Jump to content

Any use for 125C Igneous Rock? Can I use this energy somehow?


Recommended Posts

Insert it back into an igneous tile with a dispenser, and then partially melt it back out as as hot magma. I'd probably reinsert it around 300C, so I don't have to deal with less efficient turbines. 

Oh wait, you probably wanted options that don't exploit mechanics... 

You could use it to provide a thermal buffer in areas where you don't want to see a huge spike in temp, kinda like an inductor on electrical networks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2020 at 10:21 AM, SkunkMaster said:

You could cool it down to 20c, ready for use :D - it's power positive if you use supercoolant :D

No it's not.

You can use a split turbine to cool it further down from 125C. Then you can cool it down to about 70C with an aquatuner (or skip the split turbine, it doesn't really add much to the equation). Drop it in a room full of stone hatches. Depending on how much you're producing (not a lot if it's a volcano), collect wild stone hatches (20?) and let them turn it into coal. Burn the coal and then you are power positive.
I'm thinking of wild hatches to have zero dup labor involved. You could have 5-6 tamed hatches to the same effect, with a bonus of bot of extra BBQ and eggshells. Nothing that would change the economy of anything but the smallest of the bases... like only 3 dups could live out of it, but my understanding here is that the purpose is to get rid of the igneous rock.

BTW you could feed the hatches 125C rock and cool them down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 125 C, you can still extract heat from the igneous rock to gained to gain energy.  You can cool igneous rock to around 98 C fairly easily without consuming any energy.  To do this, you can use a counterflow heat exchanger to take the heat from the igneous rock and put it in to the water output of the steam turbine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sheaker said:

Why not use two aquatuners with supercoolant under three steam turbines? This system is self sustainable.

How so? Is the supercoolants thermal mass so much greater than any other liquid that, if displaced by an aquatuner, it makes itself net positive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tobruk said:

How so? Is the supercoolants thermal mass so much greater than any other liquid that, if displaced by an aquatuner, it makes itself net positive?

Pretty much. In a perfect world, 2 aquatuners move 2.36 million DTU/s. 3 steam turbines "eat" around 2.35 million DTU after the heat energy the turbine absorbs into itself. If you can keep the steam at 200C, you can generate around 2,550 kw which is enough to run the 2 aquatuners. 

In practice, it doesn't quite work out as the numbers say, but it's still uses a surprisingly small amount of power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, beowulf2010 said:

Pretty much. In a perfect world, 2 aquatuners move 2.36 million DTU/s. 3 steam turbines "eat" around 2.35 million DTU after the heat energy the turbine absorbs into itself. If you can keep the steam at 200C, you can generate around 2,550 kw which is enough to run the 2 aquatuners. 

I'm not sure about that. My gut feelings tell me that's w/o spending energy to cool down the turbines. Something like 255W. So it should be 2,295W.

It is power positive if you almost triple the number of steam turbines and make them self-cooling. The heat:energy ratio is the same, but now you're not spending anything to cool down the turbines.

Sorry for not beeing too speciffc but it's morning and before coffee so I won't do any math and just trust my gut feelings. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion spending a little bit of power to run such a power cooling device is worth it.

6 hours ago, TheMule said:

I'm not sure about that. My gut feelings tell me that's w/o spending energy to cool down the turbines. Something like 255W. So it should be 2,295W.

Why cooling ST with the same supercoolant is not a solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, sheaker said:

In my opinion spending a little bit of power to run such a power cooling device is worth it.

Why cooling ST with the same supercoolant is not a solution?

Yes, but it's not magically for free. When actively cooling a turbine there absolutely no difference if the AT is under the same turbine or another one. When compared to selfcooling turbines there's an extra cost.

You loose 10% of the cooling, for the same power.

Self cooling turbines are always more efficient, the problem is that their max cooling power is around 300kDTU/s as opposed to 785kDTU/s of active cooling ones. Well, as far as cooling power goes, the potential is much higher, just you waste electrical power, all with one turbine.
 

Of course to achieve the same cooling power of a standard turbine setup you need about 2.5 self cooling ones. Builds become large easily, and that's a cost too.

 

According to the wiki, the 3 ST + 2 AT combo produces 2,288.9W. Not too far away from 2,295W I wrote before, w/o coffee. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheMule said:

 According to the wiki, the 3 ST + 2 AT combo produces 2,288.9W. Not too far away from 2,295W I wrote before, w/o coffee. :)

Which leaves you needing a whopping 121.1W from other sources. That's, what, a 30% uptime manual generator? :D

And while self cooling steam turbines are fine in some applications, this time I'd rather spend that 10% to cool them with the aquatuners so that I can reduce the number of turbines needed but more than half. 

But, this is just personal preference on how we're getting to the same place, which is the ridiculously energy efficiency of the supercoolant+aquatuner+steam turbine setup. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beowulf2010 said:

Which leaves you needing a whopping 121.1W from other sources. That's, what, a 30% uptime manual generator? :D

And while self cooling steam turbines are fine in some applications, this time I'd rather spend that 10% to cool them with the aquatuners so that I can reduce the number of turbines needed but more than half. 

But, this is just personal preference on how we're getting to the same place, which is the ridiculously energy efficiency of the supercoolant+aquatuner+steam turbine setup. ;)

Yeah 121W it's almost nothing and even more so by the time you have supercoolant.

Self cooling turbines have a place in low (cooling) power situations. They are good for gold and copper volcano tamers, or for crop cooling. There aren't many situations in which you need an AT running at 100%. Before supercoolant an AT tops at 585kDTU/s. If it runs less than 65% a self cooling turbine is enough, and you save 17% of the power. Which is about 80W.
As many things in this game, either you use them on a regular basis, and are familiar and confortable with them, or you're in "why even bother" mode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TheMule said:

Yeah 121W it's almost nothing and even more so by the time you have supercoolant.

Self cooling turbines have a place in low (cooling) power situations. They are good for gold and copper volcano tamers, or for crop cooling. 

Yep. The main determining factor for me on self cooling versus aquatuner cooling is purely whether I'm using an aquatuner. If I'm cooling a gold volcano, I don't need an aquatuner (I store the 125-130C in my frozen core) and thus use a self cooling system. If I'm cooling water for sleet wheat, I cool the turbine with the aquatuner. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
  • Create New...