[spoilers] Is full Nuclear worth it?

[David 001]

As opposed to the previous system of Uranium Power -> Plutonium Rods -> Sink, is the new wasteless chain of Uranium Power -> Plutonium Power -> Fisconium Power worth it?
Because given the insane resorce and power requirements for producing Fisconium (to get rid of ONE Plutonium fuel rod's worth of waste you need an entire nuclear pasta). Did a few numbers, and (With no alternates except for Infused uranium cell and Uranium Fuel Unit) ~300 uranium ultimately comes out to 10 ficsonium fuel rods per minute, which requires an insane amount of production. That's just for a relatively small (175GW) plant. And AT LEAST 21GW of that just goes to powering the thing. Add in any power-hungry alternates, and the project could easily swell to 60GW for a larger plant. So is the cost justified?

[David 001]

Originally posted by vivan:

Originally posted by kLuns:

Aren't somersloops the most effective in the last process and from there backwards?

Most of the time, but with rare exceptions. When last step uses a lot more machines than previous and only 1 input is very limited doubling that input might be more effective.

E.g. for Ficsite Trigon:
1) 2 constructors: 240 SAM -> 60 Reanimated SAM
2) 1 converter: 60 Reanimated SAM + 120 Aluminum Ingot -> 30 Ficsite Ingot
3) 3 constructors: 30 Ficsite Ingot -> 90 Ficsite Trigon

For doubling output at the same SAM input:
Doubling step 1 requires 2 somersloops and 2x Aluminum Ingots
Doubling step 2 requires 2 somersloops
Doubling step 3 requires 3 somersloops

So the most efficient is doubling step 2, not 3.

Sadly, someone did the math, an it turns out you'll make more power building power augmenters for uranium nuclear only (and maybe slooping some fuel rods) then you will with ficsonium, all while using less resources. As it stands, ficsonium is basically useless due to how expensive it is and how poor a fuel it is.

[Schobbob]

setting up the full nuclear cycle was kinda annoying and took a long time, probably could would have been faster and easier to mass produce rocket fuel

[Khaylain]

Originally posted by David 001:

Originally posted by vivan:

Most of the time, but with rare exceptions. When last step uses a lot more machines than previous and only 1 input is very limited doubling that input might be more effective.

E.g. for Ficsite Trigon:
1) 2 constructors: 240 SAM -> 60 Reanimated SAM
2) 1 converter: 60 Reanimated SAM + 120 Aluminum Ingot -> 30 Ficsite Ingot
3) 3 constructors: 30 Ficsite Ingot -> 90 Ficsite Trigon

For doubling output at the same SAM input:
Doubling step 1 requires 2 somersloops and 2x Aluminum Ingots
Doubling step 2 requires 2 somersloops
Doubling step 3 requires 3 somersloops

So the most efficient is doubling step 2, not 3.

Sadly, someone did the math, an it turns out you'll make more power building power augmenters for uranium nuclear only (and maybe slooping some fuel rods) then you will with ficsonium, all while using less resources. As it stands, ficsonium is basically useless due to how expensive it is and how poor a fuel it is.

Ficsonium isn't for making power, it's for dealing with the byproducts of Plutonium power. The fact that you can get some power out of it does not change the fact that it's just meant as a way to get rid of Plutonium waste.
So the question is whether Plutonium + Ficsonium is worth it compared to just sinking the Plutonium. And given that Plutonium itself is twice the power of Uranium that has to have some impact on the calculations.

[vivan]

Tbh sinking Plutonium Fuel Rods makes no sense from lore? rules? perspective. Nothing radioactive can be sinked yet there's an exception. It makes sense why before 1.0 it was allowed (no other options to process it) but I thought it was temporary exception till proper way was implemented.

For me full nuclear cycle is just an end game goal. Not because it's more efficient or required, but because it's fun.

[David 001]

Originally posted by vivan:

Tbh sinking Plutonium Fuel Rods makes no sense from lore? rules? perspective. Nothing radioactive can be sinked yet there's an exception. It makes sense why before 1.0 it was allowed (no other options to process it) but I thought it was temporary exception till proper way was implemented.

For me full nuclear cycle is just an end game goal. Not because it's more efficient or required, but because it's fun.

All pre-waste uranium products can be sunk, including ore.

[Mercy]

I just cleared the game using 16 fuel generator, several geothermals, assorted coal, and 7 alien power augmentors. Nuclear is too much werk.

[Evilsod]

Originally posted by vivan:

Tbh sinking Plutonium Fuel Rods makes no sense from lore? rules? perspective. Nothing radioactive can be sinked yet there's an exception. It makes sense why before 1.0 it was allowed (no other options to process it) but I thought it was temporary exception till proper way was implemented.

For me full nuclear cycle is just an end game goal. Not because it's more efficient or required, but because it's fun.

My understanding is that pre-1.0, first Nuclear Waste was a byproduct you could do nothing about (without certain tricks). But since it built up so slowly it was a completely pointless problem anyway, and you could just stick it way off the map.
Then you could reprocess it into Plutonium and sink it... or burn that too, and end up with Waste again.
Now you have one more processing step, which enables it to be consumed entirely, producing no waste, so this time there's no point sinking it.

So the cycle is now complete.

[Prometheus0000]

Originally posted by David 001:

Originally posted by vivan:

Most of the time, but with rare exceptions. When last step uses a lot more machines than previous and only 1 input is very limited doubling that input might be more effective.

E.g. for Ficsite Trigon:
1) 2 constructors: 240 SAM -> 60 Reanimated SAM
2) 1 converter: 60 Reanimated SAM + 120 Aluminum Ingot -> 30 Ficsite Ingot
3) 3 constructors: 30 Ficsite Ingot -> 90 Ficsite Trigon

For doubling output at the same SAM input:
Doubling step 1 requires 2 somersloops and 2x Aluminum Ingots
Doubling step 2 requires 2 somersloops
Doubling step 3 requires 3 somersloops

So the most efficient is doubling step 2, not 3.

Sadly, someone did the math, an it turns out you'll make more power building power augmenters for uranium nuclear only (and maybe slooping some fuel rods) then you will with ficsonium, all while using less resources. As it stands, ficsonium is basically useless due to how expensive it is and how poor a fuel it is.

This makes me sad, I guess uranium should be nerfed, or plutonium buffed?

Originally posted by vivan:

Tbh sinking Plutonium Fuel Rods makes no sense from lore? rules? perspective. Nothing radioactive can be sinked yet there's an exception. It makes sense why before 1.0 it was allowed (no other options to process it) but I thought it was temporary exception till proper way was implemented.

For me full nuclear cycle is just an end game goal. Not because it's more efficient or required, but because it's fun.

Sounds like they should make the plutonium rods unsinkable now that there's a 'clean' way to deal with the plutonium waste. This way you either stack up uranium/plutonium waste, or do the full chain.

As for the ingots, I dunno how to fix that, maybe adding an alt recipe that gives more but requires singularity cells or dark matter crystals or something? I haven't gotten there yet, so I'm not sure what would be appropriate.

[Honorable_D]

There was a post on Reddit showing the production chains for no-waste nuclear power and then rocket fuel into fuel generators...and it was pretty insane. The rocket fuel generators were so, so much less complex and required so fewer buildings.

The buffed fuel generators + the new fuel types have made nuclear energy not really worth.