Solid fuel effeciency?

[Troll Norris]

The very basic coal mine procuces 2MJ of energy per second. The electric mining drill needs 90kw (90KJ/s) Here is the effeciency 95,5% (without inserter)

Now, let's say we have the worst scenario. Pumjack pumps 2 oil per second, basic oil processing
Pumpjack needs 90KW
Refinery needs 420KW
Chemical plant 210KW

To get 1MJ form ground we need:
Chemical plant:
12MJ per 2s -> 1MJ per 1/6s
210kW*(1/6)s = 35kJ

Refinery - Basic oil processing
12MJ->20PG-> (5/3)PG per MJ
Production 9PG/s
1MJ - (5/3)/9 = (5/27)s
420KW*(5/27) = 77+(7/9) KJ

Subtotal Chemical plant+Refinery: 112+(7/9)KJ per 1MJ

Pumpjack
100CD->45PG
5/3PG-> (well, I am tired off finding the real numbers) = 3+(19/27)CD
2CD/s
(3+(19/27))/2= 1+(23/27)s => 166+(2/3)KW per MJ.

Total:
Chemical plant+Refinery+Pumpjack=126+(47/54)= rounded 280KW per 1MW
....rounded 72% effecienty.

Comparing with coal, the Coal is 6 times better.

So, coal looks like better, but this result is not bad. Specially for the worst scennario.
You can check my math if I was correct if you want.

[beamupstc]

Two points strike me immediately:

1. Basic oil processing is pretty much a worst-case scenario for solid fuel. Typically a transition to solid fuel is made (by those who make it) after Advanced oil processing, making the solid fuel from light oil.

2. Electrical efficiency isn't the greatest metric to use. Really the question should be opportunity cost, i.e. what else could be done with those resources instead. Coal you don't have to bother extracting at all if you're not burning it (the amount used for other things assumed constant), so the opportunity cost is what you could have done with the resources that went into the coal mine itself. Light oil not used for solid fuel (the demand from flamethrower turrets being both small and presumptively constant) would have instead been cracked into PG, so the loss of potential PG is the opportunity cost on that side of the ledger.

So it's really got more to do with how the cost of extracting the coal compares to the cost of extracting and processing enough additional oil to replace the PG which the light oil wasn't cracked into. And those costs have a bunch of different components, not just energy.

Which is all to say that It's More Complicated.

[The Chaotic Coder]

There's also the fact that oil never runs out. Wells will slow down as they're used, but that hits the floor eventually and doesn't go any slower than that. Coal mines do run out.

Personally I go for nuclear as soon as I can, but solid fuel is a useful intermediate step and even through the endgame I still run trains on it.

[Fel]

You picked solid fuel from petroleum gas, which is not very efficient for solid fuel.

For example, a round of basic oil processing costs the exact same as a round of advanced processing (there is water too but that doesn't cost any power) in power or time but it produces 45 petroleum gas instead of 55 on top of 45 light and 25 heavy oil that can also be made into solid fuel (and light oil needs only half as much per solid fuel).
This makes it significantly better if your aim is to transform oil into solid fuel.
Cracking heavy oil to light oil turns 40 heavy oil into 30 light oil, so the potential for solid fuel goes from 2 to 3 (+50%) for 2 seconds at 210 kW (so you are trading 420 kJ for 12 MJ).


Another very interesting chain is the coal liquefaction, it requires a bit of heavy oil to kickstart it (but it produces more than it needs so you have a surplus that can be used for other things including solid fuel) and it uses steam so a portion of your produced solid fuel needs to be re-invested directly as well but unlike the advanced oil processing it uses coal as the base and makes it output more energy magically.
It is a great way to make the most of your coal when you don't need to save it for the recipes that require coal itself.

[Troll Norris]

Please, read the article. I used the worst possible scenerio. And I ANNOUNCED that.
Also, mind the oil cracking also consumes power.

[Fel]

It is the "worst scenario" but your topic is titled "Solid fuel effeciency?" and your conclusion "So, coal looks like better, but this result is not bad. Specially for the worst scennario." is only correct when using that specific scenario and not really representative of the efficiency of solid fuel versus coal.

[beamupstc]

Originally posted by Troll Norris:

Please, read the article. I used the worst possible scenerio. And I ANNOUNCED that.
Also, mind the oil cracking also consumes power.

Indeed you did state that, but a reasonable person would assume that you meant the worst scenario with respect to oil production rates (i.e. 2/s). That being the metric you stated it next to. If you meant to say "a scenario in which nobody in their right mind would ever consider doing what I'm calculating" then (a) you should be even more explicit about that, and (b) such is not really worthy of discussion.

[The Chaotic Coder]

Originally posted by beamupstc:

Originally posted by Troll Norris:

Please, read the article. I used the worst possible scenerio. And I ANNOUNCED that.
Also, mind the oil cracking also consumes power.

Indeed you did state that, but a reasonable person would assume that you meant the worst scenario with respect to oil production rates (i.e. 2/s). That being the metric you stated it next to. If you meant to say "a scenario in which nobody in their right mind would ever consider doing what I'm calculating" then (a) you should be even more explicit about that, and (b) such is not really worthy of discussion.

Also, if we're apply worst-case efficiency calculations to oil then in the interest of fairness we should do the same for coal. I noticed OP ignored the energy consumption of the inserter for the boiler. So let's include that. Also, belts transport things for free. So let's not use them. Let's use logistic bots, and not give them any upgrades. Also, let's have the coal mine a few thousand tiles away from the power plant so the bots have to pause to recharge multiple times along the way... now, a coal operation working in this way won't even meet its own energy demands. Energy in > Energy out!

See? I can do it, too!

[AlexMBrennan]

Comparing with coal, the Coal is 6 times better.

Is that supposed to be a surprise - obviously burning the unprocessed coal directly uses less energy then heavily processing oil. Because you don't need to do any processing.

[Troll Norris]

I've solved the problem by the 36,75 MW solar power plant.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1973036396

[beamupstc]

Fun fact - converting coal into solid fuel via liquefaction has an energy efficiency of about 187% by my calculations. So once liquefaction is researched, coal should never be burned.


80 Coal has an energy value of 320 MJ.

Running 8 cycles of Coal Liquefaction requires 400 units of Steam, which if it comes from a Boiler consumes 12 MJ.

Those 8 cycles of Coal Liquefaction take 40 seconds, times a Refinery's energy consumption of 0.42 MW is 16.8 MJ.

The net outputs of the liquefaction are 520 Heavy Oil, 160 Light Oil, and 80 Petroleum Gas.

Cracking the Heavy Oil into Light takes 13 cycles, or 26 seconds, times a Chemical Plant's 0.21 MW is 5.46 MJ. This outputs 390 Light Oil, for a total of 550.

55 cycles of Light Oil into Solid Fuel is 110 seconds, times a Chemical Plant's 0.21 MW is 23.1 MJ, producing 55 Solid Fuel.

To use the Petroleum Gas, 4 cycles of PG into Solid Fuel takes 8 seconds of a Chemical Plant's time, or 1.68 MJ, and produces 4 Solid Fuel. (Realistically you'd probably turn this into plastic/sulfur, but that route would be taken if those outputs were more valuable than the fuel, so this is a lower limit on the value.)

Add that all up, and you've consumed 379.04 MJ, mostly in the form of the coal's energy content. The 59 Solid Fuel produced by the process contain 708 MJ.

This doesn't include inserters/pumps/idle drain/etc. to be sure, but those are small. They're certainly not going to consume anything close to the 328.96 MJ gained in the conversion.

[Fumo Bnnuy n Friends]

side note

solid oil fuel can be used to make rocket fuel which is more compact and lasts longer if you use it for vehicles.

plus others said oil never runs out just slows down while coal does.
Best to use solid fuel because you need to get rid of excess light oil sometimes. That and while it doesn't produce more power i think it lasts longer (not sure someone check for me).


either way both sorta suck once you get everything electrified, learn how to use nuclear energy and steam turbines, and develop rocket fuel or nuclear fuels for all your vehicles.