Best way to use Carbon Dioxide for the most food: Slicksters vs Carbon Skimmers

[Zarquan]

A while ago, I was talking about oil wells and goals to maximize water.  In there, an interesting debate/question came up:  "Which is better?  Slicksters or carbon skimmers -> sieve loop?"

This question revolves around whether you can get more food from using the dirt or get more food and water from the slicksters.

Note I am assuming dirt goes to sleetwheat because sleetwheet's dirt/kcal ratio is better than nosh beans and this post is long enough as it is.

CONCLUSIONS:

Mealwood is bad in this process.  Very expensive dirt-wise and slicksters are better in every metric.

If you do not boost your sleetwheat, using CO2 to make dirt for sleetwheat is not worth it from a kcal standpoint.  Slicksters get you more food, water, and power, whereas sleetwheat costs water and power and gets you less food.

If you perfectly boost your sleetwheat, using CO2 to make dirt for sleetwheat makes more food directly, but it is not worth the resources by a long shot. 

Untended slicksters are better than carbon skimmers.

If you are interested in the numerical results, they are at the bottom in Cost Benefit Analysis.

 

Now, it's MATH TIME

First, basic food numbers.

For this analysis, I will see what you can get for 1 kg/s inputted CO2.

• From a carbon skimmer-water sieve loop, 1kg/s CO2 -> 3.333kg/s polluted water -> 0.1333 kg/s polluted dirt -> 0.1333 kg/s dirt. 

1. If you make this in to sleetwheat and frost buns, 0.1333 kg/s dirt -> 80 kg dirt per cycle -> 6400 kcal/cycle unboosted, or (factoring in the dirt costs of fert synthesizer) 0.13333 kg/s dirt -> 8302.7 kcal/cycle perfectly boosted (which is impossible, but a reasonable upper bound).  But both of these cost water as well.
2. If you make this in to meal lice, 0.1333 kg/cycle -> 80 kg dirt per cycle -> 1600 kcal/cycle.

 

• For slicksters, there are multiple ways to approach it.

1. CO2 -> slicksters -> refinery -> generators -> CO2.
2. CO2-> slicksters -> petroleum burner -> generators -> CO2.   (if you breed molten slicksters, then you don't need the burner)
3. CO2-> slicksters -> natural gas boiler -> generators -> CO2.

All three of these loop and can be solved as a geometric series.

For 1, after one iteration, 1 kg/s CO2 goes back to 0.0636 kg/s CO2, leading to a total amount of CO2 to be processed at 1.0679 kg/s CO2.

For 2, after one iteration, 1 kg/s CO2 goes back to 0.125 kg/s CO2, leading to a total amount of CO2 to be processed at 1.1429 kg/s CO2.

For 3, after one iteration, 1 kg/s CO2 goes back to 0.08375 kg/s CO2, leading to a total amount of CO2 to be processed at 1.0914 kg/s CO2.

The number of slicksters required for this is large enough that keeping them happy is a fool's errand.  I will assume they are well fed (not starving), but overcrowded and untended and without incubators (eggs kept in separate room to avoid cramped). The dupes will eat the meat as BBQ.

Over the course of one slickter's life, if they are well-fed, they will spend 5 cycles as a tiny baby and consume 2 kg CO2 and 95 cycles as an adult and consume 380 kg CO2.  This means, over the course of their 100 cycles of life 382 kg CO2.  This results in a ratio of 4000 kcal / 382 kg CO2 over the course of 100 cycles for one slickster. 

1.0679 kg/s CO2 -> 64074 kg CO2 over 100 cycles, leading to 670932 kcal over 100 cycles, or 6709.32 per cycle.  (using refinery)

1.1429 kg/s CO2 -> 68574 kg CO2 over 100 cycles, leading to 718052 kcal over 100 cycles, or 7180.52 per cycle.  (using petroleum burner or molten slicksters)

1.0914 kg/s CO2 -> 65484 kg CO2 over 100 cycles, leading to 685696 kcal over 100 cycles, or 6856.96 per cycle.  (using natural gas boiler)

But this approach also creates water and power.  Water can translate in to food or air.

Water costs/gains:

To use the 1 kg/s CO2 on dirt for unboosted sleetwheat via carbon skimmers, you get 80 kg dirt.  That supports 16 sleetwheat plants, but those plants will also want 20 kg/cycle water per plant, or 320 kg/cycle water total in exchange for 6400 kcal. 

To use the 1 kg/s CO2 on dirt for boosted sleetwheat, we will need to make fertilizer as well as the plant.  The cost of applying the fertilizer to the plant is 5 kg fertilizer, or 2.7083 kg dirt and 1.625 kg polluted water, but it doubles the productivity of the plants.  80 kg/cycle of dirt supports 10.378 plants.  Each plant costs 21.625 water, or 224.432 kg/cycle water for 8302.7 kcal.  The water cost is about equivalent to 3 duplicants breathing with electrolyzers.  There is also a small phosphorite cost, but phosphorite is fairly abundant and easy to create.  A small amount of natural gas is created, specifically 0.4167 kg/cycle, from the fertilizer synthesizer per plant.  This results in 0.0018 kg/s of CO2 and 0.005405 kg/s of water.  This is negligible, so I will ignore it. 

The sleetwheat route also costs power:  Processing 1 kg/s CO2 takes 3.333333 carbon skimmers, 0.6666667 water sieves, and 0.432432 fertilizer synthesizers.  This means it takes 531.9 W minimum to process this material.  This ignores the cost of cooling the sleetwheat room and materials, as that could be covered environmentally.  I am also ignoring cooking energy costs, because those change with respect the skill of the cook.

Keep in mind that tending plants can be a full time job for dupes and that dupes will spend more time cooking frost buns per kcal than barbecue.

 

For slicksters, I will discuss the three approaches.

1. For the refinery approach, 1.0679 kg/s of CO2 translates to a starting amount of 0.5340 kg/s of crude oil.  This equates to 0.2670 kg/s of petroleum and 4.806 g/s natural gas.  This burns in to 0.1001 kg/s polluted water in the petroleum generator and 3.604 g/s in the natural gas generator, or 0.1005 kg/s polluted water total.  For context, that is almost enough for a dupe to breathe using an electrolyzer. 
2. For the molten slickster/petroluem burner approach, 1.1429 CO2 -> 0.57146 kg/s petroleum -> 0.2143 kg/s polluted water, almost enough for 2 duplicants to breathe using an electrolyzer.
3. For the natural gas boiler approach, 1.0914 CO2 -> 0.5457 kg/s petroleum -> 0.3656 kg/s natural gas -> 0.274 kg/s polluted water, almost enough for 2.5 duplicants to breathe using an electrolyzer.

All the slickster approaches are also power positive. 

Note that, depending on how you use the polluted water, the polluted water can generate dirt in a water sieve, but not nearly as much as the carbon skimmer approach.

Cost/benefit analysis:

I think it is fair to throw out the unboosted sleetwheat.  It is worse than even the most inefficient slickster approach.

Comparing the first slickster approach (crude oil to refinery to generators) to boosted sleetwheat:

Boosted sleetwheat produces 8302.7 kcal/cycle and costs 224.432 kg/cycle water.  The first slickster approach produces 6709.32 kcal/cycle and gains ‭60.3‬ kg polluted water/cycle.  Is ‭1,593.4 kcal worth ‭284.7‬ kg water?  No, that water can make more food than that using bristle blossoms.

Comparing the second slickster approach (skipping oil refinery through heat or molten slicksters) to boosted sleetwheat:

Boosted sleetwheat produces 8302.7 kcal/cycle and costs 224.432 kg/cycle water.  The second slickster approach produces 7180.52 kcal/cycle and gains ‭ ‭128.58‬ kg polluted water/cycle.  Is ‭‭1,122.2‬ kcal worth 353.0‬ kg water?  Even more no than the previous one by every metric.

Comparing the third slickster approach (natural gas boiler) to boosted sleetwheat:

Boosted sleetwheat produces 8302.7 kcal/cycle and costs 224.432 kg/cycle water.  The third slickster approach produces 6856.96 kcal/cycle and gains ‭‭164.4‬0 kg polluted water/cycle.  Is ‭1,445.7‬ kcal worth 388.8‬ kg water?  Even more "no" than the first comparison by every metric.

Comparing the second slickster approach to third slickster approach:

The second slickster approach produces 7180.52 kcal/cycle and gains ‭ ‭128.58‬ kg polluted water/cycle.  The third slickster approach produces 6856.96 kcal/cycle and gains ‭‭164.4‬0 kg polluted water/cycle.  Is ‭‭323.56‬‬ kcal worth ‭35.82‬ kg water?  No, the third approach is superior.  ‭35.82‬ kg water equates to 597 kcal gristle berry unboosted and can get more by boosting.

 

 

[QuQuasar]

Why not eat both? If you're willing to accept the -2 athletics from the Soul Food buff, slickster meat + sleet wheat grain + lettuce = Frost Burger.

Frost Burgers are also surprisingly cheap in terms of raw resources. With the right infrastructure and normal hunger settings, you can hypothetically support 12 dupes on 6 wheat plants, 8 (wild) waterweed plants and 6 tame slicksters.

[Zarquan]

5 minutes ago, QuQuasar said:

Why not eat both? If you're willing to accept the -2 athletics from the Soul Food buff, slickster meat + sleet wheat grain + lettuce = Frost Burger.

Frost Burgers are also surprisingly cheap in terms of raw resources. With the right infrastructure and normal hunger settings, you can hypothetically support 12 dupes on 6 wheat plants, 8 (wild) waterweed plants and 6 tame slicksters.

I'm not saying don't grow sleetwheat, I'm saying that carbon skimmer sieve loops are inefficient compared to slicksters.  There are other ways to get dirt.  For example, arbor trees -> ethanol makes a ton of polluted dirt which can be composted.

[Lifegrow]

3 hours ago, Zarquan said:

I'm not saying don't grow sleetwheat, I'm saying that carbon skimmer sieve loops are inefficient compared to slicksters.  There are other ways to get dirt.  For example, arbor trees -> ethanol makes a ton of polluted dirt which can be composted.

Inefficient in what regard? In terms of raw food derived directly from CO2 ?

If you didn't use wild slicksters, have you factored in the ridONKulous amount of dupe labour required to tend these critters?

Slap those dupes on manual gens for the same time invested, and you could do an awful lot of things with that power... All the while your carbon skimmer is happily keeping your base clean  

The thread title is a little ambiguous here, and I feel it fails to factor in a lot of variables - as ever, ONI is not a painting; it's a jigsaw - many pieces clicking together to form a complete picture. Isolating a very niche concept normally leads to nonsensical builds.

[Zarquan]

31 minutes ago, Lifegrow said:

If you didn't use wild slicksters, have you factored in the ridONKulous amount of dupe labour required to tend these critters?

Except the dupes don't tend to the critters.  The critters get dumped in a room, overcrowded, and produce crude oil slowly, but there are a lot of them.  I am trying to build such an efficient room of this type right now, but it isn't working right (it is now).  The slicksters take no dupe work. 

However, things like sleetwheat require tending by gardeners or they straight up give you less kcal.

Though I should probably say in the conclusions that untended slicksters are better.

I changed the title to reflect that it is about getting the most kcals.

[bobucles]

Untended wild critters are always great, no matter what type of critter they are. Slicksters are extra easy because the CO2 is already abundant. Balm lily dreckos and pacu paradises are also fantastic. Most other options require some kind of special effort to stay functional.

I don't see much purpose to using carbon skimmers. If the goal is to generate polluted water then yes, go for it. Polluted water has some extremely awesome oxygen builds and pumping hot polluted water into pincha peppers is one of the best heat deleters in the game. A system to make polluted water and immediately sieve it seems pointless. If you don't want the CO2, vent it to space. A chimney costs no upkeep, can delete a decent amount of heat and can handle thousands of kg of CO2 output.

[Zarquan]

7 hours ago, bobucles said:

Untended wild critters are always great, no matter what type of critter they are. Slicksters are extra easy because the CO2 is already abundant. Balm lily dreckos and pacu paradises are also fantastic. Most other options require some kind of special effort to stay functional.

True, untended wild slicksters are great, but for the numbers we need, they have to be tame because you can't get massive numbers of untamed creatures.  So, what I am doing is taming them but not tending them.  I actually have another thread about making such a pen.

 

[Zarquan]

On 8/20/2019 at 11:30 PM, Lifegrow said:

If you didn't use wild slicksters, have you factored in the ridONKulous amount of dupe labour required to tend these critters?

@Lifegrow I finished my one tile slickster pen.  It is going great with no dupes supporting it.  It is self-repopulating and everything!  Though it will eventually depopulate because longhair slicksters eggs occasionally get laid, but that is rare.

For the time being, I have one duplicant manning normal slickster ranches to build the population up.

 

[SamuraiJones]

 

On 8/21/2019 at 12:30 AM, Lifegrow said:

If you didn't use wild slicksters, have you factored in the ridONKulous amount of dupe labour required to tend these critters?

I don't find critters to take that much maintenance anymore. I don't know when it changed, but originally a critter had to be groomed once a day, but now husbandry decreases how often they need grooming. I don't have my game open atm, but I believe my animals only have to get groomed once every 3 cycles. I've got 3 ranchers that are easily keeping up with around 50 critters, and have time to cook besides.