# [GregTech-6][1.7.10] Moved to Website

• Actually, "Aluminium" is how it's spelled. Americans being americans, pronounce it "Aluminum" and as such is how they ended up spelling it.
Should be fairly obvious with all the other "-ium" elements in gregtech/periodic table (Uranium, Titanium, Iridium, etc).

Technically, it was called alumium (metal from alum) first, then changed to aluminum, then finally to aluminium, the last two are both technically acceptable, though aluminium is the more standard one.

• Wow, huge and expensive and useless. You're really in tune with the spirit of Gregtech. 1 whole bucket of steam every 10 seconds? Only 9 machine casings to make? Presumably this is another one of those Gregtech machines that exist only so you can laugh at people who make them. You would need 2,000 of these to run a single Hobby Steam Engine.

• Actually 5 mB/t is too low.. what's the equivalent of 2.5 eu/t in steam/t with the biggest boiler?

EDIT: Ok, with hobbyist steam engine, you get 2 MJ/t per 10,000 mB/tick so..say you use 2:5 converter 5 eu/t for 10,000 mB/t.. so I think he just did a typo and wanted to suggest 5 B/t (5,000 mB/t) instead of 5 mB/t.

• The output is definitely low with steam, but if that is corrected, it may be a cool way of generating renewable energy. especially since it isn't a magic block. 2.5 eu/t in a turbine equals 8 buckets/t , but it should be a little more since it needs a turbine, say 9 or 10 buckets/t.

The post was edited 1 time, last by Kenken244 ().

• The math i used is based on Railcraft wiki :
5 milibuckets of steam = 1 MJ = 2.5 EU
Water needed for steam = 1000 mB of water every 160 mB of steam.

Maybe 10 mB/t steam (5 EU/t) is enough for everyone ?

• SpwnX actually 10 steam = 10,000 mB, hence my previous edit..

• anyway, the turbine gives somewhat less than a 2.5 to 1 ratio. 10 steam per tick is a little more than 3 eu/t in a turbine, which is the best way to get eu out of steam short of exploity magma crucibles.

• People can decide whatever they will do to make EU out of steam, lossless operation will yield 1 EU per 2 mB of steam.

• that doesn't mean the mod should be balanced around them.

• I think 10 mB/t is fine then, yielding 5 EU/t or 2-4 EU/t if you use steam turbines.
Also we need greg's opinion about it before further discussion =D .

• I don't really see the point, it is harder to make, never consumes lava and produces less EU/t than a standard Thermal Generator.

• I don't really see the point, it is harder to make, never consumes lava and produces less EU/t than a standard Thermal Generator.

The point is that you need a big thing to produce energy, without consuming lava. Like real geothermal generators do (actually very simplificated but similar [earth "core" heats water into steam]).

• Water needed for steam = 1000 mB of water every 160 mB of steam.

Actually it's the other way around, kind of. 1mB of water = 160mB of steam.

The point is that you need a big thing to produce energy, without consuming lava. Like real geothermal generators do (actually very simplificated but similar [earth "core" heats water into steam]).

Fun fact: geothermal energy plants in real life are NOT infinite source of energy (except in rare cases where you can somehow use naturally flowing lava to re-heat the hearth).

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the…-and-fuzzy-on-geothermal/

• Actually it's the other way around, kind of. 1mB of water = 160mB of steam.

Fun fact: geothermal energy plants in real life are NOT infinite source of energy (except in rare cases where you can somehow use naturally flowing lava to re-heat the hearth).

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the…-and-fuzzy-on-geothermal/

If you are talking on human timescales, they are an unending source of energy (same nuclear fuel). anything that lasts for more than a few hundred-thousand years is "un-ending" on human timescales. If you build a geothermal plant on a geologically active area, there will be enough heat to last for a very, very long time, as it is continually being re-heated by the activity below.

• From the link I posted:

Quote

Realizing that we’re stuck with thermodynamic inefficiency, a geothermal network covering every scrap of land area on the globe would get less than 2 TW of power at 20% end-to-end efficiency

We are currently using around 13TW

Quote

So rather than mess with the pathetically impractical commonplace thermal gradients for the purpose of electricity production, we look to hotspots like the Yellowstone region, or places where hot springs and geysers can be found at the surface. Indeed, The Geysers in California hosts 1.5 GW of installed geothermal electricity, but the power output has declined by almost a factor of two in recent decades (it is possible to draw out heat faster than it is replaced by conduction).

Quote

The average American household used 80 thousand cubic feet of natural gas in 2001 (apologies for old data and Imperial units). The gas is predominantly used for heating of one form or another: house, water, and food. 80,000 cf translates to about 800 Therms of energy per year, or 2700 W of continuous thermal power. Using our number from before that the mantle generates 7×10−12 W/kg, the average American home would need a rock mass of 4×1014kg, or a cubic volume 5 km on a side at a crustal density of 3.3 times that of water.

As for nuclear, uranium-based stuff is not all that "endless" in reality. Thorium is a whole different story, though.

• From the link I posted:

We are currently using around 13TW

As for nuclear, uranium-based stuff is not all that "endless" in reality. Thorium is a whole different story, though.

Those calculations for the geothermal are based on thermal conductivity through the crust (i.e. assuming you are trying to use it anywhere), the heating at hotspots is considerably faster, hence it mentioning that geothermal will work in specific areas. On average, it will not be so useful. in the right place, it can be.

For uranium: there is significantly more obtainable uranium on the planet than thorium. Yes, in minable, ore form, thorium may be about 3 times more abundant than uranium, but that is only the mineable form in rocks. Uranium can be extracted from sea water (thorium, not so much). The uranium in sea water is continually being replenished from erosion from land, which essentially allows for the extraction of trace uranium impurities, rather than requiring ore (which is limited).

If you count the dissolved uranium as a uranium reserve (it is not counted, as is not currently extracted, costs about 10x as much as mined uranium), then the worlds available uranium is suddenly a few orders of magnitude larger than thorium.

Edit: it should also be mentioned that current (3rd gen) uranium plants are horribly inefficient. If allowed to use HEU, they would be able to then breed plutonium from the depleted uranium, which is then fissile, for an energy/mass yield of a couple orders of magnitude above current systems

• Those calculations for the geothermal are based on thermal conductivity through the crust (i.e. assuming you are trying to use it anywhere), the heating at hotspots is considerably faster, hence it mentioning that geothermal will work in specific areas. On average, it will not be so useful. in the right place, it can be.

Hotspots like those California geysers that were talked about?
Also, even as active region as Iceland is debating limiting the use of geothermal due to depletion: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com…the-limits-of-geothermal/

Quote

Why is there a limit to geothermal energy? According to Mr. Finnsson, if Iceland’s resources are tapped too quickly, the underground hot water necessary to produce the power (and heat buildings in Iceland) could run out in 70 years or so. Geothermal energy, he said, is “not renewable if you use it to an extreme.”

They are also talking how a single aluminium production plant could be enough to deplete significant amount of thermal energy in Iceland.

• Hotspots like those California geysers that were talked about?
Also, even as active region as Iceland is debating limiting the use of geothermal due to depletion: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com…the-limits-of-geothermal/

They are also talking how a single aluminium production plant could be enough to deplete significant amount of thermal energy in Iceland.

Aluminium production takes an awful lot of energy, Iceland is probably an ideal location for geothermal, I never said it was better than nuclear (the highest density power production currently possible, and theoretically possible, unless someone breaks quantum field theory and finds a way to use vacuum energy), just that in some locations, it is a viable source of power.

I agreed with you that it is not viable everywhere, just that it is a good source for some applications in some areas. If you want to run high power plants such as aluminium production, use nuclear or hydro, for anything else, if available, geothermal will probably do the job.

• The math i used is based on Railcraft wiki :
5 milibuckets of steam = 1 MJ = 2.5 EU
Water needed for steam = 1000 mB of water every 160 mB of steam.

The wiki says '5 steam = 1 MJ', I'm not sure if they meant one bucket of steam or one mB of steam.

For f***'s sake, I don't give a single damn f*** about your stupid motherf***ing goddamn bulls***. Because f*** you that's why.

• It's definitely 5 bucket of steam/t.. you can't produce anything with 5 mB/t, and that water is 1 mB water for 160 mB of steam (maybe came from the fact that water density is around 170 times higher than steam density)

The post was edited 2 times, last by noskk ().