by trees and terrain. If biter attacks is a problem just reroll the starting seed a couple of times until you get a grasslands start.

High pollution you deal with using the flamethrowers: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2938557784 See how the pollution is very dense over the base and then it get decimated in just a few chunks down to nothing? And all that pollution scrubbing costs me basically nothing.

Vyndicu původně napsal:

Solar Power's usefulness is not limited to the end game. Mining Outposts need power, and Solar Power can fulfill that niche. An Isolated Solar Power grid for restarting Nuclear Power after a blackout. Solar Power can reduce power network impact on UPS. Solar Power can provide the necessary energy to grow the factory.

-Drag power poles along the rail. Having separate power out there is not very efficient. I don't know why it is so popular. Biters don't go after power poles and only attack them if they are triggered to attack by something else.
-You probably have some nuclear fuel available so you can restart it yourself. But I don't see how it can happen anyway. Unlike coal nuclear is very stable and low power is not going to make fuel production slower in a spiral like coal can do to the coal miners.
-UPS is exclusively late game. Curious that you put it in a list that was prefaced by "usefulness is not limited to the end game". Probably because you were struggling to find valid examples to justify this claim.
-Solar power is slower and harder to expand than any other power source. It is a high upfront investment and takes a lot of space. It can be somewhat helpful when you have no more coal for boilers unless you grab a new mine, which might be annoyingly far away, and don't already have nuclear set up so you would have to start it first, however this is where solid fuel comes in. It is the quickest and easiest way to get past this hump and last until the rocket.

[Chindraba]

Vyndicu původně napsal:

I add the extra Nuclear Reactor here because it is only possible to boost a single Nuclear Reactor to 160 MW by building them. The other three Nuclear Reactors would have their separate 80 MW/120 MW/160 MW set of Solar Energy which adds some more complication to handle, even being limited to a tileable Nuclear 2xN array.

Those kind of situations are why most evaluations are done using margins. Rather finding the cost to generate 40/80/120/160 MW in every conceivable combination of reactor core counts you just keep it simple. The most basic thing your can do with an unknown reactor setup in a 2xN arrangement is change it to a 2x(N+1) arrangement. No matter how many there are, for any value N greater than 1 doing so will add 320MW additional power potential.

Simple comparison: cost to add 2 fully operational cores and support vs cost of adding 320MW of capacity, and support, to an existing solar field.

[Vyndicu]

Khagan původně napsal:

So you include the cost of four reactors, but only actually use one of them. Sheesh.

Your conclusion is incorrect on this point. I will illustrate my point with two different Nuclear Reactors setup and read the output on the very last line in the tooltip box on the right side.

A single Nuclear Reactor without Neighbor Bonus.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2962703848

A Nuclear Reactor surrounded by 3 other Nuclear Reactor for 300% bonus on itself.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2962703858

In order to have a minimum 160 MW of heat generating capacity you need four Nuclear Reactor built.


To make my work complicated. The #1 Neighbor Nuclear Reactor could be 80 MW, 120 MW, or 160 MW. The #2 Neighbor Nuclear Reactor could be 80 MW, 120 MW, or 160 MW. The #3 Neighbor Nuclear Reactor could be 80 MW, 120 MW, or 160 MW.

A single 160 MW Nuclear Reactor could have a total MW value between 400 MW (160 MW + 80 MW + 80 MW + 80 MW) minimum to 640 MW (160 MW * 4) maximum possible value. This is of course assuming that people are sticking to a 2xN layout and there are unorthodox diagonal/circular layout which I am not going to cover here.

That is 9 different possible equalize costs to sit down and work it all out just for one 160 MW Nuclear Reactor as part of a 2xN layout. So for simplification sake, I assume that a 160 MW Nuclear Reactor has three other Nuclear Reactor built.

Khagan původně napsal:

I won't quibble with your reactor cost; it's slightly higher than mine but that's because of the way you have chosen to do oil processing. But you haven't shown your exchanger and turbine costs, and they are clearly wrong; there is no way the exchangers and turbines should add up to 11 thousand resources. If we actually build a 40MW one-core power plant, we need 4 exchangers (160 each) and 7 turbines (170 each), for a total of 1840. Add in a dozen heat pipes (70 each) and that's still only 2680.

I went back and corrected some mistakes and re-did the whole thing a bit more cleaner for Nuclear Power with a working infinite tileable Nuclear Power 2x6 blueprint for 1,760 MW energy. The center lane has to be part of a lake/ocean otherwise the blueprint won't work so landfill is needed for the entire blueprint which comes up to 7630 tiles. Assuming that we are still talking about Vanilla Factorio so no waterfill mods and that generally only half will be used as part of the construction* (half built on solid ground and half built out in the lake for water/offshore pump for heat exchanger in middle lane).

To illustrate what I meant by water/offshore pump placement.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2962735902

If I wanted to remove the landfill cost I would have to build dozens of underground/pipes to move water past the steam turbines.

I changed to use the cheaper oil recipe which has it's own downsides (more machines to process the light/heavy oil to make the cost cheaper). This also affects the Solar Energy as well since Accumulator, Substantion, and Roboport all utilize Oil products. This REALLY impacts Accumulator the most because it has the highest number of entities built next to Solar Panel.

I still have not factored Uranium Processing construction costs, yet.

I swapped out the expensive green stack inserter for a normal yellow inserter since this blueprint don't need that kind of throughput. This only impact the Nuclear Blueprint.

A couple of solar/accumulators are included for inserters/Roboport only and is on it's own separate network from the Steam Turbine power network. This is to allow the Nuclear Energy to continue operate even after a bad blackout.


This is the Nuclear Power blueprint working continuous non-stop for a hour.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2962735890


Here is my work:

• Nuclear Reactors #12 units; Individual Equalized cost: 8,575.64; Equalized cost: 102,907.68
  
• Logistic Chests (both provider and requester included) #24 units; Individual Equalized cost: 1,824.24; Equalized cost: 1,824.24
  
• Inserters #24 units; Individual Equalized cost: 5.5; Equalized cost: 132
  
• Medium Electric Pole #4 units; Individual Equalized cost: 14; Equalized cost: 56
  
• Heat Exchanger #192 units; Individual Equalized cost: 160; Equalized cost: 30,720
  
• Steam Turbines #336 units; Individual Equalized cost: 170; Equalized cost: 57,120
  
• Pipe to Ground (underground pipe) #56 units; Individual Equalized cost: 7.5; Equalized cost: 420
  
• Pipes #374 units; Individual Equalized cost: 1; Equalized cost: 374
  
• Heat Pipes #426 units; Individual Equalized cost: 70; Equalized cost: 29,820
  
• Solar panels #72 units; Individual Equalized cost: 67.5; Equalized cost: 4,860
  
• Accumulators #60 units; Individual Equalized cost: 29.38; Equalized cost: 1,763
  
• Roboport #4 units; Individual Equalized cost: 767.308; Equalized cost: 3069.23
  
• Offshore Pumps #20 units; Individual Equalized cost: 8; Equalized cost: 160
  
• Radar #2 units; Individual Equalized cost: 32.5; Equalized cost: 65
  
• Substations #32 units; Individual Equalized cost: 105.26; Equalized cost: 3,368.2
  
• Storage tank (500 degree steam storage) #146 units; Individual Equalized cost: 45; Equalized cost: 6,570
  
• Landfill* #3815 units; Individual Equalized cost: 20; Equalized cost: 76,300

Total Equalized Cost Sum is 319,529 for 1,760 MW Nuclear Energy.


I went back and redid the Solar Energy for 40 MW (primarily due to cheaper oil recipe). Here is my work.

• Solar panels #952 units; Individual Equalized cost: 67.5; Equalized cost: 64,260 (no change from before)
  
• Accumulators #800 units; Individual Equalized cost: 29.385; Equalized cost: 23,508 (slightly cheaper)
  
• Substations #44 units (rounded up); Individual Equalized cost: 105.26; Equalized cost: 4,631.28
  
• Roboports #5 units (rounded up); Individual Equalized cost: 767.31; Equalized cost: 3836.54

Total Equalized Cost Sum is 96,235.82 for 40 MW of Solar Energy.

To get 1760 MW of energy I time the Equalized Cost for 40 MW by 44 times.

I get for 1760 MW of Solar Energy the Equalized Cost of 4,234,376.

Twenty time 319,529 Nuclear Energy is 6,390,589.