[Suggestion] Solar Power is just to OPED in IC.

cond.

Quote from Rick

LOL @ the guy that says he can get 1000 eu/tick from solargens. That would mean you need 2000 solars. Thats a ton of maths to be precise:
16000 refined iron
8000 tin
6000 copper
6000 rubber
4000 redstone
16000 cobblestone
6000 coal
6000 glass

Even if you play nonstop for a week you wont be able to get this.

Oh and wind makes 2-4 eu and it also works in the night. It would prolly output over 4 times more on average if i used those maths to make windgens.

Display More

Lol@fail

Solar pannels generate 20 Eu/second, ot 1 Eu/second. You fell into the same trap I did a while back assuming Eu/s meant second, when it really meant tick, 20 of which are in each second. This means your costs are all 20x too high.

800 refined iron
400 tin
300 copper
300 rubber
200 redstone
800 cobblestone
300 coal
300 glass

That is not actually that hard to make, I certainly would not have a major issue with it, although the rubber and iron would take some time.

Lol he said tick not second so your post is really fail. Btw even at 20x reduced cost its still really expensive to make. You can make some nuclear reactors for those maths too and they will make way way more. Or just windgens.

Quote from Rick

Lol he said tick not second so your post is really fail. Btw even at 20x reduced cost its still really expensive to make. You can make some nuclear reactors for those maths too and they will make way way more. Or just windgens.

Hmm, Misread it, so I was incorrect. Yes, that is certainly a rediculous amount of energy, and resources to make it. And no, it is not expensive to make it at 20x reduced cost in my opinion.

It is very expensive compared to other things. If you make a windgen farm of the same resources it will produce 4 times more. You can even make my crazy CASUC reactor with so many resources (590 eu/tick). That a shitload more eu than with solars.

I think the main thing is that solar power, windmills, and water wheels all use no input (well water wheel can) for constant power generation, although lower than other generators. The thing is that, aside from the nuclear reactor, and possibly geothermal, fuel does not really last that long, making it rather ineffective in comparison.

There's tradeoffs in resources, danger, and investment.

The lower tier energy production systems require less resource investment, but don't generate that much and require lots of input.

Solar/wind/etc are somewhere in the middle; they don't take any sustaining input, but require a much larger investment in material and infrastructure (cable/etc) to setup; once setup the subsequent energy is 'free' but the huge area taken to gather it is still costly in all the ways controlling areas entail.

Nukes; have huge potential, huge risk, and huge investment costs. I'm just on the cusp of resorting to that and probably would have already if wires were power (watts) limited instead of voltage (pressure) limited. However nuclear requires careful planning and execution to yield those desirable resources.

Also without the massfab I would probably only tinker with nukes; solar still does require input, while massfab of uranium is part of the 'game' for that infrastructure.

I'm happy with Solar as it is, sure my BC Quarrys have helped my MFS rated Solar Garden 4(4(32SP/batbox)/MFE)/MFS .... and of course there's very big holes in the landscape (nicely covered with 3 depth of dirt).

Sure the Array is Huge and it took ages, but it powers my workshop!

I love that 'Green' power sources are available, sure fossil fuels are faster for a burn, and playing with reactor power is well scary! The Green power options allow for a good role play, it allows for other ideas that can apply RP physics. i.e. Irradiated Biome expands from reactor over time overwriting local biome turning into an unusable 'dead' material block on wich nothing can grow and does half a heart damage on stepping on.

Why everyone thinks a normaly functioning reactor should leak radioactive waste?....

Quote from Rick

Why everyone thinks a normaly functioning reactor should leak radioactive waste?....

When has the news ever seen fit to cover a well run, no-problems reactor? People only really hear about them in the face of events like Fukishima and Chernoble (sp), so they always have the worst cases possible in mind when thinking about things. Similarly to how we remember wars and other events but not the long periods of strained peace between.

i dont think it's news problem
well-run reactor aint news, it's more of a boredom kingdom (at least from idle observer's eyes)
tho .. hehe if that irradiated biome were in the game i guess my previous map would have a spot sized half of initial map ))
quite a few 3Mile's and Chernobyls were there, not to mention large scale nuclear tests (to be exact material resistance tests)

anyway it's a problem of people that have no intrest in anything tv havent shown them (or other idle-laying-couch-like-source)

Quote from Rick

Why everyone thinks a normaly functioning reactor should leak radioactive waste?....

It's the idea of playing with atomic power, I am not perfect, same as any other human. Therefor, human = mistakes, mistakes = bad things, bad things + atomic fusion = very bad things. Sure it's a personal choice, I don't mind other people playing with it, just that I'd rather not be part of the cause of a bad thing with atomic fusion (IRL or in a game, yes I have a conscience).

justa little correction - it's fission, fusion is donut-shaped reactors in movies ( or Tocamak, which arent actually producing energy)
fission - is splitting of atoms to get energy (meltdown is essentially an unstoppable splitting, resulting in either melting or thermical explosion)
fusion - is combining atoms to get energy (IRL currently it produces energy but not enough even to support reaction by which it produces energy)

Quote from Noert

justa little correction - it's fission, fusion is donut-shaped reactors in movies ( or Tocamak, which arent actually producing energy)
fission - is splitting of atoms to get energy (meltdown is essentially an unstoppable splitting, resulting in either melting or thermical explosion)
fusion - is combining atoms to get energy (IRL currently it produces energy but not enough even to support reaction by which it produces energy)

I suspect we need some sort of reaction catalyst/moderator like they do in startrek (as out there scifi as it's concepts are) which would make the reactions possible, and that as a closed system is (I think?) net positive. If it isn't net positive it's actually some kind of weird fusion/fission battery and they must 'mine' energy in some fashion.

no philosopher's stone here (or whatever it called) reactions are possible right now, but net energy gain is... best result for real reactor gave is 0.7 conversion ratio, so .. it consumes more than it eats , 16MW output, 23MW input.
theoretically best design out there now is JT-60 in Japan, but they did not have facilities to start a full-scale testing so.. it should have 1.25 ratio but they cant test it
but even with that it's still not enough, self-sustaining reactor should have ratio of 5 at least
right now it's being dismantled to be upgraded to JT-60SA, upgrades are scheduled to be finished in 2016