Factorio Forums

@Honktown: what do you mean by "extinguished" ?
Yes, there are more turbines than needed (symetry and less pipes). It "spikes" at 1.3 GW, then stabilizes at 1.1 GW -> desined output. @Bauer: Wiki says different.
https://wiki.factorio.com/Pump There is mention of a pump bug, so i tested the throughput. max i could squeeze out of a pump is 6000/sec. (6 offshore pumps to tank one pump output -> fluid void. only 5 pumps get used.
The other test results are...wacky.

I meant exactly how I worded it. The pumps dropped to 40 fluid per second. I wonder if power draw requirement things aren't working right for me (the primary, secondary, tertiary, etc)
Also need to figure out energy interfaces or find a mod for draining power...

@Honktown: strange...
Editor is the built-in way to make quick tests. either start a new game with it or type /editor on the command line in an existing game.(nb. disables achievements)
To set energy interface to drain:
1. get one:) 2 set it like this:

This is driving me crazy
I now have worse performance than I did before. Yes, worse.
I managed to catch a picture but it isn't consistent. As you can see in the screen shot, the heat exchanger connected directly to the offshore pump has no water, and that affects the entire row. For some reason, apparently at random, the pump will decide that it isn't providing any water, and the entire row of heat exchangers stop working. Then it will decide to start working again, so it is not consistent which rows are affected. On one scan, it looked to me like this issue was affecting about 10% of my power supply. Yup at any one time 10% of my power just stops working. I am now going to try inserting pressurized water tanks. Thanks disentius for the blueprint, and everyone for your suggestions.

Amarula wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:59 pm

As you can see in the screen shot, the heat exchanger connected directly to the offshore pump has no water, and that affects the entire row. For some reason, apparently at random, the pump will decide that it isn't providing any water, and the entire row of heat exchangers stop working. Then it will decide to start working again, so it is not consistent which rows are affected.

Have you checked heat excanger temperature? It must reach 500C to start working (and comsumpting the water). Long heat pipes should be avoided because of sudden temperature drop. They are very ineffective (so challenging )

coppercoil wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:03 pm

Have you checked heat excanger temperature?

Good thing to check but nothing so logical alas. At this point the reactors are up to about 998 degrees and the furthest heat pipe was about 882. The heat exchangers on the opposite side of those heat pipes were all working as expected. As I said, it works some of the time. When I checked yesterday, it was one of the rows on the opposite side of the reactor, and the ones not working today were working fine then.

coppercoil wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:03 pm

. Long heat pipes should be avoided because of sudden temperature drop. They are very ineffective (so challenging )

But the nuclear reactors themselves are very effective as heat pipes (although they will be very expensive )))))))))
In my last 11 GW power plant, the last / last reactors(in the role heat pipes) fall at temperatures up to 700 ° C.
This means that theoretically I can still add turbines until the temperature drops to 500 ° C.

azesmbog wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:18 pm

But the nuclear reactors themselves are very effective as heat pipes (although they will be very expensive )))))))))

I have thought about it. Price is not a problem for a large base . But it look very unnatural. I'm not ready for this

Price - yes, no problem for a giant base Unusual, but you have to try everything It’s very, very difficult to build, but there are no problems with water Well, you can also try to expand as long as there is enough temperature on the very latest coolant.

@ Amarula: yep. its non-intuitive
If i do the math:
your 12 heat exchangers want to consume 12*103 w/s = 1236 water per second
Offshore pump delivers 1200 w/s, so missing 36 w/s.
If i look at the consumption (never look at the fluid amount) your highlighted exchanger actually consumes 95/s of a max 103/s
If you check the rest of the row, you will find the missing amount sums to 36/s for the row...
--

mrvn wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:45 pm

Honktown wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:30 pm

disentius wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:36 pm

...

Is this another one of those fluidboxes vs pipes things again? In my mind the flow should drop to trash by the end of the first exchanger banks.

Also I was trying it out, and because the pumps feed the water, if you overdraw the reactor it extinguishes itself around 1.3 GW

You want to pump steam into a separate tank with steam turbine that powers just the pumps and inserters. Disconnected form the rest of the grid.

Actually a great idea, with a pump to make sure. thanks!

disentius wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:22 pm

look at the consumption (never look at the fluid amount)

Ah! thank you for pointing that out.

Hmmm.... so if the heat exchangers are actually getting water (just using it all), I am back to wondering why my power production is now worse... it must be that the steam isn't getting to the turbines. I am going to try your setup where each heat exchanger feeds directly to two turbines. Off to completely redo my nuclear sectors again. Thank goodness for construction robots and blueprints!

Do you have a blueprint of your reactor? I want to see if I can find what the problem might be, (and i always learn things from other people's designs)

disentius wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:53 pm

@Honktown: strange...
Editor is the built-in way to make quick tests. either start a new game with it or type /editor on the command line in an existing game.(nb. disables achievements)
To set energy interface to drain:
1. get one:)
eei-1.png

2 set it like this:
eei-2.png

Thank you! I've had no clue how to use the damn things.

azesmbog wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:18 pm

In my last 11 GW power plant, the last / last reactors(in the role heat pipes) fall at temperatures up to 700 ° C.
This means that theoretically I can still add turbines until the temperature drops to 500 ° C.

Doesn't quite work that way, I'm afraid. It's all about energy balance. If you're removing more heat energy (per unit time) from the system than is being added, temperatures will drop until enough exchangers hit 500C to reduce the energy extraction into balance, and from there temperatures will remain constant. If you're adding more heat energy into the system than is being removed, temperatures will increase until enough reactors hit 1000C that the energy loss from trying (and failing) to heat them more brings the energy production into balance, and from THERE temperatures will remain constant. Whereas if exactly as much energy is being removed as added, temperatures will remain constant across the entire system.

Systems without loss or inefficiency are quite nicely calculable that way. (If Factorio simulated an ongoing energy loss to the environment for each entity warmer than 15C, well, that'd be pretty catastrophic for nuclear as it currently functions. Gotta love the perfect insulation on those heat pipes!)

Note that this is in no way inconsistent with the potential for the energy FLOW in a given layout being insufficient to reach equilibrium - if you try to put your exchangers 1000 heat pipe tiles away from the reactors, then those reactors are going to heat up to 1000C pretty quick since they can't get rid of their energy fast enough any other way.

So as long as the equilibrium temperature of all parts of the system is between 500C and 1000C, you can't extract any more energy from it long-term. You might be able to pull a bit more out (by cooling things down to 500C) in the short term, but that won't last long. Basically if you're already draining the bucket as fast as it's filling, draining a bit faster to remove the standing water won't amount to much in the long run.

Edit: Assuming a nonstop duty cycle on the reactors. If they're only fueled some of the time, then you can play all sorts of games with the circuit network to modulate this. But that would be quite a bit more sophisticated a setup than you seem to be implying.

Beamup wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:48 pm

But that would be quite a bit more sophisticated a setup than you seem to be implying.

Thank you for such a detailed answer, I hope I understood the main idea. But...!!
But I would still like to verify this experimentally, at a comparable load.
What I've done.
I made a save (I hope nothing will happen to him, and I will return to it?), And in the command line I went to the editor, as suggested above.
But I don’t understand how to set up the “load equivalent” - the electrical energy interface.
How do I configure it to consume 2 GW? 6-8-16 GW ??? So that I can experimentally find the peak power delivered, and long-term, and see how many extra turbines I get, right or wrong. Theory is confirmed by practice.
Well, after the experiments, return to the saved game.

The second slider from the top governs how much energy it produces, the bottom how much it consumes. The top seems like some sort of limiter on either direction of flow? If you want an effectively-infinite source of power, set the top two all the way to the right and the bottom to zero. If you want an effectively-infinite sink of power, set the top and bottom all the way to the right and the middle to zero. Then looking at power network statistics will show production/consumption quite clearly IMX.

I'm sure there are more sophisticated ways to use it, and a deeper level to understand the "buffer," but that's as far as I've yet grokked. Good enough for this purpose anyway.

All my nuclear plants are now upgraded (thank you again disentius); 10K fewer pipes and 5K fewer underground pipes, my UPS thanks you! No issues with heat exchangers out of water, no issues with turbines having no steam
Another related question: is it better to run more reactors than you really need so your steam turbines are running at say 50%, or to only power up what you need so that the turbines are pushing 95% capacity? (Not 100%, or I start seeing brownouts where I am not quite producing enough power).
The pros and cons that I see: fewer reactors operating means using less fuel (not a big concern at this point, thank you Kovarex); fewer reactors operating means a long lead time to warm up when I do need more power...

Off to figure out how to make a resetting timer using the circuit network, but that is a subject for a different thread!

Beamup wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:38 am

If you want an effectively-infinite sink of power, set the top and bottom all the way to the right and the middle to zero. Then looking at power network statistics will show production/consumption quite clearly IMX.

So did.
Electricity production as intended - ~ 11 Gwatt, other turbines can either be removed, but the best option is to build on the left side still active reactors and get another +5 GWatt.
Up-building will be a very, very easy task. So such power plants have a chance of success, one problem is to find a very huge sea. These come across, but very, very rarely on a standard map. To me in my "endless journey" - sometimes I came across even more than the current version.

Amarula wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:06 pm

Another related question: is it better to run more reactors than you really need so your steam turbines are running at say 50%, or to only power up what you need so that the turbines are pushing 95% capacity? (Not 100%, or I start seeing brownouts where I am not quite producing enough power).
The pros and cons that I see: fewer reactors operating means using less fuel (not a big concern at this point, thank you Kovarex); fewer reactors operating means a long lead time to warm up when I do need more power...

I would say I do not agree with the question.

Personally I rather add silos to store Steam and let the silo levels determine if you need to run nuclear cores:

Recall that Steam is a fluid (that comes in two sub-flavours -- high and low temp, and nuclear exchangers make hightemp). Your nuclear cores burn a fuel cell for a fixed amount of time (exactly 200sec each*) to make heat which the exchangers change to Steam. The Turbines then "burn" Steam as needed for power. For Nuclear, I prefer to have my system hold a reservoir of Steam, and when demand pulls it below a threshold more nuclear fuel is deposited into the Cores. Once the reservoir nears full then nuclear fuel insertion stops.



https://wiki.factorio.com/Tutorial:Circ ... k_cookbook
See " Optimal usage of fuel for nuclear power". (You can also search for youtube videos if you prefer)

You could use this at a more detailed level to have a larger Steam reservoir and based on different thresholds power up more and more reactors. A way to think of this is similar to "mining" the steam using one process, then holding onto it until needed. (In a huge base plan you could even use train cars to move it around)...



Here is an elaborate 32-core reactor (not mine) which can auto detect demand and power on more cores that might inspire:

viewtopic.php?t=50952


* https://wiki.factorio.com/Tutorial:Nuclear_power