Factorio Forums

Even with such a simple design, there's a lot of potential for complexity. The input temperature of the cold water supply could impact the rate at which steam would be converted back into water, encouraging designs that aren't long chains but rather make use of the contrast in temperatures to maximize efficiency.

Steam turbines, just like nuclear, could enable creativity--and fit nicely as an earlier progression to higher tech power generation with satisfying returns on investment.

At this point I would argue they bridge a significant gap in the tech tree, looking forward.

Ohz wrote:Water would become a rare ressource if you set a map as tiny and super rare puddle in the gigantic new red desert biome... Only few pumps here and there, and another train set up that care with liquids added into your train netword, and make the tank wagon even more usefull. I love it !

Rush steam turbine tech to make the most of the oasis? Build for water conservation so you can afford to switch over to advanced oil processing? That does sound fun.

Malachite wrote:something that spits out various results would be awesome.

Yes, I'm sure the centrifuge will be awesome.

I'd like to throw my name in the list of people that are disappointed in the removal of the closed loop cooling towers. I would have just made them optional just like the circuit network is optional. (You have to do the research, but I've launched many a rocket without it.) That way closed loop system, like in areas where water is hard to come by, are still possible, but people who don't want to use it don't have to. I agree with the leaving out of the meltdown mechanic, it just would not have been fun, unless your a big fan of circuit networks, which I'm not.

I'm just guessing the endless miner efficacy research is just one of those end game thing s you can have your science doing after it's really become pointless to do research. I normally stick to 10 science labs so it works for me, won't drain my factory too bad.

Has any research been done to look into making boilers a little better on lag. I know some people use the Solar power system due to the amount of lag steam creates.

Again would love closed loop options maybe just that part as a lower science research.

DaemosDaen wrote:Has any research been done to look into making boilers a little better on lag. I know some people use the Solar power system due to the amount of lag steam creates.

The change in boilers to support heat pipes and steam conversion included making them larger. More powerful boilers in lower numbers should reduce their computational burden. Unless you're talking about graphical, framerate-related lag?

Why dont make them two separate researchs? On one side be have the nuclear power plan research, it can work on its own, and in the other we have the closed water cycle that can improve our energy generation systems. I think u should let the door open to add it later on.

I said is a few times already, I'll say it here again - I like the idea of risk connected to using higher-end technologies (+ possibly researches to minimize that risk), and the idea of meltdown with blackout, (with small-range explosions too , alright), massive waves of radiation (that in a certain vinicity proves lethal to anything that comes too close, unless shielded with, say, power armour) luring in enraged biters from the area, and scorching heat pouring out of reactor, setting on fire everything in a certain vinicity for a "relatively" short time after the "incident".

And I'll say again - We need moats and tunnelers
That's all, keep up the good work

I'm not exactly sure if this has been thought of before... But I was wondering as to if the idea of turning steam engines and boilers into multiblocks could reduce calculation strains on the computer. Say you have 10 steam engines in a column like in most instances for a steam setup... wouldn't it be better to similarly to the solar network group those engines into a single entity calculate flow rate and fluid box size aswell as output once and thereby reduce individual processing cost? You could do some percentage trickery to display fluid pressure aswell as production and satisfaction. I was just throwing an idea out because most people complain that steam is laggy not that it doesn't produce enough.

stretch611 wrote:Personally, I agree with the decision to not have meltdowns. As mentioned earlier, modern reactors are not prone to the problems of older ones; they have been redesigned so that in a catastrophic event such as an internal power failure that the passive cooling systems take over and force a cooldown before a meltdown can happen.

From an in game perspective, meltdowns will not matter anyway. If meltdowns did have a chance of happening, a nuclear plant would just be placed out of the way in an outpost on the map. Assuming it is late game only, more than likely, the first outpost you have that runs dry on its resources would be a good spot.

This. Except the part about "modern reactors," because, dieselpunk -- but anyhow that's not important.

I'm not really opposed to meltdowns. Maybe they could be fun! But, surely, they could also be annoying and repetitive depending on how they were implemented. I also promise, now, on the record, not to complain if you add them later and blow up my factory in a patch

However, I think you're crazy not to do cooling towers -- it's a concave cylinder with a few decorations, how hard can it be compared to the other stuff you guys do all the time? Well, I'm a bit of a 3d ignoramus, so I take my own opinion with a grain of salt But it strikes me as a pretty easy way to get a new, interesting and iconic industrial object in the game. I suppose I'm a bit disappointed to hear you aren't pursuing it.

golfmiketango wrote:However, I think you're crazy not to do cooling towers -- it's a concave cylinder with a few decorations, how hard can it be compared to the other stuff you guys do all the time? Well, I'm a bit of a 3d ignoramus, so I take my own opinion with a grain of salt But it strikes me as a pretty easy way to get a new, interesting and iconic industrial object in the game. I suppose I'm a bit disappointed to hear you aren't pursuing it.

Kovarex said the main reason was the learning curve of managing a new steam loop system on top of the complexities of nuclear power itself. I'm hoping that my suggestions address that and more!

That said, I'm still scratching my head about how a combined entity would work internally. Am I overlooking something fatal (or at least not easily handled automatically within each self-cooling turbine) with satisfying the system's dynamics? How would it work in series vs. parallel? Would it attempt to convert all incoming steam to electricity and evaporate what it couldn't use, or shut down automatically like the current steam engine?

1. Construct a reactor near a huge alien nest.
2. Cause a meltdown.
3. ???
4. Woohoo, more room for solar panels!

NoQ wrote:1. Construct a reactor near a huge alien nest.
2. Cause a meltdown.
3. ???
4. Woohoo, more room for solar panels!

Yeah we need nukes. Nukes/meltdowns should also produce lost of pollution^^

I would love to see closed water loops and cooling towers in an earlier stage of the game in combination with coal plants.

Having cooling towers in mid game to make coal power plants more effective would make the midgame much more interesting and add some nice complexty without shifting too much complexity on nuclear power plants in the late game.

The percentage of 235U versus 238U should be configurable. On earth, they were originally equally abundant, but 235U has a shorter half life. The 0.7% point is just where the earth is now, and as such is an unlikely point for an alien planet unless it is exactly the same age as earth.

Well like others I'm disappointed to hear that the closed water cycle got dropped.

Nuclear Power without Turbines and Cooling Towers does not really feel like Nuclear Power to me, though I know there are various different concepts for fission power in real life.

Also I think the argument of "Closed water cycle would make it too complex" is really a mood.

That said I like the heat pipes... if they are going to be used for different stuff as well... not just Reactor heat output.


Still I hope the closed water cycle will make it to the game because a lot of people would be really disappointed if not... It's not only the people voicing their opinion on the forum.

MeduSalem wrote:That said I like the heat pipes... if they are going to be used for different stuff as well...

Oooh, things like furnaces could run directly from heat instead of electricity to be much more efficient and produce very little pollution. Perhaps not in vanilla but providing the option of modding heat pipes on to machines would make for some awesome possibilities.

MaexxDesign wrote:Do I have to start a new game to use nuclear power because of the new resource ?

Any idea ?

MaexxDesign wrote:

MaexxDesign wrote:Do I have to start a new game to use nuclear power because of the new resource ?

Any idea ?

Most likely, like a mod that adds a new resource, you just need to travel far enough to reveal a new chunk with the resources.

Open loop designs could still be entirely feasible as the player's first nuclear reactors. I mean, that's how steam engines already work. Input hot water, electricity gets produced, the water gets exhausted to the environment. With the current nuclear reactor plans, the only addition is heat pipes from the reactors to the boilers.

Cooling towers, steam turbines, and closed loop water cycles would be a second step to make nuclear reactors more efficient. However, they are not in any sense strictly necessary.

Looking back at the reactor setups, I have a strange feeling that my focus on water efficiency and "liberating steam power" may have been somewhat overblown. The four-reactor example is feeding 12 3x2-tile boilers per offshore pump.

That's nearly as many boilers as 0.14 requires per pump, and those were 1x1 entities!

Translation: Boilers may already output far more steam than they consume as water, greatly reducing the input requirements even if the steam is consumed. If so... Well, I had fun at least.

Only time (or the devs) will tell.

When looking at the picture above I ask myself how many reactors one can attach next to one another... or if 4 reactors is going to be the hard-coded limit due to how the heat pipes work.

I also find it sad that they didn't consider my suggestion of making the reactor 6x6 which would allow for much better fractal-like patterns...

That they are rather making the reactors 5x5 is probably going to suck ass... sorry for the strong language but that is what I think.

MeduSalem wrote:I also find it sad that they didn't consider my suggestion of making the reactor 6x6 which would allow for much better fractal-like patterns...

Each reactor core needs direct fueling/emptying so it can't be completely enclosed like your second example shows.

Partial overlap (like beacon coverage tiling) might make things more interesting, along with using robots to transfer reactor products to the inner structures. But at that point there's the question of heat and whether reactors can transfer it between themselves or if you have to have a heat pipe connection to all of them--and if so, whether or not heat pipes can go underground.